I love fallout 1 and 2. Ive played them dussins of times.

But this is true. Interplay took the greatest ip and ran it into the ground. I am so glad bethesda bought it and i got to enjoy f3 and nv.

I remember when i waited for f3, most of the old gamers were complaining that bethesda was making f3, saying it would be garbage. I never understood why they, as lovers of the fallout series, didnt want to see a new game. Yes it could end up mediocre, but the chance to get a great game must surely be more important than keeping the series dead (why anyone would want that)

F3 was the best fallout game i had ever played and i got so much fun out of it.

To say my expectations for this game is high is an understatement but for every title bethesda has done, the latest game is always the best.

When i look at f4 i am so impressed i have no words. Bethesda knows entertainment.


Edit

Im over 30 and i barely play games these days, so much other fun stuff when you got the means to do what you enjoy. But for f4 im gonna be off work for months, getting a brand new monster pc, new gaming furniture. The works. Why? Because bethesda game studious is, compared to the other game companies, the entire nba all star team while the others are 5 year olds.

If a scale of video games is 1-10, i need a 10 to play a video game these days. PillarsOfEternity was decent considering kickstarter, 9/10 but fallout 3 was 100/10. That is right atleast ten times of the chart.

The feel, the world, vats etc. So much fun.


If i had to chose between buying 10 new high rated games for 500 dollars or buying f4 for 500, i would not hesitate for a moment. History has taught me that the entertainment in f4 will be far greater than 10 other high rated games and will last as long.

It is just simply amazing how much fun content bethesda manages to do.

Truly, does so much of the anticipation have to be:

'it will svck, it will be awful, cinematic shooter, betrayed legacy' etc etc...

Could we not just enjoy it for what it is ?

The review embargo should drop in 100 days, so we'll know then.

I only played a bit of FO:BoS before I got distracted by something else, so FO3 was my first Fallout.

And I liked it very much, and NV just increased my expectations in this universe. Such a multitude of stories to tell, to see, to experience.

In FO3 things like Harold and the BoS showed that there was a bigger universe, "stories" connected to each other.

New Vegas did it even better (and I loved the philosophical DLC "Lonesome Road" that kinda expanded on that).

Wether an old enclave soldier (Cannibal Jonson I think) telling a story about an Enclave drill sargeant (which I later learned as part of FO1

or simply carefully placed assets like a corpse in a bathtub with a ton of drugs around - it filled the world with life for me.

What I'm getting at is: Having better mechanics to kill stuff doesn't mean they have to cut back on bringing the world to life.

Of course there will be generic brainless bandit leader #12 (Respawn timer: 3 days) that will happily charge a guy equipped with riot armor and a rocketlauncher with nothing but a billiard queue (I really wished that "be intimidating" perk would help there...), but those are simply a necessity.

Simply look forward to NPCs like Lyon or Companions like Rose of Sharon Cassidy (who is the daughter of somebody important from Fallout 2 I think, and thus is a connection to yet another story in this world).

And even if our followers are as generic as Lydia, we will still get enough to do outside of fights and social interaction.

The ability to build settlements (apparently several if I understood that right) means that you can.

Explore!

Expand!

Exploit!

EX-TERM-INATE!

.... Ok time to return to work. If I keep squealing like a little girl during my lunch break because I get excited over all the possibilities of FO4(half of which propably only exist in my mind) my boss is gonna decide that breaks are bad for my mental health or something....

None of the above. I still find it baffling that many of you are so obsessed with the fact that BGS is letting you interact with the game more than using RNG. SPECIAL and Perks are still going to affect your shooting ability, the fact that they put the accuracy in the gun as much in the character stats and your own shooting ability, does not take away it's RPG cred.

@Aoyagi, note that he mentioned the RPG part first, meaning that they built the game as an RPG first, but felt that since it was gun heavy and many players feel that if you're going to be in Free-roam world, that the FPS elements should be stronger. I welcome it, as the iron sights in New Vegas made that game so much better.

This ain't D&D anymore, class styled leveling is old. Each level having you choose between a new 'skill', new special ability, or higher stat, is closer to many more modern choice based rpgs, where you play a character first and a concept second (Shodowrun, Whitewolf, Fallout, Skyrim), compared to a class/race first and a character second (D&D, Rifts, WOW, Borderlands).

Judging from the XO gameplay (with the minute men) it will be more action orientated .

But lets be fair Fallout as a shooter is pretty awfull and i think bethesda knows that.

So lets hope that it won't be a COD kinda thing.

For me the F3 style is fine .

No they weren't, several companies were more than welcomed in buying Fallout's IP, the winner was obviously Bethesda, not only that, but Van Buren was said to be 95% complete? So I doubt that statement. Though I will agree, Interplay did screw up big time with BoS.

There's no way VB was 95% done.

The images released from that game show that. The only thing possibly 95% done was the engine. There's no way that game could have launched and been successful if what we've seen is "almost finished".

I never thought they had the right balance of health and damage in Skyrim. It was like the game was designed so that you MUST svck down an dozen pots during any average fight or at least be healing yourself constantly. Add to that the auto re-gen and basically you can throw any combat techniques out the window.

FO has the same issue. IRL I would never charge someone firing at me with an automatic weapon but in FO it never was an issue. I just hope that they can make it feel like being shot actually hurts, that being crippled is a problem, that having untreated open bleeding wounds is something you need to worry about. Not just charge everything, VAT's blow their head off, pop a Stimpak and move on to the next group of enemies.

So I certainly hope it isn't Skyrim with guns.

Each time I go back and replay Fallout 3, I have trouble deciding whether I like it more than Skyrim. I don't know what to think of that.

I can understand the sentiment about how Bethesda changed the direction of the series; but the way I see it, nothing they can do will change the first two Fallout games, or take anything out of them. We can wax poetic about alternate timelines where Bethesda didn't get the IP or Interplay never went under, but none of that really matters now. So the best thing to do is just enjoy each Fallout game for what it is.

As far as the gameplay goes, I think it's entirely possible to blend FPS and RPG gameplay well. I kind of like the idea that combat itself isn't heavily weighted by RPG stats, but the equipment we use (that defines our success in combat) is, although that may not be what happens.