Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 77 of 77

Fallout 4 to be set in Boston?

This is a discussion on Fallout 4 to be set in Boston? within the General PS3 Discussion forum, part of the Everything PlayStation; Holy Flaming!!! Lock this thread!!!...

  1. #61
    I make my own mayo!
    sloppywaffle's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    366
    Reputation
    10

    Holy Flaming!!! Lock this thread!!!


    Avi by TheGeneral09 Bar n Sig by Athena the Great PlatBar by In2

  2. #62
    INTJ
    Ps360's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    12,268
    Reputation
    310

    Quote Originally Posted by sloppywaffle View Post
    Holy Flaming!!! Lock this thread!!!
    discussion =/= flaming



    Quote Originally Posted by iRock View Post
    Any True Fallout Fan would say the same thing, Ps360 is right about everything he/she (I still dont know what kind of sex PS360 is lol) has posted. It's just that, Any casual gamer that has experience Fallout 3 first than Fallout 1, 2 or New Vegas, Will say Fallout 3 was good. Fallout 3 suffers from a lot of Fallout Lore, till the point where bethesda just borrowed some things about Fallout Lore, I mean I can see what they were thinking. ''Let's borrow two powerful factions of the series and let's make a war between them, BoS is good and Enclave is bad and both of them want an Water Purification System, one to make good and the other one to accomplish their evil master plan !'' Where in Fallout there's never a completely good or bad faction. The plotline was simple and without much development with a lot of history blanks in the plotline, Those who havent played Fallout before will not care about those empty blanks or details, Original fans make a lot of critics and they wanted a lot of answers that were never given or they didnt care about making it more accurate to the series. I dont blame people to like it because it was simple, sure It has a lot of content and depth player freedom, Character skills, dialog and simple enemies known as Raiders that keeps the game with enemies but still a lot of stuff that could have been better. And then play New Vegas and be dissapointed because they expected less than they were given. I dont know the first single TRUE fallout fan complain about Fallout New Vegas Plotline or Characters. I dont want to argue, If you like Fallout 3 but didnt feel the same with New Vegas It's your choice, I enjoyed New Vegas a lot more, I got to know a lot of the lore and I had more fun.



    another thing would be that Fallout 3 tried to be depressing outlook on the apocolypse while Fallout 1,2, and NV were all about Off-the-wall satire about the age of Atomic and Jet tech of the 50s and dark humor.


    also bethesda wants you to believe in fallout 3 that no fauna/grass/trees/anything grew since 270+ years after nukes dropped. hell in fallout 2 there were already trees and plants growing.

  3. #63
    I make my own mayo!
    sloppywaffle's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    366
    Reputation
    10

    Quote Originally Posted by Ps360 View Post
    discussion =/= flaming







    OK you have a point.


    Avi by TheGeneral09 Bar n Sig by Athena the Great PlatBar by In2

  4. #64
    Hero of Kvatch
    MTL_TKO's Avatar


    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    East Midlands, UK
    Posts
    318
    Reputation
    16

    As long as they do release a Fallout 4, that's all that matters to me


    "War, war never changes."


  5. #65
    Lvl 5 - Silver
    iRock's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Colombia
    Posts
    338
    Reputation
    12

    Quote Originally Posted by Ps360 View Post
    discussion =/= flaming








    another thing would be that Fallout 3 tried to be depressing outlook on the apocolypse while Fallout 1,2, and NV were all about Off-the-wall satire about the age of Atomic and Jet tech of the 50s and dark humor.


    also bethesda wants you to believe in fallout 3 that no fauna/grass/trees/anything grew since 270+ years after nukes dropped. hell in fallout 2 there were already trees and plants growing.
    It may be reasonable it the game would have been set on 2100, even earlier than the Original Fallout so It could have more sense how DC could still be so poluted. But 200 hundred years after ? I still say how simple Fallout 3 was, I mean factions is something vital in the lore, But you only do BoS quests and just 1 for the enclave. Still no reason to argue about it, I'm still thinking It had to be in Chicago, Lonesome Road hint that ! Or at least an DLC ? Bethesda what are you waiting for ?
    PS4: jGezze7
    ''War... War Never Changes...... Men do, through the roads they walk.''

  6. #66
    Rangers F.C
    UNCLEPAULIE's Avatar


    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    2,856
    Reputation
    109

    New York would be a cool setting , my favourite part of 3 was exploring all the subways and then popping out of them to open up new areas of the map . Never played 1+ 2 so if they have already used NYC my mistake . As for Vegas I really enjoyed first playthrough but never had the same appeal to start over and do it all again but when I played 3 I must have run through it at least 10+ times on Xbox , PS3 and the PC ( PC was by far the best experience ) . Don't think the setting is of much importance as long as gameplay is sound .

