Fallout Series Discussion

[The SheoDovah]

True but Autumn was second in command of the Enclave if i remember correctly and i think the Brotherhood of Steel would want to take him prisoner to interogate him about the Enclave's plans for the wasteland if the LW let him live. It would have been nice if it had the potential to bite you in the arse. For example, autumn hunts you down with a squad of hell fire troopers on steroids whilst wearing a unique power armour then gives us a boss fight.

[philfredobob]

The act of letting him leave basically entails convincing him that the Enclave is done for, and that it was wrong in the first place (similar to what you do with Charles Curling in Fallout 2). So in the end I don't think he would remain part of the Enclave at all, he just leaves and takes no part in anything. That's why he never appears in Broken Steel. (he is mentioned in Lonesome Road, but there is nothing pointing to that taking place after the Purifier battle. In fact it's more likely it takes place before.)

My thoughts on this are that he just slips out of the battle during the chaos, and is left disillusioned with the Enclave and its Ideals, and thus abandons the faction. This also opens it up for some story involving him in future games. Maybe he wanders away and settles into a small settlement beyond the Capital Wasteland? It'd be nice to hear from him again, to run into him as an old man and hear him tell the story of 3 again from his point of view.

[Travalanche]

I have no idea what the future of the Fallout series would entail. The master and his remnants are basically dead and gone. The brotherhood of Steel is fairly weak but regrowing steadily. The Enclave is nearly deceased. There is no New Vegas canon ending but it will most likely not be Caesars ending due to 75% of the followers in the game hating Caesar and all the negative stigma for supporting him so that factions probably dying.

The NCR is just more of the same so if they are the canon ending of New Vegas I could see Fallout 4 being really boring so I actually hope they lose power over time or we'll be playing a retro-futuristic America minus the chaos of previous Fallout titles.

Despite my intense love for New Vegas it did feel a bit too "Domesticated?" with the lack of Super mutants and Enclave killing eachother with the BoS as the third wheel that was present in Fallout 3.

I hope the next game takes the campy, open-endedness and creativity that New Vegas has and combines it with the bleak, chaotic gameworld that Fallout 3 had.

Also, as for dual wielding, I actually hate the system in Skyrim. I own a few different handguns irl and have even tried dual wielding my .45 1911 with my Sig P229 and maybe I'm just a poor shot but I would be lucky to even hit the target a third of the time doing that and reloading would be a pain. I mean I do live in a rural area so I shoot often but I'm not the best, still... I am pretty good when just target shooting regularly and rarely miss.

I know it's a video game so I guess they may as well add it as a feature with melee and semi-auto pistols/laser pistols but Bethesda could at least balance it with like 40% longer reload times and a -25% accuracy penalty. As for revolvers, dual wielding those AND reloading them would drive you insane I'd imagine, I don't own a revolver myself but I have shot a few and yeah... no dual wielding for anything that doesn't use magazine-based ammunition feeding! On the other hand Bethesda could double Revolvers durability making them more efficient to use because irl it's the same case as Revolvers have less parts that could go bad or get burrs lodged within them.

Also, don't make 1911's DLC guns this time Bethesda! I, as well as a lot of people love them and consider them the epitome of the perfect handgun.

[philfredobob]

Yeah, I'd have to say I wouldn't really ''support'' Dual Wielding in Fallout. I never used it in Skyrim because the sword/shield combo was always a more useful and convenient mix, which allowed a wider variety of combat maneuvers; effective blocking, shield bashing, and average (relatively) speed attacks. Dual wielding always felt clunky, and my own character was left defenseless far too much because they removed blocking entirely.

I suppose I wouldn't really be that much opposed to it if they did it properly, but I wouldn't want it getting its own skill or anything. But I also don't see much of a point to it in the end. Why carry two pistols when you could carry one assault rifle? I've always thought the only reason anyone ever uses it is because of the ''cool'' factor, because in actual effectiveness you're probably better off using the one gun; you're more accurate in the end, so having less fire rate doesn't matter, and you don't have to waste extra bullets or use up extra carry weight.

