Fallout 4 Wishlist

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Doominator99 (16 posts) -

I decided to make a Fallout 4 wishlist video. None of my ideas are too specific or far-out so I can imagine Bethesda (or whoever is making the game) to include these features and improvements.

I cant wait until we get an actual announcement! But until then It will be fun to discuss what we want to see in Fallout 4.

#2 Edited by Boddicker (2693 posts) -

Thank you for acknowledging FNV > FO3. We have some simpletons around here that confuse the newness of the exploring the wasteland in full 3D with a better game. By the time FNV came out open world games were old hat on the then few years old PS3/360.

Let me explain something for everyone that complains FNV was a buggy mess compared to FO3. Bethesda gave themselves a 3 year development time on FO3. They imposed a hard deadline on Obsidian of 1.5 years for the development of FNV.

3 > 1.5

That is why FNV was so buggy and some factions' questlines were not fully fleshed out (like the Legion). But you can do that when you hire someone to make your game for you.

1) While I don't fully agree that the location is not important, because I think that the setting can be a character unto itself. For someone that's been playing this franchise since FO1 the East and West coasts have gotten stale. I would much rather see A) cities in the core that have some personality such as New Orleans (even though it would like Venice 200 years from now). B) see the Great War from the other side (China). It would give us a whole new bestiary and factions to explore. C) Atleast throw us a bone and give us Alaska or Hawaii.

All this talk about Boston is leaving me cold, but in the end I guess it doesn't matter as long as there's plenty to explore and discover.

2) Keep the SPECIAL system and skills as is. I fear the abolishment of stats and the inclusion of a Skyrim skill system that the net has been alluding to.

3) I think FO4 will use the much superior faction system of FNV and drop the Karma system of FO3. No argument here.

4) The gunplay could definitely be improved.

5) Hardcore mode in FNV was a great experiment, but in the end it was not hard enough. Not by a mile. Scavenging should be a core part of gameplay.

6) Make it more realistic the amount of gear you can carry. Carrying 200-300 lbs worth of stuff =/= realistic

7) New engine. New engine. New engine.

8) I don't think VATS is in danger of going anywhere.

#3 Posted by udUbdaWgz1 (631 posts) -

lots of options, customization and less handholding and dumbing down.

I want the BASIC mods of pcers to become available on consoles as optional toggles.

things like radiation toggles where I can increase it so that I die In 20 gameplay minutes without some form of anti-radiation.

the "realism" of nv hardcore was neat, but, a joke. hardly difficult. hardly wasteland post-nuclear devastation.

#4 Edited by SoNin360 (5446 posts) -

@Boddicker: I think there's a fair amount of people on both sides of the Fallout 3 vs. Fallout New Vegas debate. Personally, I prefer Fallout 3 by a little bit simply because I liked the setting and its atmosphere more. It felt more post-apocalyptic whereas New Vegas takes place in a region less ravaged by the apocalypse, so it just lacks that same feel.

You provided a reason as to why New Vegas was more buggy, but does that really make it any more acceptable? I don't think that makes anyone's complaints any less legitimate. As much as I liked New Vegas, the game was a mess at launch and it took several patches to fix up most of the more serious issues.

Anyway I guess I'll address some of the points you brought up since I don't know what to say about the video since it wasn't too specific, although it seemed reasonable overall.

1. I'm also not too worried about the location, so long as it has an atmosphere more akin to Fallout 3.

2. The point distribution system is fine in Fallout I suppose. I don't see any real reason to change it or the S.P.E.C.I.A.L system.

3. I'd welcome a return of a factions system similar to New Vegas. However, I would also like karma to remain present, so long as they don't screw it up and make it as meaningless as it was in New Vegas.

4. New Vegas's gunplay was significantly improved from Fallout 3, but I agree that it could still be better. It needs to be more responsive and as the video mentioned, feel more impacting.

5. Hardcore mode was a decent idea in New Vegas and overall I liked it. I would welcome a more hardcore Hardcore Mode, I suppose.

6. I disagree with lessening the amount of gear you can carry, unless you're talking about Hardcore Mode. But Hardcore in New Vegas does a decent job in limiting what you can carry. I don't buy the "it isn't realistic" argument because Fallout is far from realistic in almost any other sense.

