Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Fallout 4 Tease?

The Twitter feed for Erik Todd Dellums has clues from the voice actor that seem to reveal plans for Fallout 4 or some other future installment in the Fallout post-apocalyptic RPG series. This tweet suggests we can expect a return of Three Dog, his DJ character from the game: "To all my #Fallout3 and #ThreeDog fans: There may be more of the Dog coming! Fingers crossed!" A subsequent tweet says he has been authorized to blab like this: "How was that for a tease! I was given permission to release that tease, so fingers crossed." Thanks VGU via No Mutants Allowed.

Post Comment
Enter the details of the comment you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at the bottom of the form.

63. Re: Fallout 4 Tease? Jan 9, 2013, 23:22 Jerykk
Creston wrote on Jan 9, 2013, 21:04:
Zyrxil wrote on Jan 9, 2013, 19:31:
That misses the point. It's not that you can't explain stuff away in a fictional universe, it's that Bethesda needed to turn that faction of BoS into super good guys. They needed the White Knights/BOS, Black Knights/Enclave, and Orcs/DC variety Super Mutants. That's just the level Bethesda's writing is at. It's not like it would've been impossible to have a story featuring a xenophobic BoS battling the Enclave for Genesis Project magic-terraforming tech, with say, hyper intelligent DC Super Mutants as the most civilized group of the Capital Wasteland.

That's a straw man argument. It also wouldn't have been impossible to have a story about a vault opening up and an army of hybrid human/monkey soldiers overrunning the entire wasteland.

They chose to go with the story they presented. If you didn't like it, that's fine, but again that doesn't somehow mean Bethesda didn't "get" the Brotherhood of Steel.

I find the idea of a subsection of the BoS turning away from their mission perfectly plausible. I just wish they'd done more with the strife between the two factions.

For the record, I didn't particularly think the main quest in FO3 was all that great, I just enjoyed the game for its size and its explorability. I thought the main quest in NV was pretty shit also. Maybe we'll get something good in FO4.


When you change a faction into the exact opposite of what it used to be, that's a pretty good indication that you don't get what the faction actually represented. To make matters worse, they threw in the Brotherhood Outcasts, with stereotypically black and red armor, as if staying loyal to the original principles and goals of the BoS somehow turned them into Sith.

The problem with FO3's writing as a whole was that it was just nonsensical. So many logic holes and implausibilities. For example, why would anyone build a town around a giant, unexploded nuclear warhead that's leaking radiation? I mean, seriously. Now, if Megaton had been inhabited solely by ghouls (like Gecko in FO2), it would have made sense. Then there's Little Lamplight, where generations of people survived for hundreds of years feeding only on cave fungus. Really? I seriously doubt that there'd be enough cave fungus to sustain a group of people for even a year, letalone generations of people for hundreds of years. Then there was that cannibal town, where a small group of poorly armed cannibals have somehow survived by trapping and eating wasteland wanderers. How exactly does that work when they don't even have guns and there are raiders, mutants, super mutants and killer robots surrounding the town? Don't even get me started on the whole vampire town.

Bethesda's writing consists of coming up with gimmicky ideas and failing to flesh them out or make them logical. Conversely, every character and locale in FNV makes sense. There's a consistent and logical connection between all of them and a real sense of history and belonging within the lore. The more you think about the writing in FNV, the more you appreciate it. The same can't be said for FO3, where the initial novelty of the gimmicks completely breaks down when you stop to think about it.

I didn't say that, although the dated graphics really didn't help. The point is the entire game came across as more of an expansion than a sequel and by the time I'd got to the end of F3 I wasn't really looking for more of the same. Obviously I wasn't the only person that though NV was lacklustre, as the Metacritic score reflects exactly the same thing.

Do you consider ME2 and 3 to be expansions to ME1? How about FO2? Just because a game uses the same engine and core gameplay mechanics as its predecessor doesn't make it an expansion pack. FNV improved and expanded upon FO3 in significant ways (writing, quest structure, faction system, balance, crafting, traits, skills, loot variety and quantity, skill checks, companions, etc). It wasn't just more of the same.

And FNV's metacritic score is 84. That's hardly lackluster. It got docked points primarily for bugginess. FO3 got a higher score because it was a big change from Elder Scrolls and had significantly more hype and marketing than FNV. It was also just as buggy as FNV, yet reviewers tend to overlook bugs in Bethesda's games for whatever reason (see the Metacritic score for Skyrim PS3 which is notoriously broken).

Are you trying to play semantics here? I couldn't give a shit whether NV had more RPG elements than The Witcher 2, as that wasn't the point I was making. The reality is that TW2 was a MUCH better game, with better graphics, better gameplay and a better delivered narrative. After playing it I couldn't go back to such a dated game like NV, especially after burning out on F3. An RPG isn't defined solely by the amount you can shape the character you play but about the gameplay, narrative and all the trimmings. I'd rather play a great game with slightly diluted RPG elements (like Skyrim, TW2, etc) that a derivative game with dated graphics that has more developed RPG elements (like NV).

So it basically boils to presentation. I'm guessing you'd never play FO1 or FO2, given their dated engines. Making meaningful and interesting choices is gameplay and the most important gameplay in an RPG. FNV excels in offering meaningful and interesting choices. Witcher 2 has a lot of interesting choices too, but not as many as FNV. Skyrim doesn't really have any. As with any Bethesda game, the main appeal of Skyrim is exploration and dungeon crawling. If by "gameplay" you actually mean "combat," then yes, the combat in Witcher 2 is better than the combat in FNV. However, the best RPGs make combat just one of many viable ways to play through the game (like in FNV). As for Skyrim, the combat's terrible.

This comment was edited on Jan 9, 2013, 23:37.
Avatar 20715
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
      ;)   ;)   :(   :(   :o   :o   %)   %)   :)   :)   :|   :|   ;P   ;P   X|   X|   :D   :D   More
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you have a signature set up, it will be automatically appended to your comment.
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.
          Email me when this topic is updated.

Special Codes

  • b[bold text]b
  • i[italic text]i
  • u[underline text]u
  • -[strikethrough text]-
  • c[code text]c
  • +[bullet point]+
  • q[quote text (indented)]q
  • [quote="Author"]quote text (indented)[/quote]
  • [url=Link]text[/url]
  • r{red text}r
  • g{green text}g
  • b{blue text}b
  • m{maroon text}m
  • s{secret text (shows in the background colour)}s

Forum Rules

  1. Disagree all you want but attacks of a personal nature will not be tolerated.
  2. Ethnic slurs and homophobic language will not be tolerated.
  3. Do not post spam, links to warez sites, or instructions on how to obtain pirated software.
  4. Abusing the forums in any manner that could be construed as 'griefing' will not be tolerated.


Blue's News logo