same here i just want that to be the actual thing you have to do.

Braiiiiiiiiins

If it treats the PS3 users the same way they did w/ FO3!

Realistically-speaking, I'm not sure I can think of anything that they'd actually do to the next game that would make me not want to buy it. I've got my share of fears - I don't honestly have much faith in them putting together a ruleset that I'm going to be 100% happy with with, I have a feeling that the "sandbox" qualities are still going to give me the existential feeling that none of the freedom I have in the game really has much of an impact, etc. But for all of that, I'll probably still buy the game. Even my top games of all time have their own downsides - a Fallout 4 isn't any more likely to hit all of my own personal bullet points. I tend to be a pretty critical consumer to begin with.

Mass Effect had a horrible inventory system, but I still loved it. Assassin's Creed I thought was a bit repetitive, and I hated the "boss battle" at the end, but I still thought it was a very commendable attempt. Fable 2 had any number of things that bugged me about it, but I still had a lot of fun with it. Fallout 3 had almost nothing that I was looking for in a Fallout title, but I'm still glad I bought it.

Frankly, as one of the cranky hold-outs from the older Fallout games, I actually hope they don't consider my wants at all when it comes to them making the next installment. I'd rather they went all out and made the game they really wanted to do, than dilute their vision by trying to implement features that aren't necesserily tooled for the sort of game they're making. Frak, I honestly think the best-case scenario for Fallout 4 would completely do away with a skill system at all, throw out any sort of core storyline, and just let the player run around the Wasteland, playing in a sandbox. Anything else, in my mind, just detracted from what the game was trying to accomplish in the first place.

ie, if the ruleset isn't something that's going to be built with any real degree of passion, then you're probably doing just as well to make the game without one at all. (It'd really play pretty much the same, anyway, when you get right down to it. Fallout 3 would have played pretty much the same if it had used Deus Ex's system, or if you'd just picked a couple of specialties at the beginning of the game.) If having a main storyline woven through the game isn't going to drastically make the game any better - if running through the main storyline is basically "missing the point," then why even bother having one at all? It's not like there's some golden rule that you have to do that, after all.

As Daggerfall Vet I feel that Morrowind has overly simplified things, by severly reducing the topics you can talk about with NPCs, removing several skills such as climbing and monster languages and making the dungeons so easy, even a toddler could find their way through them blindfolded. Also reducing the worldsize by a factor of a couple thousand and guilds only have a ridiculously small amount of quest.

Now please go back, play Daggerfall and I wonder if you'll tell me it's a much better game than Morrowind since it is way more "complex".
I call it less "simplifying" and more "streamlining" the gameplay and distilling the elements that are actually fun and removing things that no one really care about.

Also, I find people who refer to themselves as Morrowind or Fallout "Vets" annoying, as I've played Arena, Daggerfall and Wasteland and people who think they're oldschool just because they played MW and FO back in the day are still just a bunch of nooblets to me.

Anyhows, back on topic, I wouldn't buy FO4 if it became a MMO

Well, I at least cared about a lot of things that were removed in Morrowind.
(maybe except the language skills... they didn't do much really. But even so, it might have been more interesting to make them useful rather that removing them altogether)
As for the other skills, I don't see how they could make Morrowind worse. Climbing would fit in perfectly for instance.
+ The character creation of Daggerfall was the most detailed I've ever seen... and it's always better to have too many choices than too few in these kinds of games.

Morrowind still is my favorite of the lot, nevertheless, it's a shame that so many interesting features that showed great promise in Daggerfall, were ultimately rejected entirely...
And what does that "no one really care about" means? Some people obviously do... If you go with that logic (and it seems it's exactly what Bethesda does) you'll keep removing things that 'no one really cares about' until you're left with the epitome of mainstream... and you do the same thing that everybody else does. If that's a good thing for you, fair enough (and it's good because you'll always be able to find something that you like)... but I'd rather join la r?sistance myself and search for the unique and pure.



Oh no!! why did you have to say that? Why?
Yep... that's exactly what I'd rather stopped happening.
(console-made UIs on PCs are already annoying even for non-console exclusive games... like that horrible, interface of... FO3 & Oblivion for instance!)



Heh... I like the way you think. That last part at least is very true.
Of course no skill system + not storyline whatsoever possibly = no RPG... but then again, if the game's good who cares?
(though for the sake of the old Fallouts I'd rather that wasn't the case with the new one)
Yet a storyline exists at least so that the player can have a long term goal that encourages him to keep playing.
Pretty much the same applies to stats - ie: perfecting my character is another reason for me to keep playing.
Yet if a working alternative exists I'm all for it!