7. With as long as it's taking for them to even announce the game, I hope it's being created on a new engine. Consequently, that would up the development time, but it'd be worth it.

8. VATS in Fallout is iconic, it would be dumb to remove it, even if the combat was really smooth.

#5 Edited by Boddicker (2693 posts) -

@SoNin360 said:

@Boddicker: I think there's a fair amount of people on both sides of the Fallout 3 vs. Fallout New Vegas debate. Personally, I prefer Fallout 3 by a little bit simply because I liked the setting and its atmosphere more. It felt more post-apocalyptic whereas New Vegas takes place in a region less ravaged by the apocalypse, so it just lacks that same feel.

You provided a reason as to why New Vegas was more buggy, but does that really make it any more acceptable? I don't think that makes anyone's complaints any less legitimate. As much as I liked New Vegas, the game was a mess at launch and it took several patches to fix up most of the more serious issues.

Anyway I guess I'll address some of the points you brought up since I don't know what to say about the video since it wasn't too specific, although it seemed reasonable overall.

1. I'm also not too worried about the location, so long as it has an atmosphere more akin to Fallout 3.

2. The point distribution system is fine in Fallout I suppose. I don't see any real reason to change it or the S.P.E.C.I.A.L system.

3. I'd welcome a return of a factions system similar to New Vegas. However, I would also like karma to remain present, so long as they don't screw it up and make it as meaningless as it was in New Vegas.

4. New Vegas's gunplay was significantly improved from Fallout 3, but I agree that it could still be better. It needs to be more responsive and as the video mentioned, feel more impacting.

5. Hardcore mode was a decent idea in New Vegas and overall I liked it. I would welcome a more hardcore Hardcore Mode, I suppose.

6. I disagree with lessening the amount of gear you can carry, unless you're talking about Hardcore Mode. But Hardcore in New Vegas does a decent job in limiting what you can carry. I don't buy the "it isn't realistic" argument because Fallout is far from realistic in almost any other sense.

7. With as long as it's taking for them to even announce the game, I hope it's being created on a new engine. Consequently, that would up the development time, but it'd be worth it.

8. VATS in Fallout is iconic, it would be dumb to remove it, even if the combat was really smooth.

I simply meant most people were mistaken when they point their fingers at Obsidian instead of Bethesda for the bugginess of FNV. And yes, I feel that most people's complaints are less than legitimate as long as they continue to blame the wrong party.

I suppose you do have a point in that a FNV was more of a post-post-apocalyptic game. Civilization had begun to reassert itself and New Vegas had perfectly legitimate reason for still standing (Mr. House shot down most of the missiles) while DC realistically would be a radioactive crater.

2) There was a statement about a year or so ago from Bethesda that FO4 (if in development) could very well use a Skyrim-like skill system. Considering that it's not much of a stretch to foresee the abolishment of stats (SPECIAL) as they did from ES4 to ES5.

3) I don't understand what you mean by meaningless. There was Karma and it had a point in FNV. Are you saying that you want to wipe out a small settlement leaving no survivors then have everyone be hostile to you all over the map like in FO3. I don't like that and think it completely misses the point.

6) Let's face it, the weight limits are totally unrealistic and put there so you can do a Monty Haul campaign. I'm personally torn on this issue myself. It should be up to the player.

#6 Edited by Doominator99 (16 posts) -

@SoNin360 said:

@Boddicker: I think there's a fair amount of people on both sides of the Fallout 3 vs. Fallout New Vegas debate. Personally, I prefer Fallout 3 by a little bit simply because I liked the setting and its atmosphere more. It felt more post-apocalyptic whereas New Vegas takes place in a region less ravaged by the apocalypse, so it just lacks that same feel.

You provided a reason as to why New Vegas was more buggy, but does that really make it any more acceptable? I don't think that makes anyone's complaints any less legitimate. As much as I liked New Vegas, the game was a mess at launch and it took several patches to fix up most of the more serious issues.

Anyway I guess I'll address some of the points you brought up since I don't know what to say about the video since it wasn't too specific, although it seemed reasonable overall.

1. I'm also not too worried about the location, so long as it has an atmosphere more akin to Fallout 3.

2. The point distribution system is fine in Fallout I suppose. I don't see any real reason to change it or the S.P.E.C.I.A.L system.

