Slashdot Mirror


Fallout 4 Announced

An anonymous reader writes: After teasing gamers with a countdown timer yesterday, Bethesda has now announced Fallout 4 for PCs, the Xbox One, and the PS4. They've also released an official trailer (YouTube video). The game will be set in post-apocalyptic Boston, and the player character will apparently be accompanied on his adventures by a dog. The Guardian has a post cataloging the features they're hoping will be improved from previous games in the series: "The combat system in the last two Fallout games was not universally adored. It often felt you were shooting wildly and blindly, biding time before you could use the the Vault-Tec Assisted Targeting (VAT) system, which allows players to focus in on specific parts of enemies with a percentage chance of hitting them. ... Well-written, hand-crafted quests are going to be vitally important. The Radiant Quest system used in Skyrim sounds brilliant on paper: infinite quests, randomly generated and a little different each time. But the reality was a lot of fetch quests in similar looking caves. Bethesda may be tempted to bring that system across to Fallout 4, but there's an argument for abandoning dynamic quests altogether and opting for a smaller range of authored challenges."

25 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. Saw it coming by Forgefather · · Score: 4, Funny

    To absolutely fucking no ones surprise a sequel was announced to a popular and profitable franchise.

    --
    "There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
    1. Re:Saw it coming by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 4, Informative


      Amusing but the truth is there was doubt if this franchise will be killed off due to legal issues.

      The truth is loads of geeks want to know this and there was a bit of an interesting intellectual rights battle between Bethesda and Interplay.

      So really, this is a little bit of a surprise ifyou think that my most beloved game series of all times was almost axed because of some failed MMO you insesitive clod!

      Read more here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

      --
      A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
    2. Re:Saw it coming by Wootery · · Score: 2

      Bethesda do like their GOTY editions.

      They have the effect of punishing those that buy the base game and later decide to buy the DLCs: the DLCs never go on on a significant discount, so it's actually cheaper to buy the GOTY over the top of the base game.

      (By no means an EA-level act of scummery, of course. Just a little annoying.)

    3. Re:Saw it coming by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's not quite how it went down. Let's be clear: Interplay is a shadow of its former self, has been that way for a number of years, and any Fallout game they would make would be just as much a "true successor" to the series as one made by anyone else since all of the devs are gone. Just to review...

      1) Interplay created Fallout, and their internal Black Isle team created Fallout 2, under the leadership of Brian Fargo and the creative direction of Jason Anderson.

      2) Anderson left the company during Fallout 2's development, and Fargo was ousted by shareholders in 2001 in a corporate shakeup.

      3) Black Isle Studios was closed in 2003 and the entire staff was laid off. Van Buren (i.e. the original Fallout 3), which they were working on, was cancelled. A lot of them ended up over at inXile Entertainment, which Fargo had founded after he was ousted. Many of the others went on to found Obsidian Entertainment. More on those guys later...

      4) Despite cancelling Van Buren, Interplay did, however, manage to push out the rather craptastic Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel in 2004 (not to be confused with the similarly-named Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel, which is a decent game with which Interplay had no involvement). It's so bad, diverges so far from the rest of the series, and sold so poorly that even Interplay and Bethesda can get on the same page in agreeing that it's not canon.

      5) On the verge of bankruptcy in 2004, Interplay sold the rights to make three Fallout games to Bethesda Softworks (not to be confused with Bethesda Game Studios, which is the developer that makes The Elder Scrolls, Fallout 3, and now, Fallout 4, and which I love).

      6) Still on the verge of bankruptcy, Interplay sold all of the rights to Bethesda Softworks in 2007, but licensed back the rights to a Fallout MMO, conditioned on their getting $30M in funding and meeting certain development goals by April 2009, as well as launching within four years of starting development.

      7) Having failed to reach the necessary funding and with their "Project V13" Fallout Online game in development hell at a newly reopened Black Isle after Jason Anderson left yet again (who they had hired back on to handle creative direction), they tried to pull some eleventh hour crap on the day before their April 2009 deadline by announcing nonsense plans to partner with some Bulgarian company to make the game happen.

