Bethesda should make the game world itself (I personally prefered D.C over N.V, but that is just me) and Obsidian should do the story. In my opinion, Obisdian does a great job at making likable characters and a great story while Bethesda can make a good game-world.

Agreed.

Even better if Bethesda let Obsidian use their own Onyx engine.

You're not alone there. I to would like to see Bethesda build the game world and then have Obsidian do the writing/quests/gameplay.

I don't understand that. Ghouls are stiff legged and slow, but they are still human; and human shaped. If its a strength issue... I still don't understand it. The armor would avoid the ghoul's arms and legs just the same as a smooth-skin's. :confused:
(When its worn, it shouldn't weigh anything to the operator).


Lack of what tech?

It would be a stregth issue because ghouls should be very weak. Ghouls also used to have body parts falling off, as well as their skin. What ever is in PA that lets people control it, wouldn't work on a person that has no skin and body parts falling off.

What I've seen of Powered exoskeletons has tended to show a machine that a child would have strength enough to use; and that exo-skeleton research shows great promise for aiding the disabled. But that aside... In Fallout Ghouls are nearly immortal and have an indefinite life expectancy due to their particular malady. I believe that if ghouls were appreciably weak, none would have survived a decade, much less a century (or two).

Thinking back... I never got the impression from FO1 that ghouls were not (essentially) just regular humans in terms of capability; They were less agile and less afflicted by radiation. Their condition caused a constant decay (mostly of just skin it would seem). In FO2, Lenny had a strength of 4 and an endurance of 5, Wooz had a strength & endurance of 6. :shrug:


** The above being good context for something I would not want in FO4...
and that is gimped ghouls.

No Loot scaling period. It didn't make Skyrim a better game and it won't make Fallout a better game. I like consistency in my loot.

Plus I always though Fallout did it perfectly already, while you could weild anything you would move slower and it would have a stat decrease but you knew how powerful it was and you aimed to get to the level where that rocket launcher would be your tool for the reckoning of all who crossed you or just happen to be in the general direction you happen to be walking.

I hope we don't see something in Fallout where all the weapons are bla, have no flavor and are pointless like Skyrim did with Loot scaling.


I also hope they don't mess up the skill tree. While skyrim's was good it was also flawed as they tried to go new and traditional at the same time which really created headaches and it clearly wasn't properly balanced. Though I do want to see Fallout's cleaned up like that but definitely not in constellation form.

You bring up an interesting point I have thought about for a while. Are Ghouls really immortal as far as aging goes? If you recall, as I do, that non-feral ghouls can become feral if their mind begins to deteriorate. Several things can cause that to happen. The process of ghoulification itself is an ongoing process as ghouls continue to lose hair and skin as they age, as a result, it may never actually stop. Thus, a ghoul's mind could slowly deteriorate. And considering the nature of feral ghouls, I am more than willing to consider going feral means death. More exposure to rads can make ghouls go feral too, as this only helps to deteriorate the ghoul to something like a glowing one or reaver. And while it is obvious that ghoulification has given them a mutation that lengthens their lives, that is not to say that their lives are extended infinitely. After all, it was Raul who so famously admitted, "I'm an old ghoul."

Youe have a point, I mean, look at blowing Megaton vs leaving it. All they did with it was gravitate the game's consequences on one tiny area, a brief line on the radio and presto. There was alot of potention to have choices and consequences.


I can't comment as I've not played DA:O, I'm just going by what i've read from the general gaming community. Most here seem flexible, but not all of the community out on the net, it seems to enjoy vast open world and nothing else.


Ehhh, I like the backdrop of the BoS, but now that I know alot of the lore and played the past games, I think the BoS were part of the brand name incorpation and thats about it.


My problem isnt with node systems, I'm flexible in my gaming. The problem is that the fanbase I've seen says 'GO BACK TO TEH EF 1 AN EF 2 GRAFUCS AND NOEDS!' which will only harm the game as a franchise at this point. If they made nodes in the sense of large explorable zones with a grid around it (invisible obviously)

One the power armor ghouls debate:

How does a power armor work? Does it connect with the human using it through a scan of lifesigns?
Cause with Broken Steel, Ghouls have no body heat, which means their hearts either don't pump or pump very low.

