8 Things that Would Make Fallout 4 Awesome

ffronw

I am a meat popsicle
Oct 24, 2013
2,804
0
0
8 Things that Would Make Fallout 4 Awesome

Now that we've all seen more from Fallout 4, let's talk about these eight things that we hope Bethesda includes in the new title.


Read Full Article
 

Fcbook Del Orto

New member
Feb 11, 2013
9
0
0
I disagree.

1- Yeah, that's what fallout is about, a post nuclear GTA with streamline cars.
2- Wich means flashier guns and bigger nuke bomb launchers.
3- I'm sure it will be full of epicnesses and immersions.
4- ahahahhahahahah!
5- I'm sure they'll improve the gun fight.
6- The reputation system in New Vegas showed that the FO3 karma is useless
7- You mean gorier deaths, right? Violence is fun! Yeah!!!
8- You know that you're playing a very difficult game when your dog companion can't die.
 

Rastrelly

%PCName
Mar 19, 2011
602
0
0
8 things that would REALLY make Fallout 4 awesome
1) Less mainquest, more sidequests. Fallout was always not about your goal, but about things that you do outside of it
2) SPECIAL should be actually important, not just be. Even on hardest difficulty in F3 and FNV only Intelligence really matters, because skillpoints. SPECIAL should be important once again.
3) Proper turn-based mode, not that dumb VATS please
4) Skill-based persuasion, not F3-esque chance-based
5) Obsidian-like story (not just characters)
6) Proper factions system
7) Nonlinearity, please. Not ability to go wherever you want, ACTUAL nonlinearity. See Fallout 2 for reference.
8) Internal logic. Fallout 1 and 2 could be wacky, but their wackyness was always in-universe (except easter eggs, obviously). Fallout 3 and partially New Vegas (to a MUCH less extent) allowed themselves stupidities like Little Lamplight or that odd final DLC with Ulysses.
 

ZZoMBiE13

Ate My Neighbors
Oct 10, 2007
1,908
0
0
Not feeling the vehicles if I'm honest. But you hit the nail on the head with the Karma system entry. It felt very much like it was only in service of the Achievement Points to get All the way BAD or All the way GOOD and not much else.

Problem is though, I'm not sure how one would go about improving it. I don't want my game poisoned by labeling me "BAD DUDE" so no one will talk with me or something just because I've cleaned out some of those footlockers you mentioned. I dunno how it could be any better without breaking part of the game. Or maybe that ability to break the game could be seen as a feature since so many folks seem to want the game to punish them with harder difficulty?

As for bugs, yeah it would be nice if we could get less bugs. But with the way the industry has been going these last couple of years, I'll throw them a parade if they can manage to ship the game on-time without selling me a completely broken product (Master Chief Collection, I'm looking at you)
 

Veldel

Mitth'raw'nuruodo
Legacy
Aug 14, 2020
2,263
0
1
Lost in my mind
Country
US
Gender
Guy
I feel like this was inspired by my topic I posted but not given credit.

OT:

Slaver settlements please let me make a settlement that's the scum of scum let it have casinos and slavery and everything bad I want to make a evil overlord who gives no shits to anything but his own profit for vice and be a real scumbag

Thats what I want most of all
 

Tiamat666

Level 80 Legendary Postlord
Dec 4, 2007
1,012
0
0
For New Vegas, there is an "even more hardcore mode". It's called the JSawyer mod.
 

Mylinkay Asdara

Waiting watcher
Nov 28, 2010
934
0
0
1) Vehicles

Pass. The only really feasible option here (since all the roads are basically destroyed and none of the cars that are just around are actually built for offroading so much as they are for family cruise nights to the drive) is a hoppy-boppy buggy thing that could navigate the terrain and I see a) no reason for that to exist and be lying around b) no fuel sources to legitimately power it c) no way that ownership of such a thing - were we ignoring a and b - would not attract every raider, bandit, society trying to build itself, caravan owner etc. etc. etc. to wanting to kill you and take it from you for their own use. Also - I don't want a Mad Max vibe OR a Borderlands vibe in my Fallout fantasy.

2) Improved combat and gunplay

Yes. Provided we don't take it to the point of making into a true FPS with cover and all the nonsense that just gets in the way of the wandering the wastes mystique.

3) Epic Moments Epic

Sure - probably folds a bit into point 2, but again - set pieces can detract from the idea of it being "our" story of "our" wastelander / vault dweller, so a steady hand for a big finale - okay; a continuous line of events? less so.

4) Less Bugs

Obviously.

5) A Livelier World

You do realize it's a wasteland right? That these are the survivors of a catastrophic event that depopulated the world? Just checking. More "random" encounters out and about would be nice - but I don't really think seeing a lot more people about and more settlements and - dare I say? - communities will really lend itself to that whole "post apocalyptic" thing we're trying to have.