      8) Bethesda Softworks sued them in April 2009 and then reached an out-of-court settlement in 2012 to get back the rights to the MMO, as well as the rights to the original games in the series. Project V13 continued development at the new Black Isle, with all Fallout references stripped.

      9) Interplay pulled a "screw you" by making the original games in the series free on Steam, GOG, etc. for a week or two before the rights were set to transfer to Bethesda in 2013.

      10) As for where we're at today...well, remember all of those original Interplay devs who left for Obsidian and inXile? They've gone on to make Fallout: New Vegas (which incorporated a number of ideas from Van Buren) and Wasteland 2 (a sequel to the game that was the spiritual predecessor to the original Fallout), respectively. Meanwhile, Project V13 remains vaporware, even though we're now two years beyond the launch date that their rights were conditioned on reaching.

      TL;DR: Interplay failed at making the Fallout MMO even before Bethesda Softworks got involved (in fact, that's why they got involved), and they've continued to fail ever since, even though their former devs have gone on to great acclaim in making new games related in various ways to the franchise. Also worth mentioning: I'm no fan of Bethesda Softworks, since they've demonstrated that they're a legal troll (e.g. all

  2. My wish list: by quietwalker · · Score: 3, Informative

    I saw the article linked with things some folks want, and hated most of it. Vehicles? Really?

    Here's what I'd like;
        - Companion characters & character development done by the Bioware teams (I'm gonna ignore the low-average quality from the Dragon Age Inquisition game). Bethesda Softworks does an admirable job with environment and atmosphere, but their NPC's are generally flat, with a few exceptions. Companions most of all. Multiple companions might be nice, Companion quests, idle-time squawking/interparty squawking, scenarios providing different options with different companions.

        - Combat that always feels like a challenge, and not just in a ninja-monkey way where their stats scale to your level. Perhaps limit the character growth and equipment attributes in a D&D 5'th ed sort of way. Adjustable, though (see 'customization' below)

          - They rock at allowing mods, but having a truly made-for-third-parties-without-a-debugger-running sort of script evaluation (profiling), execution, merging and management system would be swell. Knowing a module was going to crash - or even just which mod caused the crash - is a big help.

          - Enough customization to allow different play styles, not just different difficulty levels. For example, the New Vegas optional 'hardcore' mode requiring food, drink and sleep, but perhaps with a checklist of 'collectables' and an easy combat or excessive loot for folks who are more interested in achievements than someone who wants to soak up the atmosphere. This includes any time a dev said "But that won't work on console" - make it an option. None of this dumbing things down just because it has to run on a console.

          - That mod thing up there? I'm putting it here again because I like mods.

          - Oh, and an easy way to add songs to a playlist rotation, not requiring a mod with a new radio station, necessarily.

    1. Re:My wish list: by dj245 · · Score: 2

      I saw the article linked with things some folks want, and hated most of it. Vehicles? Really?

      Done the right way, I think they could do vehicles right. Just look at GTA5- if you play in first person all of the time, the game is a believably realistic crime simulator. They sunk a lot of time and effort into making every aspect of the vehicles realistic, including believable damage models (cosmetic AND physical), realistic handling physics, etc. It is quite a departure from the arcade feel of the previous GTA games and IMO a huge improvement.

      The last Fallout games, on the other hand, could do with a dose of realism. But Bethesda has shown time and again that they can't make a physics engine not be buggy.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    2. Re:My wish list: by nine-times · · Score: 2

      Different strokes for different folks. Personally, I don't agree with your list either. I'm not so fixated on vehicles, though I wouldn't mind, especially if they make a massive world to explore, which is one of the things I'd like to see.

      But personally, I'm not too interested in teams and companions. I know that's blasphemy to some RPG fans, but I feel like companions typically just end up being something else to worry about. If you let the AI run them, then the AI is always doing something stupid, and they get themselves killed or stuck. If I control them, then it's just like, "Ugh, now you've just added a lot of un-fun work to my game-playing." I don't like grinding to level up, carefully planning my stats for lots of different people, etc. I just want to play through the story and explore the world. But that's me.

