Intelligence / Charisma / Agility looking good to me for Perks.
Intelligence / Charisma / Agility looking good to me for Perks.
Launch trailer
I've never played any of the previous Fallout games and don't really know much about them, but have read everything in this thread as well as the links provided, and this looks unreal.
I wasn't mad keen on the idea of creating settlements and having people coming in and selling things, but it starting to grow on me and looks like you can kind of 'opt out' of that if you wish to.
The trailers have definitely whet the appetite and I'll be pre-ordering before the weekend. £40 on Amazon seems to be about the cheapest I can find it for. Downside is that I'm balls deep in GTA V at the moment and only about halfway through it.
I'm quite intrigued by this too despite not having layed any of the others. I might play Fallout 3 and New Vegas first though and wait for this to drop in price.
From my experience, New Vegas felt very dated when I tried to play it last year.
It'll be amazing Boyd, so I'd recommend just jumping in with this one first.
F3 and New Vegas will still be reasonably playable in years to come I'd imagine, so you can always go back to them.
I was thinking I waiting for the price drop but a) it'll never drop that low anyway and b) I wanna be involved in all the omg hype.
I'm a twit
Looks good for a 360 game.
The graphics aren't really a problem when the art direction's so good.
You know my stance on Bethesda so I'll bite my tongue.
I do indeed.
That trailer by the way.
Savage Deathclaws look the absolute bollocks.
Not on Skyrim/Oblivion or any such. Fallout doesn't hold much allure so exploits I'm happy with. Although I've since attempted a no exploit playthrough on 3 and lasted about twelve hours. The fact you can get from one side of the map to the other in ten minutes on this concerns me a bit.
Yeah, I've just read that it's 12 minutes on the Fallout 4 forums, which didn't sound great to me either, although apparently Skyrim's was the same (which I find hard to believe, but hey ho).
It'll really depend what's in the map as to whether that's a problem or not though I guess.
No, I hate fantasy. But a 1950s post apocalyptic setting really appeals.
I don't really have the time to play it on release anyway (although it would be nice to be part of all the hype surrounding a new game for once) but I might get on it in December.
There's no way you could traverse the whole map in twelve minutes on Skyrim.
Even with a horse that seems implausible.
Skyrim took 14 minutes according to neogaf. It just had mountains you couldn't climb (unless glitch jump wahey) that made it feel far bigger due to forcing you to go round.
It looks atmospheric from this vid I've got on anyway, guy you control appears to have asthma as he's knackered every five steps.
I wouldn't have thought so too, but someone claimed they did it (albeit clipping through the mountains).
Thread on the map size.
http://forums.bethsoft.com/topic/154...about-the-map/
The vid is here if anyone wants to see it, won't embed as some of you won't wanna see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR_1Hdg4Rk4
Only looked at the map as I don't really want to see the whole thing being run across, but it always pisses me off when a game has a map with dead space in it. Fallout New Vegas was chronic for that.
What he's getting at is that Bethesda originally said the map was as big as Skyrim without the mountains (i.e. more of it was actually playable as a result), so in fairness to him you'd need to turn clipping off if you were going to measure Bethesda's claim by running from one corner of the map in both games to the other.
If you didn't, then Skyrim's would obviously take longer to traverse (without necessarily being bigger) due to having to take constant detours to get round the mountains.
My main concern/fear at this stage is that from some of the promo stuff (not leaked footage) the shooty bits all look a bit tab A, slot B, ala Call of Duty. I liked the jankyness of the enemy layouts in the previous games and would rather that was stuck to ahead of a load of Michael Bay style set pieces.
Although I suspect I'm probably in a minority on that one.
Trailer looks great - although I swear the "war never changes" stuff was ripped from something else? Also, what is the word the woman says after "would you risk your life for your fellow man, even if they're a $%$^$"?
I'm downloading the Pip-boy app for my phone
Apparently you can crack that app Raoul so that other games (bar the one it lets you play from the off) are available.
Oh Christ I've just seen an in game screenshot. I'll leave it there, enjoy the game lads, apologies if it seemed I was trying to shit on anyone's parade.
Looks like a real doll.
Man, I can't quite remember the last time people looked proper in a game. Infamous Second Son kinda?
I assume it was 'synth', presumably the same thing as the android sidemission fella in Fallout 3.
A map that isn't gigantic might not be so bad a thing. Skyrim badly outlived it's welcome with me with too many small tedious side quests and repetitive tombs/castles/caves. I'll take quality over quantity.
Though yeah, that face is proper rubbish. I'll just pretend she's a 'synth'. That's been beaten repeatedly with a shovel.
I think there will be as many if not more side quests than Skyrim. For me a smaller/more accessible map works better because you don't have to spend half the time walking from quest to quest.
Fallout will (I assume) have more buildings too which makes it more interesting than Generic Cave #205.
I watched the run video, I think the graphics are actually quite good...
Bottom line is that if the story, characters, world design and side missions are excellent, then it not looking like Arse Creed Armageddon is fine by me.
Could be, never played it. Someone have a look on YouTube (if you're bored) and give me a yes or no.
What's DS's beef with this/Bethesda?
I'm leaving it out this thread, Boyd.
Post in general discussion/PM? Or point me to old posts where you've mentioned it before?
It's fine to talk about it here. We don't always all have to agree.