I haven't seen anyone actually wanting the old graphics back -- which, no doubt, would hurt the franchise at least commercially. However, I don't see well done nodes hurting it too much -- if people are dead set for sandboxes and against anything else, they'd obviously avoid the game, but if they're more in for the general "this gen" Fallout experience, I don't see a reason for them to give the game a pass. And I say this while still agreeing with Talonfires note on the Bethcrowds reception of New Vegas' sandbox world, and yours of what the community seems to want -- because frankly I do believe people (not all, but a good bunch) are not thinking too much beyond what they have in correlation of what they want, not really thinking out of the box, which has been evident with the comments that nodes are "so last gen", "you can't explore in nodes", "nodes were a technical limitation of the time" etc, which have been present since the developement of Fallout 3. It's all fine, but it also narrows the perspective.

Is the last sentence complete btw (that's about what I'm asking from nodes)? Or is it meant to illustrate what you mean with nodes hurting the franchise? Asking because it looks as if you're about to continue it since there's appears to be something of a suggestion in there and no dot?

I've been too busy with drinking coffee and popping pills to read the latest posts, but as for map node system:

Have a dozen HonestHeart/OldWorldBlues/PointLookout-sized maps?
Or well, +50% to each, considering there should be at least 8 villages/towns.
Though those could take place in outside maps.
Like a couple of towns which are the size of maybe Satellite Array Station +50 or +100% bigger.

I'm in favor of the map node system.
Can be done to include exploration as well.

So a it's a win win, apart from those which wants "one giant map" for some reason.
(Which I personally don't think Fallout is fit for as it leaves too little room for varied environments, societies, cultures and factions with realistic distances put between them. Which Fallout is all about. (Tim Cain: "Fallout is about exploring humanity in the post-apocalyptic aftermath, not to design a new plasma rifle" (Quote is not word for word)))

4. Don't release a game that basically throws that plots of the first two in a mixer, and then call it FO3.
5. Don't create a protagonist whose story is pretty much set, and doesn't allow you for any real roleplaying
6. Don't try to make up for mostly bland written NPCs by forcing on a cheesy story about lil' kid looking for Papa who turns out to being voiced by some Hollywood dude.
7. Don't try implying you've been a follower of the series since the very early days, when it's blatantly clear you got into it with FO3.

The only characters in the FO3 main game who I considered decently written were Fawkes, Harold, and Elder Lyons. The rest of it...
, well I better don't even start ranting.
You know what makes me care and getting attached? Good writing. And you have tons of that in FNV, and dozens of memorable and interesting characters.
In FO3 I always had the feeling they were trying very hard not to overburden the mental and cognitive capacities of people, who by the game rating shouldn't even be allowed to play the game, to name it, 12-16 yr old boys.
And that really starts off with the protagonist and the main plot, and continues to stretch itself like a red line through the whole game.
I had a lot of fun with FO3, as a nice openworld shoot'n loot sandbox with stats and dialogue.
As a Fallout game, and as a RPG it left a lot over to be desired.