      Similarly, I'm not super-interested in having very complex combat. Again, I know, blasphemy. I'm already going to spend a couple hundred hours in-game, and I don't really want to add to it by having to reload 50 times because I need to place one of my party members more carefully or give him different instructions. I'm exaggerating, but basically at this point I'm a 'filthy casual'. I have a fair amount of stuff going on in my life, and I don't particularly want to have to "get good" at a game through practice and grinding. I want something I can slip into, play for a while, get some fun gameplay and good stories, and then go back to my life.

      However, I would agree that there's something to having things feel challenging. I think that's part of the challenge of game-design, making things feel challenging without simply being difficult. I love the feeling of just barely scraping through a battle, but I don't enjoy reloading because I failed.

      Also, I do like the idea of character customization in the sense that you might have a stealthy/smart character, and therefore maybe you're precluded from also being a badass tank. Or you can be a tank, but you might also be dumb and incapable of sneaking. I think one of the things that the original Fallout games did well was to not only allow that kind of character customization, but to have those customization affect which things you were able to do, and how the story unfolded. There might be a mission where you have to fight an enemy, but if your speech/persuasion was really high, you could talk your way out of it. If you're a science genius, maybe you can hack the security system rather than doing a frontal assault.

      I remember once completing a Fallout 2 game with almost no combat because I was sneaky, persuasive, and smart. I'd love to see that kind of thing return. Unfortunately, Bethesda doesn't do that kind of thing, so I'm not holding my breath.

      What I really want to see, first is a huge world that has the feel of reality to it. Bethesda has been getting better at that, so I have some hope. Skyrim was pretty big and detailed. You could wander for a good long time before hitting the edge. But I'd like to see them do more of that. Make more interesting/unique locations, more unique items. More interesting characters. Avoid making it feel like the dungeon/vault is a designed game level with enemies placed at regular intervals and random loot in every corner, and more like a real place where people live.

      Try to make the missions feel varied, rather than having a million, "Go in this cave and kill this person" missions or "fetch me 20 of this item" missions. Allow multiple routes to get to the end of the mission, either using stealth or persuasion or technical know-how or combat. Give you options on how to complete the mission, and have those decisions make a difference in the world, and make a difference on how people treat you.

      I'd also like to see a crafting system that allows for more than "collect 3 [item A]s and 2 [item B]s to make an [item C]." Let the player change the look of their clothes, armor, and weapons in-game (without modding). Let the player cha

    3. Re:My wish list: by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Having replayed skyrim recently, I think the vehicles could be like the horses. Not amazingly fast, no usable combat while in a vehicle, but if you've made it your personal goal to walk everywhere instead of insta-magic-travel then having a slightly faster mobility is handy while retaining immersion.

      For the NPC companions, they're not there to help me fight, but to help me carry the loot! Except for dogmeat, he's there because he's not yet house trained.

      Skyrim had a ton of quests, but I'd rather see fewer of them. Not because I don't like quests, but because they feel like they're holding my hand. I like having a really long term objective and then it's up to me to figure out the intermediate steps without any arrow pointing the way. Fallout 3 felt that way for the most part, there were lots of things to do without anyone in the game telling you to do them or vector quests that sent you straight to the hidden cave. Thus you get rewarded for exploring.

  3. Modern Fallouts suck ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    None of the modern fallouts recreate and capture the spirit of the two first ones.

    1. Re:Modern Fallouts suck ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      None of the modern fallouts recreate and capture the spirit of the two first ones.

      That was modded insightful? Why? How?

      I have played every single Fallout game. I love the first two games, they were great, but that takes nothing away from the newer ones. Fallout 3 was epic. I believe it might be the only game where I experienced my own birth. True, you couldn't kill children or be a fluffer (you could in earlier games), but what you could do was truly experience the world. Vault 108 is still one of my favorite things in the series (GARY!).