3. I'd welcome a return of a factions system similar to New Vegas. However, I would also like karma to remain present, so long as they don't screw it up and make it as meaningless as it was in New Vegas.

4. New Vegas's gunplay was significantly improved from Fallout 3, but I agree that it could still be better. It needs to be more responsive and as the video mentioned, feel more impacting.

5. Hardcore mode was a decent idea in New Vegas and overall I liked it. I would welcome a more hardcore Hardcore Mode, I suppose.

6. I disagree with lessening the amount of gear you can carry, unless you're talking about Hardcore Mode. But Hardcore in New Vegas does a decent job in limiting what you can carry. I don't buy the "it isn't realistic" argument because Fallout is far from realistic in almost any other sense.

7. With as long as it's taking for them to even announce the game, I hope it's being created on a new engine. Consequently, that would up the development time, but it'd be worth it.

8. VATS in Fallout is iconic, it would be dumb to remove it, even if the combat was really smooth.

I actually think they should remove the karma system completely. I think the way the world and its people react to you should matter more than a pop up on the corner of the screen. But i do agree that New Vegas messed the system up. You can murder bandits and get karma, but STEAL THEIR BURNT BOOK!?!? Your a monster!!!

And I agree with boddicker's "new engine, ew engine, new engine" request. I am not sure if Skyrim had a new engine or if it was an updated version of the old one. I should check...

#7 Posted by Boddicker (2693 posts) -

@SoNin360 said:

@Boddicker: I think there's a fair amount of people on both sides of the Fallout 3 vs. Fallout New Vegas debate. Personally, I prefer Fallout 3 by a little bit simply because I liked the setting and its atmosphere more. It felt more post-apocalyptic whereas New Vegas takes place in a region less ravaged by the apocalypse, so it just lacks that same feel.

You provided a reason as to why New Vegas was more buggy, but does that really make it any more acceptable? I don't think that makes anyone's complaints any less legitimate. As much as I liked New Vegas, the game was a mess at launch and it took several patches to fix up most of the more serious issues.

Anyway I guess I'll address some of the points you brought up since I don't know what to say about the video since it wasn't too specific, although it seemed reasonable overall.

1. I'm also not too worried about the location, so long as it has an atmosphere more akin to Fallout 3.

2. The point distribution system is fine in Fallout I suppose. I don't see any real reason to change it or the S.P.E.C.I.A.L system.

3. I'd welcome a return of a factions system similar to New Vegas. However, I would also like karma to remain present, so long as they don't screw it up and make it as meaningless as it was in New Vegas.

4. New Vegas's gunplay was significantly improved from Fallout 3, but I agree that it could still be better. It needs to be more responsive and as the video mentioned, feel more impacting.

5. Hardcore mode was a decent idea in New Vegas and overall I liked it. I would welcome a more hardcore Hardcore Mode, I suppose.

6. I disagree with lessening the amount of gear you can carry, unless you're talking about Hardcore Mode. But Hardcore in New Vegas does a decent job in limiting what you can carry. I don't buy the "it isn't realistic" argument because Fallout is far from realistic in almost any other sense.

7. With as long as it's taking for them to even announce the game, I hope it's being created on a new engine. Consequently, that would up the development time, but it'd be worth it.

8. VATS in Fallout is iconic, it would be dumb to remove it, even if the combat was really smooth.

I actually think they should remove the karma system completely. I think the way the world and its people react to you should matter more than a pop up on the corner of the screen. But i do agree that New Vegas messed the system up. You can murder bandits and get karma, but STEAL THEIR BURNT BOOK!?!? Your a monster!!!

LOL.

So true. I hated that I could kill powder gangers but not rob their shit unless I wanted negative Karma. The Karma system needs to go bye bye.

#8 Edited by Ish_basic (4010 posts) -

@Boddicker: 6) Let's face it, the weight limits are totally unrealistic and put there so you can do a Monty Haul campaign. I'm personally torn on this issue myself. It should be up to the player.

if they limit it across the board, the first mod to hit the net allowing you to customize your carrying weight will be the most downloaded mod in the history of that game. There's no point in them bothering. Inventory limits are usually more irritating than anything else, unless they add strategy, which is usually only the case when you're talking limiting the number of weapons.

