FairXchange
Member
The Fallout series is damn near illustrious outside of gamebyro jank. Fuck graphics debates, these games have always been about post apocalyptic moral desicion making and world exploration.
I don't think we have any idea where the bombs were dropped. At least, looking at the Great War on the Fallout Wiki.
The great war is a pretty interesting read (has the accuracy been verified?): we don't know who fired first, it lasted roughly 2 hours, we don't know the extent of the damage (some cities like Washington D.C. weren't totally destroyed because apparently the bombs were low yield or something), and New Vegas was spared thanks to Mr. House's quick thinking (he knew the war was coming so he had point-defense laser canons on the top of buildings and when the missiles were coming he used computers to brute force them with disarm codes).
For all we know, Boston could be like New Vegas - someone knew what was coming and set up the proper defenses or it wasn't targeted or something. We can only speculate until the game comes out.
The scaling would be troublesome, but I still say San Diego/Tijuana would be great.
This image is based off of map speculation from this reddit thread, good speculation at that.
Again just speculation but it does show it's possible that if only one nuke hit in Brighton, that some of Boston at least would remain untouched
Interesting stuff to say the least. But the problem is though Boston is one of the biggest cities in the US. They dropped like 77 nukes on Vegas alone, I can't imagine only one bomb hitting Boston. Not to mention it's cultural and historical significance which would make it an even greater target. It would be kind of weird for them to have also had a House like Iron Dome to protect them even with MIT right there. So I wonder what they'll come up with, if anything, to explain the condition of the city.
I would be really bummed if this is true. Fallout without S.P.E.C.I.A.L is just not fallout to me anymore but rather... skyrim with guns.
Another thing I am personally really worried about is the potential exlusion of Hardcore Mode. HM made New Vegas so much more fun for me and I just can't go back to Regular anymore when playing Fallout.
But we haven't heard anything on that front yet so I remain optimistic.
Interesting stuff to say the least. But the problem is though Boston is one of the biggest cities in the US. They dropped like 77 nukes on Vegas alone, I can't imagine only one bomb hitting Boston. Not to mention it's cultural and historical significance which would make it an even greater target. It would be kind of weird for them to have also had a House like Iron Dome to protect them even with MIT right there. So I wonder what they'll come up with, if anything, to explain the condition of the city.
How times have changed
Ignorance is bliss
This is pretty silly. People are obviously judging Fallout 4 compared to other contemporary AAA open world games - which seems fair to me.
How times have changed
Ignorance is bliss
Expectations and standards change over time. That's a good thing.
Not even then. You'll notice that many of the people upset with the graphics are pc gamers. It's unlikely even the ps6 will be matching what pcs do at the time of its release. So to pc gamers most of what comes out on consoles will look like crap comparatively to what they are used to. Basically, it will never end until consoles die off or change in some drastic fashion.
Being a PC gamer has no relevance to people voicing legitimate concerns over the graphical fidelity of a yet to be released game.
It's extremely petty of you to try to downplay legitimate concerns because someone chooses a different platform to play their games on than you.
The whole graphical discussion has been settled but it doesn't mean you need to be salty that people brought it up in the first place.
Definitely coming in October,, there are adverts on YouTube for the game.
If the game was 2016 then why would they have ads so early!
How times have changed
Ignorance is bliss
Oh I think it has relevance, it seems obvious to me pc gamers would expect more, no?
I wasn't downplaying anything regardless of how you chose to read my comments, I was simply pointing out that this kind of thing is not going away because pcs will likely always be better than consoles which will mean certain people will expect more out of the games that come out on consoles. I was pointing out a truth.
I'm not salty at all, I disagree with the rage completely, but even I admit the graphics weren't spectacular, heck my first impression was along the lines of "this does not look good, I expected more". But after watching the HD trailer on gamershyde and thinking how great it will be to lose things like loading times, I'm content.
Oh I think it has relevance, it seems obvious to me pc gamers would expect more, no?
I wasn't downplaying anything regardless of how you chose to read my comments, I was simply pointing out that this kind of thing is not going away because pcs will likely always be better than consoles which will mean certain people will expect more out of the games that come out on consoles. I was pointing out a truth.
