Duck and Cover

why does the next Fallout game (assuming one is made) have to......
1) be focused on the 'vault dweller' and his descendants.
2) be have to be a prequal/sequal.
3) be set in california.
4) be about a hero going on a vital quest.
5) involve a human PC.
6) be focused on a single PC (i want to control my npc's and send them on quests that i wouldnt touch with a 20ft pole)
7) a clone of Fallout (and you know it will be!!!)

Sorry to state the obvious but theres a whole planet full of locations and people. Besides fanfiction, in game info and the fallout bibles, there isnt much focusing on the 80yrs between the two games. Rise of NCR, Vault City, BoS, Enclave. Theres the plight of the ghouls, mutants, human survivors, other vaults.

.....and maybe, just maybe. The 3rd Fallout game might be a little more immersive than its predecessors, if i spot just one more quote from a movie, tv show, game or song.... i'll snap!

Skynet Brain Bot wrote:7) a clone of Fallout (and you know it will be!!!)

Hope it will be is more like it. I think it's far more likely to end up being a clone of Baldur's Shit in a Fallout-y setting.

1) be focused on the 'vault dweller' and his descendants.

It doesn't, but I'm sure everyone would storm the headquarters of IPLY/BIS looking for blood if it wasn't.

2) be have to be a prequal/sequal.

Why would you call it Fallout 3 then?

3) be set in california.

The Fallout RPG's were set in California. The East Coast is supposedly gone, and Tactics already did the Midwest. I don't think any of us want to see Fallout Lousiana or something like that.

4) be about a hero going on a vital quest.

Would you rather have Fallout as a sim or as a strategy game?

5) involve a human PC.

It doesn't. You could have it as a ghoul saving Necropolis from Set, as long as you keep the setting and feeling of Fallout.

6) be focused on a single PC (i want to control my npc's and send them on quests that i wouldnt touch with a 20ft pole)

What's the point of roleplaying then?

7) a clone of Fallout (and you know it will be!!!)

I'd rather have Fallout as a clone of Fallout rather than it being a clone of some dungeon PRG.

.....and maybe, just maybe. The 3rd Fallout game might be a little more immersive than its predecessors, if i spot just one more quote from a movie, tv show, game or song.... i'll snap!

Fallout 1 had some of the most immersive gameplay that I have ever seen. The Easter Eggs were overdone in Fallout 2, but it still gave me the same immersive gameplay as in Fallout 1, just with a lot more Easter Eggs.

I would like it to be more like the original Fallout...a serious game.

Now of course it had foolish jokes, but the difference is they had to do with the game. Example. Jane:What brings you to the children of the Cathedral?, VaultDweller:I am just looking for structural weaknesses so I can burn this place down.

Now that is serious, in a way, because it relates to the game. Fallout 2 however ruined the game by making far too many foolish Easter Eggs, comments from people, comments the character can make, admitting it is a game, and such.

The entire game came out to be a big joke, that programmers made to have fun. I also hope it is more like Fallout 1, in being realistic.

The Vaults were a serious matter in Fallout 1, I do not recall any experiment foolishness mentioned.

They were shelters, and any that the dweller found had a good story behind them, not being a social experiment. Fallout 1 had planning, and was made to be a great game.

In my opinion Fallout 2 had no real planning, the result was a ridiculous plot. It does not even make sense, The President wants to kill all the mutants, since they are radiated....very well, I could accept it, if he sticks to that plan.

However, he captures, and kills many people from vault 13, even though they are Not radiated/are pure, or by his standards are still true citizens, not mutants.

Fallout 3 *must* take place after Fallout 1, but before Fallout 2 in my opinion, because that way it could be untainted from SOME of Fallout 2.

Now Fallout 2 has already nearly ruined the Fallout series, but perhaps a good game that explains what went on south of NCR during the time could be made, perhaps before making the tribe the original Vault Dweller could have done some other quests down there.

Although the bibles have been hard at work to fortify Falout 2, and prevent a good game, perhaps it could be done.

It could be said that...something else happened with the vault, such as the overseer needs to send someone out to gather data on whether it is safe to leave the vault, and it could go on from there.

Why does it have to be an ancestor of the vault dweller? It does not be, but I think that it should be someone from vault 13, or at least another vault.

This is because it makes sense to there knowledge of objects, and things which they studied in the vault.

It also would stick to the Fallout series, leaving the vault, after a nuclear war for the *first time* It has to be set in the area because it is where people will be interested in due to the Fallout games, however I think it could branch out a bit in other directions, since the game could be bigger.

It has to be a clone of Fallout because it is a Fallout game... It has to have control of a single character, because the whole point is interaction, not control.

However I think you should be able to interact more with npcs, in order to *send* them on quests on their own, or at least talk more, other than gear/combat control.

I am not sure if this is what you meant, or if you meant controlling them as units, this cannot be, because it would become a strategy game, like Fallout Tactics, not an RPG.

It has to be a person going on a *big quest* because otherwise it really would not be that interesting. Sitting around in a bar waiting for the next caravan is only fun for so long.

Anyways that is what I think for some of the 'whys', with a touch of my own thoughts, of course.

a) the game wopuld be best set in the gap between the two games, fan fiction aside, this area needs exploring. the world changes drastically between the two games.
b) controlling npc's should at least be included in battle, scripts are a terrible way to control npc *coughs* baldurs gate *coughs*
c) the vault dweller area has been done to death, why cant the game be about oh say
- a mutant PC trying to restore the fev vats and continue the masters work, an epic quest to 'better' the world..
we need an anti-hero!!!
d) fallout 3 is the name of the game not a descrpition, a series of films does not have be stuck on a stationary timeline.
e) the whole planet, why does the game have to be in america, just one country having vaults?!?!?
f) ok, maybe you do need an epic quest but does it have to begin like one, id rather the PC be dragged into a series of events then have a vital goal.

***thinking out loud***
why does the plot have to be so linear, a hero defeats the villian. you can make yourself evil through various actions but ultimately you are the goody, goody hero.
Why can't there be multiple endings ala Deus Ex or Streets of Rage,
what if i am not tough enough to take out the boss,
-i might wanna work with him and continue the evil.
-Maybe theres a way to accomplish your goals without murder
-perhaps a killing spree is your style to end the game

The road the PC has to travel is always the same, you lean to the dark side but never cross.

The way you say it you want to change the entire game around, you may as while call if Results Of War, or something.

It is set in America, because America is the place with vaults, as that other person mentioned. People do not survive without vaults, or at least some protection.

America is just an interesting place to have it set, and that is why so many movies/other games are set there.

Now...yes, I think that *anti hero* would be necessary, but I still think the main character should be human.

However, there should be more choice. Such as (Fallout 1 as an example) The vault dweller deciding to join the cathedral, preforming good duties, moving up in rank to a high priest, and eventually learing of the unitys true purpose/the Master.

Then they could work for him, and the game would not end with the dead vault, but instead you would go on doing quests as a super mutant, that started as a human, or as a human, who works with the master, such as Morpheus.

Controlling npcs, even in combat still makes it strategy, a nice thing in Fallout was the feeling that your npcs were not bots you controlled, but were people, that come along with you, and help.

I have had no problems with my npcs, if they use burst I give them a non burst weapon, or in Fallout 2 just specify in combat controls.

They are meant to be their own people. They may not be the best, but they are useful if used properly.

Using them properly does include some dying at times, yes people on your side die as well as the enemy. So I say no to controlling npcs anywhere.

Skynet Brain Bot wrote:a) the game wopuld be best set in the gap between the two games, fan fiction aside, this area needs exploring. the world changes drastically between the two games.

What changes? Basically the NCR and Enclave rose and the BoS fell. The minor details don't need an entire game to explore.

b) controlling npc's should at least be included in battle, scripts are a terrible way to control npc *coughs* baldurs gate *coughs*

Fallout RPG's should tend to stay as far away from Tactics as possible

c) the vault dweller area has been done to death, why cant the game be about oh say
- a mutant PC trying to restore the fev vats and continue the masters work, an epic quest to 'better' the world..
we need an anti-hero!!!

It would be nice to make the game so that the player can have the option of doing one or the other.

d) fallout 3 is the name of the game not a descrpition, a series of films does not have be stuck on a stationary timeline.

Maybe, but I'd hate to see a Fallout prequel or something that just screws up the timeline even more in the middle.

e) the whole planet, why does the game have to be in america, just one country having vaults?!?!?

Would you like to play an RPG where the main character is a Chinese hero who kills the descendants of America soldiers? Fallout is the retro-50's American period.

f) ok, maybe you do need an epic quest but does it have to begin like one, id rather the PC be dragged into a series of events then have a vital goal.

That would just be filler for when you actually get the quest. Having the huge quest in the beginning allows you to explore more venues of the gameplay, rather than wandering around waiting for something to happen.

b) controlling npc's should at least be included in battle, scripts are a terrible way to control npc *coughs* baldurs gate *coughs*

I'm not so sure about that. Being able to control the NPC's in combat means you take away their personality. The abilty to control your NPC's will make them nothing more then pack mules/fighting machines then persons with their own agendas. There's something wrong when you have a coward NPC that doesn't want to participate in any fight, and suddenly you send him with a knife against an enclave patrol.

c) the vault dweller area has been done to death, why cant the game be about oh say
- a mutant PC trying to restore the fev vats and continue the masters work, an epic quest to 'better' the world..
we need an anti-hero!!!

e) the whole planet, why does the game have to be in america, just one country having vaults?!?!?

Two things here:

1. You can't just take Fallout as a post apocalyptic game that happens in america, the whole Fallout setting can't live without the USA.
The Fallout culture and setting is based upon a kind of 50's america culture combined with a post apocalyptic rpg. You can't move Fallout, you'd kill the setting.

2. I have a problem with playing a Mutant/Ghoul/Deathclaw.
If you look at the first Fallout (Which we all agree was the original intention of the creators and should be taken into account) you can see that playing them is impossible.
Ghouls are zombie like carrion eaters. They are not "nice", they are scum. They are not human beings, they just wander around trying to eat the flesh of living creatures.
Deathclaws are dumb animals, it's not like they can talk or something (Exculding the all talking-deathclaws-fallout-2-incident).
Now we get to mutants. Mutants can surely talk, and some of them are actually intelegent (Take Lou, for example). But playing a mutanat will greatly limit the playing option the game will present. You won't be able to play, for example, a weak non-combat type mutant that rely upon his speech skills. And after all, isn't that what makes Fallout different from the other RPG's out there?

f) ok, maybe you do need an epic quest but does it have to begin like one, id rather the PC be dragged into a series of events then have a vital goal.

That was implemented in Arcanum, rather well I might add. I think it can work.

why does the plot have to be so linear, a hero defeats the villian. you can make yourself evil through various actions but ultimately you are the goody, goody hero.
Why can't there be multiple endings ala Deus Ex or Streets of Rage,
what if i am not tough enough to take out the boss,
-i might wanna work with him and continue the evil.
-Maybe theres a way to accomplish your goals without murder
-perhaps a killing spree is your style to end the game

All of these options were available in the original Fallout.

Ghouls may be evil, but that is not the point.

You could still do evil quests, such as leave the Hall Of The Dead, in order to find out what happened to the water supply. (It could start, assuming the vault dweller stole the chip.)

The first quest could be getting the parts, and repairing the pump. Then it could go on from there, sub quests could be killing normies who are hanging around the hotel too much, ect.

Other main quests could be taking control of the vault, for protection. Speech people could convince the glowing ghouls to make an alliance, battle people could destroy them, and take over.

It could work easily with Ghouls. Super Mutants could be simillar, just use your imagination.

As for Deathclaws...well they could work, but it would be a small game, perhaps a bonus feature.