In terms of gameplay, I'd just like them smooth out a lot of the stuff they've already got; bullets can hit thin air, combat can be clunky and weird, a lot of Iron Sights in NV are off-centre and inaccurate... that kind of stuff. Also, about crafting, honestly most of the stuff they added in NV in this regard went completely unused by me. I never really saw a point in buying ten tons of misc items to make a few special bullets when I could just buy a bunch of other bullets that had the same effect directly. And I never modded weapons because most of the weapons I actually used on a regular basis were unique and special weapons and thus could not be modded.

So in my mind, rather than implement features I myself would never use, I'd rather they just focus on fixing the ones they already got. A few simple additions would be nice; a sprint function, stamina (could share with AP?), trap-setting, flame physics(maybe? too much work?). Simple stuff.

There is no New Vegas canon ending but it will most likely not be Caesars ending due to 75% of the followers in the game hating Caesar and all the negative stigma for supporting him so that factions probably dying.

Another reason Caesar's Legion might not get many more mentions is because of its projected short lifespan; as a couple of guys in NV state (Marcus and Joshua Graham) Caesar's followers are following Caesar and not really Caesar's ideals. And even if they weren't, Lanius is a far poorer leader than Caesar, and I doubt he would be able to hold them together. Especially after they've been taught that Caesar is basically a god, and then he drops dead.

[Kerr]

Do we really need to keep going forward in linear fashion? You can make a prequel or an interquel in some other part of the county. I disagree with Chris Avellone wanting to nuke the west to reset the slate. I'd rather the world rebuild then be broken forever.

[philfredobob]

You could make a prequel, I suppose. But I would much rather have a sequel to Fallout 3.

If the world does successfully rebuild, the entire setting loses most of its point. Sure, there'll still be conflicts (War never changes, etc...), but it'll feel a whole lot less ''post-apocalyptic'' if we start playing in all the more civilised regions. The more the NCR or it's equals expand, the more chance we'll be playing in one of their regions (if Fallout remains in the US), and thus everything would feel a lot more settled, and the franchise would lose some of its original charm. Unless of course, the NCR (or equivalent) falls apart from within.

If we go with the other suggestion, prequels and interquels; then it's as if the world isn't rebuilding at all, and we'll basically be going from one broken place to the next anyways (AKA the current formula up until now).

However; I am against the idea of just re-bombing everything like Van Buren (original developers Fo3) wanted to do, that just seems like a complete waste of everything we achieved in the other games.

Prequels work, but they aren't needed just yet. There's still plenty of material to use, all over the US. Like I've stated probably a million times , I'm looking forward to seeing stuff from the CW again.

If you ask me, Moira Brown's quote from Fallout 3 is basically the way the Fallout world functions now.

Hidden:

''No. It's like... Did you ever try to put a broken piece of glass back together? Even if the pieces fit, you can't make it whole again the way it was. But if you're clever, you can still use the pieces to make other useful things. Maybe even something wonderful, like a mosaic. Well, the world broke just like glass. And everyone's trying to put it back together like it was, but it'll never come together the same way.''

[Unionhack]

I want to see more info on areas outside of America before anything else on the West Coast. I want to see how China or Russia ended up after the bombings, you know?

[Travalanche]

Don't get me wrong, I actually PREFER Caesars Legion over the alternatives, even after 700+ hours of NV gameplay but then again everyone is different of course.

I just don't think it's a very good canon ending for Caesars Legion to win Hoover dam.

Man... I've been playing NV for the last couple of days alongside sporadic moments of modded Oblivion and I think Fallout New Vegas is probably my favorite game of all time. I know this may sound like blasphemy but I'm serious. I've beat the hell out of every Fallout game besides Fallout 2 where I only did like 75% of the content but man... Fallout NV (4) is just great.

It has everything I want in a game besides the house decoration options of Morroiwnd LOL. Yeah, the stability issues suck but they are remedied with patches. I just think NV is the epitome of sandbox gaming.

GTA: San Andreas/VC, Shenmue, Fallout 3, TES games, etc were all excellent but NV is the epitome of gaming for me and Obsidian should be proud, plus it's DLC was overall better than Fallout 3.

Yeah the graphics are dated but who cares? The gameplay is beyond compare.

