Since playing Fallout 1 and 2, I noticed how much Fallout 3 svcks compared to the two. If Bethesda keeps throwing out their Elder Scrolls look-alike game I wouldn't consider purchasing Fallout 3. I like TESIV, but when you play the same game with just a new paintjob it gets boring. Bethesda really needs to get better with their half-assed endings, character developments, and stop sticking with the same guild crap like if they start making The Brotherhood guild, The master's guild, the Enclave, and raiders all into a TESIV guild type crap I wouldn't even consider buying it.

If there are no DLC's for ps3 on fallout 4 then I would definitely not get it.

I'm fairly certain I won't buy it... probably because of reason already mentioned above.
I might give NV a try though... I'm still kind of hopping for a surprise. (although admittedly, I don't have much faith in Obsidian)
If Bethesda keeps following the same path, I almost doubt whether FO4 will even maintain enough elements that would make the 'FPS with light RPG elements' tag appropriate at all...

I wouldn't get it if they regressed to a Daggerfall-level of bugs and glitches.

If it's anything like Fallout 3

If Beth doesn't make sure that the most important gameplay-elements of Fallout 1 and 2 are the same as those in Fallout 4, then I'm not buying. I might rent it though, but I'm not optimistic.

What would make you NOT buy Fallout 4?

The first edition

I think I'll wait and see if there is a GOTY

I wouldn't buy it for two reasons:
1) I could get it for free
2) It cost over a hundred dollars (US)

Otherwise I'm a Fallout lifer.

Well the game only lasted 30 hours for me... :shrug: And I never found it worthwhile to replay it, because I know most things will be done exactly the same way. Maybe a choice between killing Y with a pistol or a rifle.

Fallout 4 would have to be really awful for me not to buy it out of simple obligation. Although I have to admit after Fallout 3 I'm more likely to wait until the price drops significantly.

That's a problem with Bethesda games. They make everything way to linear Morrowind and Oblivion were even worse with this. Fallout 3 while an improvement over them in this regard is still pretty bad unfortuneately.



:thumbsup:

I agree here completely I never liked guilds in TES games because I found them for the most part to be extremely lacking and what they did in BS with us being forced into the brotherhood made me want to vomit. To me you should never actually join a group you should just work for them if you choose to.

+1

Beth games, being sandbox EXPLORE games, have a lot more content then whatever CRUTCH storyline they may have. The main quest in FO3 is for people who ccan't/don't do sandbox games. If you guys spendt 30 hours on it, you missed 80% of the available content.

As I said before, just about the only way I won't buy FO4 is if it IS NOT a Beth style sandbox/explore game.

What if you do both and still find it a bit lacking? It's not about Fallout 3 being a sandbox it's about the quests being linear. Yes you might be able to do something slightly different in the next play through but the quests still end the same exact way. The only time that doesn't happen is if you fail a quest and the Power of Megaton. Is it really so much to ask that Fallout 4 not be as linear? Also to one thing about sandbox games and I'm fan of them by the way however they reuse way too many things in them. Granted you can't make every single thing in them unique but it still doesn't help when going through dungeons they all start to look the same after a while and the things you find in dungeons end up being the same to. Now I understand you're always going to have this to some extent and Fallout 3 is an improvement over Beth's previous game but still it's something they definitely need to keep working on.

That's a pretty weak angle if you ask me. The crutch storlines in Bsoft games are in my opinion a product of A: A lead writer who hates both writing, and writers (said as much in an interview) B: Management that can't be bothered to care about quality. (confirmed this in a presentation that touched on the company philosophy towards software bugs) C: A loyal fanbase who won't call them on it. Almost everybody who cared about plot quality and liked bethesda left years ago, leaving far too many larpers who'd be pleased as pie if these games dropped their plots altogether. I'm willing to acccept that for TES games (as I'm not a fan), but not for Fallout.

Furthermore, the previous Fallouts were also sandboxes, but for some reason they still had deep and cohesive storylines. They may not have been 3d, but there are things you could do in them that you couldn't do in fallout 3. One could even look at the plotline as a sandbox, considering how deep the C&C went.

If Bethesda's been following the trend it has been since the release of Morrowind; as in, simplifing the game.

Oblivion's OK, it's a step down the ladder of complexity (As a Morrowind Vet, that Compass really scored the points despite the feeling of "holding my hand.") But Fallout 3 is a few more steps down. Smaller world, less dynamic (the only named NPCs that regularly wander the world is the Caravaners.) Only a handful of NPCs have a personality, or even a name; the rest have been cut from the same mold and painted different colors. At least each NPC in Morrowind, even if it was a "throwaway" character, had a name (right up until Bloodmoon.) And In Oblivion, only the guards and random bandits were left nameless. In FO3, 90% of NPCs who have a name are quest-related. And that's like 30% of the total NPCs in the game.

