Destructoid wonders why Bethesda hasn't announced Fallout 4 yet

WorstUsernameEver

WorstUsernameEver

But best title ever!
Perhaps unaware of the fact that GDC is an event mostly aimed at industry members rather than the general public, Destructoid contributor Nic Rowen has penned a piece where he expresses his hopes for a Fallout 4 announcement this week, all while reminiscing about his experiences with Fallout 3, the game that made him fall in love with open world game design. According to Rowen, neither Fallout: New Vegas nor Skyrim scratched that itch:

I made the Capital Wasteland my sandbox, and Bethesda provided me with all the right tools and set dressings to play in it. It is a rare and precious thing to lose yourself completely in a game, and Fallout 3 provided me with some of the most memorable and potent moments I've ever had the pleasure of experiencing.

I want to feel that excitement again. Skyrim was great, but for as much fun as I had with its dragons and necromancers, a part of me was always wistful for the nuclear ashes of America circa 2277. Obsidian’s New Vegas was a good dose for keeping the shakes at bay, with some welcome mechanics that made soft-skills more important and some colorful characters (all hail “kai-sar”). But its endless brown deserts and frustratingly lethal wildlife left me cold. It felt like the game was always trying to punish me for going off the beaten trail and trying to explore it like the Capital Wasteland.

I want to see what the A-team can do. I want to see what Bethesda has learned from Skyrim, what ideas it can poach from New Vegas, and what it'll leave on the cutting-room floor. I want to return to the wasteland, see what kind of stories it has left to tell, what kind of characters are still rattling around in the grave of the old world. I'm hungry for it, ready to chomp down on any scrap of news, hell, I'd be happy even for the meager crumbs of a teaser trailer, anything.​
 
Sorry, but I will never understand why people love Failout 3. Open-world sandbox that doesn't make sense with nothing interesting in it? Most memorable moments you have ever experienced? You're talking about those dumb-ass dialogues, awful scripted scenes, abhorrent shooting and fighting in general, insultingly stupid plot and goofy world design that is inconsistent, uninspired, doesn't make any sense and resembles five years old kid's vision of post-apocalyptic world? Or maybe he meant that unexisting freedom of choice with absolutely no consequences that doesn't require any thinking? Which one is it? Because, frankly, I can't find out what do people see in this game. I'm not hating, I always try to by objective and I've played Failout 3 many times, always trying to find something good in it, but I failed every time.
 
Last edited:
mef said:
Or maybe he meant that unexisting freedom of choice with absolutely no consequences that doesn't requires any thinking?
Click to expand...
Bingo. That is the reason; along with feeding the ego, and straight-up empowerment fantasy. Bethesda's games are not RPGs, they are meant as the digital equivalent of WestWorld.
They call them RPGs, either because someone there actually believes that, or simply because it sells to better to a mass group of other people who actually believe that.



1973 original trailer
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can understand why people like Fallout 3 the best. For most people, even though the area itself is not really grounded in normal world logic, the post-apocalyptic DC Bethesda created (along with the 50s art style) is intriguing enough to overshadow every other part of the game, including the horrible writing and flawed RPG mechanics and gameplay.

FearMonkey said:
But its endless brown deserts and frustratingly lethal wildlife left me cold. It felt like the game was always trying to punish me for going off the beaten trail and trying to explore it like the Capital Wasteland.
Click to expand...

He's complaining about good game design.
Click to expand...

I must not know anything about good game design (and yes, I admit, I actually don't know much about it, at all), but I've always felt that the living deathclaw wall was an incredibly stupid railroad tactic. And it was that, that's plain to see, everyone recognized it. I know why they did it, and I'm glad for it, since the factions were very nicely introduced, and the random meetings with Victor were pretty entertaining too, but I can also understand why someone would hate NV with a passion for pulling something stupid like that.
 
Nas92 said:
I can understand why people like Fallout 3 the best. For most people, even though the area itself is not really grounded in normal world logic, the post-apocalyptic DC Bethesda created (along with the 50s art style) is intriguing enough to overshadow every other part of the game, including the horrible writing and flawed RPG mechanics and gameplay.
Click to expand...
Not really. One pro does not overshadow three cons.
 