[Unionhack]

I know the 3 versus New Vegas debate has been done to death but they're both great and I have a real tough time internally deciding which is better to me.

Then I realize that I don't have to choose if they're both so close in greatness in my eyes. It's a tie and a damn good one.

New Vegas is very hella though, I agree. I want to restart my Courier and get his Elite Riot Armor right off the bat so I can go the entire game in my favorite armor. Aesthetics goes a long way, especially for me.

[Travalanche]

Yeah 3 vs NV is a hard decision as both are excellent games. I'm still inclined to say NV is better in most ways besides the followers and debatably the atmosphere.

I do like the areas Fallout 3 gives you such as Megaton for instance, it's a much better starting area than Goodsprings in NV but other than that NV takes the cake mostly.

I personally like Joshua Grahams armor with the Light Touch perk. It's tough enough to keep you alive but flexible enough to let you maneuver however you'd like.

As for NV vs Fallout 3, as I said both are excellent, even Fallout 1/2 are better than 90% of the games I've played in the last 15 years. I'll admit, I've been drinking this evening but still, I have NV in the background tabbed and have been playing it for a few hours today on my main character and it's the ultimate game IMO as I've put nearly as much time into it as Skyrim yet I've gotten marginally more enjoyment out of it per-hour.

[philfredobob]

I can't honestly see how Caesar's Legion could be the best choice. I mean the only benefit I can see from having them control anything is safety. There isn't much/any crime or raiders in there lands. Other than that, they pretty much share most of the vices of their equals with a few more loaded on; they're still corrupt like the NCR (or at least, their leader(s) is), they're perfectly ok with slavery, they prefer not to use modern technology at all (even for medicine), they want every culture destroyed but their own, and of course, there's always that high possibility that the entire faction will collapse onto itself in the end anyways. So generally, I stay away from Caesar's Legion.

I don't see the benefits of siding with them. They pretty much seem to me like the ''[&@%!] you, world!'' choice; the one that only the evil PCs who just don't give a [&@%!] about anyone would join. I usually join up with the NCR; if you do some of the choices right you can end up with some pretty happy endings for most of the Mojave, so I just usually side with them.

I want to see more info on areas outside of America before anything else on the West Coast. I want to see how China or Russia ended up after the bombings, you know?

This is the one thing I never really want to see with the Fallout series. I've always felt that it's built upon American culture, so I'd rather the series just ''end'' instead of setting off towards Europe or Asia.

[Travalanche]

I like Caesars legion for multiple reasons but most of them are for personal philosophical reasons which differ from person to person and I don't expect others to think the same way as me. I'm a very barbaric sort of person and Caesars legion suits my viewpoints in most ways (not all of course).

I must say that I hope Obsidian get at least some sway in the writing of Fallout 4, if they don't it will be a big negative IMO as New Vegas was infinitely better than Fallout 3 writing-wise. The game is really something else. I did enjoy the Harold missions as well as a few side missions in Fallout 3 such as Agatha's quests and blowing up Megaton but New Vegas was/is nearly 100% enjoyable with the only problems being gathering as many skill books as possible at 6 int so you can min/max your char.

Other than that small issue the game is flawless besides the obvious technical issues that plague games of such scope.

And yeah, The Fallout series sort of is Americana in it's scope. I don't think it would fit well in Canada (despite Commonwealth lore) or even China/any other country. It's a USA type of game and that's all there is to it from my viewpoint anyways.

I do think that Boston is a mediocre place for Fallout 4 though, Louisiana or Florida would be better settings, hell even California would be better but maybe Bethesda will make it work idk? Still, Boston seems like an iffy place to do a Fallout game as it's not much of a tourist destination thus very few people have been there which will obviously affect the game being correlative to most peoples lives.

Sure, this may not be a big short-term problem but it will hurt the games longevity due to the game lacking memorable landmarks and the players ambiguity towards the place.

Still, I'm just a fan and I don't know everything, the game may be amazing and fly off the shelves for years after release (as it most likely will) still... I think it will be lacking compared to Fallout 3 due to it's setting alone. Washington DC is a much stronger setting than Boston could ever be for obvious reasons.