I'm not one of these people you've mentioned, and still I didn't want to see a Dragon Age like system introduced.
Why? Because it wouldn't have anything to offer to make the gameplay better by any means.
It would just take away from it. Immersion is a big thing to me when it comes to roleplaying, and a vital part of that immersion is roaming the world, being a part of it, rather than being dragged from quest node to quest node.
Fallout, as a solo game with limited companion control, is perfectly suited for that.
Dragon Age as a traditional RPG where you are in full control of a party with spellcasters, warriors, etc, is pursueing a totally different direction, and for that a FPV/Openworld setting just wouldn't work very well.
And honestly, it's Baldurs Gate like pause/command/pause/command/pause/command-type game mechanics are tiring me way earlier than the Shooter/VATS mix applied in Fallout3/NV.
I think like UnDeCafIndeed you're more in the camp of Strategy Gamers who also come to appreciate a good story wrapped around your Strategy game, but in the end your most vital interest is the strategy part, and how all your stats are applied.
Am I wrong with that assumption?
Anyway for me, there are other things that are more important to a RPG rather than its combat mechanics.
Like I've said before, being able to watch to sun rise and set, having NPCs have a -albeit still pretty simple- routine from day to night, things like the need for water, food and sleep, the ability to walk from one place to another, without having to resort to some tactical overview screen that makes me a dot on a map.
Sorry, but to me that is just dated, and I fail to understand why I should still prefer it. It was fun at the time, back then 15 years ago, but for me, times have changed. And like I didn't want to go back to a 2D football game instead of nowadays FIFA, I don't want go back to it for Fallout.
So, I'm sitting in between the chairs of newly attracted shooter kids who couldn't have it simple and meaningless enough, and those hardcoe traditionalists who deem every step away from the original formula as an act of ultimate infidelty :lmao:
Am I the only one among those who have been onboard since the early days, who thinks they found a near perfect formula now?
I really tend to have this impression

I have no idea, I probably was just rambling an idea and just left it half finished. Reading it now, I believe it's complete, I simply forgot a period. Personally, I don't mind the idea of a node system, I like sandboxes because of the detail in a world scape, Fallout 3 did well with this. New Vegas as well, but primarily in key locations. I think sandbox is superior to node systems in theory, but the problem is that publishers put so much crunch time on them that you get New Vegas as a result, IE a great game but with alot of places obviously able to have more potential, I mean JE Sawyer even pointed out they had to cut 2-3 legion settlements from the game development because of time tables. Nodes in some respects can allow for more detail because it limits the area. While I don't enjoy nodes because it breaks my RP immersion when I have to exit the cell, I do think large/very large nodes with detail and love crafted into it are a small price to pay as opposed to a sandbox world to explore with mostly just boarded up buildings.


Pssst, your elitism is showing. Whether someone has followed the series since '97 or not makes no difference on the person as a fan. I started with F3, then bought the trilogy pack, and studied the wiki lore extensively. I know just as much about the game as anyone who's been playing since Fallout was released.

That is not the issue here, mate.
But when someone dares to open a thread about lore, canon, and what and what not to do with the series, and then soley keeps refering to the iteration that is by far the least fitting one, the one that just recycled its predecessors stories and plots, then I'm having a good laugh.
And it's very clear that he has very little knowledge about what happened in the first games other than they had turn based combat.

Eh, on a scale, you could argue F2's plot wasnt original as it was a cut and paste of Fallout. Find piece of Vault tech > Save my people > embroiled by some weird chance into a conflict that involves saving the whole of the wasteland from a powerful military foe.

Now, Fallout 2 is storyline wise better than 3 because it explains alot of loose ends. The problem with Fallout 3 is it explains the basics, but not the details, and in a game like Fallout, detail in the betweens is crucial to the story development.

Still it didn't blatantly copy its predecessor, and it introduced several new factions like the Enclave or the NCR. So yeah, while some basic concepts remained the same(like some FEV involvement), in the end it was saving the world like in 90% of all RPG cases, there was enough new stuff around.
FO3 otoh,

- took the water quest(Water Chip/Purifier), and
- the talk the main villain into self-desctrucion-idea(Master/Eden) from FO1,
- the someone tries wipeout the wastes by some use of FEV-idea from FO1 and 2
- we need a GECK from FO2
- took the Enclave as the main villain FO2

put all that into a mixer, and sold us that as their story and plot. You were lucky, as you didn't play these games before 3 came out.
However as someone, who knew the first parts, the main quest from 3 was giving you these "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING??"-moments you know from the Angry Video Game Nerd. And the farther you got in, the more of those moments you got.
I reckon it was really like

Dev1: Ok guys, any ideas what the game should be about?
Dev2. Dunno.
Dev3: Dunno
Dev4: Dunno.
...
Dev25: Eureka! I got it!
Dev1: What?
Dev25: Look, it's been ages ago since these games came out, or?
Dev1: Erm, yes?
Dev25: Most of the few people playing these games are probably dead by now, and most of the people buying our games weren't even or just born at that time.
Dev1: So?
Dev25: There are lots of awesome concepts so cool, we never would be able to come anywhere close. So lets just take the best and most awesome pieces, add some nucular explosions and a GIANT robot and merge all into something even more awesome of EPIC proportions.
Dev1: Woooow. Let's do this. People will love us for that. Guys, we have a story!





