It doesn't take an evil genius to figure out that Fallout 4 is just over the horizon, given that "Three Dog" voice actor Erik Todd Dellums has tweeted about the return of his character - and following Skyrim's monstrous success, it's likely Bethesda will share ideas or even full-blown features between the franchises.
In our latest outbreak of ill-advised chin-stroking, Alex Hawksworth-Brookes and Edwin Evans-Thirlwell ponder what the new Fallout can learn from its Nordic stablemate - and what it can't.
A more colourful post-apocalypse
One of the things that has consistently frustrated us about previous Fallout games is the overbearingly dusty palette, a relentless combination of grey and brown. Yes, a certain unanimity of tone is expected of a post-apocalyptic game - but if, as rumoured, Fallout 4 is a direct sequel to Fallout 3, there would be plenty of ways to introduce a bit of visual verve.
Assuming the fiction supports it, Skyrim's enhanced weather system could be implemented as well. We want more of those atmospheric moments when the weather shifts, changing the entire character of the environment in the process.
Skyrim's Radiant A.I. had the potential to be incredibly exciting, throwing together spontaneous but fully articulated questlines as you explore, but the results don't quite go the distance - the random missions and encounters often involve generic characters like "Hunters", and quickly lose their charm. Fallout 4 will doubtless feature a version of the Radiant system, given how much time and effort Bethesda sunk into it, but for the idea to truly work these events need to feel more tailored and natural, with fewer repeated elements.
Better integrated character development
One of Skyrim's greatest accomplishments is that so much of the RPG development take place within the world - when levelling up you look to the stars for guidance, and crafting a sword actually involves the use of a furnace. Similar steps should be taken with Fallout. The Pip Boy is a great concept, an all-in-one answer to the question of character management, but Bethesda could evolve it further.
Levelling up in Fallout 4 might occur via changes in the character's DNA, perhaps - after hitting a new level, players could open up a screen that shows their genetic structure, scrolling through various chromosomes associated with different abilities, and picking a piece of DNA to "mutate". Perhaps some form of holographic projection technology could be introduced, a la Dead Space. As long as it doesn't scupper the aesthetic, we're all for it.
More famous locations to visit
Despite the presence of Nordic gods, flying lizards and wandering necromancers, Skyrim never feels less than real, tangible. Fallout 3 has the same solidity to it, thanks to hand-worn art direction that strikes a fine balance between futuristic and retro, but Fallout: New Vegas felt a touch less plausible perhaps, as there were fewer historic landmarks to pick over. If Fallout 4 takes place in Massachusetts, tours of post-nuclear Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Bunker Hill and the Constitution (one of the world's oldest warships, don't you know) would be a good way of grounding the game.
15 comments so far...
tony99 on 24 Jan '13 said:
I would like to think that the Dev's would look at Borderlands for ideas.Fallout 3 was a great game but i didn't like New Vegas all that much.Now Borderlands on the other hand....Oh my! When i play that game i often think how much greater Fallout 3 could have been.
Baryonyx on 24 Jan '13 said:
I really want to see the next Fallout take a huge leap forward. In the same way as Skyrim was a huge evolution over Oblivion, I'd like to see the next Fallout move the game on entirely. Fallout New Vegas was fantastic, but even then the engine was looking hoary and it was more a triumph of passion and atmosphere than technical prowess.
Fallout has always been one of my favourite games, they are utterly compelling. Could the next Fallout even be a 'next gen' game? It could provide the wonder that one felt when first playing Oblivion all over again.
One thing I am in agreement of is that future Fallout games need more colour. The metaphorical seed has been sown already for a Fallout game with some lush vegetation. Remember that leafy hidden sanctuary in Fallout 3? The power of nature is overwhelming, and even in the event of mankind's demise I can image the world returning to a green, overgrown state. Some flourishes of this in the next Fallout game would be most welcome. It would be visually appealing, and wouldn't stifle the game's focus on survival in the wilderness.
Sandbwoy on 24 Jan '13 said:
Loving the integrated character development ideas, making alterations to DNA in a similar way to Skyrim's alterations to star paths. This is the kind of thing that could advance Fallout to the next level, and Bethesda should take note of this idea.
Drainwater on 24 Jan '13 said:
Any of these features would be cool. Or all of them together would be cool. Or none of them and whatever they decide to put in instead will probably be cool. By this point I don't care, I'm just very confident that I won't be disappointed. I absolutely loved 3 and New Vegas and most of the dlcs for them, so I know I'll be entertained with whatever they decide to do. Just exploring the land will almost be entertainment enough for me.