  7. #67
    Lvl 7 - Gold
    stealthkiller22's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    735
    Reputation
    6

    i don't mind im just happy there another fallout game in development

  8. #68
    Lvl 1 - Bronze
    computerman9's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    41
    Reputation
    0

    They should have it set in New York, and have co-op in it, Imagine, like a last of us kind of game, but with a fallout feel and dead island co-op

  9. #69
    Banned


    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Love
    Posts
    1,010
    Reputation
    54

    Quote Originally Posted by computerman9 View Post
    They should have it set in New York, and have co-op in it, Imagine, like a last of us kind of game, but with a fallout feel and dead island co-op
    Co-op in fallout would destroy the game, the atmosphere would be removed completely and many co-op partners would just join your game, kill of 90% of the cast, steal all their good loot and leave you with a broken save lol.

  10. #70
    Threat
    AlecDawesome's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,570
    Reputation
    383

    Quote Originally Posted by Trains View Post
    Co-op in fallout would destroy the game, the atmosphere would be removed completely and many co-op partners would just join your game, kill of 90% of the cast, steal all their good loot and leave you with a broken save lol.
    It could be set that people can only join through invite.... Although I can see my friends killing all the NPCs to fuck with me
    Thanks to djunglist for the sig and avy


  11. #71
    Game on....
    Timeless-Enigma's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    England
    Posts
    2,915
    Reputation
    348

    Fallout 4 should NOT have co-op! It's not needed and it won't work.

  12. #72
    Threat
    AlecDawesome's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,570
    Reputation
    383

    Quote Originally Posted by Timeless-Enigma View Post
    Fallout 4 should NOT have co-op! It's not needed and it won't work.
    Aww
    Thanks to djunglist for the sig and avy


  13. #73
    Lvl 3 - Bronze
    monkeymoobs's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Wiltshire, England
    Posts
    104
    Reputation
    3

    Boston seems like a good choice. I love Fallout 3 and New Vegas and I might pick up the first 2 for PC if I can find them anywhere. I'm still waiting for my Skyrim DLC currently but if they're making this in the near future I am very excited

  14. #74
    Closing this account


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    1,813
    Reputation
    94

    Co-op in a Fallout game would be really bad. As pointed out before, killing an important NPC just to screw with you isn't cool. Maybe have co-op in a battle mode that put 2 teams against each other to see what team will be the best Survivalist. That would be kinda interesting in a way.

  15. #75
    Change is mediocre
    Luckalicious's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    3,583
    Reputation
    442

    Quote Originally Posted by jay_hawk View Post
    Co-op in a Fallout game would be really bad. As pointed out before, killing an important NPC just to screw with you isn't cool. Maybe have co-op in a battle mode that put 2 teams against each other to see what team will be the best Survivalist. That would be kinda interesting in a way.
    In Fallout 3 and Skyrim you can't kill NPCs that are related to a quest at all. Why would they allow people to be royally fucked this time around?

    I'm all for co-op as long as it isn't mandatory. Hell, if it is mandatory and there isn't any lag and PVP isn't everywhere I wouldn't care. As long as it's enjoyable.

  16. #76
    Closing this account


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    1,813
    Reputation
    94

    Quote Originally Posted by dsluckay View Post
    In Fallout 3 and Skyrim you can't kill NPCs that are related to a quest at all. Why would they allow people to be royally fucked this time around?
    You know how in New Vegas if you wipe out, lets say The King then the quests that was involved with him are all failed. Let's say if co-op was involved and someone thought it would be neat to just ruin your chance to get certain quest done because they are a little to trigger happy.

  17. #77
    Change is mediocre
    Luckalicious's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    3,583
    Reputation
    442

    Quote Originally Posted by jay_hawk View Post
    You know how in New Vegas if you wipe out, lets say The King then the quests that was involved with him are all failed. Let's say if co-op was involved and someone thought it would be neat to just ruin your chance to get certain quest done because they are a little to trigger happy.
    Yeah but New Vegas had multiple paths to take anyway, it was impossible to complete everything in one playthrough with the 4 different endings. I'm sure problems like these would be ironed out, why would they make it so the first guy could complete a quest then kill everyone in that quest? He would be the only person to have completed the quest and ruin the experience for everyone, and if it's possible for one quest then all of them could be tampered with making the entire game uncompletable. I can't see that this would be possible.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:59 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10
Copyright © 2018 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO