It was actually Feargus Urquhart, Obsidian's CEO, who suggested that.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/02/12/and-heres-obsidians-idea-for-fallout-new-vegas-2/

Thank you for clarifying that.

He's not necessarily referring to that LR ending, but imo it would only make sense that way. Feargus was likely influenced by Chris' enthusiasm, but that's not more than speculation on my part.

Anyway, Fallout 4 better establishes something new instead of following the footsteps of something already done.

I dont think the LR ending needs to happen for such a version of LA to exist.

It certainly wouldn't be the first city in a Fallout game to have people living in one part, while the other parts were radioactive hellholes filled with ghouls.

Also true.

I think it should be confirmed (or at least hinted at) that Fallout's ICBMs (like much of the technology of the pre-war era) were very advanced compared to the ones of the 50s or our modern days. They likely invented impossible nukes that leave the area irradiated for a much longer time.

IIRC, it was stated in Fallout 1's manual that the nukes used in the Fallout universe were not like the ones we use today.

Fallout's nukes had a far lower explosive effect, which is likely why so much stuff remains standing, but had a FAR greater radiation output.

Man, I don't know why this topic (regarding F3's worldspace and use of radiation) constantly pops up then (Tim Cain was right btw, when he praised Bethesda's accurate execution of the setting - he was also right regarding their lore-stretching and lack of originality though). I'll check it out, a source's always nice in this kind of conversation.

It's not an accurate execution of the setting, unless... You know I wonder how exactly he meant that.

*Do you have a link to that quote or video? [Unless you mean the Matt Chat interview.]

Suggestion: Could we please rename this thread to "[censored] about FO3 and Bethesda and why I hate them?". It would be more accurate.

Yeah, that's what I was referring to.

For everyone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4XVW6qcuzM#t=1m51s

The whole interview's worth watching, but I skipped to that part.

Let go of this attitude. That's neither what this thread, nor the posts are about. If you think Fallout 3 was absolutely perfect and every criticism against it is just contrived and disguised hatred against Bethesda, it's hard to take you seriously. Just as it's hard to take Gizmo seriously when he reinterprets Tim Cain's words to actually the opposite of what the man said.

You should know in the meantime that I don't think this way.

You aren't giving this impression. To be honest.

I hope F4 does not have a prologue as long as was in F3.

Ok, it was fun the first few times, but for those who like to build various types of characters, is a waste of time.

Of course, in F3 we can leave a save, just before leaving the Vault, but by then it had several tests of karma and the decision to kill or not the Overseer.

Or, make just like Skyrim, because you still can join the Imperials or the rebels regardless of who you chose to follow in the prologue.

I find that he is.

Pointing out the flawed nature of people's arguments, and their obsession with hating a game that supposedly doesn't fit the series, even though the people who made the originals have said it does, doesn't give the impression he thinks Fallout 3 is perfect, just that he thinks many of the arguments used against it are wrong.

But it's not surprising you see this way, most of the internet seems to have adopted a stance of "any defense of something I don't like means said person thinks its perfect", as a means to simplify people's actual arguments, instead of having to actually respond to them.

This basically amounts to saying Tim Cain doesn't know what Fallout's setting is, or if something follows it, which is just as flawed of an argument as saying Gene Roddenberry doesn't know about the star Trek universe, or if something follows Trek or not.

These constant attempts by people to find hidden meanings in the words of the Fallout 1/2devs who said they liked Fallout 3, or that Fallout 3 got it right, just to justify why Fallout 3 is bad is honestly pretty sad.

Then don't argue like that without even bothering to give the relevant quotes.

I know this place tends to get messy sometimes, especially regarding the issue of Beth's Fallout, but your sarcasm is imo misplaced and giving a wrong impression.

Yeah, but Sesom's words contained no argument except what you just said.

Btw. I found the respective quote in the Vault Dweller's Survival Guide:

"The megaton class weapons have been largely retired, being replaced with much smaller yield warheads. The yield of a modern strategic warhead is, with few exceptions, now typically in the range of 200-750 kT. Recent work with sophisticated climate models has shown that this reduction in yield results in a much larger proportion of the fallout being deposited in the lower atmosphere, and a much faster and more intense deposition of fallout than had been assumed in studies made during the sixties and seventies. The reduction in aggregate strategic arsenal yield that occurred when high yield weapons were retired in favor of more numerous lower yield weapons has actually increased the fallout risk."

That's the one I was thinking of.

Though it admittedly doesn't say anything about the staying power of the fallout, only its yield.

Can be established. Should be. There's no smoother explanation afaic.

If we're going on real world science then even a decade or two after the war most of the danger from fallout and radiation would be gone. From what ive heard most of the danger from Fallout comes in the first week or so, after that it starts to drop off immensely, although personally if I felt like surviving a nuclear war I would be staying underground until every single supply runs out before going to the surface and risking it.

Having massive pockets of radiation by even 2100 is pretty unrealistic, not to say 2277 or 2281. And also going by real world science, its far more likely that the majority of CONUS is still full of scorched earth from the massive firestorm that happened with the bombs. Even with lower yields in explosive capacity I think we'd be seeing a lot of just dead ash across the game worlds if they were constructed according to absolute reality.

