There should have been bikes and cycles in FO3; and should be in FO4... though who knows really. Probably not, I don't think there will even be ladders.

Engine is a bit weird about those things, I assume. I do hope for some manner of real time transportation that isnt just my legs. I would enjoy cycles, but what I would like the most is some sort of armoured bus that I could use as a player home. There is XRE Cars for New Vegas that is trying to do these things, but by its very nature its a fair bit janky. Still, if modders are able to make a vehicle that can drive over the cracked pavement of the Mojave, then im sure the actual developers can code up a much better way of doing it.

Didn't know it was self evident, but hey, seems we have the same opinion. Things like that can happen .

Yes, the barren wastes could just as well be explorable in realtime. You can choose any point at the map, but not everywhere is a show going on.

And at the x locations, you have a well designed 3d map (like in 3 and Vegas) for each one. They wouldn't only consist of one city or town, but be a larger area which offers much to explore and let the Beth devs really live out their love for that kind of stuff.

Or maybe they would be one town, that is really huge and full of nooks and crannies, sewers, offering a real vertical dimension, etc.

Well... self evident from the name I mean... If it's a Fallout game, it should play like Fallout, no?

So even a 3D engine sequel should still keep the core game mechanics and the functionality of the map.

Would you agree that Lord of the Rings is a book and thus should always be a book, that any films made on it shouldnt have been made, that any games should have been .pdfs of the source material, and that the tabletop games based on it shouldnt have existed?

A series name doesnt mean anything gameplay-wise. A lot of people realize that rehashing the same thing over and over again is a very bad thing to do, and those that dont realize it get a lot of flak, like the developers of Call of Duty.

I know your disposition on this and it's a valid and comprehensible view. I share many of your opinions, some not. Especially since you don't seem to be opposed to innovation per say. And I like that you phrase it as self evident.

Unfortunately, it's not. 3 and Vegas have shown us how flexible the 'core' mechanics of the franchise actually are. So one could argue (and god knows I would when it comes to perspective and combat execution) that going back to the roots is not a logical conclusion for design choices - and they'd have a point. My proposal is to bring stuff together, not set the next game even further apart from Fallout's 'identity'.

See, there's two thing to a main series Fallout game, not more as I see it (per definition). First, it's an RPG (that's why tactics was tactics). Second, it's set in the Fallout universe, ie in a post apocalyptic America in a 50's world of tomorrow inspired alternate timeline.

I'd love to have a Fallout grand strategy game one of these days, especially based around Caesars Legion. There are so many types of great experiences that can be had from this setting, not just playing the wandering adventurer but also the warlord, or something like what was tried with Real TIme Settler with founding a town.

I wouldn't care about it, as RTS' usually don't catch me, but why not?

It obviously wouldn't be 'Fallout 4' though (that's why I said 'main series'). More like Fallout: Total War or something.

Obviously not Fallout 4, since I would say that has to remain some sort of RPG, but I think that a universe as rich and interesting as Fallouts can be used for all sorts of games.

What would also be interesting is a game based around trading and caravans. Once again fufilling the role of something that is not going to be some sort of wandering hero, but instead being the manager of a operation like the Crimson Caravan, having to make decisions about what goods to transport, how much to guard them, and also sending expeditions to far away places to open up new routes of trade.

The Fallout setting allows for so much diversity, and the capacity to have nearly infinite diversity by setting it in differnet locations. The mississipi river may be home to a trading society much like Venice, which would be a perfect fit for the trading game. The American south may be filled to the brim with hostile terrain and creatures, making it perfect for a settlement sim game where you lead a ragtag bunch of settlers into becoming a powerful city state.

Ah, now what would you mean by that?

(yeah, offers much variety, but I think RPGs let us explore the world and it's people in the best possible way. Personal opinion, it's like my favorite genre in video games.)