Maybe species would greatly affect what kind of player you are going to be, lets say
you want to be a pure melee fighter then be a deathclaw, good with huge weapons and toughness then a mutant.
All round character then be a human.

if the next fallout game takes place after the first two then it is likely that 1 of 3 scenarios has taken place...
1) human and non-human relations have not changed still antipathy but acceptance
2) humans and non-humans live together in peace and harmony and there is no stigma attached to being a nonhuman... people can even choose to be dipped or radiated
3) all non-humans have been wiped from the earth

if the one of the first two take place, then starting the game as a different species would add a fun element. Some quests you cant do because you're a dumb mutant or some you cant do because your not in with the ghoul crowd. This would make the game a more unique experience everytime, with a huge number of variations.
The oppertunity for good and evil should have a profound effect on the game, i understand that being a slaver and childkiller would affect your choices in f2 but not to the same degree.
In both games your path was a little too clear, you had to save your vault, you had to save your village. Why cant time in the wastes change you so much that you forget your obligations and want to take over the world.
... maybe the game could be about becoming the next master or 'president of the USA'

agreed fallout has this kitch 50's american design but if the game is going to occur within the existing timeline then theres isnt many places to go.. a little further north, maybe south into mexico. But then you have to remember either vault city or ncr now control the entire area, as posted in an earlier message.... the 3rd game must occur between the two fallout games.
or maybe another little shooting contest with nukes will wipe the slate clean and u can start from the beginning...again :-)

There's a problem with playing different races, as the world of Fallout is a bit more harsh and paranoid than that of Forgotten Realms and Arcanum. DeathClaws would be shot on sight, ghouls and mutants would likely be the same way.

As for being able to control the NPCs that follow you, well, someone needs to look up the definition of NPC.

I agree totally with Rosh. Non playable character IS non playable.

The best thing to do is to have more options how to "advice" your pals and then they should do as good as they can based on your hints & tips. Like, "I'd rather like you see using those firearms against bigger foes and melee weapons against smaller enemies." and then your NPC actually WOULD beat the shit out of rats with sledgehammer and attack Enclavers with G11e.

Kashluk wrote:The best thing to do is to have more options how to "advice" your pals and then they should do as good as they can based on your hints & tips. Like, "I'd rather like you see using those firearms against bigger foes and melee weapons against smaller enemies." and then your NPC actually WOULD beat the shit out of rats with sledgehammer and attack Enclavers with G11e.

Or maybe during battle you could yelll "hep hep!!" and he'd stop pummeling the rat to save you from the deathclaw.

edit: depending on the npc of course, so might not want to save you....

Controlling all the party members is the pits, especially in TB. Much better to have some quick key commands for talking to your followers during combat. Something like the commands in SWAT 3 combined with the existing FO2 npc controls.

requiem_for_a_starfury wrote:Controlling all the party members is the pits, especially in TB. Much better to have some quick key commands for talking to your followers during combat. Something like the commands in SWAT 3 combined with the existing FO2 npc controls.

Yeah that would probably work good... and have the controls limited in scope by your ch or maybe a leadership skill or speach...

That sounds good and makes sense, but I don't think it's fair or fun to punish low CH characters with minigun bursts to the back.

Spazmo wrote:That sounds good and makes sense, but I don't think it's fair or fun to punish low CH characters with minigun bursts to the back.

Well if you are a low ch then you're probably better at combat and rely on npc's less than a high ch person who might have to hire npcs and guards to help his low combat skills.

Yes, but there are ways to penalise the player for not having a given attribut without frustrating him. And besides, I shudder to think that my buddies would shoot me in the back just because I'm ugly.

It'd be better to attach orders to intelligence and speech, the higher for both the more options/commands you have available to issue. Also it would be good to have some interaction between NPCs and player, say if you didn't help complete a quest in time, the NPC would get more beligerent and would be less likely to follow your commands. It would be better for the NPC just to up and leave if they got too miffed at you rather than have them attack the PC.

so rather than controlling npc's as you would the pc, you'd rather have a series of inbattle commands like
- lay down fire on that area (click over area)
- vic come with me, sulik and cassidy cover us (f2 for example)
- switch to your strongest weapon

maybe there could be a series of shots feature ala X-COM, you and your npcs can perform a series of shots that may make combat more random.
- aimed shots (better acuracy but costs more ap's)
- snap shots (normal attack and ap)
- auto shot (less accuracy but less ap's needed to fire)

and i am inclined to disagree with rosh, in the times after f1 and f2 mutants and ghouls will either be accepted or wiped out. Playing as different species adds so many different dimesions to gameplay and yes maybe some people would shoot you on sight but thats another factor to the species you play as. In most rpgs you have the selection of elf, dwarf, orc etc. why cant this trend be continued to Fallout