So this looks like the earliest days of development, so 2-3 years away. In other words next gen
Just a Rumor: Fallout 4 is in Boston
- Thread starter GonzoGamer
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Christ almighty, people get really defensive over this series. People liked Fallout 3, deal with it.
I want both. I want it to straddle the border, and include an area all the way from Grand Rapids to Toronto. This would both A) Provide an excellent range of location to cover the annexing of Canada during the Resource Wars (abandoned Canadian Resistance outposts, anyone?) and also feature a mid-sized town or two.Sansha said:
I know it sounds like a rather strange gripe, but for some reason games have no "middle ground" when it comes to locations. It's either a tiny little grease spot in the road (i.e. Goodsprings) or a massive, sprawling metropolis (i.e. New Vegas, DC, etc.) Why are their no towns that look like they're more than just a bar and a general store, yet less than a one-stop everything hub? I guess Nipton was a good effort towards this but it didn't feel any larger than Goodsprings to me.
I totally agree; that'd be sweet. There's a character in The Pitt who refers to 'Ronto', alluding to Toronto.chuckdm said:
Resistance outposts, leftovers from riots, illegal ghoul-guarded resource caches, US Military outposts (woo power armor)... something like the Capital Wasteland, not the Mojave. A huge map, with a lot to explore, and a goddamned non-linear main quest.
I hated how New Vegas pretty much forced you to follow that initial circuit around south then up to the city.
Maybe they should try something a bit different. Like, say...South America, perhaps? Think about it. A heavily mutated Amazon rainforest, you could add bows and blowdarts as weapons, a rebuilt Manaus could be the main city, and they already have some good research opportunities with the many shanty towns that there are in Brazil. Think about it. Mutated crocodiles, monkeys, piranhas, anacondas and birds of prey. It could be pretty epic.
Something about the atmosphere... Which makes no sense to me because actually finding anything of interest in the capitol wasteland is nigh-impossible. It is bloody empty -.- If that is what they meant then screw that I can look at cardboard for the same effect. New Vegas feels alive, as it should that long after the war. Things are coming together!GiantRaven said:
Also city design apparently, yet I found the DC ruins to be the most unintuitive mess to even attempt to navigate. Playing F3 actually made me frustrated far too often with crap like that.
Also F3 just doesn't have as much stuff, but they never notice that either. One of the best energy weapons in F3 was an android's plasma rifle; New Vegas says screw that, Mojave has deathclaws (That are actually you know... deadly), you need a plasma MINIGUN that is so powerful it literally destroys itself from the energy it releases faster than it uses ammo!
Also: Old World Blues is beautiful: "Have you ever seen a biological research station THIS full of seed? No, no you haven't."
And finally... that plot... the ending of Fallout 3... just... why?
Compare that to a sycophant robot upper-cutting an irate general off of a dam wall.
Philistines does not begin to describe it O.O
Here's hoping that mush-mouthed, big-tongued, retard mayor is still in office.
Seriously, Thomas Menino has been reelected over and over for about 20 years now because there aren't term limits in Boston, and the man speaks like a complete asshole. I guess people keep voting for hims because they make them feel like they could be mayor too.
Seriously, Thomas Menino has been reelected over and over for about 20 years now because there aren't term limits in Boston, and the man speaks like a complete asshole. I guess people keep voting for hims because they make them feel like they could be mayor too.
Mass. is boring but the Commonwealth sounds brutal.EHKOS said:
The Commonwealth itself is nothing but a war-ravaged quagmire of violence and despair. -Zimmer
Sounds like fun to me.
I can't believe people still have this argument. It depends on how you play the game. The people who care about the story tend to like New Vegas for obvious reasons and the people who care more about exploring like Fallout 3 for obvious reasons.Brandon237 said:
Some people like a lot of small locations that make progressing the story quicker and some people prefer expansive and deep locations you can get lost in.
I'm a huge Fallout fan, but even I have to say that the New Vegas story line has been over hyped so bad that people are just starting to believe it was an amazing narrative without questioning it.
I've logged about 250+ in New Vegas so yes, I love the game and yes, I understand it. The writing was certainly very good but the general narrative was quite generic and formulaic. It certainly never captivated me, because it didn't have much spark to it. An example of a game with a storyline that had "spark" would be something like Bioshock.
