fallout-4-cgi-trailer-is-being-created-by-del-toro

[Hurwyn]

Care to elaborate on that?

Well, I certainly noticed A LOT more bugs in NV than I ever did in ... Morrowind, Oblivion, FO3, and Skyrim together. That is no joke. Maybe it's personal experience, but that is why my view is the way it is.

The actual content? I love NV, but like I said, just too glitchy and I'd prefer that Bethesda did it all from the ground up, simply because they seem to be more competent at it.
(Not to say they don't create bug-filled games on release, but that is to be expected with gigantic games like these, and it seems like Bethesda has done a better job of addressing those problems and fixing them than Obsidian ever did with NV.)

[Harry Botter]

Well, I certainly noticed A LOT more bugs in NV than I ever did in ... Morrowind, Oblivion, FO3, and Skyrim together. That is no joke. Maybe it's personal experience, but that is why my view is the way it is.

The actual content? I love NV, but like I said, just too glitchy and I'd prefer that Bethesda did it all from the ground up, simply because they seem to be more competent at it.
(Not to say they don't create bug-filled games on release, but that is to be expected with gigantic games like these, and it seems like Bethesda has done a better job of addressing those problems and fixing them than Obsidian ever did with NV.)

I noticed that too. I still love both Nv and 3. But I much prefer the setting in 3 compared to deserts a plenty in NV. Both Nv and 3 had something unique about them that made them great.

[Gamevizier]

Fallout 3 had a weak story, and some of the elements felt forced in order to appease old fallout fans with their presence, no matter how far fetched it would seem. (poor harold)

Fallout : NV was way better, it was more buggy though. And to those who argue that NV was empty, yes, thats how a wasteland should feel like. Atleast a place like Mojave should be like that.

Fallout 4 should not be fully open-world. They should try to make it more like fallout 1 _2. (big world map, with cities/towns that players can enter.) That way they can cover a wider area, thus they can make the game enviroment more diverse.

[Wilian]

Opinions and all. I have played every FO game either on release or very near it and this is plain silly imo. FO3 gave you a better view and idea of what the FO universe could look like than FO, FO2 and FO Tactics ever did. I like the first 3 for very different reasons than 3 and NV, theyre all great games in their own right.

FO3 was nothing but random adventures at random locations that made little to no sense with people that had some major brain issues through and through. Thematically, FO1 and 2 represented entirely different sort of games and world based on actual possibilities and advancements of post apoc world in sort of investigative manner, whereas FO3 provided nothing but theme parky locations that were obviously made only for the reason of appealing exploration hungry people.

"What do they eat?", was perfect question asked in the following video:



FO1, 2 and in following, FO NV all explored actual lives and societies in world after nuclear fire and how things could evolve from those grounds. Fallout 3 presented a stagnant world of locales with only one purpose, to be entertaining. It paid no mind to any sort of structure that would be around settlements and places, instead you were left out to scavenge markets that still had several hundreds years old canned food because apparently no one thought to get them, towers that could never sustain themselves nor had trade going on (not that they'd have had anything valuable to trade for in Tenpenny Tower) and so forth.

Was Fallout 3 entertaining random wastelander exploring game? Sure, to an extent. Did it miss what made Fallout world itself so interesting? By a mile and some more. Only Fallouty things it achieved were in the names and even those things they got mostly wrong, removing lot of the shades of grays from factions to provide clear black and white situations such as BoS becoming suddenly quite the goody goodies or super mutans becoming brainless brutes.

And this is even without going into the whole reactivity of the world and quest design of multiple solutions or the actual dialogue writing itself.

[Zenotetsuken]

Yeah they do, they feel more at home atmospherically.

The forsaken dunwich building for example, seems more like an elder scrolls theme to me than fallout.

Badly need to come up with a new way of designing games all around too, having rather similar holes in the ground to pop in and out of is not that fascinating. Fallout NV was a bit barren by contrast but the places you did get were just more interesting.

Still one of the creepiest areas in any game ever IMO.

[GennGreymane]

All aboard the hype train!