      New Vegas brought back some of that post-apocalyptic chaos, but brought with it a host of bugs. Best thing in New Vegas was the Hardcore mode, something that I've wanted since the beginning. Having to balance radiation exposure versus food and drink to survive was really well done. New Vegas seems to be the game that even the biggest "back in my day" gamers would grudgingly accept.

      Really looking forward to Fallout 4.

    2. Re:Modern Fallouts suck ass by brakarific · · Score: 2

      Came here just to say the same thing. New Vegas wasn't Fallout 1&2, but it was very much in the same feel as the first two. Yes Man was pretty hilarious. Rad Scorpion Casserole from the old lady in Primm was pretty on point for the kind of humor in 1&2. The Kings, a gang of Elvis Impressionist, the RepConn Ghoul cult trying to fly to outerspace - that is all pretty much classic fallout.

    3. Re:Modern Fallouts suck ass by shihonage · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is insightful because it's 100% true. If you look at Fallout 1/2 walkthroughs, you will see the kind of non-linearity, environmental scripting depth and general feeling of freedom that no modern game provides. Fallout 3 especially was a complete corridor compared to this. In programming and design alone, the first two games are still better than ANYTHING out there. There's a CHASM of difference between "walk anywhere you want" and freedom of player agency. In a walking simulator, you'll still have to go through a series of linear mission checkpoint with no alternate choices.

      As for witnessing your own birth, it's just a cutscene, and one you have to do EVERY TIME instead of just having a simple character creation screen.

      Also, what is the point of "experiencing the world", if Fallout 3's writing was the worst I've ever seen in a game written by supposedly English speakers? Really, the entire gameworld was designed and written by people who's only ever written code. The NPCs are lifeless tusks with no point to their existence, none of them ever talk like real people, nothing makes sense!

      Fallout 3 was so dumb, in the end you have an NPC who is resistant to radiation, and he makes YOU go into the radiation chamber. He refuses to go himself, why? Because, "it's your path and yours alone". Wait, what?

      And what about the horrible UI? Loading screens upon entering every hut? Terrible combat with unbalanced VATS system? "SPECIAL" being just numbers on the screen which barely have any effect on anything in the environment, VASTLY unlike the original two games?

      Moira gets exploded by a nuclear blast, instantly becomes a ghoul, and then asks you to "Not do it again, okay?" Cars filled with fuel 200 years after the war? Oversimplified, cartoonish take on the factions from the originals?

      If you look at any documented Let's Play thread of Fallout 3, and you have read at least 3 books in your life, your brain will start leaking out of your ears. It is inevitable.

      At least New Vegas tried to follow canon and have an actual world, and it had a ton more content, a ton more choice&consequence, SPECIAL was actually checked frequently on various occasions. Some NPCs actually behaved vaguely human! In all ways it was a far superior product.

  4. Re:Happy Times by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why dont you just go listen to Ella Fitzgerald and/or the Ink Spots instead of waiting for them to compile those songs onto "their" soundtrack o.0

    I do listen to Ella Fitzgerald and the Ink Spots. However, there is a special charm to listening to them armed with a mini-gun in a poisonous, radioactive wasteland with a dog as my companion while fighting giant spiders.

    Though, I suppose I could always just move to West Texas. Same difference.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  5. Fallout 4!? by puddingebola · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm still trying to get into Base Cochise in Wasteland. Does anyone know where the sewer entrance is in the Church of the Mushroom cloud?

  6. Re:4? by pnutjam · · Score: 2

    New Vegas is an improvement over 3, I didn't realize how much until I played them back to back.

  7. Don't give up on replayability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Radiant Quest system used in Skyrim sounds brilliant on paper: infinite quests, randomly generated and a little different each time. But the reality was a lot of fetch quests in similar looking caves. Bethesda may be tempted to bring that system across to Fallout 4, but there's an argument for abandoning dynamic quests altogether and opting for a smaller range of authored challenges.

