SEGAbits Forums
Gaming => General Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Spock on July 22, 2014, 09:04:30 pm
-
http://fallout.answers.wikia.com/wiki/It_has_been_mentioned_that_florida_will_be_the_new_fallout_4_location_becuz_the_bos_are_based_there_so_is_there_any_truth_in_that
http://nerdforum.org/index.php?/topic/4627-fallout-4/
I know it's not a Sega game. It's still something that I hope for though.
-
Honestly thought Fallout 3 was great when it came out but tried it again and it felt so SLOOOW. But I was hoping it would have been the first Fallout outside of America.
-
Honestly thought Fallout 3 was great when it came out but tried it again and it felt so SLOOOW. But I was hoping it would have been the first Fallout outside of America.
Fallout 3 was slow? I actually liked that one better than New Vegas. I haven't tried Fallout 1 or 2. I think I might eventually, if Bethesda decides to wait too much longer to make a new fallout game. The second link mentions Greenland and Canada too. Of course, that's only speculation. I kind of think DLC should be the only way to have it set in another country.
-
No, tbh I like the whole MIT exploration scenario a lot better from what I've heard. Unfortunately, Since Bethesda doesn't care about creating believable fictional worlds outside of the Elder scrolls, the story is probably going to be subpar as 3's was.
Fallout 3 was slow? I actually liked that one better than New Vegas. I haven't tried Fallout 1 or 2.
This probably why. If you had tried 1 or 2, NV would have appeared more in their spirit from both a canon perspective and a game perspective. FO3 had a great atmosphere but that is all I can really say, the story is the standard good and evil trope with every action being assigned "good" or "evil" and FO3's endings were the same irrespective of your choices.
Coming from FO1 and 2, this makes FO3 incredibly less satisfying to play. New Vegas(which was coincidentally created by Obsidian, who are comprised of former Black Isle staff who were developers on FO1/2) brought back the detail and dynamism of 1/2, by making almost every set-piece it's own story, and no matter what ending you got, you would always be reminded of your triumphs and defeats.
There is a great 15 minute video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvwlt4FqmS0)(Minor Spoilers) explaining why Fallout New Vegas is a better, "Fallout" game than 3 is. 3 is a good game on its own merits...but that is the problem, it isn't on its own merits. It's building off the merit of 1 and 2, to which it under-performs.
An additional 10 minute video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJJaGSV75y0)(Contains Fallout 1 main story spoilers), on actual "Choice and Consequence", using the first fallout as an example of proper implementation, and why modern dynamics of "Choice and Consequence" are trivial and overrated.
-
^I guess I should play Fallout 1 first, right? Is the first better or the second? Also, what is your opinion on Florida as the setting for the next game?^
-
As I mentioned primarily before the wall of text attacked, I find the possibility of exploring the ruins of MIT far more interesting personally. Florida could work, but I just feel there isn't really much here outside the amusement parks to add much value to things overall.
And yes, play Fallout 1 first. If you've played any of the infinity engine games(Baldurs gate, Planscape Torment, Icewind Dale), you will know how FO roughly plays. 1 is better than 2 IMO, from both a story and game perspective. FO2 has a few ending breaking bugs that are way too easy to trigger. Still a good game, just not as good as 1.
-
http://www.playstationgang.com/fallout-4-set-to-release-for-ps4-in-2015/
I wish that link was true. I can't hardly wait for another Fallout game. I'll pre-order and possibly get the deluxe edition (if it comes with one).