Howard said multiple times it was easier to write a story when you could hear the person speaking, and it engaged the player more.

As for not having a story, Todd Howard also says that they are not going to spoil anything. I have faith itll be a good enough story. Nothing like Mass Effect or the like but still a well thought out adventure.

I have not played all fallouts but I agree with this to an extent.

I definitely liked it better than NV MQ. But I think NV wins on the DLC front, all of its DLC had great story.

NV had some great writing, but its story arch plot hole and its world building left me abit irritated.

The only reason fallout new Vegas existed was because they used fallout 3 and just tweaked it. It also came out like a year after .. Not at the same time. Farcry 3 was pretty good but better than fallout 3?

It's better to keep your expectations tempered either way. Writing skill doesn't improve overnight - it takes years of classes, practice, and commitment. Maybe if Todd Howard had bragged that they brought on some actual writers for this game I'd have been a bit less skeptical about his claims, but they haven't. Instead Emil P. bragged that it was a team effort, and everyone contributed - which sounds nice to hear, but from a practical standpoint isn't very encouraging.

I thought New Vegas had a much better and more interesting story than Fallout 3 overall... but the telling of said story was extremely dry. Talking to Caesar and learning about the Legion's history and philosophy for example was like listening to someone narrate a history textbook. It wasn't bad storytelling, but it wasn't great storytelling either.

Fallout 3's storytelling was quite bad, but to its credit I never felt like I was back in school while watching it unfold.

So I've gotten a chance to look at the voice actor interviews and I can now say that I am more confident that there is a story, and it very well may be better than any previous Bethesda game in terms of presentation.

I also seen Todd and the team mention taking the story even more serious this time. I've actually missed this because all I really watched was the gameplay presentation and no interviews at the time.

I hope Bethesda will take all the mockery of their story telling to heart. Daggerfall had great writing and Morrowind's MQ and expansions were fantastic. Bethesda used to have damn fine writing back then, but with Oblivion it took a sharp turn for the worst. I have hope, with it being so under wraps, for FO4's story though.

I agree. If the story turns out to be good then it will be a pleasant surprise.

Doesn't matter. In fact, it's a good example of how Fallout 3 could have not been as much of a let down as it was. With most of the assets and gameplay being the same, it came down to writing, characters, and world design.

I'm fine with the overall lack of info surrounding the story. We know the setup and that's enough for me besides wanting to know the precise date the adventures in the Wasteland start.

The problem is Bethesda is hyping the story with nothing. They've talked about improving their writing, but give no examples. Some people say they're trying to keep from hyping it up, but they are hyping it. They're hyping it with the same bs tactics that JJ Abrams uses to hype his (typically disappointing) movies. Putting an emphasis on the thing they won't tell you about (and also emphasizing they won't tell you about it) is a form of hyping, and I think that's where they're setting things up for a fall.

Yep, you're one of the few.

Bethesda are sensibly not revealing the plot as it should always be.

Yes it is.

I've seen Dr Frank Turek, an ardent religious apologist pontificate the same sentiment, furnishing a debate with the fatuous example that there's no evidence of alien life yet we believe there must be alien life in the universe... there's a salient counterpoint to be made here.One believes that there's life on another celestial body somewhere in the universe because there is life on this celestial body, we have evidence for life in the universe all around us on our rocky home, if it can happen here can it happen there (in essence)?

On topic:

We probably know a conterminous amount of story info in comparison to Fallout 3.

We know that the PC has; a child, a spouse, the game takes place during the great war, fail states are part of the narrative experience, the player returns home in search of other survivors and that presumably this plot device is the centerpiece of the narrative, at least initially.

The disparity between the previous Fallout games is that in Fallout 4 we generally know a lot about the incipient stages of the story while in Fallout 3 and New Vegas, preceding release there seemed to be an even spread of story info from it's start to end.

I agree with you, and that's why I encouraged the tempering of expectations. I think the studio's history should carry more weight than Todd Howard's words - because no matter what the man says about Fallout 4 the writing quality of Bethesda's previous three RPGs speaks volumes about their collective skill and talent in this area. They're not very good writers, and I'll be very, very surprised if Fallout 4's writing quality is significantly better than Skyrim's.

But that is the point.

They are not bragging on it.

Your buddy is saying "I think she is good looking and she's coming to visit me on 11/10/15. Just wait until you see her."

Bethesda is known for having the best open world.

That is what they are marketing and the six months between announcement and release is proving that is all they need to market.

Plus having the best open world is a lot less subjective than having a great story.

Bethesda is on very solid ground when they make promises about their open world.

The narrative is very subjective and you can never please all of the fans.

