It is speculation but an educated one. My time on this forum has given me an idea of what Bethesda fans want. If Bethesda made it so, you as a ghoul, could not run, could not carry alot of weight, could not fire large weapons with any accuracy, on top of most humans in the game hating you and not wanting anything to do with you or just try to kill you on site. The fans would be up in arms. Many just want FPS EPIC stuff, they don't give a crap about canon and how Ghouls should be. They just want a human with ghoul skin.

So its safe to say that if the Devs did add play as a ghoul option. They would just take a human and change the skin and call it a ghoul.

Worse they might add some stupid quest to become human again. So the players can go from Ghoul to human and then back to ghoul :facepalm:

Watching a dot moving for 30 seconds to cover distances is something you call "simulating"?
Also I never took big excitement out of random encountering a band of raiders, floaters or geckos for the 200th time. They became redundant very fast.
I'd rather walk around myself nowadays, then moving a dot from quadrant to quadrant in hope of discovering something.




As opposed to a first person view real time game which, yeah, of course will inevitably bring in FPS elements.
But that's not what does the fascination for me. It's having day and night, simulating basic needs like for water and food, having a view that allows me to see through the protagonists eyes rather than giving me a tactical 360° overview and such things. Imo that caters just better to roleplay.
As I've said before, for me what made Fallout great was the plot, setting and imaginative writing. All that is still there.

lol, why you faceplaming as if bethsda did something wrong over a scenario you just fabricated and prefaced with "might"?

Bethesda has only made one- yes thats it- one fallout game and they obviously had a learning curve..
for the second game they took what older players had to say to heart and brought obsidian in to try and bring it closer to what it was. They ddin't do that for Bethesda/Fallout 3 fans that want "FPS EPIC stuff". They did that for older series fans.

I forget the thread, but before NV was released there was a dev feedback thread in this forum.. A lot of those ideas made it into NV. Sleep, ammo weight, hunger- i would like t think some of these were added to the game because of that thread. in short, bethesda does see what we talk about here.


I would much rather show them how to make a race build balanced, than uust say "they won't do this. they shouldnt have this"... this is just my opinion, but posts like that, summarized with your last post aren't constructive and paints all bethesda game fans with the same paintbrush; which is slightly divisive.

For me it was the writing, the setting and the gameplay -- I don't think I would've liked Fallout as much as I did (and still do) if it wasn't made as it was, even if all the writing was the exact same. Now one third is missing. I can live with that, and there are ways to improve it (though I doubt it will ever be improved as much as I'd like to, even though I'm not really asking a Fallout 3 grade complete turn around), but an apple doesn't give you orangejuice no matter how orange you paint the apple.

I hope that Bethesda will learn to make a Fallout Game and that we get a Fallout Game. The only one they did make is Fallout 3. Fallout 3 IMO is the odd game out of the Fallout series and the devs caved to fan pressure and removed the endings. Yes Bethesda let Obsidian make New Vegas, so that is a good sign they will learn as to how to do things right. Even though New Vegas could have gone even closer to the Orginals.

Point is I still don't trust Bethesda. I can't see them adding a "play as any race" option and not add some stupid quest to become human. I can't see them making it so ghouls are weak and slow as well as hated by pretty much everyone. I just can't see them doing that.

Having play as a ghoul would also just make way to much work, if it was to be done right. For the characters in the game to have different reactions to you as a female/male ghoul. It would be like making four games in one.

I am not tying to paint all the fans with the same brush. But from my time on here, it seems like there is a number of fans that just want the samething over and over again. They don't know the history of Fallout or just don't care. They make a big enough stink and the devs will cave. They did for the people that complained about the Ending to Fallout 3. So they removed it, which makes the whole game pointless.

Apparently.



And hand placed spawns that generate trash mobs in the same locations repeatedly are an improvement?

I dont think it would be as hard to impleent different races as all of that that.
NV we had faction armor and reputation that caused NPCs to react differently depending on what you are wearing/who you die with.
And i know it isnt the forum, but Skyrim has different races and the game simply has a whole lot of dialogue written in..
Heck there are even quests dialogues that you wont see on your playthrough because some of the quests are randomized.
So, they can definately do it.

I am optimistic that they will get a lot more in depth with it the next go around.
I certainly cant assume theres a trend with only one data point.

They are supposed to all be old ghouls.

Originally http://www.falloutwiki.com/Vault_12 was the site of the event that made all of its inhabitants the Ghouls in Fallout). The unpublished Van Buren was to introduce "Born Ghouls" that were the result of an awful [evil?] scientist's experiment; That would seem a plausible way to add more Ghouls to the setting, but that game was canceled.