I'm not salty at all, I disagree with the rage completely, but even I admit the graphics weren't spectacular, heck my first impression was along the lines of "this does not look good, I expected more". But after watching the HD trailer on gamershyde and thinking how great it will be to lose things like loading times, I'm content.
How did that happen lol
Yeahhh, I was really confused for a second haha.You mean my post changing? Yeah I went to add another quote into my post to avoid double posting and I accidentally deleted the original content about the radio. D'oh.
I assume that's what you mean.
I vote we replace the top pic with this picture instead:
How times have changed
Ignorance is bliss
To say that PC gamers expect more is not the same as saying that they'll never be happy even in several generations.
I assume you mean that due to the difference in hardware they will always want to make the most of their systems despite the fact that consoles have the largest install base and therefore dictate where the bar is set in regards to development of games.
I think it's unreasonable to think that the current graphics can only be attributed to resources being diverted to places that increase game play mechanics.
While that is possible it's not necessarily true because you can never know how things could have been handled if the project only began development once the next Gen had started, and I would have personally preferred that to happen even if it obviously meant the game being pushed back for the sake of a better final product.
I want Fallout 4 to be the best possible version of the game that it can be and it's frustrating to see people shrug off the graphical fidelity as if it has absolutely no bearing on the gaming experience when that's simply hyperbole and not true.
Some people may over/understate the importance but it's not fair to dismiss people as being wrong for being unhappy with low fidelity graphics.
And it's especially uncool to talk down on people for simply expecting more, I understand shitting on the game and not expressing why you dislike it, but I don't understand people making hyperbolic statements that tell devs it's OK that they don't prioritize graphics since people will rationalize it for them anyway.
I'm not talking down. I disagree with people thinking the game is somehow ruined is all, that's my opinion to have, but people can post what they want.
I agree with you to a point, I want this game to be all it can be too. Heck probably won't get Fallout 5 for another 7 years so each one needs to count. I just think the graphics are adequate enough for the world Bethesda creates for Fallout. We can just disagree, that's fine.
That's totally cool, I'm sorry for being so intense, my frustration isn't at you specifically but with the way that people in the thread have constantly dismissed and mocked anyone that was expecting more from a game that is only released every few years.
It's OK to want/expect more and my frustration is at the way people disregard graphics as if you have to be spoiled to expect a game to look good.
Anyone else hope they announce a Fallout 3/NV collection for current gen? I would definitely play them both again.
I think I am most excited to get my first VATS headshot in Fallout 4
I'm just seeing the thread title addendum and I want to clarify...is this bannable thing the "ask about me" lady or the thing about the jet on the shelf?
I believe it's the former.I'm just seeing the thread title addendum and I want to clarify...is this bannable thing the "ask about me" lady or the thing about the jet on the shelf?
The woman who was claiming to be a former Bethesda employee with the roadmap to the next couple of years and all that shit (don't know if that's the "ask about me" lady or not). People wouldn't stop posting it and it was getting absurd.I'm just seeing the thread title addendum and I want to clarify...is this bannable thing the "ask about me" lady or the thing about the jet on the shelf?
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/A_Tragedy_Has_Befallen_All_Mankind
In the FNV storyline, Mr. House's defense systems defeated only 68 of the 77 incoming nuclear warheads. The note states that he destroyed all of the nuclear warheads, not only 68. This could just be poetic license on his part, however.
The Courier: "What preparations did you make to save Las Vegas?"
Robert House: "On the day of the Great War, 77 atomic warheads targeted Las Vegas and its surrounding areas. My networked mainframes were able to predict and force-transmit disarm code subsets to 59 warheads, neutralizing them before impact. Laser cannons mounted on the roof of the Lucky 38 destroyed another 9 warheads. The rest got through, though none hit the city itself. A sub-optimal performance, admittedly. If only the Platinum Chip had arrived a day sooner..."
Ah yeah I see your perspective. I don't think spoiled is the word I would use, more, accustomed. Nothing wrong with that. In the same way I am accustomed to bluray and some member of my family still use DVDs. Blasphemy in my mind.