6) Improved Karma System

I think some more accuracy and fine tuning to the existing karma system could be beneficial. I will say though that just because you make one, albeit really large, mistake of epic proportions (say, nuking Megaton as per your example) that you shouldn't be able to work back from it on your own journey. In fact, I could argue that someone who comes out of the vault, nukes the town to get ahead and fancy perks, realizes what they've done, and then spends the game trying to make up for their mistake is having a rich and personally motivated gameplay experience that only open world games like Fallout have the potential to deliver on. Nothing should be wholly irreversible in making your character who they are - let the journey be the judge.

7) Mor Obsidian like characters

Eh, I don't have a problem with the characters, but obviously there's always room for improvement in writing them

8) Even More Hardcore Mode

ONLY if it's wholly optional. I played Hardcore mode for NV and I liked it - it could have been harder for my tastes too, to be honest - but not everyone's into that and I'm not even into that *every* time I play the game. Sometimes you just want to enjoy the atmosphere of the game and cruise, and that should continue to be available and welcomed by the devs and other players. I for certain don't want Fallout to be setting any "Dark Souls" hardcore or gtfo standards in our community - we've plenty too much of that already.
 

MHR

New member
Apr 3, 2010
939
0
0
Agreed on all.

I'd say some things should be more prioritized than others, seeing as it's not a perfect world, and for example, if the world were made big and accessible to motor vehicles, like Skyrim horses, they would be made irrelevant by fast travel, unless you made "no fast-travel" a part of the ultimate hardcore mode, in which case vehicles and caravans would be ideal ways to more safely get around. I don't ever use fast travel in NV or Skyrim (unless it's the hired carriages in Skyrim or to fix bugs) because I just don't like the idea of it. Trivializing the scale of the world for myself and avoiding random encounters doesn't appeal to me. Also, if I allowed myself to fast travel, there'd be nothing stopping me from making trip after trip back to town to clean every location bare of loot.

Also, soda does not make you more thirsty. If it did, I would be a dried up piece of jerky by now.

I also DESPISE V.A.T.S. If we could turn the AP bar into a sprint bar and made the real FPS gunplay better, that'd be brilliant, thanks. Maybe there could be one of those baseline trait perks. Call it "jock" and say calculating probabilities is for nerds, all you need is football skill and it's all good. No VATS, but increased sprint duration.
 

Rastrelly

%PCName
Mar 19, 2011
602
0
0
MHR said:
Also, soda does not make you more thirsty. If it did, I would be a dried up piece of jerky by now.
It actually does. It, as well as some other drinks, including tea, stimulate dehydration (make you sweat more), thus making you more thirsty in the long run.
 

TallanKhan

New member
Aug 13, 2009
790
0
0
Rastrelly said:
MHR said:
Also, soda does not make you more thirsty. If it did, I would be a dried up piece of jerky by now.
It actually does. It, as well as some other drinks, including tea, stimulate dehydration (make you sweat more), thus making you more thirsty in the long run.
Um, no. Common mistake. While yes, certain drinks do stimulate the loss of water from your body (in addition to sweat many also have diuretic properties, leading to the loss of water through increased urine production) this isn't a net loss. If you are thirsty and you drink a soda, it will still rehydrate you, it just means that when compared like to like with plain water, the point where you need to rehydrate again comes around slightly faster, and at no point would you be more thirsty than if you hadn't consumed anything at all.

OT: While I agree with most of the list I can't disagree more with the "super hardcore" mode idea. Personally I hate this "more realism" fetish we seem to have, it's a freaking videogame not a wilderness survival test simulator, it's meant to be fun. You want realism? Fine, this is how the game shout go: [1] You leave the vault. [2] You eat a can of 200 year old, heavily irradiated pork. [3] You die. Game complete.
 

ThreeName

New member
May 8, 2013
459
0
0
Rastrelly said:
8 things that would REALLY make Fallout 4 awesome
1) Less mainquest, more sidequests. Fallout was always not about your goal, but about things that you do outside of it
2) SPECIAL should be actually important, not just be. Even on hardest difficulty in F3 and FNV only Intelligence really matters, because skillpoints. SPECIAL should be important once again.
3) Proper turn-based mode, not that dumb VATS please
4) Skill-based persuasion, not F3-esque chance-based
5) Obsidian-like story (not just characters)
6) Proper factions system
7) Nonlinearity, please. Not ability to go wherever you want, ACTUAL nonlinearity. See Fallout 2 for reference.
8) Internal logic. Fallout 1 and 2 could be wacky, but their wackyness was always in-universe (except easter eggs, obviously). Fallout 3 and partially New Vegas (to a MUCH less extent) allowed themselves stupidities like Little Lamplight or that odd final DLC with Ulysses.
Literally all of this except #3 (Sorry, I like VATS). Holy shit I can not vouch for the idea of a free-roaming, non-main-plot driven, faction and character rich world enough.