...Which is kinda why I always find it interesting when people talk about the Falloutverse going on real world science, since even in the limited knowledge that I have about how it would work (Maybe someone with a education in this sort of stuff could help us out?) it wouldnt be anywhere near a fun gameworld to be in. I think that real world science does have a place in making the world believable, but like everything in gaming the fiction and realism both need to bend according to gameplay. The Falloutverse is nowhere near accurate to what a lot of predictions about nuclear war would be, assuming we don't just all die in the firepit that the earth becomes.

Ponting out the flawed nature of people's arguments? Pffft. That's not what I've seen. Nor the simplifying of people's arguments since there's rarely been anything to simplify. But what I have seen, is pseudo clever oneliners, looking down on people, passive aggressiveness in defense of the provided arguments, and furious and continuing denial that there might be any sort of flaw in the game in any context (and on that last note, you provide no exception).

You might've noticed that that line of thinking in reverse is used much, much more frequently than the one used now (which I didn't, it was General Garbage over a useless slur about renaming the thread - which, btw, is not an argument to be simplified, just a polarized oneliner that deserves a response in line with it). But I'm not surprised if you haven't since you are on your own side of the fence. You're using exact same rhetoric in reverse by calling the criticism "insistence on hating".

If there ever was a level headed discussion to be had without extra emotion or the need to ridicule the other side (and there have been quite some over the years, but those people are long gone), I'm all open for it. But usually it only results Jaramr telling me to piss off, or sesom's "eevile bethesda" one liner, or someone else calling me "a hater". People can't really take criticism over the things they like in the internet, it's all out up in arms nearly every time.

I personally don't feel like we need to be told Fallout radiation works differently. Especially when we can see, even as far back as Fallout 1, that it never did.

Or pretty much this.

Going by real world standards would make for a rather boring game.

I would like to respond to this line in particular.

In all the years that I have discussed Fallout 3 and NV, on various forums, I can safely say I have seen what Sesom and I said a million times more then the supposed reversal you speak about. It's utterly systemic.

If we went by real world models of what would actually happen then I really doubt we would have any guns in the Fallout 3/NV timeframe. Maybe wasteland quality scrap guns like in Metro 2033, but a pre-war assault rifle firing plentiful scavenged ammo that isnt in a whole bunch of different calibers, and isnt liable to cause your gun to explode?

Yeah there's a lot of reasons why that would never happen in reality.

Oh, we don't need to be.

But not here; which is what I was speaking of.

Anyways, moving on....

The general gist of what I'm looking for in the future of Fallout is mechanical parity as close to the originals as possible with the current gameplay format. The perspective doesn't really matter even if my preferences lay elsewhere from FPP. Good a varied RPG gameplay with an oomph can be achieved regardless of that; and even with the real time component (though I do wish VATS gets an overhaul to provide a solid TB mode). The chief thing is, that the mechanics and gameplay rules provide, by design, an experience that puts the character in the forefront in all cases that are governed by the systems design (SPECIAL & skills; and derived attributes). To a certain end this can be even controlled via "difficulty settings" that control the level of how much these metrics and their progression impact the gameplay as a whole.

One way to look at at acieving that is dual gauges for difficulty (like in the originals). Gameplay and combat. Where gameplay difficulty adjusts how much the stats overall mean in the game and their starting values, along with adjusting the leveling pace, and combat tackles with combat related issues (like provision and equipement scarcity and pricing, enemy numbers and such). In a way where you can have a piss easy shooter if you put both gauges on the easiest, a difficult shooter if you leave gameplay on easy but put combat on hardest; or, a very difficult stat heavy RPG if you put both on hardest, or relatively easy stat heavy game if you throw combat on easiest but leave gameplay on hardest. Depending on your preferences, you could pretty much tailor a game to suit you. A [censored] to balance, no doubt, but it's not so much about resources for Bethesda at this point as much as it is about willingness to try stuff out (saving a bit from all that dungeon and rubbleformation design, if need be).

I guess it would be nice to be told in-game or something... but, at this point, it seems like it would be a "what is the NCR!" tier sort of info dump.

Sure.....

Indeed.

No it does not. Tim is also not the only one who worked on it. Tim does strike me as the kind who would turn a phrase.
Tim said that he like fo3; I don't doubt him on that; he also mentioned a few ways he'd have done it differently ~and why; and those reasons declare a few obvious things that were obviously ignored by Bethesda.

What attempts? You act like it's an attempt at passing falsehoods. What it is is pointing things out to others, and them giving a free pass on it... Like Jet, like the format gutting, like the fact that they did not want to write on a competitive level with the series they were extending.

We point out something egregious, it gets ignored, and we get told " welcome to games. "; or worse... "told it's an improvement, by someone that actually believes it."

When we express that we think FO4 will only be more of the same; with the same problems (and often how to improve it)... we're seen as malcontents, and called dinosaurs. There is quite the triple standard going on. Has been for years.