5545Trey said:
Not really. One pro does not overshadow three cons.
Click to expand...
I agree, but as I've said, for most people it does. And then comes the unfortunate fact: when people like one part of a game very much then they start saying how every other part of the game is completely and utterly perfect. For example, Fallout 3's writing is praised by many who barely even paid attention to the story.
 
Nas92 said:
5545Trey said:
Not really. One pro does not overshadow three cons.
Click to expand...
I agree, but as I've said, for most people it does. And then comes the unfortunate fact: when people like one part of a game very much then they start saying how every other part of the game is completely and utterly perfect. For example, Fallout 3's writing is praised by many who barely even paid attention to the story.
Click to expand...
I know you implied most people have that false mentality, but I am gald we are on the same page here (and I also mean that literally).
 
Who cares, the game is shit. :D

Even if you strike all the Fallout names out of that game, it's still a shallow and shitty post apocalyptic game.
 
You guys practising some Bethesda bashing for the time when F4 is released and the place is flodded with Fallout 3 lovers and Bethesda worshipers?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mef
Bashing Bethesda and F3 lovers is always fun. I miss the 2007-2010 when it was the thing, good times.
 
It makes me laugh when people who like the First-Person perspective of Fallout, but resents the 2-D games, say things such as, "Fallout 1 and 2 are outdated and no one plays them anymore because *insert logical fallacy*." I think it is justified to bash "Fallout 3 lovers" because there is no way you can think that it had a better story than 1, 2, or NV (I will not dehumanize people for thinking it is the peak of the series, but objectively, it had the worse writing in the series). Changing the lore for the sake of "flexibility" is just borderline retarded.
 
Last edited:
Changing the lore for the sake of "flexibility" is just borderline retarded.
Click to expand...
Agreed, especially seeing the ideology and motives of both the Brotherhood of Steel and Enclave completely thrown out the window in exchange for the two being portrayed as generic "good guy vs bad guy" conflict is just straight up dumb.

Also, something about your profile picture makes me laugh.
 
Nas92 said:
I must not know anything about good game design (and yes, I admit, I actually don't know much about it, at all), but I've always felt that the living deathclaw wall was an incredibly stupid railroad tactic. And it was that, that's plain to see, everyone recognized it. I know why they did it, and I'm glad for it, since the factions were very nicely introduced, and the random meetings with Victor were pretty entertaining too, but I can also understand why someone would hate NV with a passion for pulling something stupid like that.
Click to expand...

The deathclaws aren't impossible or even really that difficult to get around if you know what you're doing.

I like it when RPGs have areas that are dangerous to explore until you're more powerful anyways though.
 
Big No said:
5545Trey said:
but objectively, it had the worse writing in the series.
Click to expand...
"CoughCoughFalloutPOSCough"
Click to expand...
Nope. Unlike Fallout 3, BoS tried to be original because it did not rely on story elements that were used in the first two games. Nothing is stupider than the sheriff letting a stranger tinker with a nuclear war head. Nothing is stupider than having a settlement consisting of only children near another area of Super Mutants. Nothing is stupider than the PC being the only one to turn on the Purifier, when you have companions who are immune to radiation, unless you have a DLC which allows them to have the choice (not to mention the game never explains why you are still alive).


Big No said:
5545Trey said:
Changing the lore for the sake of "flexibility" is just borderline retarded.
Click to expand...

Also, isn't that "Retconning"? Not that I'm saying F3's retconning is good or anything...
Click to expand...
No, the Enclave should have never been a powerful force in the first place. I do not care what excuse Bethesda, or anyone else can cook up to make this plot fallacy legitimate. Thousands of Enclave members died when the Oil Rig exploded, and more were being slaughtered by the NCR. They might have more bases across the nation, but the Core Region was their main location. They are remnants of the US Government, it makes no sense that they would be a major force in the East Coast when their destruction was 31 years ago.

gordog_frohman said:
Changing the lore for the sake of "flexibility" is just borderline retarded.
Click to expand...

Also, something about your profile picture makes me laugh.
Click to expand...
Since I cannot draw to save my life, I just chose this ugly picture just for reactions.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top