In FO2 Typhon (son of Set), mentions (about the "Old Ghouls Home"), "It's kind of a joke. There ain't any ghouls but old ghouls. We're all sterile, see, but we're incredibly long-lived. We're the first and last generation of ghouls. This is a place for those of us who just wanna rest for a while."
*(first and last ; That's what it says.)

In Gecko (paradoxically) the ghoul Gordon, puts (as a reason Vault City should work with them for mutual benefit), "Without more power Vault City will burn out their reactor within 15 years. If Gecko's reactor isn't repaired, we won't last half that time. Without medical technology, all of us Ghouls are going to die off in the next 20 years, anyway. Everyone loses if Vault City and Gecko don't cooperate".

Perhaps he thought the PC would be more sympathetic to vulnerable people in need of a doctor (and just said it). :shrug:

I feel a slight need to explain myself... I met the fallout universe with the release of Fo3. I've already stated before that I prefer it over NV. (but once again, this isn't the issue we are discussing) Regardless of whether or not you like Fallout 3, it is still canon. No amount of your hatred can demote that game to the levels of Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel. As such, I am more than capable of evaluating lore with examples from a game that is considered canon (Fallout 3). Furthermore, I would like to express that I have played through Fallout 1/2 and Tactics numerous times and am well acquainted with the lore.

now getting back to the topic at hand, As I stated earlier, and is being made evident by the debate, you can think of all the possible strengths and weaknesses you want for ghouls, whether it be slow speed, lack of Power Armor training, radiation healing, etc, the game will still naturally favor one particular race. Despite the best intentions of the devs, this is not TES. You cannot balance Fallout races like you can TES races. In lore, ghouls are naturally weaker. Sure they heal from rads, but even with this seemingly nice balance, not only will there be some natural favor in one particular race, the geography of the game will determine which race is used. If an area was not hit heavily by the bombs... say New Vegas... then there isn't much radiation present. Which makes the concept of being a ghoul ridiculous. If Bethesda were to make the mistake to include races in a TES style in Fallout, balance would need to be much more preferable to the players, thus pre-established lore would be destroyed. Simply making the option to be a ghoul for role play's sake is too much of a sacrifice against the lore of the game because being realistic about the negative effects of ghoulification would ensure (despite any positive bonuses that can be wildly created out of nowhere) game preference towards human characters.

I would not want to see a McGhoul Player race; Nor a Mc-Mutate-in-to-a-ghoul-(and/or back from Ghoul-dom) quest/event.

One thing I think they should NOT do with Fallout 4, is to make Ghoulification the Fallout counterpart to TES's vampirism.
*(Or Supermutant ==Werewolf ) :bolt:

If the option exists, it should be a life altering event that does not go away, and has major effects and consequences to the NPC reactions to the player. It would almost need to be 'Game mode 1' and 'Game mode 2'. I don't see that happening in any believable fashion, because it would essentially double the work on the NPCs and put the player in a situation where they might stop playing if they don't like being a supermutant; (or Ghoul... but personally I'm actually against Ghoulification entirely as I consider it an event local to Vault 12 ~despite new canon that forces it to be otherwise).

Yes, yes they are. Because I can perceive them, and can always choose to avoid them, if I don't wanna waste my time.
This is not like "You've been ambushed by a band of geckos", when travelling with my Highwayman.
Sorry, bad these shoddy random encounters you have no influence on, are so late 80's in terms of gameplay.
Always gives me that vibe I had when playing Bards Tale or the early Might & Magic games.

No influence? You can avoid them completely by investing in Outdoorsman, I believe Perception had an effect on the starting positions of enemies and there was even a perk you could take to increase the chances of positive random encounters.

In Fallout 2 I was so tired of getting them literally back to back, that I ended up putting points into outdoorsmen until it was about 110. And now I don't think it ever gives me the option to skip them...

Still, it doesn't change anything about the concept itself. I was fine with it at the time. But the world didn't stop turning.
And I prefer being able to spot enemies by myself by using my binoculars.
And for that, you need to move away from a table-top format like it was used back in the days then.
Some people understand primarily all kinds of dice rolls and statistics, when they think of RPGs.
But even in pen'n paper RPGs, that is something that always should have been a side aspect.
Thanks to the majority of unimaginitaive game masters however, they mostly weren't much more than stat orgies only circling around the character sheet.
As stated many times befroe, I really like strategy games. I've played through Jagged Alliance 2 at least 10 times with all kind of mods. Same for X-Com and others.
Still, I'm glad that RPGs, Fallout included have moved away from using these kind of game mechanic.

