- Joined
- Jun 6, 2012
- Messages
- 550 (0.13/day)
| Processor | Intel Core 2 QX6850 |
|---|---|
| Motherboard | ABIT AB9 Pro |
| Cooling | Zalman CNPS-9900 MAX-R |
| Memory | Patriot PDC24G6400LLK (4x 2 GB) |
| Video Card(s) | Palit GeForce GTX 560 Ti Twin Light Turbo |
| Storage | Not Enough! |
| Display(s) | Samsung T240HD |
| Case | NZXT Zero |
| Audio Device(s) | Creative Labs Sound Blaster X-Fi Elite Pro |
| Power Supply | Thortech Thunderbolt Plus TTBPK00G 1000W |
| Mouse | Elecom M-DUX70BK |
| Keyboard | CM Storm Trigger (Cherry MX Brown) |
| Software | NOT Windows 10 |
A Fallout game that...
1) Has a world the size of The Elder Scrolls: Daggerfall (unlikely to happen, but I can dream)
2) Is more faction focused and less karma focused (less Fallout 3, more Fallout 1/2/T/NV)
3) Not based on the Gamebryo engine (there were almost as many bugs resulting from the engine as there were in the game scripting; the latter is understandable due to its size and complexity whereas there's no excuse for the former)
4) Retains the old survival mechanics of food, drink, and rest (a.k.a. "hardcore mode" in Fallout New Vegas for the newer players)
For the people complaining about VATS dependency in Fallout 3, you've obviously never tried to shoot a Mirelurk (those giant horseshoe crabs) in the head with it. VATS was more useful as a "bullet time" feature to get your bearings and a few pot shots in when you're overwhelmed. I'll admit the first-person shooter style of Fallout 3 and New Vegas meshes oddly with the iconic VATS of the turn-based strategy style of the previous Fallout games. Given that consideration, I think they've done a decent job integrating it.
As much as I'd love to see another turn-based strategy Fallout, I don't think it's going to happen. The US market prefers FPS and other twitchy genres over TBS and other slower, more cerebral genres.
Co-op would be nice, especially with LAN support. But then the devs would need to accommodate for more than one player. What if the players don't want to stick together and do different things? The scope and complexity of Fallout and TES games would make this a daunting task.
1) Has a world the size of The Elder Scrolls: Daggerfall (unlikely to happen, but I can dream)
2) Is more faction focused and less karma focused (less Fallout 3, more Fallout 1/2/T/NV)
3) Not based on the Gamebryo engine (there were almost as many bugs resulting from the engine as there were in the game scripting; the latter is understandable due to its size and complexity whereas there's no excuse for the former)
4) Retains the old survival mechanics of food, drink, and rest (a.k.a. "hardcore mode" in Fallout New Vegas for the newer players)
For the people complaining about VATS dependency in Fallout 3, you've obviously never tried to shoot a Mirelurk (those giant horseshoe crabs) in the head with it. VATS was more useful as a "bullet time" feature to get your bearings and a few pot shots in when you're overwhelmed. I'll admit the first-person shooter style of Fallout 3 and New Vegas meshes oddly with the iconic VATS of the turn-based strategy style of the previous Fallout games. Given that consideration, I think they've done a decent job integrating it.
As much as I'd love to see another turn-based strategy Fallout, I don't think it's going to happen. The US market prefers FPS and other twitchy genres over TBS and other slower, more cerebral genres.
Co-op would be nice, especially with LAN support. But then the devs would need to accommodate for more than one player. What if the players don't want to stick together and do different things? The scope and complexity of Fallout and TES games would make this a daunting task.