But the biggest problem I see with such an 'unusual' approach is that I really doubt that Bethesda has any intention whatsoever to present their undiluted vision...
It seems far more obvious that their 'vision' is to make something that would appeal to the largest possible amount of gamers.
And you know of course what the largest possible amount of gamers have in common?
answer: very little.
And thus, this 'very little' is what constitutes the big completely commercial company's vision.
So join la r?sistance with me brother (sister? whatever...) let go dig underground...
If there's one thing that RPGs have taught me through the years is this: the greatest, most valuable artifacts are usually buried in the deepest and darkest dungeons.

Yeah, they should do what BioWare did with Dragon Age, which has entirely separate interfaces for PC and console versions. On the PC, it plays pretty much like Baldur's Gate.

Two things would keep me from buying: 1) It won't run on my aging computer. 2) I'm pretty much broke (like I am now). Other than that, unless it becomes something totally un-Fallout-like or it goes so far into the future that the war is of little significance, I'll probably get it.

if fallout became an MMO i wouldnt buy it.

What would make me not buy Fallout 4? If Herve Caen had anything to do with it.

If its similar to fallout 3, in terms of gameplay, writing and general design of the stat system and the skill system.
So i doubt ill be buying number 4.

If they keep disrespecting the established fallout canon (IE ret-conning everything) and fellating evangelicals then I definitely won't buy it.

Oh, and if they wee to remove mods. If it weren't for the mods I wouldn't even have played Fallout 3.

Didn't play the original games did ya? They already did most of that stuff.

They did it for Mass Effect as well. Good on them for it.

That would be something to see, but about as likely as the game being bug free.

I've never seen a bug free game yet, but if one is ever made I will be buying it.

I think he means more visible/obvious bugs that hamper gameplay and overall enjoyment.

i will find pirate version if i am not able to buy it :< and i will be bad bad bad... ;(

pencses, pencses everywhere would make me not want to buy it.

Aliens. I don't want a Halo game, I want a Fallout game.

If aliens had a big role in the fourth, it'd be one to skip.

I still enjoy all the games equally. I frequent NMA and I think they're a cool bunch of guys, they just grew up with the older games. I felt the same when Insomniac sold the Spyro franchise to Universal. They murdered those games, the charm was gone.

Not saying Beth did that to Fallout, but I can see how some may not consider it a direct sequel after I've played the first 2.

While I don't think it makes Fallout 3 a bad game, Bethesda's definitely changed Fallout in the way the guys at NMA say it has, i.e. reducing the impact of skills and attributes, reducing the flexibility of quests, etc. Those are quantifiable. In terms of the Fallout feel, well it's hard to argue that Fallout 3 captures that. A bunch of little things like the plethora of ammo and stimpaks, the tightly packed nature of the Capitol Wasteland, etc. all take away from the atmosphere that Fallout had. Fallout 3 does something completely different right, and that's giving you cool places to fight and explore. It's Oblivion++ with guns and the Fallout IP.
Though in terms of story, I've always disagreed with NMA. Fallout's story wasn't much better than Fallout 3's. But Fallout 3's dialogue is also awful. Hire some writers Bethesda! Pay writers instead of monkeys!

I'll probably buy Fallout 4, but between college and regretting having paid the full $50 for Fallout 3, I'll probably wait until it comes down in price, or they release it with all the DLC. Unless the general consensus is that it svcks, of course. I do hope Bethesda tries to take some of NMA's criticisms to heart though. They probably won't, but whatever. The age of good RPGs is gone.

:thumbsup:

And sorry, that "good age of RPGs" only exists in your head. There are just as many people who will tell you the golden age of RPGs died with Wizardry, Might&Magic and Ultima. (And yeah compared to some of the Ultima series entries, Fallouts entire plot and dialogues are kindergarden grade)

Well in either case it's dead, no ? You should try to qualify a bit more than with three random thread examples why those NMA people are not credible though. Heh, don't think it's really good RPGs alone so much as good games, price of industry I suppose.

Nope, my point is that neither the age of good games, nor RPGs are gone. But you can either put those "old" favourite games of yours onto an eternally high pedestral which no new game has a hope of reaching, or you can actually throw your prejudices aside and see that just because new games are different than your old favourite classics, doesn't mean they are necessarily bad.
Sure I love Ultima Underworld and the Ultima series, The Bards Tale, Wasteland, Baldurs Gate1&2, Fallout1&2, PS:T and Daggerfall. Doesn't mean I can't enjoy new games just as much though. Just because I had old favourite games doesn't mean I can't have new favourite games as well.
And for me personally games like Morrowind, Oblivion, Mass Effect, Kotor and Fallout3 are just as good, if not in many ways even better than my old favourites.

I deleted some posts.

Let me remind some of you that we don't allow cross-forum trolling here, so if you have an issue with some other forum, take it up elsewhere.

Hm, no I can safely that say that with a few exceptions games these days aren't getting any better. Complexity is seen as evil, for example, see that in games whose appeal was their 'complex' nature that get dumbed down. It's not that I fit what you're saying and putting them on a pedestal that nothing can reach and being prejudiced about it. Just my conclusion after playing.