Hopefully you're still excited about the game though even if the graphics are disappointing. I think that is what a lot of people are choosing to do, accepting the graphics as being what they are and focusing on the other things they'll enjoy.
I believe it's the former.
And yeah I'd buy Fallout Collection HD over Skyrim HD in a heartbeat, especially if it contained all the DLC. Just think of these games with perfect draw distance and frame rate.
I'll buy it for sure. I don't expect it honestly but it would be a nice surprise and I think it would sell well.
The fired Bethesda lady rumor. What's the jet on the shelf thing?
I'm still very excited about the game
I apologize again for being irrational towards you, I think the tone of my previous posts in the thread sum up my feelings better when I'm not having a kneejerk reaction
I can't wait to play Fallout 4 as Bethesda games are some of my favorite and they're responsible for one of my favorite personal "holy shit next Gen has arrived" moments when I played Oblivion on launch day, having been a big fan of Morrowind.
My criticisms are only because I don't believe any company should get a free pass from legitimate critique or else bad habits become the norm if they are accepted enough on the consumer end of things.
Ok cool. I ask because Ive been debating both irl.
In the pic with the power armor hanging theres jet on the shelf on the right of the pic, which wasnt invented until 2241 so people have been ruling out a setting before then.
Not saying much imo but you know how fanatics are
No worries. I agree with you. Bethesda no doubt makes my favorite games but they most certainly are not a perfect company and I do think their are deserving criticisms about their games. I think some people take it too far saying the gameplay is complete crap, but I guess I just enjoy the games more than they do. To each their own and all that.
Ahh interesting. I think most people assume this game takes place some time after FO3. I prefer if this was more a sequel in the timeline personally
Ahh interesting. I think most people assume this game takes place some time after FO3. I prefer if this was more a sequel in the timeline personally
I find the game play in Bethesda titles to be very unique in regards to the level of interactivity they allow with items.
As silly as it seems I love the ability to take/move around most of the items in their games.
You get some really silly/funny situations when you mess with NPCS in that regard, I remember having so much fun taking stuff in oblivion by picking up the item, and then walking into a shadowy corner of the room before taking it so the shopkeeper wouldn't notice.
I think their game play being so different from other titles can be seen as polarizing in the way mainline Mario titles can be, as most people really love one entry and dislike another.
That difference in game play from other open world games can pull in some people and turn away others, but I deff think anyone unsure of a Bethesda game should give it a try as they'll more than likely have a great time.
Regarding the state of the city, does any one else feel like the buildings have been re-built? They all look like they have been patched up or is that just what Boston looks like?
Apparently some people are already disappointed that F4 isn't pushing the series forward, based on a trailer that shows zero game-play footage? Blows my mind. Sure, we can judge the graphics (Surprise! A Bethesda game doesn't look cutting edge but excels in different ways), but being negative on the game itself based on this trailer is a joke to me.
It should take place after NV (which is after 3). No point in going back in the timeline.
Well that depends on how far past Fallout 3 4 is set. If it's only a few years or even a decade, we still have 90+ years until that point. I know what you mean though.We are getting closer and closer to 2377, the date when ambient radiation levels should return to pre-war levels.
Well that depends on how far past Fallout 3 4 is set. If it's only a few years or even a decade, we still have 90+ years until that point. I know what you mean though.
That doesn't sound good. A Fallout without fallout speaks for itself.We are getting closer and closer to 2377, the date when ambient radiation levels should return to pre-war levels.
Yes, I know what year 3 is set in. The poster I'm responding to said that the radiation would be largely dispersed and back to normal by 2377, which is 100 years after 3. So even if 4 is set a decade after 3, there's still 90 years until the radiation gets back to pre-war levels.Fallout 3 is set in 2277, 36 years after fallout 2 and 200 years after the bombs drop.
Yes, I know what year 3 is set in. The poster I'm responding to said that the radiation would be largely dispersed and back to normal by 2377, which is 100 years after 3. So even if 4 is set a decade after 3, there's still 90 years until the radiation gets back to pre-war levels.
Basically we're 2/3rds of the way there, but there's still plenty of time to set games in that last 1/3rd.