Morrowind didn't reboot the lore. In fact, Redguard didn't even do that either, even though Redguard included the very first elaborate description of Tamriel. Ted Peterson stated that the biggest change between games is Arena and Daggerfall. Daggerfall was a bigger reboot from the strict DnD campaign setting that Arena was based on.

and Morrowind threw out a large part of Daggerfall's lore, if only because MK came in and gave everything some bat[censored] crazy double meaning that entirely changed what it meant originally.

This seems like such a pointless argument. I think it's almost certain that this game will be much better story-wise than Fallout 3, and It will be much better gameplay-wise than New Vegas and 3. It has a slight chance of also having a better story than New Vegas, but we'll have to wait and see... Isn't that all we can really ask for?

Edit: http://www.gameinformer.com/games/fallout_4/b/playstation4/archive/2015/06/17/19-new-details-fans-need-to-know-about-fallout-4.aspx?PageIndex=2 (thank you FALLOUT4LIFE70)

-Fallout 4's narrative has a lot more branching paths and overlapping of "if that than this" than Fallout 3. They want the game to handle all the fail states of missions instead of forcing players to reload saves.

-Bethesda has always valued player freedom above storytelling, but with Fallout 4 the team wants to bring more emotional resonance to the plot thread running through the game. This is why they chose to recruit voice actors for both the female and male protagonists the player can make their own.

Sounds pretty good (maybe sweet little lies, but Todd Howard is no Molyneux). I like how Bethesda seemingly came from a totally different prospect (not forcing players to reload) to the same conclusion many players share about branching storylines.

Bethesda at the time ignored large parts of its lore, that along with Ted Peterson. He played along with elaborating Tamriel after Redguard came out. MK is not the only one guilty of this. Besides, aside from the Sermons, MK wrote some pretty mundane writing also, not anymore different than Ted, Kurt, or Ken's contributions.

Hm, interesting, because it's sort of the other way around for me.

Even if I think a book or a movie is good, I can only read/watch them once. When I know the story, re-reading/re-watching is not interesting even if I loved that story. A select few books and movies I can re-read/re-watch after a couple of years.

But a game that allows me some creativity, I can return to again and again.

I kinda lost the point of this thread.

I'm a bit confused.

Does Todd imply that a good story and an open game world are mutually exclusive? IMO it should not be a problem to have an open world sandbox WITH a fantastic story. Open world does not limit your writing and story capabilities does it? If so how?

I'm curious what they meant when they said they are pulling towards a H.P. Lovercaft-esque story/theme.

No they CLEARLY said so in the video I linked. At the same time I said the OP's video was confusing. but if you watch both video's it is clear what they want to do.

No I write YOU and a few others off as blind haters. As much as you want to think your opinion is important, it just isn't to me because it is so clear you live in a world were facts mean nothing if they conflict with your narrative. now i would use the term liars for you and a few others but not idiots.

The facts are that Bethesda has made well recieved games and profitable games. Their choices to fundementaly change the fallout franchise was a success and their choice to streamline skyrim was also a successful move. You can't admit this because you can't wrap your head around the idea that you can dislike a good game. You think your subjective opinion creates an objective reality. I don't like X ergo X must be bad. But X is popular and has sold millions of copies. Doesn't matter that is just proof that only people with inferior and unrefined tastes like these games.

I honestly think the only enjoyment you get out of these forums is some kind of perverse feeling of superiority. You can blindly ignore the facts contrary to your narrative because you are confident that your 'superior tastes' prove that only blind followers of Bethesda and the unsophisticated can like their current games. You have no notion that some people have a completely different subjective taste then your own and it not be wrong. I mean it is SOOOOO bloody obvious that your desire for a direction change by bethesda is NOT going to happen. It is so obvious that Bethesda's future plans do not mesh with your wants why are you sticking around? i like MMOs but I don't hang around the WoW forums or the GW2 forums because those are two games i don't like. I don't need to convice people playing those games that they are wrong for playing or liking them. Yet you do. I don't even think they are bad games on the contrary i think they are good games and I don't care i still dislike them.