Bethesda games are still RPGs, infact they are the best ones around IMO

I will agree that a true Fallout 4 would be preferable than all of these games, but who says that the franchise needs to be one developers baby? Bethesda could be making TES and Fallout, but they could contract out the IP to several other developers to make different types of games. Its happened with New Vegas, albeit with the same type of game, so there is precedent for it. I would love to have a up and coming studio get their name known by developing a game like that settlement sim I described. Some would call it filler, but I would say that it would be like having a second plate of poutine after you finished your fish and chips at the Bethesda diner. It shares something in common, but its a very different dish, and if your tastes are for it it would be a great way to have even more.

The Wasteland

And as Fallout 1, 2, and New Vegas show........ life had already started to regrow in great numbers even a year after the war, not to mention how much life there was 84, 164, and 204 years after the war. The only game to depict the wasteland as you describe it, is, well, Fallout 3, and even then it doesn't fit that well either.

Except the premise of Fallout was to explore a post nuclear war world based on 1950's culture, the entire "here's a lot of blank wasteland areas between the important stuff where some random encounters might happen" was never a defining feature of the premise. Not to mention that those areas are already simulated in both Fo3 and NV, in the areas between cities, where there is little to nothing in the wasteland, and where one can find random encounters..... just like they were in the past games, except now there isn't a load screen between them. The amount of space between them was never important, as the game's basically ignored that space anyways. Fallout 3 felt no less vast then the past games, in some ways, it felt even larger because you actually got to experience the content between areas far more often, rather then just walking around a map screen that doesn't convey much sense of exploration or distance, since you don't actually have to experience all that content between the areas, and can just walk between all the cities easily.

That is an entirely false assumption, just because the originals were not done in first person, doesn't mean Interplay couldn't have easily decided to make the series first person in some future game they made themselves, at which point, YES, the series WOULD be intended to be done in first person, and it would be just as valid of a Fallout game as tactics was, even though it was a squad-based tactics game, which the original weren't. You act like things cant change or adapt over time, or that the adaptions can be as true as the originals.... they can.

Your right, the radscorps dont survive on just rocks, but, again, Fallout 1, 2, and NV showed us most of the wasteland isn't like that, unless you are suggesting Fallout 3's depiction of the wasteland is the only correct one? Even then, the C.w. had plenty of grass and bushes for herbivores to survive on, and carnivores could survive on those creatures.

And who defines what is important enough? You? even the older Fallout games had plenty of superfluous locations, even in larger cities, should they have been cut as well?

Again, gameplay over realism. I assume that Boone for example would pretty much see you two as a 2 man team, like with Vargas.

The choice of perks is too personal imo to let you decide about it for the companion. So in this case realism-> gameplay.

It's a thin line though.

So, what does everyone think about the possibility of a VGX reveal on december 5th?

Its another flashpoint. We can always hope for it, but frankly ive been thinking that a Fallout 4 announcement has been just around the corner for two years now. One day.

Poor guy...

I think it's safe to say that Fallout 4 will have a 2015 fall release. It'd be absurd to think Bethesda Game Studios would wait any longer than 4 years to release their next title. Now it's just a matter of time.

It somehow seems likely to me. Wouldn't bet my shoes though.

VGX. V is like the 22nd letter in the alphabet. X is number 24. G is 7.

Soooo, uhm 22-7-24

yeah, sounds legit.

I personally don't think picking relevant perks or selecting skill points breaches that line (skill points is debatable though).

At this moment in time companions can use any weapon regardless of their skills anyway

It's absurd that we haven't heard anything 3 years after skyrim's release.I would expect anything at this moment in time, not even a 2015 release date as there is scarcely anything to base it on.

It's gonna be (probably...) at TGA, not VGX. Apparently VGX will still exist, not sure how popular they will be with TGA appearing.

Doctor Li in the Commonwealth operates against androids probably.

I mean with Eden she got told by the LW how maniacal AIs can become (maybe). Soon after she went north.

The Game Awards presentation on December 5, seems to be the last great hope for a 2014 announcement. IF VGX has any info it will likely be repeating what's already learned...

http://thegameawards.com

Fallout the Clone Wars

CIS: Darth Li and her Commonwealth droids

Republic: Lyons Brotherhood clone army thanks to Vault 108 tech

The whole Boston thing is a smokescreen. It's going to be set in Florida.