An actual Wasteland..

[kostaskladianos]

https://www.thegamer.com/the-next-fallout-should-be-set-in-an-actual-wasteland/

[Pepper Pimienta]

Originally posted by kostaskladianos:

https://www.thegamer.com/the-next-fallout-should-be-set-in-an-actual-wasteland/

I think they tried that with 76, but it failed miserably because the game got boring fast when there were no NPCs to interact with. So I don't think they should go this route.

[kostaskladianos]

Originally posted by Pepper:

Originally posted by kostaskladianos:

https://www.thegamer.com/the-next-fallout-should-be-set-in-an-actual-wasteland/

I think they tried that with 76, but it failed miserably because the game got boring fast when there were no NPCs to interact with. So I don't think they should go this route.

My dear friend, for start greetings from Greece. With all due respect, i think you dont read the article. Fallout, after the classic era (mean's Fallout 1 and 2, with take place is the ''far west'' of U.S.) lost this ''Mad Max'' logic of a burren world. I dont mean that Fallout 3, or NV, wasn't great games, IS still GREAT GAMES, but....

[DouglasGrave]

One of the problems with Bethesda's current hand-crafted model is that it's a compressed world that fits a lot of interesting stuff into a relatively small space. There's just not room in that design philosophy for the bleak and empty spaces that would make it feel like a real wasteland.

It's also an obstacle for any sort of serious ground vehicle action, because you need wide open spaces or long stretches of relatively clear road for them to shine.

It wasn't a problem for Fallout 1 and 2 because the wasteland between important sites didn't genuinely exist and was just represented by a few random encounter spaces.

[Mennan]

I mean the problem with that is in the Mad Max series you only get the wasteland in small bits. Their time spending wandering waste is fairly short and it skips to points of action. Sure it implies there was hours of nothing but if you were to actually watch that you would of been pissed off at the movie.

If you were to do that in a game where you could spend hours just wandering doing nothing then people would claim that there's no content and the game developers were lazy and don't buy the game.

So yeah from a story perspective there is defiantly 2 much life of people doing stuff but from a game play perspective that's honestly a good thing.

[DouglasGrave]

Originally posted by Mennan:

I mean the problem with that is in the Mad Max series you only get the wasteland in small bits. Their time spending wandering waste is fairly short and it skips to points of action. Sure it implies there was hours of nothing but if you were to actually watch that you would of been pissed off at the movie.

If you were to do that in a game where you could spend hours just wandering doing nothing then people would claim that there's no content and the game developers were lazy and don't buy the game.

So yeah from a story perspective there is defiantly 2 much life of people doing stuff but from a game play perspective that's honestly a good thing.

Were we not already talking about Mad Max as a game (the one with vehicle combat from a few years back) as well as the series of moveis; I assumed that was being considered here given that it's mentioned in the OP's link.

The link does credit it with creating a suitable atmosphere of a desolate and expansive wasteland.

[Zekiran]

I'd much rather have a game that requires a little suspension of disbelief in the form of "travel time" because otherwise "boring as hell".

I already live in the US southwest. There's already nothing there. There's a compelling reason why people *don't live there* because it's *boring*.

Games would not be any different. Fallout doesn't have a bunch of cars to drive around in like MM.

Also the Fallout world isn't nearly as desolate as people seem to believe it 'should' be. Particularly given how many ghouls, ferals or otherwise, human settlers, factionalized humans, human raiders, supermutants, mutant people, or just vaults filled with people survived...

[globefish23]

Originally posted by kostaskladianos:

Originally posted by Pepper:

I think they tried that with 76, but it failed miserably because the game got boring fast when there were no NPCs to interact with. So I don't think they should go this route.

My dear friend, for start greetings from Greece. With all due respect, i think you dont read the article. Fallout, after the classic era (mean's Fallout 1 and 2, with take place is the ''far west'' of U.S.) lost this ''Mad Max'' logic of a burren world. I dont mean that Fallout 3, or NV, wasn't great games, IS still GREAT GAMES, but....

It only had this Mad Max feeling because FO1, FO2 and FO:NV were set in very arid or straight out desert locations.
It's literally a wasteland even without thermonuclear holocaust.

Actually, FO3 and FO4 are pretty unreaslistic depictions.
After 200 years, even ground zero of the most massive nukes would be completely overgrown with lush forests and vegetation.
Plants are really resilent against radiation and their seeds can endure even more.

So, FO76 is actually the best depiction, with Far Harbor being a close second.

[Mad Gnome]

I'm tired of looking at the same dead trees from 200 years ago. I'm ready for some green, overgrown areas to explore. Hopefully FO5 goes that route.

[globefish23]

Originally posted by Courva:

madmax style and deserts ? no thanks. nothing is more boring than sand and desert.

It's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere.

[FauxFurry]

Consider this a Franchise Original Sin as the first Fallout took place too far after the bombs fell to give a greater sense of wandering a post apocalyptic wasteland. If another Fallout game was set in one of the regions where the bombs fell shortly after radiation levels drop low enough to allow an expedition from a vault, BGS has a chance at exploring this point in the series history.

Of course, the game will need vehicles and a bit of procedural generation in between hand crafted major locations to evoke a sense of scale without boring the players with vast expanses of empty space without anything going in them at all.

Random high radiation hot spots and mutant creature encounters would spice things up a bit. Random encounters in general could take place in the randomly generated landscape.

[kostaskladianos]

Originally posted by globefish23:

Originally posted by kostaskladianos:

My dear friend, for start greetings from Greece. With all due respect, i think you dont read the article. Fallout, after the classic era (mean's Fallout 1 and 2, with take place is the ''far west'' of U.S.) lost this ''Mad Max'' logic of a burren world. I dont mean that Fallout 3, or NV, wasn't great games, IS still GREAT GAMES, but....

It only had this Mad Max feeling because FO1, FO2 and FO:NV were set in very arid or straight out desert locations.
It's literally a wasteland even without thermonuclear holocaust.

Actually, FO3 and FO4 are pretty unreaslistic depictions.
After 200 years, even ground zero of the most massive nukes would be completely overgrown with lush forests and vegetation.
Plants are really resilent against radiation and their seeds can endure even more.

So, FO76 is actually the best depiction, with Far Harbor being a close second.

Is Really Far Harbor the most close best? For real my dear friend?

[Flippy]

The Last of Us part 1 is a great setting that would be way more demanding graphics and is why it hasnt been done yet. Really amazing setting everyone agrees.

Depends if Fallout keeps going with the same time period or moves on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMjdl_uYXgE

Maybe the most popular scene ever in a video game.

[Flippy]

Also to stay on topic about Fallout 5, this is the very latest Fallout news from today about the show. If the show has anything to do with Fallout 5 would be a guess but totally possible.

Latest Fallout title news.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-v5cJQCpDw

[yannypr]

The real world is filled with empty wastelands in regards to human habitation despite the 8billion living people, but that's because humans tend to congregate into villages, towns, and cities. That's how it should be in Fallout. Unless your character is some kind of hermit, wilderness explorer, or anthropologist, you're going to be spending most of your time in densely populated regions with very little distance between the different communities.

[Flippy]

Originally posted by yannypr:

The real world is filled with empty wastelands in regards to human habitation despite the 8billion living people, but that's because humans tend to congregate into villages, towns, and cities. That's how it should be in Fallout. Unless your character is some kind of hermit, wilderness explorer, or anthropologist, you're going to be spending most of your time in densely populated regions with very little distance between the different communities.

Thanks for the communist manifesto but i think you got off topic.

Omg was that copy and pasted from Lenin or someone? LOL