[Kerr]

It's New Vegas, 1, 2, 3, Tactics for me.

I think NCR is the way to go. Legion are horrible and want to destroy NCR. House doesn't want to destroy NCR, he just wants Vegas to do it's own thing but despite the good things he is a dictator and wants me to kill the Brotherhood of Steel which I'm just not willing to do. Independence is always an option but I do think NCR would do a better job than me.

Joshua Graham's armour is my favourite, then I give Boone Elite Ranger Armour. We also have matching Berets.

[Travalanche]

I like Caesars Legion because it rewards strength over anything else, simple as that, how else would Lanius have been Legate? It gives other soldiers something to strive for and the hope that they may one day become strong enough to surpass him.

And yeah, Joshua Grahams armor is amazing and so is his handgun. I own/shoot a .45 and love it/ am a good shot with it as well irl.

My favorite companion in NV would have to be Cass as she and Raul are the least judgmental yet Cass is prettier to have around, sorry if that sounds terrible LOL.

I really need to complete Fallout 2 as in do every mission possible before blowing up the oil rig but that's hard considering the amount of quests in game.

[philfredobob]

I must say that I hope Obsidian get at least some sway in the writing of Fallout 4, if they don't it will be a big negative IMO as New Vegas was infinitely better than Fallout 3 writing-wise.

This is something I hear quite a bit but also something I couldn't disagree with more. I've always thought Fallout 3's writing and Fallout NV's writing were generally equal. This always felt more like a ''Oh it's not Bethesda so it must be better'' complaint with most of the fanbase. (just as an example; Harold's dialogue was criticized in Fallout 3 for not being ''true to the originals''. After playing the originals and speaking with Harold, I had no idea what those people were talking about.)

To put it simply, I just think New-Vegas is terribly over-rated.

I don't really care if Obsidian gets a part or not, but I do care that Bethesda has a part in it. I want to see Bethesda write in another one, just to see what they do with it.

Boston seems like an iffy place to do a Fallout game as it's not much of a tourist destination thus very few people have been there which will obviously affect the game being correlative to most peoples lives.

Well, I hardly knew anything about California, Oregon, Utah, Arizona, or Nevada, and I managed to enjoy the first two games and New Vegas. So I don't think this'll be a big deal.

It's New Vegas, 1, 2, 3, Tactics for me.

3, NV, 2, 1 is my rating scale.

I like Caesars Legion because it rewards strength over anything else, simple as that, how else would Lanius have been Legate? It gives other soldiers something to strive for and the hope that they may one day become strong enough to surpass him.

Sure, maybe it gives hope to some people like soldiers, but it takes hope away from just as many. Those who are physically inferior have no hope, they're stuck as malnourished slaves so they can't do nothin', even if they are smart.

Plus, respecting Strength over everything is a poor way to build a country. An army, perhaps. But not a country. Lanius knows how to win battles and how to kill, but that's all he knows.

[Unionhack]

I went and ruled New Vegas independently, personally. Seemed like the right choice for my freedom-loving Courier.

Maybe not a game set in different countries or anything, but just, like, some insight to how the places are doing. I agree, American culture (or what's left of it) is a huge part of Fallout's atmosphere. But an overseas EP wouldn't be too bad,

[Mattbott]

I went and ruled New Vegas independently, personally. Seemed like the right choice for my freedom-loving Courier.

Maybe not a game set in different countries or anything, but just, like, some insight to how the places are doing. I agree, American culture (or what's left of it) is a huge part of Fallout's atmosphere. But an overseas EP wouldn't be too bad,

yeah Yes Man was my go-to guy

Overseas - I'd like to see Japan given the fallout treatment, an alternate FO history might portray Japan just on the verge of becoming modernised/westernised after WW2, so some traditional and "western" influences to play around with

[philfredobob]

an alternate FO history might portray Japan just on the verge of becoming modernised/westernised after WW2, so some traditional and "western" influences to play around with

Why would it be just on the verge? WWII had been over for over a hundred years before The Great War happened.