    The Radiant system still shows a lot of promise, they just need to keep what they've got and add even more randomness. If you've played enough Skyrim it should be clear that they copy-pasted a lot of the cave models, and much of the dungeons could be tiled and randomized; not just the loot. The assassin quest line is tons of fun but then the Radiant quests afterwards are all some guy standing around defenseless - it reeks from lack of effort. The war questline has some great battles that could return as skirmishes or rebellions afterwards, or with different objectives ("babysit this VIP" or "kill the enemy commander" for example).

    TL;DR: It's not a bad idea, they just need to run with it. We've already got plenty of games designed for the first 20 hours of gameplay.

    1. Re:Don't give up on replayability by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      They've been experimenting with this idea from the start. Daggerfall was one big gigantic pile of randomness. So it ended up as my least favorite game I've ever finished. In Morrowind they removed much of the randomness and started crafting things by hand, shrinking the game world down tremendously, and it's one of my favorite games.

      Actually many of the "radiant" quests in Skyrim are interesting and hand crafted, it's just that often they're not recognized as being radiant quests. Some radiant quests you'll only get once. It's when you get to someone who has an infinite supply of quests (usually at the end of a faction's main quest line) that it starts to get really dumb.

      If they add some dynamic quests to FO4 then they should be simpler things. As in escorting a caravan, nothing more or less, you get paid at the end and that's your reward (along with maybe finding some new locations). But I don't want anymore "Bob in Megaton has a problem with ghouls in his basement"...

  8. Re:I'm excited by blazer1024 · · Score: 2

    "That dog"?!? His NAME is Dogmeat! :D

    Actually, that's probably the grandson of the original Dogmeat.

  9. Re:4? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wouldn't let the intro to NV put you off:

    Like the intro to Fallout 3, it's intended to show somebody who knows nothing at all about the game enough that they can at least get themselves killed competently, rather than because they can't find the stimpack in their inventory and don't know what VATS is. If memory serves, it's also a fair bit shorter than the Fallout 3 intro(which was well done, and so fine the first time; but having to spend ten minutes being a baby and another 15 dealing with adolescent vault-bullying every time you want to try a new character build gets kind of dull). The character creation stuff in Doc Mitchell's house is obligatory; but you can skip Sunny Smiles' quest entirely(though it's a generous early-game source of caps and 5.56 rounds, so you might not want to).

    Once you get past the intro, the game mechanics are largely the same(SPECIAL and VATS); but there is some additional polish to the skills and perks; the gameworld is really markedly different from the Capitol Wasteland; the local factions and characters are mostly well done and don't overlap at all with FO3(the Brotherhood of Steel is technically present in both games; but in very different capacities).

    NV isn't a wildly radical re-imagining of what Fallout should look like in 3D or anything; but it's modestly more technically competent and polished than FO3 is(hence the existence of the Tale of Two Wastelands project; and it is very much it's own RPG. FO3 is a much more 'apocalyptic' take, since Washington was an obvious candidate for getting nuked to hell, and there's a lot more crumbling-cityscape and deaths by radiation and supermutant attack; along with the fact that the East Coast Enclave are still a reasonably viable force. NV is very much post apocalyptic; but there's a lot less tightly packed death zone and a lot more wilderness(some of it largely benign, some brutally lethal; seriously, don't fuck with Cazarores, or try to stop a deathclaw with anything less than .308 AP) and political and military struggle between new powers that aren't just scrabbling for canned goods in the smoking rubble and are actually starting to jockey for power in a post apocalyptic rebuilding.

    You obviously don't have to trust my advice or anything; but especially if you already own the game(or find it when it goes on sale, which it frequently does), you are really missing out by not giving it a few more minutes to make its case. Let the doc patch you up, don't even talk to Sunny if you don't feel like it. If you really hate the intended early game, you can even go 'in reverse' by heading directly from Goodsprings to Camp McCarran: it takes a touch of practice; but there's a fairly safe path from Yangtze Memorial(veer to your right a bit if you see radscorpions on your left, early game weapons don't do much against their armor) and between Sloan and Black Mountain more or less straight to Repconn HQ. There are deathclaws on your left and supermutants on your right; but even feeble sneak skill should allow you to avoid the attention of the deathclaws without getting too close to the supermutants(always err on the side of too close to the supermutants: a deathclaw can run faster than you can, and is functionally unstoppable at low levels. A supermutant is something you probably can't defeat at low level; but it will usually stand and shoot at you and not pursue particularly aggressively. Unless you get particularly unlucky, or your character build has nearly no HP, you can survive being fired on, for a short time and at a distance, by a supermutant, which gives you time to get away).

