F3 and Skyrim both had very interesting quests. The atmosphere and setting in Fallout alone is cool. I don't get what people's problem is. If it'd the main story I found F3 and NV to be very bland. So why would this be different?

Skyrim improved on F3, so I'm sure F4 will improve on Skyrim.

News at eleven, Bethesda can't into story. Morrowind, Shivering Isles and Dragonborn says hi. Hit or miss indeed, but I wouldn't trade the freedom to create stories either.

The lion's share of lore in TES pre-dates all of the current writers employed at Bethesda Softworks. The lore was written by all of it's older members, the last of which departed from the company after Oblivion. Skyrim added nothing to the lore and instead piggybacks off the existing lore that was provided from past titles such as Morrowind. Likewise, Skyrim has plenty of retcons itself, just like Oblivion. And not only did FO3 have illogical plot lines where it's little kids running a society (BADASS little kids that can fight off super mutants just outside the super mutants' home, but somehow lose all strength and cunning they have when they turn 13, at which point the super mutants consider them easy prey), but it was very guilty of fridge logic and stupid little errors completely destroying the plotlines for some of the more sane and logical content they were trying to make.

And as for people being bitter, it's more about....

This is my opinion, but you know why Fallout is successful? Know why it survived years without having a game made? The theme. "War. War never changes."
Here's the thing: post-apocalyptic media is a dime a dozen. There's tons of this crap out there, so what sets Fallout apart? Here's what: Fallout focuses on philosophy and the conundrum that is humanity shooting itself in the foot over and over, where 99% of the population agrees war is wrong, and yet if we were to open up some history books, we would struggle to name time periods where a war wasn't taking place somewhere on earth.

Most post-apocalyptic media though...? Anarchy and the struggle to survive. That's it. That's the common link. They all do that. Over and over and over and over. It's not original, it gets old, and it doesn't do or say much.

But Fallout does do or say much. It says a lot, actually. It's a deeply philosophical theme that you could write books about, because the thing is, humanity itself still doesn't have an answer as to why war never changes. Hell, we may never get that answer. This means that Fallout's theme remains ever-topical, and we aren't gonna grow old of Fallout as a series until some amazing person is born who unlocks the secret to avoiding war from here on out.

People get upset because Bethesda doesn't get this. They treat Fallout like another piece of post-apocalyptic media. Anarchy, struggle to survive, blah blah blah. Oh, and 1950's cultural humor. Can't forget that. Mark my words: if Bethesda doesn't realize this, it'll kill the series. And I'm not being melodramatic here; realistically it could take a good 20 years before it kills the series. It's not like Fallout is on it's deathbed. But it would be a death all the same, and it'd be very unfortunate. Cause really? It's not so much about saving Fallout, but rather the subject matter. Nevermind Fallout as a franchise dying, let's talk about the theme as a popularly covered and discussed subject matter. Fallout is just a name and a brand, but it housed a theme people are interested in and care about. That theme deserves a home, and that home used to be Fallout. Hopefully, that'll be it's home again someday.

Mate, I think it's too late for that. The franchise is rapidly transforming into something different altogether. It took Obsidian to salvage at least some of it and it's back in the trash bin. And the thing is, people don't want Fallout. They want an easy-on-the-brain open world exploration with sandbox elements.

It's not too late I'd say. I mean people were upset about FO3, then New Vegas was like "hey guis how's the franchise been for the past decade lol" and people were happy. Can happen again, even if FO4 turns out to be a disappointment.

But as I said, to me I think the point is more....the theme is good. It's really, really good. It would be negligence and ignorance of the highest order to not abuse it and give it the proper content it deserves. I like to think that someone would come across and say "hey, that IS a good theme!" and offer a competing franchise that covers similar subject matter, but I'm speaking more about the fact that if that were to happen, then yeah, not good for Bethesda or Fallout, cause the older Fallout fans will eat that up.

So he just said, 'Eh, not much different from Skyrim' in a very clunky, awkward way?

I haven't played FO3 in a while, but I disagree about Skyrim. From the top of my head, all that comes to mind is excuses to go through dungeons. Uninteresting objectives and writing. Even poor dialogue options. Forced quest introductions, like Brynjolf hunting you down to recruit you. There's few good ones, though.

Requiem overhaul, with all gameplay changes it made, had me interested in Skyrim for a while, as a hiking "simulator". I don't want to rely only on gameplay and my own imagination. I'm not big on roleplaying, and it's hard to start doing it, when the game doesn't provide interesting scenarios with quests. In Skyrim, it would feel like pretending to me. Roleplaying comes naturally when there's thought-provoking quests, like in New Vegas.

Witcher 2 kept me interested purely with quests and dialogue.