I just feel it's a waste of the Fallout name. Since the start it's been based on 1950s America's view of America's future, so I just don't see how going anywhere else fits in with the general ''vibe'' of the franchise. I'm sure it'd make plenty of money if something outside the US were released because a lot of folks agree with you and would like a game to venture beyond the oceans, but I probably wouldn't be buyin' it.

[Deimos]

I would love to see a Fallout taking place in the south. Specifically the Ark-La-Tex Tri-state area (being where i've grown up)

[Travalanche]

I would love to see a Fallout taking place in the south. Specifically the Ark-La-Tex Tri-state area (being where i've grown up)

Yep, although I still would prefer Florida or Louisiana. Louisiana just has some killer writing potential and Florida is a very diverse state with a lot of landmarks such as Disney World and the Keys.

Could you imagine visiting a post-apocalyptic amusement park full of Ghouls or super mutants akin to Jacobstown? Imagine all the great collectibles as well.

Texas has potential but I feel it would be too similar to New Vegas in a lot ways setting-wise but there are a few distinct landmarks and areas that would be great to see given the wasteland treatment.

After a lot of thinking I believe Louisiana (despite it's similarity to a certain Fallout 3 DLC) would be amazing due to New Orleans alone although it's easy to believe that the city would be underwater by that point due to lack of maintenance of the levee's.

But man, mutant alligators would be like Fallouts answer to Deadroths but potentially much more terrifying. Walking through the swamps to a distant shack could be completely terrifying due to you not knowing what could be lurking beneath you or in the cattails in the distance. Especially during the night.

There could be feral ghouls in the swamps, mutant gators, giant mosquito's, witch doctor cults, insane religions, great radio stations with everything from blues to Cajun to psychotic talk shows, and a potential for ambiance that would even surpass Fallout 3's Capital Wasteland.

Boston, while not the worst place that could have been picked is a bit too similar to Fallout 3's setting in that it's mostly metro with a lot of historical monuments related to US history and it's upbringing. I would have liked a more diverse setting personally.

The game will likely be good of course if not the best Fallout yet if New Vegas was any inclination of the series' future but regardless of what others think I believe that the setting is very important. New Vegas was brilliant in this regard as Vegas and it's surrounding areas are known worldwide yet diverse and rich with tons of culture. Boston has it's own unique flavor as well of course as does any area but it doesn't grab me.

Seeing Honest Abe's statue in Fallout 3 was a standout moment for me as was venturing down the strip. I'd wager that Symphony Hall could be okay as well as the Museum of Fine Arts but they aren't that interesting.

Again, all of the above are my opinions of course and none of them are facts. I may be totally wrong and people would rather see Boston's Landmarks than the ones in Florida/Louisiana as all of the places have interesting things to see but I just think that New Orleans would be a sight to behold in a Fallout game with the nearby swamps, wildlife, and overgrowth.

Also as for New Vegas being overrated, yeah it is. Regardless the game is still one of my all time favorites and adds a lot of things to the mix that Fallout 3 didn't have and the different story paths were preferable to a linear story to me as were the re-additions of joinable factions. I do have a fondness for Megaton and Rivet city in Fallout 3 as both were well crafted but as a full experience New Vegas has more to offer and more to do/collect which is great for a sandbox game. For it's time Fallout 3 was revolutionary and it's still better than most games that have came out since if not nearly all but I've spent more time in New Vegas overall because there is just more to do.

The followers are actually the biggest negative to New Vegas, they are just bland and forgettable.

Fallout 3 had a much greater variation of companions and a more defined Good/Evil system as well with things that suited everyone.

But I still preferred New Vegas due to it's complexity, you can play the sides like fools and reap the benefits of them all if you play your cards right up until the end. I hate how your locked out of a lot of options as a full-on Caesars Legion follower of course but that's understandable. I just wish that if you prefer the Legions ideals there were companions that did as well. At best you have Raul, Cass, and Lily if you take that route as the rest will eventually leave your service or threaten such. Also, at best the 3 I mentioned are neutral the with Legion at best which was a bad decision IMO.

I did like the moral ambiguity New Vegas offered over 3. There isn't just a good/sort of evil option when it's all said and done. None of the sides are perfect and even Yes Man hinted at treachery if you pay close attention to his dialogue towards the end so the "free" New Vegas could potentially turn into a retelling of Terminator.