    Once you make it to Repcon HQ, you can either swing right and head to freeside, or head to Camp McCarran(if you go this way, try to stick reasonably close to the wall, where NCR troopers will provide a mixture of fire support and meat shield against any fiends. You can usually score some energy weapons from the fiends and and some 5.56, a

  10. Re:I'm excited by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    You didn't take the "Puppies!" perk?

  11. Re:Been in the rumor mill for months by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    No location would be immune from a potential fuckup; but The Institute, from its brief appearance in FO3, would be something I'd love to get to poke around in. Seeing a large, significant; but not Washington city post-nuclear-war, will also be interesting(Boston definitely does enough to earn a nuke in any likely superpower-scale missile exchange; but the distribution would be different from Washington, since federal infrastructure is quite limited and a lot of the defense contractors and such are outside the city, where space is cheaper).

    I could also seriously consider delighting in the presence of a group of non-feral-but-deeply-unhinged ghouls who have gone from revolutionary war reenactment into full-scale holding-bunker-hill-with-muskets for reasons they no longer understand. Not a joke that could take too much beating; but if ghoul in a tricorn hat happened to attempt an authentic black powder musket kill on my vault dweller, I'd be delighted.

  12. Re:4? by Darinbob · · Score: 2

    If there was FO3, with another area of content right next door, I'd have explored that area too even if it was the same green sky, same game play, same enemies, etc. Why not? I mean 100 hours in FO3 and you can't be bothered with 1 hour in FO:NV?

    You bought the game. Sure it was only $4, but if $4 fell out of my pocket I'd still spend the effort to bend down and pick it back up.

  13. If its as good as FO3/FNV I am so there by jonwil · · Score: 2

    Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas are the best Sci-Fi RPGs I have ever played (and I am still playing through the various pieces of DLC for Fallout New Vegas having recently finished Old World Blues and started on Lonesome Road)

    There aren't too many things that will make me not buy this. If Fallout 4 on PC doesn't have the awesome mod support Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas have I wont be buying it. If they add any extra crap DRM on top of the Steam DRM I wont be buying it. If they make the system requirements too great that my fairly beefy system can't play it I wont be buying it. And if they do anything to intentionally make it harder to reverse engineer the games data formats and stuff I wont be buying it.

    Oh and they should put some effort into making the engine more stable and less prone to crashing (Fallout 3 and New Vegas aren't exactly the most stable games I have ever played)

    Not too sure I like the idea of randomly generated dungeons or quests either, I much prefer the hand-built dungeons/quests of Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas to the randomly generated areas of games like Diablo 2.

  14. Re:4? by JackieBrown · · Score: 3, Informative

    After you play it through (assuming you are playing on a PC), check out nexusmods. I went out and bought the PC version just for the mods. They add an incredible amount of story an detail to an already rich universe.

    http://www.nexusmods.com/fallo...?

  15. Re:4? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    The one weird(though largely harmless in practice) thing about having the intro be both skippable and 'in game', is that it doesn't appear to level in any way, since it was built as a lightweight introduction; and none of the characters involved will react as though it's unusual if you come back later and start it.

    Stagger out of the doctor's house, looking like you could really use the help, and Sunny will show you some stuff about guns, wilderness medicine, and Ringo will be deeply pessimistic about your chances against Joe Cobb unless you rally more or less the entire town.

    Walk back to Goodsprings, power armor gleaming, CZ-57 Avenger on your hip and enough mini nukes in your backpack to qualify for a seat on the security council, if there were such a thing; and Sunny is still happy to help the new guy plink bottles and kill a few geckos, and Ringo still doesn't think that you'll be able to handle Joe Cobb. This...ends poorly...for Joe.