*Sry, Beth. Still love you for reviving the franchise, bringing in quite a few cool ideas and all.
But that main story really was a groin shot to all who knew the series.

Call me crazy but I don't find anything immersive about thirty minute long days and distant real life locations being five minute walks down the road when it should take hours to reach them. What I like about map nodes is that they CAN simulate realistic distances and time scales, which is exactly what Fallout 1/2 did.



I'm not sure what this has to do with anything we're talking about.



When did anyone say anything anything about making Fallout 2D again?



There's no such thing as a perfect formula, both systems have their strengths and weakness. I acknowledge that the open world system has its benefits, but I don't think those benefits are particularly important or relevant for Fallout; it works for TES because TES is set in a fantasy world with its own geography and time progression. Fallout isn't set in a fantasy world, it's set in an alternate take on our world, thirty minute days and twenty miles being cut down to half a mile so that you can fit a bunch of cool places into the world doesn't do it for me. With a map node system you can simulate realistic distances and time scales, random encounters work better, and most importantly it can simulate an actual wasteland, something that can't be done in an open world for practical reasons; these things alone makes the system much more appealing for a Fallout game.



Sure the plot structure was the same, but that's about it.

The Fallout story formula for 1, 2 and New Vegas is giving the player a short term goal can focus their attention and lead them through the world or be neglected as it is fairly trivial, and then give the player an ultimate objective that has far reaching effects on the game world. There is no "storyline" to follow but there are a few conditions or objectives that are fleshed out by exploring the game world. Fallout 3 and Tactics deviated from that methodology. I think that is because tactics was not an RPG and Fallout 3 was geared toward making a 'Michael Bay/Jerry Brukheimer' experience. There is a lot of artist styling without much depth and no real feeling of a coherent world. That is not to say that Fallout 3 did this poorly, but it is quite a deviation from the style of experience I was expecting.

I hope Fallout 4 gives the player a minor objective that a player feels they can ignore until they explore the wasteland until they see the context for how that objective is important and should be dealt with followed by the revealing of a major objective that is fleshed out and giving context by more world interaction. There should be hints and suggestions all over alluding to the ultimate crisis that will conclude the game. BGS does not need to pull a TES style 'force the player down a long quest chain that holds their hand and forces the player to complete the objectives in 1 way so that the path does not branch'. I want to get the story from exploring the world voluntarily with only suggestions from BGS as to where I should venture to gain context for the main plot.

I think I just confuzzled my brain. I hope my ramblings are at least somewhat coherent.

I dont see why ghouls can't use power armor. Any mention of PA needing body heat, or that ghouls are too weak to use is pure speculation.
I can see people wating to have balance, but i dont think thats the way to go about it.

I do agree that it shouldnt matter if people trully want to pick race though.
It would kind of go agaings the "people trying to eek out an existence" trope, but if you are OK with stepping around that, I dont see a problem.
So what if picking a ghoul means rads dont effect you. It isnt as if there arent things in game that negate rads, like perks, chems and radsuits.

And please for the love of all that is good, no Fallout DA:O. Maybe it is a knee-jerk reaction but it just left a bad taste in my mouth a la "you died, now you have go back and sit though 15 minutes of cinematic scenes".

If people really want to pick their race at the start of the game. A ghoul being able to us PA and not effected by radiation would be a really unbalanced character.

Ghouls are weak and slow beings. Hell they have no skin at least not what we would call skin. That should have some effect on PA. Ghouls in Fallout Tactics can't use PA. (if I remember right) I know how people feel about Tactics. Still ghouls in Fallout and Fallout 2 are slow weak beings with no skin.