But surely Fallout 4 will improve upon Skyrim. But is it enough, that remains to be seen.

Because Fallout used to be a good story.

Agree with the bear, most games are about the story first, they also tend to be very short. Most of the others are multiplayer shooters.

You can combine an decent story and an open world, this however limit the types of story you can tel. You have to take it slow in the start so no big pressure, Oblivion main quest was bad here in trying to rush you. Morrowind actually asked you to take it slow. Fallout 3 and NV both got this part right.

Finding your dad who has been lost for years or they guy who shot you is important but its not something who has to be done today. As you dig deeper the plot thickens leading up to the series of quests who is the endgame, game must continue after the main quest so it can not be to large changes, yes stopping an city from blowing up would work.

Deciding who faction will rule it would be better and is no overwhelming task. The other faction is pretty broken but still around

Don't forget gems like that Blind guy in that one bandit cave with the blank book, who mistakes you for his brother or something when he hears you.

Because that's what blind people are known for: their exceptionally poor hearing to the point where they can't tell family members and total strangers apart.

Theme is great, lore is even better. But then you need a talent to use it properly

Okay, that was a little bad, but The Whispering Door is easily one of the greatest stories to ever grace any medium.

I think people need context to what was said in this video with what he said in another video...

https://youtu.be/2KApp699WdE?t=2h22m27s

it is clear to me that they feel they have a good sense of what it takes to make a good open world experience and they NOW want to create stronger narrative within the open world frame work. And in the pursuit of a stronger narrative they wont sacrifice open world elements. It seems pretty straight forward. maybe he is using too many big words or something.

That actually worries me more just because it's clear it's a PR statement he had ready for those kinds of questions, cause he uses that weird ingrows/inroads word in both. :C

Well, it works as long as you don't think about it. And who plays games just to think about stuff? Not the target audience.

That was mean, and in bad taste. Sorry.

Aaah fridge logic, you never cease to amuse.

Not to sound like a dike but I enjoy laughing at some of the poorer aspects of Skyrim: another of my favorites is that when you do the big boss fight at the end, they first make you defeat a ****ing cloud. No joke, that cloud was stronger than Alduin. I remember playing that the first time and wondering if they were gonna make me scream at the cloud again, just sitting there thinking "R WE ***N SERIOUS RIGHT NOW BETHESDA??" It was obvious they meant the moment to increase tension or something, but omfg Bethesda you made me scream at a cloud. Really? That's your ace in the hole to increase dramatic tension? I got the memo the first time, no need to make me scream at it again and again. Didn't help that the Clear Skies shout made your character sound like he was going "BA-CAAWWWWW" like a chicken.

Todd Howard is awesome once again charisma +10

They should bring back Ken Rolston for some counterbalance.

Agree with most of your points, you can have urgency at the end but not at the beginning, as posted before both fallout 3 and NV did this well.

No the ghools going to space was not needed for the main quest you could skip it.

You can also being locked out, having two faction where you have to select one is an decent plot, this will turn the other side hostile but shattered.

I agree, it felt too much like 'Dora the Explorer' screaming at a cloud. I sat there thinking, "Why doesn't Alduin ambush us? We're not exactly making our presence a secret."

Never noticed that myself, but now that you point it out, that's hilarious.

There should be a thread for these.

All the cloud needed was an "AAAAAWWW MAAAAAAAAN~" dialog line like Swiper the Fox before scurrying off.

Does anyone really pick up Bethesda games expecting a great story? Bethesda are the best at what they do, and what they do is create massive open worlds to go out and play in. If you want a great story, go pick up one of the Witcher titles. Or Red Dead Redemption. Don't get me wrong, I love what Bethesda do, but a good main story isn't it. Never has been. And it's not why I buy them.

Though they have created great little "location stories" before.....

I expect them to improve their stories. How amazing would the game be if they put more effort into quests? Why is it so unacceptable to ask for better writing?

I expect a good story out of a Fallout game.

Bethesda bought Fallout so they should make a Fallout game.

If they are incapable of doing that then they should not make Fallout games and let studios more capable to do that and act as a publisher instead.

Doesn't matter if they own it now and they can do what they want with Fallout.

Cause yes, yes they can, they can do whatever they want to.

Doesn't mean that what they parade around is actually Fallout.

Story has never really been gamesas's focus or forte, and I'm glad it isn't. Other companies focus on story over freedom, and they usually do pretty well at it. I'm happy to let gamesas be gamesas, give me a passable main story line, and then let me go play in a huge post-apocalyptic sandbox full of short side quests, interesting places to discover, odd people to meet (and shoot in the face), and legendary monsters to run away from.

If they give me a main quest that's on par with Skyrim, that's honestly fine as far as I'm concerned.