Any thing beyond a great open world is just an added bonus for Fallout Fans so why hype it when you can let it speak for itself after release.

Considering I'll have to pay to find out if there story is any good, it's more I'm being invited to fly to Nova Scotia at my own expense.

As for them bragging. I feel like I heard Todd Howard talk about improving the storytelling and how this one has a more engaging story and all that a lot, particularly when he was talking about the voiced protagonist. Besides that, I feel like he and Pete Hines would draw attention to the writing and then followed up with statements about not talking about the story quite a bit. It might be me misremembering, but that's the impression I remember having when I watched their E3 interviews, before I gave up on them telling me about the game in these interviews I hadn't learned elsewhere. I just remember it feeling like they put a lot of emphasis on the writing of the story they refused to talk about, and it got old pretty quick.

No you don't. You don't have to buy it until after the story is known and many people have played it. You might even save some dollars that way.

I liked both MQ.

But FONV had a lot deeper narrative just because there was so much more.

The MQ in F3 only had two sides, good and evil, while the MQ in FONV had 3 sides.

And if you look at the side quests, there was 17 in F3 compared to over 4 times that many in FONV.

Bethesda obviously took this to heart in Skyrim which had a lot more quest lines.

Quantity has a quality all its own.

The two MQ were not bad, but is was obvious that they ran out of time for some of the elements in the Civil war MQ.

Still there were the two Main Quests, plus the huge faction quests some of which were very good, plus a host of others quests.

With a map just as big as Skyrim, Bethesda not developing a totally new game engine, and the extra time they took, I really can't see Fallout 4 not having more real quests than Skyrim.

If nothing else there are 12 companions and each of them should have multiple quests plus the Synths/Railroad, the Institute, the Brotherhood, and a host of mutants, zombies, and raiders.

With the extra time and attention paid to the Narrative, I expect the main quests to be better than Skyrim's.

Anything better than that is a bonus.

And with 400 hours of play, it is obvious that Bethesda decided to go for both quality and quantity.

Maybe they can delivery on the former, but I know they will delivery on the latter.

What Fallout 3 did you play? I can't recall a single major faction being evil.

Yeah, Stupid god, stupid evil, and stupid neutral.

The genocidal fascists didn't strike you as evil?

Uhhh, where was there a group of genocidal fascists in Fallout 3?

I hope you aren't referring to The Enclave, as they had no plans of genocide. Autumn and all the soldiers had given up that idea some time ago.

Contaminating pure water so anyone that isn't pure and drinks the water will get sick and die is not genocidal?

Again

The Enclave had no plans to do anything of the sort. Only Eden did, but Eden =/= the Enclave, and everyone in the Enclave ditched him when ordered to by Autumn.

People who say things like that make me wonder if they have actually played the game, or if they are just reading summaries off of Wikipedia.

I think it's fine that we don't get details, I'd rather not have everything spoiled and find it out for myself. Going in Blind for Skyrim was amazing.

Even if you disregard the genocidal aspect of it (though they are practicing genocide against Ghouls and they have standing orders to burn to death any genetic undesirables), you don't think the group that kidnaps, murders, and experiments on the people who aren't them, try and take technology that isn't theirs to expand their sphere of influence, and chase unarmed civilians in the hopes of killing them count as evil?

There's no getting around the Enclave being evil. My proof: They drop fingers.

Edit: To be clear, I'm mostly joking about that last part. If only because Roy Phillips is somehow considered "good" by the game's code.

"Mission Directive: Establish and enforce Enclave presence among general populace, disposal of genetic non-compliance offenders.

I. Establish constituency enforcement point at coordinates 39.138 x -77.070. Monitor civilian movement in area, and debrief superior regarding any events of notable significance or regularity.

II. Distribute purified water rations to civilians willing to submit to genetic compliance screening. Participation in screening is compulsory for all civilians, and use of force is authorized in enforcement.

III. Genetic non-compliance offenders should be detained at checkpoint.

IV. To conserve consumption of Enclave resources, detainees should be disposed of by flame only when withholding facility becomes overcrowded, or detainees become unmanageable, whichever comes first."

Yeah no shades of genocidal fascism here at all.

I went into 3 completely blind to fallout's story and automatically pegged the enclave as being evil/bad guys. I don't see how it could have been taken any other way really

Well, seeing the massive dirigible/airship floating over the Paul Revere monument and later seeing the same airship crashing to the ground in flames indicates to me at least one major goal/storyline element going on dealing with whoever controls it.... now the question is does the airship belong to the Institute? the Brotherhood? some other as yet unnamed faction?

That was enough of a spoiler for me... I don't want or need anything further