IT just makes no sense for a ghoul to have PA. It makes no sense for them to have really heavy weapons. They are pretty much a living rotted corpse. The only thing that makes them useful is radiation has no effect on them.Other then it can make them glowing ghouls if they take in to much.

how so? remeber the whole argument for allowing other races (at least as started in this thread) is that picking one race gives you acceses to things other races can't do.
The trade off is that they are slower, They also most likely woundnt be acceped everywhere; this would cut down on the number of vendors they could sell to and buy from, as well as some quests.. heck, since you have to have PA training, it could even be that you have to go way out of your way to get PA training as the human NPC that gives it to you is biased against ghouls... it is all about implentation.

As touched on in this thread If ghouls were really that weak, they would have simply succumbed to gravity long ago. let's also remember that a human char can get PA and take a bunch of chems and additionally get perks to further negate rads- its the same effect, but implemented differently.


Part of the point of PA is that it makes you stronger. it is powered armor. if it werent assisted by power it would just be heavy armor.
Ever try and turn an old car with no power steering when youre going slow? It is a pain in the ass, but even 90 year old granny can turn the steering wheel on a car with power steering.. because it is powered.

I still don't know what having no skin would have to do with anything. please elaborate on why that would be a factor at all.

So they are slow- that again is your trade off. Already slow ghouls would have a higher DT with PA, but they would be even slower moving and slower on the attack with PA on, possibly allowing enemies to deal more attacks/damage.

for all we know, ghouls could have a trade off of lower AP as well. There is a whole lot of room for things that make sense to balance races out without taking PA away, which doesnt make any sense IMO.



If rad resistance is the only bennefit to being a ghoul, then why is having power armor a deal breaker?

Because power armour would take a way all the negative things about being a ghoul. Other then how humans see you, but if they added a system where people couldn't tell if you were a ghoul or not with the helment on. Then all bad things about being a ghoul would be gone. Could do anything.. places like Vault 87 for example would be no trouble at all.

Sure the devs could make it so you don't get PA training if you have a ghoul character. That way you can't use PA.

The point is you shouldn't want to be a ghoul. Ghouls don't even want to be ghouls. They are very weak, and slow and they have no skin. Why would you want to be that? Playing as a ghoul, the devs would not make it so you would be weak and slow. They would just make it so you are like any human but with really bad skin. That takes away from what a ghoul is. A ghoul isn't a person with a skin problem. A ghoul is pretty much a Zombie, only it didn't die.

Fair enough.

I can live with sandboxes (just as I can live with minigames) even though I consider them highly unoptimal for this series. I do think the nodes offer far greater possibilities for plausible variety, an "actual" scope and gameplaypossibilities.



Within this context, a strategy game as opposed to...? An FPS game?

This is all complete and utter speculation as to what the devs would or would not do.

I listed quite a few ways that they could balance a ghoul build, but you completely sweep them under the rug because they dont fit your POV.

If you dont want ghoul race to be a player build choice thats cool- you could simply state that you dont want them.
But theres no concrete reasoning for denying them PA if it is done reasonably.
you mention they are weak and slow. lower AP, lower weight carry possible lower starting HP. these are attributes that would bring balance and are easily implemented. i mena, the only perk (aside from possible higher inteligence) to being a ghoul is that they have rad healing? you can get a perk like that at the very beginning of fallout 3. That isnt even going to come into play if the game is much like other fallout games, because radiation isnt everywhere in any other game than fallout 3. it doesnt put them over the top in any meaningful way- especially if you factor in their slowness and weakness.


and at any rate, who really used PA in F3 or NV? Anyone? Give me combat armor any day of the week.




and yes. vault 87 would be a pointless quest if you were a ghoul that could simply enter the front door. I guess it is a good thing that quest is only in F3, where you dont have that option; that quest wasnt written with being a ghoul build taken into account in the slightest.. complete speculation to think that if they offered a ghoul build that they wouldnt write around that.
complete speculation.