I was going to suggest holding the button to see the option. Either way might risk accidentally selecting it though.

Also a separate volume slider for your chatacter would seem a simple, subtle way of disabling your voice. It's not quite like a "select this to play the old way" button. So I see no reason why they couldn't do that.

You know, I think I'll trust Bethesda and see what they manage. Worst case scenario, eveyone hates it and they never do it again, and somebody ends up modding it out of the game.

Best case scenario, it ends up being really good and enjoyable.

Working without issues isn't my concern though. That the game is designed to allow the PC to walk off mid conversation with no commitment is.

What this means is that dialog will work like Bioware's version of Neverwinter Nights.

Conversation will be just like the Terminal Hacking minigame; where you can walk away from it rather than make a choice with a consequence that you don't want.

If you have played Skyrim you would know that you can't leave when the conversation is at a critical (consequence) point. Simply crazy what assumptions are made.

That's a good thing then... But are you assuming it's the same way with FO4? Think about that, they could have learned a lesson from Skyrim.

Sorry but stop with looking constantly for a excuse to find the worst you can ever imagine for FO4.

What if walking away is a choice?

I picked leave it as it is, because that's the dev's choice for their creation. (they'll then have to deal with any consequences )

(similarly, even though I thought the ME3 ending was terrible, I also thought it was a bad, bad idea for Bioware to knuckle under to rioting fans & try to "fix" things.)

Additionally, there's a limit on "options". People keep saying "Oh, I don't like Feature X, they could have made it an option....." All those options take dev time, add more complexity (and possible bugs), and take away devs & budget from other things.

Finally, some features & decisions grow out of other decisions. If the dialogue really is this "hover the crosshair over a person, dialogue choices appear, you can speak with them on the fly" thing, then it may be unworkable to list out 1. the entire text, and 2. a huge amount of choices. (to do the real-time convo thing, you need to be able to perceive & choose a response quickly). Because of the decision to do this wacky conversation system, other changes occur. Of course, we haven't played the game yet, so we're making some assumptions here.

(That said, I'm wary of the whole basic concept. I'd much rather be stuck in a time-paused, staring-at-the-NPC, conversation window, thing. Like previous games. AAAAA! Change! )

Who is looking for excuses eight years after? I'm saying that it's very possible that they decided that it's not needed, and perhaps benefits them if it doesn't happen ~that's a lesson, if so.

I voted they should leave it like it is. I want to experience it the way they intended it to be, although I am not a fan of the dialogue wheel. If they decide to implement some method that lets us view the entire dialogue that would make me very happy, but in no way would I tell they should.

I'll probably use a mod to achieve the last option ... I don't need my character making random non-dialogue comments every time he hacks a terminal or something. But, unlike a complete dialogue overhaul, the non-dialogue pvssyr will be easy enough to address by modders. As to what Bethesda should do, they should stick to their own vision.

I would like the option to view all conversations in first person, be silent and just read the choices and responses I give (exactly like FO3). I know it's not going to happen.

For me it's more of a replay issue, as in prior FO games I've played 10+ characters. If I try that in FO4 and they all (the saint, the sinner, the crazy, the scientist, the brute, etc.) all sound exactly the same it's going to hurt my game play a lot, to the point that replaying the game may not even be an option. Course Bethesda isn't going to care since I pay $60 to them whether I play once or 50 times.

I may start playing XCOM 2 a lot sooner than I thought (which comes out about a week after FO4).

A large selection of dialogue options has always been a huge thing in Fallout. A voiced character just limits the amount of dialogue options. I like the more traditional dialogue.

You forgot the "Dialog poll is irrelevant as Bethesda is NOT going to change the game at this point.", option.

Things change. Deal with it.

Some of you need to realize that what your are asking for is EXACTLY what makes the game inaccessible to a larger audience. I get you may not CARE or are upset that Bethesda would stoop to wanting to sell more copies of the game, but that is really, "A THING", in the real world.

Yes, that seems to be the stock answer to when ever anything looks to be taking the wrong turn. That, and the "You haven't even tried it!" -line (even if it was plainly clear how it goes from presentation and explanation).

You know those Star Trek episodes where they have their evil counterparts? Maybe think of it like that. It's kind of the same character, but in a parallel universe where everything else is the same.

to be fair, no one has really tried it. The three options are to be negative about everything, be optimistic about everything, or just don't give a rats ass. Since we're all on a video game forum about the game i have to assume that everyone is excited to play it...or they don't want to play it and just like complaining.

Pretty much no matter what fallout 4 is going to be fun to play, its going to have issues and no one is going to say (without lying) that there isn't something about it that they would like to have had changed. However the game is "finished" for better or worse, if they haven't already added in a silent protagonist then they probably will not. I haven't even heard anypart of the game's dialogue beyond what was shown at e3, the voice acting seemed decent. The idea of having a button show will be said exactly would be nice, but i have to imagine that since most games with a voiced protagonist don't show it there is a reason for it (Maybe it slows the flow of dialogue down or something).

What i'd like to see instead is to see what kind of emotion is behind what is being said. The only time in the witcher 3 that i did something i didn't mean to was start a bar fight by selecting "not your business" Which came out as "If I wanted you to know, don't you think i would have [censored] told you?" So a simple angry face would have let me know how aggressive that option was

it really doesn't as every other fallout game had on average about 4 or 5 lines of texts to choose from.


I say leave it as it is aslong as the thumbnail gives a good enough hint towards whats going to be said then its fine.

Hmm there are games that have voiced PCs and the have heard the voice so ....no people have tried it.

Or they like the games series but just don't like specific new "features" that the new game has.It's not like everyone has to praise anything Bethesda does like mindless [censored].

I feel like there are quite a few people judging it before they've played it. I think I'll like it but I could be wrong.

That being said, even if the voiced protagonist doesn't blow your mind it can still be a great game worthy of playing.

This!

For me personally I'd be content with the traditional dialogue system and the voiced protagonist.

It's one seemingly of no consequence, at least not a substantive one.

I've been arguing this point for years, Bethesda is patently driven by cupidity above creativity.

This is an important point to consider for any fan, old or new, fanatical or moderate anything you like about Fallout or The Elder Scrolls may erode away under the stream of cash flowing in the direction of the majority.

Well... except War, cuz, War never changes.

Saying a corporation is driven by money is like saying it gets wet when it rains. Dollar voting is a major thing, and sales are indicative of the current fans being happy with the game's direction.

They could have caved to include a multiplayer gimmick in Skyrim back during the "ship with multiplayer" craze, and they could have just as easily pushed the hell out of microtransactions. We're forgetful that BGS practically pioneered the concept of microtransactions + DLC. I haven't seen microtransactions in Fallout 3 or Skyrim since the fuss over three dollar horse armor .

They tried to do paid modding as a chance for artists/content creators to get a little back - it failed under the overwhelming entitlement of the community. They'll try it again, but hopefully they'll actually designate people to watchdog and properly curate (QA) the content that does try to get greenlit as a paid mod.