Then you have House which only cares about Vegas and damns everything else, also his concern for the poorer folks is non-existent.

The NCR would just likely repeat the past failures of a dead world yet again eventually and Capitalism doesn't last forever due to it turning into Corporatism.

As for Caesars Legion, it's hinted at that once Caesar dies the Legion will crumble yet if Caesar dies things don't really change much at all from my experience although it is a short time frame to go by.

Also literally slavery is morally wrong but so is wage slavery through the NCR's created currency so at least I respect the Legions straightforward execution.

The Legion tortures it's victims as well which is gruesome and crude but sometimes fear is the best motivator.

Also, I see the Legion as a more or less Communist Dictatorship which is a very stable form of government despite being morally wrong and guarantees a lot of security.

None of the Factions in New Vegas are perfect and all of them have negatives but everyone is different so I love how Obsidian handled this as everyone likes choices.

I am a huge Fallout fan so all of this is dear to me as you can tell and the fact that I'm even having this conversation proves that Bethesda/Obsidian/Interplay have created something beyond compare that promotes some great discussions. Venturing away from the Good/Evil system was a great move in my eyes as very few people are truly Good/Evil in real life but everyone does have a different upbringing and world views so that's the primary reason I love New Vegas and it's in my top 5 games ever. The weapon mods, increased level cap, better gameplay (shooting), gambling, etc were all just bonuses.

[Deimos]

Sounds like giant mutated Alligators waiting to happen

[Unionhack]

Trav, you should really go into the old roleplay section and read Fallout: Vault 54. Kerr had some kickass ideas for Fallout Louisiana.

[Travalanche]

I'll check it out.

[Snail's Pace]

I would love to see a Fallout taking place in the south. Specifically the Ark-La-Tex Tri-state area (being where i've grown up)

So would I, if done right, but I have some reservations about it, too.

Texas has potential but I feel it would be too similar to New Vegas in a lot ways setting-wise but there are a few distinct landmarks and areas that would be great to see given the wasteland treatment.

Most of Texas is not similar at all to the area around Vegas (only far western TX has desert and/or mountains), but if you mean that the game would probably have a cowboy/western feel similar to FONV, your point is valid. Personally, I wouldn't want Texas as a setting because fiction rarely even tries to depict the state's diversity - instead, it just perpetuates the same old cliches. But if they set a FO game in Texas, which they won't, I'd prefer it set along the Rio Grande, and include both sides of the river (Fallout Tex-Mex, I guess). The problem is that, besides the Rio Grande itself, the region has no famous landmarks for people to easily identify. It would be a departure from the last two games (and maybe the ones before those, but I don't know), in which easily identifiable landmarks were central to the games.

New Vegas was brilliant in this regard as Vegas and it's surrounding areas are known worldwide yet diverse and rich with tons of culture. Boston has it's own unique flavor as well of course as does any area but it doesn't grab me.

The problem with a lot of possible settings is trying to show the readily identifiable aspects of the place without falling into cliches. That's what I think would happen with a TX setting. It would probably just be Fallout: New Vegas without the Vegas.

After a lot of thinking I believe Louisiana (despite it's similarity to a certain Fallout 3 DLC) would be amazing due to New Orleans alone although it's easy to believe that the city would be underwater by that point due to lack of maintenance of the levee's.

Southern Louisiana particularly with a flooded NOLA... I think that would be interesting, but imagine the controversy it would create post-Katrina.

[Unionhack]

Speaking from the perspective of a Louisiana resident, believe me when I say the only people who would get upset over the portrayal of an underwater post-apocalypic NOLA would be people with too much time on their hands and not enough things to get mad at.

Seriously, as much as I love downtown NOLA where all the good stuff's at, it's a [&@%!] overall and everyone knows it. The general attitude was basically 'It's a city basically built below sea level near a source of water. It was bound to happen eventually'. No one around here would really care. xD

Some places in the more run-down and abandoned parts of New Orleans already look like they're from a Fallout Game.

Or, The Last of Us, more like, since there's more vegetation than anything.