Realism isn't always important. Nobody's complaining that the FO games don't force you to stop and take a shit every couple days. Or, "hey, I didn't get dysentery from drinking out of that toilet. This game is so unrealistic!" Everyone will forgive Bethesda for ignoring the more tedious elements of reality.

#9 Posted by SoNin360 (5446 posts) -

3) I don't understand what you mean by meaningless. There was Karma and it had a point in FNV. Are you saying that you want to wipe out a small settlement leaving no survivors then have everyone be hostile to you all over the map like in FO3. I don't like that and think it completely misses the point.

How characters reacted to you in New Vegas was almost entirely based on your reputation with the faction or settlement they were affiliated with. This makes sense of course, but almost nobody reacted to you based off your karma, which was more common in Fallout 3. And the Karma system in New Vegas was messed up in that you would gain karma for dumb reasons (killing hostile enemies like powder gangers, ghouls, vipers, etc.) and you oftentimes wouldn't lose karma for murdering innocent people for a couple examples. What you said about Fallout 3's karma system isn't true. If you decide to go on a killing spree, only the people of that location will become hostile to you, which is similarly to how the reputation system works anyway.

In short, I like having a karma system. But I don't like having a flawed and un-impacting karma system, as was present in New Vegas. I'm not saying Fallout 3 handled the karma system perfectly, but at least it had some purpose.

#10 Edited by Boddicker (2693 posts) -

@SoNin360 said:

@Boddicker said:

3) I don't understand what you mean by meaningless. There was Karma and it had a point in FNV. Are you saying that you want to wipe out a small settlement leaving no survivors then have everyone be hostile to you all over the map like in FO3. I don't like that and think it completely misses the point.

How characters reacted to you in New Vegas was almost entirely based on your reputation with the faction or settlement they were affiliated with. This makes sense of course, but almost nobody reacted to you based off your karma, which was more common in Fallout 3. And the Karma system in New Vegas was messed up in that you would gain karma for dumb reasons (killing hostile enemies like powder gangers, ghouls, vipers, etc.) and you oftentimes wouldn't lose karma for murdering innocent people for a couple examples. What you said about Fallout 3's karma system isn't true. If you decide to go on a killing spree, only the people of that location will become hostile to you, which is similarly to how the reputation system works anyway.

In short, I like having a karma system. But I don't like having a flawed and un-impacting karma system, as was present in New Vegas. I'm not saying Fallout 3 handled the karma system perfectly, but at least it had some purpose.

*sigh*

There was a time I would argue vehemently with you, but I accepted a long time ago that Bethesda is going to develop the sequel for one of my favorite franchises and it will probably be the death knell for Fallout. It's ok. Franchises come and go.

All I have to say is read this: Slashless' blog

It's a tad long but may just change your mind (probably not).

#11 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (11657 posts) -

Most people will wish for more "deep" RPG Elements (basically just add more stats and more attributes) and an even bigger open world, possibly even procedurally generate locations and items (Boring !)

Not a single person here willwish for better gameplay. Never have, never will.

People are more concerned with the "idea" of the game than its actual execution, hence why Role Playing is the only genre that can say "screw gameplay" and still score high anf sell well

Bethesda Games, in a nutshell.

#12 Posted by Planeforger (15637 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: Uh, Bethesda dumbed down the series' emphasis on stats and turned it into a fairly mindless shooter. So that's kind of the opposite of what you were arguing...

Still, I'd say that the old stat-heavy turn-based combat was better. They could definitely improve on that by throwing in even more stats and complexity (ala Silent Storm), but knowing Bethesda, they'll probably just turn Fallout 4 into more of a shooter, take out more stats, and maybe add a cover system.

#13 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (11657 posts) -

@ Planeforger

Don't knock the minfless mindless shooter so quickly, plus it only looks mindless because you don't see numbers and meters appearing on the screen (RPGs have some of the worst HUDs). Also, the complex just for the sake of complex is no picnic either.