I can't chose between New Vegas and Fallout 3. They are both great. I'm just sick and tired of hearing this stupid stereotype of "Fallout 3 is a sandbox explorer and New Vegas is a narrative!!". That's nonsense. Both are incredibly heavy on the story aspect and both involve a lot of exploring.
The only difference between the games is New Vegas is more dialogue heavy.
They really aren't all that different.
I've logged about 250+ in New Vegas so yes, I love the game and yes, I understand it. The writing was certainly very good but the general narrative was quite generic and formulaic. It certainly never captivated me, because it didn't have much spark to it. An example of a game with a storyline that had "spark" would be something like Bioshock.
I can't chose between New Vegas and Fallout 3. They are both great. I'm just sick and tired of hearing this stupid stereotype of "Fallout 3 is a sandbox explorer and New Vegas is a narrative!!". That's nonsense. Both are incredibly heavy on the story aspect and both involve a lot of exploring.
The only difference between the games is New Vegas is more dialogue heavy.
They really aren't all that different.
I like both equally and holy hell did FO3 bore the crap out of me.GonzoGamer said:
We are still having this argument because to claim that empty space makes for an awesome environment you can get lost in is just annoying. There is actually stuff there in New Vegas, there are a lot of small locations and then a whole lot of big ones too, and enough of them that unless you intentionally avoid stuff, you will hit one very quickly from almost anywhere on the map. I remember lots of long walks seeing about three robo-brains in 10 minutes in Fallout 3, the environment only wins there if you like not doing much of anything. Which defeats the purpose of playing a game.
It's not that it's a gripping narrative, but the fact that it's not quite as linear as Fallout 3's story. And you get sent different places depending on who you side with.SillyBear said:
3 tried to make things all dramatic but it didn't work because the big dramatic death was of a guy that you (the player) hardly knew... or cared about by that time.
Vegas didn't go overboard with bad melodrama and it gave you choices in how the story would play out.
That's the thing, to some people it isn't annoying, it's compelling. My point is that it's a matter of preference....and luck apparently because I had the exact opposite experience.Brandon237 said:
In Fallout 3 I was constantly getting into fights with roving bands of mutants, raiders, mercs, and other weirdos not to mention the other non-combat encounters you would randomly have. In New Vegas, I might get set upon by some random giant bug (both the insect and programming bugs were just as common) in the 5 min walk to the next location but that was usually it. To me New Vegas felt like a Hollywood backlot with very 2 dimensional locations cluttering up the place while 3 felt more like a real place.
I'm hoping that the Commonwealth will have all those random encounters, expansive locations, AND the branching storyline.
Well, this thread got me jonesing for some Fallout 3. Man, I forgot how much I like this game, besides the fact that the zoom in first person mode does nothing useful.
But I guess this statement gives away my lack of breeding. I never played the original Fallout games due to the fact that I was not alive when they came out and that trying to get them to work on my computer is far more trouble than they are worth(I don't understand DOSbox at all
). Because of that, the only lore I've ever been exposed to comes from my experience with Fallout 3 and brief summaries from internet research. From a fresh start and with no understanding of what came before, Fallout 3 is pretty fantastic. From the view of people who played the original games, I can see how lore "butchery" could put them off. But that doesn't really apply to me, I guess. *shrug*
On topic now. Boston? Cool, I guess.
*EDIT*
But I guess this statement gives away my lack of breeding. I never played the original Fallout games due to the fact that I was not alive when they came out and that trying to get them to work on my computer is far more trouble than they are worth(I don't understand DOSbox at all
). Because of that, the only lore I've ever been exposed to comes from my experience with Fallout 3 and brief summaries from internet research. From a fresh start and with no understanding of what came before, Fallout 3 is pretty fantastic. From the view of people who played the original games, I can see how lore "butchery" could put them off. But that doesn't really apply to me, I guess. *shrug*On topic now. Boston? Cool, I guess.
*EDIT*
GonzoGamer said:
But he was voiced by Liam Neeson! How can you not care about Liam Neeson?