- - - Updated - - -

The way I saw it with Fallout 3, not only was D.C hit harder than the rest, but all of the vaults were horrible except 101, your vault

it also had the latest waves of super mutants

[Zenotetsuken]

Ahaha... Ahahaha... Ahahahahaha....

Obsidian was clearly out of their element with Bethesda's engine. Let the professionals at Bethesda do what they do best.

Out of their element sure, but they still created a better game. Sure there were bugs in it, Obsidian takes time to polish out the bugs, and Bethesda had a deadline to meet.

[Harry Botter]

FO3 was nothing but random adventures at random locations that made little to no sense with people that had some major brain issues through and through. Thematically, FO1 and 2 represented entirely different sort of games and world based on actual possibilities and advancements of post apoc world in sort of investigative manner, whereas FO3 provided nothing but theme parky locations that were obviously made only for the reason of appealing exploration hungry people.

"What do they eat?", was perfect question asked in the following video:



FO1, 2 and in following, FO NV all explored actual lives and societies in world after nuclear fire and how things could evolve from those grounds. Fallout 3 presented a stagnant world of locales with only one purpose, to be entertaining. It paid no mind to any sort of structure that would be around settlements and places, instead you were left out to scavenge markets that still had several hundreds years old canned food because apparently no one thought to get them, towers that could never sustain themselves nor had trade going on (not that they'd have had anything valuable to trade for in Tenpenny Tower) and so forth.

Was Fallout 3 entertaining random wastelander exploring game? Sure, to an extent. Did it miss what made Fallout world itself so interesting? By a mile and some more. Only Fallouty things it achieved were in the names and even those things they got mostly wrong, removing lot of the shades of grays from factions to provide clear black and white situations such as BoS becoming suddenly quite the goody goodies or super mutans becoming brainless brutes.

And this is even without going into the whole reactivity of the world and quest design of multiple solutions or the actual dialogue writing itself.

Again that is all just your opinion and I happen to disagree. Where is it written in stone that FO3 had to be like the first two to be any good? The way I see FO3 is it's story is as good as you make it. I had a blast with the sometimes lack of direction because it allowed you to make it your own wasteland. But again that is just my opinion.

[melodramocracy]

Kind of surprised to see the dislike of FO3 here. Admittedly I'd never played the first 2, but am pretty blown away at how involving 3 is to me. 2-3 hours go by in the blink of an eye while I'm playing it. I own NV on Steam, have yet to install it.

[Afrospinach]

Kind of surprised to see the dislike of FO3 here. Admittedly I'd never played the first 2, but am pretty blown away at how involving 3 is to me. 2-3 hours go by in the blink of an eye while I'm playing it. I own NV on Steam, have yet to install it.

It is impossible to articulate this quickly, but for me it all goes wrong the second you step out of the vault. You walk into the most interesting and significant settlement you will see, ever, 50 metres from where you stand. From here on you don't really get any game changing or exciting technology unless you have the DLC. You then get caught up on a highly grandiose plot let by a group of bleeding hearts that *used* to be the brotherhood of steel, a very mysterious paramilitary organisation that has it's goal of acquiring and preserving all old world technology. How they behave toward you and others in the first games is pretty exciting but they basically turned into the christian childen's fund.

There are no real memorable things that you do which are not related to the main quest(again, DLC not withstanding) which is further evidenced by the end game cutscene. I think it is based on your karma, because I am pretty sure there are only two of them. Fallout 1 and 2 have extensive endings for all the settlements you uncover who's disputes you resolve. Do well, get a good ending for that settlement and vice versa. FO3 is quantity over quality, sure there are stories within some of the places but they are highly forgettable excuses to have another place to loot. The originals had a purpose to you going absolutely everywhere bar special encounters.

I could go on and on, the other more pertinent thing missing is the shades of grey Wilian is talking about. I don't think FO3 is bad, I don't think it was poorly received, either. I just think it is not very much like Fallout missing out on a lot of things that made the game fun. Adventure is only good if there is actually interesting stuff to find. Here is hoping we get more of that in FO4.