We're getting a bit into an arguement (not really but it seems like it might lead to one).

I liked how Fallout: New Vegas had some many awesome weapons, I didn't like how there were not many diverse enemies that could stand against them.

I liked how Fallout 3 had such good exploration, I didn't like how it had so much radiation and so little plantlife.

This. :foodndrink: :fallout:

Good points, Feel free to Duck and Cover in our bunker if needed, I had the liberty of locking down the entrance, too many of people of late wanting to play around in here.....

I'd be perfectly fine with a NWN or Dragon age style of view. You know full 3d rotatable and zoomable


What I really want is player and character separation, over any view nuances.

At least map node system

So they can improve much more the cities and dungeons

And a Tommy Gun

yeah

A Tommy Gun

I want a Mafia build

It gets more attention than the "They all have their strengths" line :hehe:



Seeing as Bethesda has never done something like that, yes, a bit I see what you are saying, but open world sandbox games are what Bethesda does best, and i guess they wanted to play it safe with Fallout. Afterall their goal is to make profit, and if you have a risky method and a guaranteed method...



Had EA won the bid, that might've happened :shrug: And agreed on the second sentence, but if anything Bethesda seems to be giving constantly a bigger focus on player skill over character skill :shrug: (Though Morrowinds battle system was IMHO stupid )

Exactly. I'm generally of the opinion that character skill>player skill should be the defining quality of any RPG but it's particularly key to what made Fallout great.

Although I would say changing the viewpoint is actually the most likely way to achieve that. As long as Fallout remains first person it's never going to ditch the shooter elements. Maybe there's a chance at eliminating the minigames.

Fallout 1 and 2 were god to honest RPGs because of that aspect. Not very many games can claim that. There was a board on the TES V forums where we argued what constituted a RPG. I'll try and find that, because it was a really good argument.

Here is the thread:

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1166528-wheres-the-roleplaying-part-of-this-game/page__fromsearch__1

Yours truly doesn't appear till towards the end.

Sorry

but

I think that hes demanding too much on it

Whats so great about a node map system for a future fallout game?
Let's keep in mind that we probably won't be seeing the old engine.

Dragon Age use it

And its not a "old engine"

Okay, "original engine." Regardless, the Interplay engine works for PC, but not cross platform. The entire game system would require users to employ a keyboard, which I won't do on a 360. Sorry. Without hyper-keys, maybe not, but that's one of the great things about the first two games and their style of play. In real time it's not efficient, and I prefer the new system versus the "original."

Right.
People are saying they want the F1/2 node system back, so the settlements can be more realistic. But i am wondering if todays engines can't handle that better than F1/2 did, while still using a sandbox environment.

BTW, Dragon Age wasn't a game as mucha s a movie with a while lotta title scereens. But that's neither here nor there.

The chief thing being that F1 and F2 covered large areas. F1 covered all of Southern California and F2 covered Northern California and bits of Nevada and Oregon. Van Buren was going to cover Nevada and several other states F3 covered only a scaled down part of D.C.

You can't hope to stretch a sandbox all the way the distances we are asking for.

(i am seeing such a derailment here, the Fiends could use the derailment as cover.)

Given more time and budget, in the future, there could be a bigger world that is more to scale and fast-travel could integrate aspects of the map-node system. Honestly I'm still a bit confused over the map nodes vs. fast-travel argument and why map nodes makes settlements "more realistic." Once again, not trying to diss anyone's preferences but I feel like, if anything, the settlements are more realistic as part of an open world than blips on the map. I always felt like the random battles and their screens in F1 and F2 were waaaaaay too homogenous to the environments. The random encounters made up for that to some extent, but I feel like the sandbox world, though sadly missing the random encounters for the most part, is much more immersive.

Weel, TBH it was a scaled down bit of Maryland and Virginia as well,, but I see what you're saying. I dont know why I didn't take the distances into consideration.
I would still perfer something that accomodates both though. I mean, F1/2, you go from location to location with the odd random encounter in there.. but really you're not doing much of anyting in the wasteland, just major locations in it. It would be possible to have sandbox style exploration with travel points for places that are a large distance.
Think along the lines of going into the metro's or to a DLC location.

wow this is much less flame :rolleyes:

Not flame, just discussion. I feel like a peaceful argument can be good, as long as you can be respectful. Keep it posi, brah.

I am reading this thread and I guess your right this is the most peaceful discussion since the time when Bethesda didn't own fallout.

Just think of it this way, with a map node system, you can have several maps ranging in various sizes like you normally see for each location. Just think you go to New Vegas and the entire FONV sandbox area is only just for the city and the surrounding area. So all the other towns and locations of interest get the same treatment but have various sized maps. they do this very same thing with the DLC new locations. they just skip the overland travel system used in the originals. Random encounters appear on either randomly generated maps drawn from what the terrain your traveling is, or they have lots of hand made maps for each terrain type like the originals did it.

Does seem so hard to do.

Well, like anything, if they designed the game to accommodate choice, I think you could play how you want - turn-based, map node, linear exploration, etc. I think those should all be options and I don't see why the are not feasible, especially on a new engine. For everyone's sake, I hope they put these options in F4.

I personally would rather see a map node system as an option instead of in the normal game, it works well for some games (and some companies) but even though it was in the originals it wouldn't fit a Bethesda game.

It'd be taking away what they're one of the best at...

And they shouldn't experiment? It was thinking inside their own personal box that ultimately made Fallout 3 "Oblivion With Guns". Look Sebor, TES is one game series, Fallout is another. If both are the same, then why have two game series at all? It's why Bioware games are so predictable and cookie-cutter, they're formulaic. It's a radical and drastic thought, but Fallout needs its own mold.