With the recent reveal of FO4 we can see they are not in any way going back to a more "traditional" appraoch to fallout and the game is feature locked. So if you don't like it nothing you say will change it. After x number of years trying to stop it fallout: Bethesda style is here to stay and Fallout Black Isle is dead and gone. It will never return so long as bethesda can sell millions of copies for their games. So why are you even here? Seriously you don't like bethesda's direction you don't like their recent games it is so clear that given their critical and finacial successes with Skyrim and FO3 there is ZERO chance your ideas will be met by bethesda, so why go on and on and on about how bad bethesda is?

Because some people must get their opinions out and they have nothing better to do than continually hate on a game. I've said it before, I wish I had as much free time to be able to continually post about a game I hated. What an easy life.

https://youtu.be/2KApp699WdE?t=2h22m32s

Mr. Howard is much clearer in this video what they are trying to do. Which is add strong story to their open world games without sacrificing the open world experience.

Yet you find the time to continually post about people posting about aspects of a game that they aren't exactly liking.

Grass is always greener, I guess?

Why thank you. Thank you very much.

Plot vs. open world? Here's an old Ken Rolston quote, and a big part of the reason I play Beth games in the first place:

"I've always preferred the sandbox or freeform model of RPG gameplay. I implemented greased-rail linear narratives in PARANOIA because I knew the players would ignore the storyline in the first place; I encouraged them to do so at every opportunity. It's the same with Oblivion. I was perfectly happy with a linear main quest narrative, because I knew the 'enlightened' (i.e., irredeemably perverse) user would march off at right angles to the story line the moment he had the chance."

Refusal to answer the question because if you do you will have to be stuck with the answer?

IS FO3 a good fallout game?

I think he means that some storytelling opportunities are out, because they'd conflict with the open world philosophy. But you're right that it doesn't preclude them from telling any good stories.

Like, say you had a narrative where you can side with the evil jerks faction, and in doing so most companions and service providers would naturally refuse to deal with you. Or the end of the questline leaves the wasteland or our character in such a condition that continuing the game afterwards is out of the question. The open-world focus would most likely keep Bethesda from making those story decisions, as promising as they may turn out to be.

I think it would be pretty cool if they went with sort of a mystery or conspiracy narrative; give us a few different leads to follow to find or find out whatever we're looking for, until it gets us wrapped up in something much, much larger. That's not much of a departure from the basic structure of every other Fallout game (go on a quest for the MacGuffin, then eventually get mixed up in the fate of the wasteland), but they could fan it out so that we don't have to do everything in linear order, but it all connects at one point where we're faced with the big decision (which, by our previous actions, may change drastically). Something like http://uesp.net/wiki/Daggerfall:Main_Quest_Walkthrough, but instead of doing unrelated favors in exchange for info, each quest's plot is pertinent to the main narrative.

<3 Ken Rolston

I'm not seeing a lot of hate, I'm seeing a lot of criticism which is fine as as long as it's constructive. This is a forum, it's a place for discussion, imagine how dull that discussion would be if everyone was waving pom poms about saying how awesome the game is going to be. Yes those who keep saying the game is going to be garbage are tiresome but then so are those who keep saying it's going to be the best thing ever and I see more than a few posts like that.

I love back and forth discussion and banter, it's why most of us are here. Just seems like inane posts are outweighing the constructive discussion.

Same here.

Although I had praise for my mod Valenwood Islands, there were a fair few players who came back to me and said that they were a bit confused on what to do or that there wasn't a specific siding option.

It is very difficult to account for all of the decisions that the player might make. The player might just get confused, break something and can't proceed.

On the other hand, I had some failsafes just in case such a thing happens. The player could finish the main quest regardless, though finding the failsafe is tough. The back path option is very linear with no deviation. (I think maybe that's what Bethesda meant - they have a back path/wild card path?)