7/8 would recommend again
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
TallanKhan said:
Rastrelly said:
MHR said:
Also, soda does not make you more thirsty. If it did, I would be a dried up piece of jerky by now.
It actually does. It, as well as some other drinks, including tea, stimulate dehydration (make you sweat more), thus making you more thirsty in the long run.
Um, no. Common mistake. While yes, certain drinks do stimulate the loss of water from your body (in addition to sweat many also have diuretic properties, leading to the loss of water through increased urine production) this isn't a net loss. If you are thirsty and you drink a soda, it will still rehydrate you, it just means that when compared like to like with plain water, the point where you need to rehydrate again comes around slightly faster, and at no point would you be more thirsty than if you hadn't consumed anything at all.
It's the Fallout Universe don't forget. Nuka Cola bought off the FDA, this allowed them to add a radioactive isotope to Quantum so it would glow.
 

jklinders

New member
Sep 21, 2010
945
0
0
We can always hope for fewer bugs, but this is Bethsoft. Their game engines break if you sneeze at them the wrong way.
 

karloss01

New member
Jul 5, 2009
991
0
0
Guessing I'm the only one who disliked New Vegas? I don't want anything obsidian influenced to be in fallout 4.
 

Nikolaz72

This place still alive?
Apr 23, 2009
2,125
0
0
Mylinkay Asdara said:
1) Vehicles


5) A Livelier World

You do realize it's a wasteland right? That these are the survivors of a catastrophic event that depopulated the world? Just checking. More "random" encounters out and about would be nice - but I don't really think seeing a lot more people about and more settlements and - dare I say? - communities will really lend itself to that whole "post apocalyptic" thing we're trying to have.
We're more than 200 years after the apocalypse now. With many places (Including New Vegas) having plentiful food, electricity and clean water.

This is not counting the fact that its population consists of several settlements merged into one (The tribes) aswell as a tenth of the NCR ARMY (Its pretty damn huge) spending their time there.

So no, walking down the streets and seeing like 5-6 people was really really breaking immersion.

Going in to massively profitable casinos who were supposed to be 'filled' saw... Nobody. Nobody at all. Two or three gamblers at most with the rest just being the casinos personnel, the casinos pop ratio were like 100 employees per guest, there is no way that could turn a profit, nuh-uh.

But we all know that the number of people were not representative of the actual populations, its more of the fact that the Xbox360 couldn't handle having some extra dudes around to make it seem livelier, it was already experiencing framerate drops going in there as it is, having an immersive number of NPCs there would probably have crashed the poor thing.

With the new GEN of consoles we might indeed see more NPCs around. And more plants.

We shouldn't forget its more than 200 years since the bombs fell, if nothing grew then everyone would be dead, if there are tons of people then that means there is rain and things grow. If there is rain and things grow then there should damn well be some green, more areas like NV Jamestown would be awesome.
 

Whoracle

New member
Jan 7, 2008
241
0
0
Nikolaz72 said:
We're more than 200 years after the apocalypse now. With many places (Including New Vegas) having plentiful food, electricity and clean water.
So basically not "Fallout" anymore but "Rebuild" or even "On The Upswing"? I fail to see how "Make a different game" would improve Fallout.

The "200 years later" part of F3 was stupid for exactly that reason.
 

Nikolaz72

This place still alive?
Apr 23, 2009
2,125
0
0
Whoracle said:
Nikolaz72 said:
We're more than 200 years after the apocalypse now. With many places (Including New Vegas) having plentiful food, electricity and clean water.
So basically not "Fallout" anymore but "Rebuild" or even "On The Upswing"? I fail to see how "Make a different game" would improve Fallout.

The "200 years later" part of F3 was stupid for exactly that reason.
See, the original fallout was placed around a generation after the bombs fell (And even they both had plentiful farms and rebuilding). It was Bethesda that wrote themselves into a corner, not me.

They can opt to revert the time to more recently after the bombs falling (Thus justifying how everything is still more shit) which 'might' be what they're going for here as the bomb-falling seems to be more relevant here rather than a backstory thing.

Falout 1. Fallout 2. Fallout New Vegas had rebuilding socities and green cropping up.

Fallout 3 was the exception, not the rule. Making a game like the other 3 (And the planned third) fallout games does not make it 'a different game' at all.

There is pretty much a consensus that the whole rebuilding society is a more interesting narrative than.... Whatever Fallout 3 was. Walking into houses where people are living and seeing turned over couches, blown up refridgerators, books and trash strewn across the floor I mean.

People 'would' clean up in the places they damn well live. Humans don't become slobs just because a bomb drops. If you live somewhere for an extended period of time chances are you will clean it up.
 

Whoracle

New member
Jan 7, 2008
241
0
0
Nikolaz72 said:
see, the original fallout was placed around a generation after the bombs fell. It was Bethesda that wrote themselves into a corner, not me.

They can opt to revert the time to more recently after the bombs falling, which 'might' be what they're going for here as the bomb-falling seems to be more relevant here rather than a backstory thing.
Oh, I didn't want to ding on you. I just took your quote to have something to hang my generalised answer on.
And really, the more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that Mr. Whitakers arguments can be boiled down to 2:

1. Make it less "Fallout" or better yet: Make a completely different game in the first place but keep the option to cash in on the name.
2. Make it a working product.

The OP reads like someone just plainly doesn't like Fallout, but likes the general gist of "generic bethesda game" and GTA sans bugs.