That is more than obvious.





Lorewise it didn't add anything new, that wasn't already introduced before




Safe for..i'm not doing this at all. Fallout 3 is very fun, and spent a good 200 hrs in it, and played all the DLC. It has lots of stuff to keep you entertained for a good while. I just wouldn't take it as a prime example for good stroy-telling and writing.
Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel btw, was a pretty nice Diablo-like Action-RPG at the time. I've never been in the hate-camp for that, too.




And completely ignoring those games (FO1/2) who delivered all of the lore concepts for FO3? Suuuure.




No, you didn't and you aren't.
If that was case, you would know for example, that the faction system you don't like, was an integral part from the beginning. FNV just re-introduced it. No wonder, as Obsidian still has a considerable number of the original Fallout crew in their ranks.
Also Fallout wasn't at all about some a simple black'n white morale story about daaaaaaark villains and white knights in shining armor.
It was always about lots of grey shades, about choosing the lesser evil (or the greater one, if you felt like it). It gave you the chance to influence your environment in any way you wanted to.
What you feel emotionally attached too, is just dirt cheap to me. You know what made me feel attached?
Dealing with the stories of Boone, Raul or Veronica. Talking to Pretty Sarah. Getting to know what made Hanlon acting the way he acted.
THAT is good and believable writing to me, all these minor and major human tragedies you're being confronted with. THAT makes me feeling attached.
Fallout 3 gave you a big robot, McGready and skeletons with toasters in a tub instead.
What really reeks out of your lines is, that you find FNV morally too complicated, and that there's no supa dupa hero ending of one person single-handedly deciding the fate of the world for you.
You know, you can have your opinion, not a problem at all.
But packing that into a headline called "What NOT do to with Fallout" and trying to underline your opinion and wishes with canon and lore is a bit brazen.

Being able to spot and avoid enemies yourself is the same as being able to shoot a gun and actually hit something with a gun skill of 10. The whole point of the Outdoorsman skill was to determine how good your character was at surveying their surroundings, if they're not good at that then they're going to get ambushed. I don't like my skill as a player to override my character's, that takes much of the role playing out of the RPG in my opinion.

We just have different preferences.
You're very statistics orientated(It's that Charsheet-Fetish, I've mentioned), I gladly sacrifice some of that for the factor of immersion.

Then it doesn't seem like you want to play an RPG. If you want to personally spot enemies on the world map instead of the character you've created then you've just taken another step down the road of making the character meaningless. Without the character it ceases being an RPG. Why should a character with 1 perception and pitiful outdoorsman skill always be able to spot a Radscorpion waiting to ambush him simply because you can?



Well it should be a side aspect in that looking at statistics and rolling dice should not be the sole aspect of playing an RPG. But it is primary in that it is the core of RPGs. You can't have an RPG without stats and dice rolls (or any system to determine success or failure incorporating those stats). Stats are how you define your character and dice rolls determine whether your character succeeds or fails at the tasks the player sets him. RPGs aren't a distinct genre without them.



It's not a game mechanic so much as the core of the entire concept of an RPG. It's the skills of the character that should largely determine outcomes not your skills as a player. When the player does more and more of the work you've just moved further and further away from what an RPG is which is why games like Fallout 3 label themselves "action"-RPGs instead of just RPGs. If you prefer that then what exactly about RPGs is it you like actually? Wouldn't an open world shooter do everything you seem to want just as well?

the game should have absolutely nothing to do with competative multiplayer e.g. Team death match :fallout:

Well wouldn't characters be considered lore... and weapons... and places... and armor. You're just thinking of the plot and factions.

That's a bug. The game freaks out on a super fast CPU (FO2 was designed for a Pentium 90MHz ~MHZ!).


How many is that? I know of just one from the original Fallout crew (not counting Tim Cain, who was not there for FO:NV's design).
Feargus Urquhart did map work on the HUB. I do not know the full roster of Obsidian's employees, but of those I commonly see mentioned ~none worked on Fallout as far as I know.

I don't have a super fast computer, not sure how good it is, but I can't play minecraft, but can play Sims 3, if that helps. Also it gives me the option very rarely, it may go 3 times in a row, then maybe 8 months ingame until it does it again.

Any computer built in the last 8 years is super fast in this case.

Guess it just makes that criteria then, anyways it is so annoying I play the game rarely as it takes forever to get from place to place.

You have to remember, it is a game. Rational is quite important, but hampering the game play and ultimately the fun to some isn't worth it in my opinion. Removing food and medkits for example would be more realistic, but then the player would be left starved and hurt.