For me, Fallout 3 was a proof-of-concept game, Bethesda showing that it can, indeed, sucessfully produce a Fallout game. If the FO series gets even more simplified, however, there's not gonna be much left to dig into...

Oh, and if Bethesda releaces DLCs that have a multitude of glaring bugs... and refuse to fix them (like MZ. Did they even Beta test it?)

Erm, may I remind you that we could join the Rangers, Slavers, 4 different families in Reno, become a Vault Citizen and probably a couple of other things in FO2.
So being able to join factions should be possible.

----

That's one of the things I hate in FO3.
You can join Regulators...
That's it...
You are forced to join BOS, and that's not the same, and you can do work for Slavers, but you don't actually join them, and you can become a "top salesman" at Outcasts and get the priviledge to gain entrance.
But that's about it.
I wanted to really join a group of people and roleplay a little.
But I don't want the way Oblivion handled it: "Hey wanna be in our guild? Great! You're now a member! Without having to do anything for us, or proving your loyalty! Becuse WE trust youuuu..."
I want to actually work my way forward in a faction I don't want no easy shortcut.
Oh, and if they include "Guilds" I'm going put out 5 cigarettes on my hand.

If it's console-exclusive (No way I'm going to pay 500$ for a console with only one I game I want. )

Or if it doesn't come with the GECK. I waited until Fallout 3 had the GECK before buying it.

You never been to http://notalwaysright.com have you?

I have yet to play FO 3, a fan of the first two, but yeah, I wanna get FO 3 when I get a new rig. However, one thing that will probably keep me from buying FO 4, least for a long time is if they blow a huge amount on a big name actor/actress and they barely get any lines of dialogue and everyone gets stuck with bland voice actors/actresses. Wait, I'm not setting the bar too high, am I?

I actually kind of hope that it will be console exclusive.
In fact hopefully all action heavy pseudoRPGs will be strictly console exclusive in the future!
That way the gamers will be filtered - everyone for cares for these games will buy a console and there will be a resurfacing of companies that produce high quality challenging pure RPGs for the few who will remain faithful to the platform, like it was a few years back.

If there's a pc vs. consoles war going on I passionately take the side of the consoles and I wish that pcs will suffer a devastating defeat, only because I really really prefer pc games by far


(+ if it's console exclusive I will also be spared the temptation of buying it... which is a good thing)

Hehe. It feels good riding shadowfax with you. B)

You know, I don't wanna say this, but I will. When something is console exclusive, it's rare that it'll actually stay that way for very long, ending up in a console-made UI and such to be ported over to a PC/Mac/Linux and dealing with an unforgiving interface.

Not to mention the PC versions can always be superior if mods are allowed.

I don't think that Sandbox games by popular definition even exist; in every game you're restricted by the gameplay mechanics, and by the developer's writing. As previous posters pointed out your choices in the main quest and side quests are actually quite limiting; there are no infinite possibilities in Fallout 3 the only difference is that you have the option of exploring in greater detail than the average RPG, and that doesn't make Fallout 3 a "sandbox" game. Quests in Fallout 3 are actually more linear than quests in Fallout 1/2; in those games you usually had many ways of dealing with a situation while in Fallout 3 you usually only have two (a good, and an evil path), and sometimes you only have one. Being able to "LARP" in Fallout 3 doesn't make it a sandbox game either as you can do that in any video game if you really want to, and it has no impact on the game at all.

You operate on some sort of opinion that storylines hamper RPGs; you have a right to your opinion and I respect that since you present your argument better than some folks, but I'm afraid I don't agree with your stance at all. Storylines generally add to the experience, not detract from it... they're fluff, window dressing; they make the game nicer, they're not a "crutch" as you put it. If you take away the story from the game then what you have left is a soulless shell; you may believe that LARPing is great, but no matter how much you talk to yourself it doesn't have any impact on the game what-so-ever because you are bound by what the developers present you. I didn't like Fallout 3's story since I think it was poorly executed, and the religious undertones didn't really click into the setting, but I'll be one of the first to say that the final product would have been a heck of a lot worse without the story.

I fully support using your imagination, but personally I think it's better to put it to use in creative writing or visual art. I don't see the appeal of LARPing, but that's probably because I prefer to write to create my own stories. When I read books, watch movies, or play video games I prefer to see someone else's story, not substitute my own.



Didn't you play Fallout 1/2? Are you saying that if Fallout 4 were in the same style as Fallout 1/2 you wouldn't play them?

if its as glitchy and linear as 3, then i wont get it. Sure you get a bunch of quests and you dont have to do anything with the main quest, but the main quest itself is so linear it made me cry. Dad leave, chase dad, find dad, forgive dad, avenge dad etc. etc.

kinda wish i had a console mod to where i could fix that.

Change it to-
Find dad, kill dad, eat his corpse over an open fire.

As a matter of fact, when ^_^