If I may be honest RPGs transition from Pen & Paper to Video Games hasn't exactly been smooth. Need I remind you the reason we had stats in the 1st place was out of necessity, there was literaly no other way to play an RPG, you wouldve thought now that we have the tech to simulate a few of these things then the genre would've caught up. But nope, the actual process of playing, the gameplay itself, is even crappier than ever.

#14 Posted by livingundead (225 posts) -

I think the last thing Fallout needs is more realism. The original game wasn't about realism - it was about fun and just being out of this world crazy. I want more factions. Dozens more. Cults, military, mafia, gangs, police, etc. I want more enemies, more sci-fi, more guns, more death animations and more gore, and more 'ladies of the night'. What happened to the lightning mauser? Wouldn't it be fun if the next game was in Roswell New Mexico? All the crazy stuff they could do with that location.

The game should be fun and insane. The enemies should be scary as heck. This is radioactive wasteland America. There should be a ridiculous amount a violence, and not just because you're causing it. And it should be brutally hard at the beginning and level off as you get better equipment.

#15 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (11657 posts) -

Most people think I hate RPGs. On the Contrary, I love them, the genre is just dissapointing, never living up to its full potential.

#16 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (11657 posts) -

@ livingundead

Perhaps Mad Max will have those things. It is being developed by Avalanche after all.

#17 Posted by dethtrain (392 posts) -

I just want a more mature environment where choices matter. I'm looking for a darker story. I like VATS, hope it stays. I don't mind the Skyrim style skills. I wouldn't be surprised if they got rid of SPECIAL. It seems a bit redundant with all the skills.

Quicker ways to move around the map that don't involve fast travel.

Maybe even something interesting like RTS style base building over the course of the story? Think something along the lines of the Suikoden games. Gathering and recruiting NPCs to fight a dominant faction for power (Maybe similar to a mass effect 3 like galactic readiness) with a big as fight as the story concludes? I mean, completely epic proportions.

#18 Posted by PinchySkree (62 posts) -

1. Not dumbed down for consoles.

2. An actual new engine that isn't clunky shit copied from the previous games.

3. A UI specifically built for the PC.

4. Up to 4 player complete game coop.

5. Remove the shit ammo system and let us go all into one type if we want.

New Vegas was a broken mess even if it tried to be a better game. I managed to get locked in an uncompletable game 80 hours in.

#19 Posted by Doominator99 (16 posts) -

@PinchySkree: Yea I think getting the PC version right is pretty important. Even though this franchise started on PC, Fallout 3, New Vegas and The Elder Scrolls games after Oblivion seemed to have UI built for consoles which made it so awkward to go through the menus without mods.

#20 Edited by Doominator99 (16 posts) -

Did anyone notice what was written on the computer screen in the video?

#21 Posted by MaestroBanyen (16 posts) -

Even tho Fallouts are post apocalyptic I would enjoy a more diverse environment.

Less brown of everything and make it more realistic and have some colors.

Kind of like the last of us.

#22 Posted by silversix_ (14294 posts) -

My wishlist is for it to come out. That is my wish and if it does come out it better be before 2021...

#23 Posted by thereal25 (401 posts) -

The atmosphere of f3 combined with the superior gun-play of nv.

ALSO, MAKE THE FINAL BATTLE HARD - LIKE IN NV - OTHERWISE ALL THE LEVELLING UP AND GEAR COLLECTION BECOMES REDUNDANT.

#24 Posted by Doominator99 (16 posts) -

Apparently Bethesda said they will not announce anything for a while. Oh no!

#25 Edited by Byshop (11332 posts) -

1. Not dumbed down for consoles.

2. An actual new engine that isn't clunky shit copied from the previous games.

3. A UI specifically built for the PC.

4. Up to 4 player complete game coop.

5. Remove the shit ammo system and let us go all into one type if we want.

New Vegas was a broken mess even if it tried to be a better game. I managed to get locked in an uncompletable game 80 hours in.

Number 2 was the one I was specifically going to point out. I'd prefer they use a new engine rather than recycle the previous TES game again.

But honestly, most of what I want from a new "Fallout" game I'm already getting from Wasteland 2, so I'm good. :)

-Byshop

#26 Posted by jacquelineferre (84 posts) -

I want to kill those annoying kids.

#27 Posted by CrimsonBrute (23432 posts) -

More customization options for almost everything.