RHPSAUCE on 24 Jan '13 said:
Personally I don't think Fallout needs to take anything from Skyrim especially inventory systems (not in article just really annoys me that Skyrim chests are just a mess not even alphabetical). To me Fallout 3 was 9.5/10 the only problem with it is the tiny things like speech checks and being unable to repair weapons to 100% without level 100 repair. Fallout NV fixed some of the small things but no major changes to stop it feeling like an expansion pack rather than the next in the series.
Fallout needs to stay on the path it started but make the scale even bigger, bigger battles, bigger consequences, bigger map. The one thing games like Elder scrolls and Fallout get wrong is when the big battle comes it ends up being 3 guys and a dog, and also things like when the player helps NCR regain control of the NCR correctional facility that is the last of it when the courier comes back it's 'thanks for what you did ..... well you can leave now'.
Fallout doesn't need new graphics but if it had Skyrim's graphics or better then that would be the cherry on top.
Power-Girl-Fan on 24 Jan '13 said:
if the fallout 4 map is going to be as massive as skyrim or fallout 3/nv then the ability to jump when overencumbered and to sprint should definitely make an appearance. I bought fallout 3 and was shocked that you couldn't do either of these things, granted you can't sprint when overencumbered in skyrim but at least you can jump.
Metalrodent on 25 Jan '13 said:
but you can already use melee in VATs in the current Fallout games
jay12 on 25 Jan '13 said:
i DO NOT AGREE with the color part. Seriously if you start putting in plants and all beautiful colors it won't be a fallout game. It's a bloody game about a world after a nuclear explosion ITS SUPPOSED TO LOOK DUSTY AND DRAB AND COLORLESS! Are you guys freaking morons? Boo friggen who if you want color if that's what you want play skyrim. Fallout is supposed to be the way it is, look closer morons there's color everywhere. Red on the tricycle, Red on the nuka cola sign, blue and yellow on destroyed cars, YOU DONT NEED BLUE SKIES AND GREEN GRASS. Tree's are SUPPOSED TO BE BLACK WITHOUT LEAVES BECAUSE OF THE BOMB THAT WENT OFF! Holy crap you guys are dumbass's. That pretty forest part in fallout 3 didn't feel like fallout at all. Bethesda if you are reading this article DON'T LISTEN TO THESE MORONS you will ruin fallout if you start throwing in blues and greens and purples for the love of god stay with the color pallet you got it works just fine because after all its A WORLD AFTER A NUKE WENT OFF! You idiots wanna keep pushing your dream for a rainbow fallout your gonna be a driving force in ruining the game.
Metalrodent on 25 Jan '13 said:
wow, over reaction much.... and anyway, just because its post apocalyptic doesn't mean there wont be any colour
(also, Bethesda will never read that)
FishyGinger on 25 Jan '13 said:
I kind of agree with LoonySchnitzles rantathon but without the wordybobs he/she/it uses, it shouldn't be all grassy but there should be spots of growth near water. I thought the wastelands were quite nice to wander about in, serenely haunting if that makes any sense.
I'm sure they'll come up with the goods, just so long as they put their ideas to good use with inventive missions like the AR mission in 3.
CunningSmile on 25 Jan '13 said:
Yeah what he said. I've yet to stick on a Bethesda game or DLC (horse armour aside) and not be blown away by the imagination on display and so I'm happy that what ever they come up with will be better than anything I could.
And to Jay12: The nuclear war was 200 years before Fallout is set. Have you been to Hiroshima recently? 70 years after they had a nuclear bomb dropped on them the place is a literally a garden, one of the greenest most pleasant cities in the world, the same with Nagasaki. After 200 years the landscape would not be as drab as Fallout 3 makes it.
Are you a freaking moron?
ItchyRash on 25 Jan '13 said:
I don't think Borderlands can come close to Fallout. Fair enough if you enjoy Borderlands more than Fallout, that's personal choice, but Borderlands can't match Fallout for scope and design. Borderlands was just a shooter with some RPG elements. Pandora felt empty and the towns were just lifeless and boring. Fallout is a living breathing world.
As for Rantzilla above, I love the random Americans the occasionally pop in to say hello, post one comment, then disappear into the wind. It's perhaps time to move on from the same drab, bleak landscape. Imagine the possibilities you could create with new mutated fauna, reclaiming the towns and cities.
Xbox11 on 25 Jan '13 said:
I never got on with either of the past 2 Fallout games, Just didn't feel it, If you know what i mean?, More like Skyrim in some ways cant be a bad idea if you ask me.
I'm personally hoping they change it, Even if it makes that other fella go insane , You know the one with all the CAPS! Lol.
Crisco on 26 Jan '13 said:
I think whatever Bethesda do it will be a good game. I loved Fallout 3 and New Vegas despite it's flaws. I do agree that they should have some places with plant life, the oasis in Fallout 3 looked great and I think it would work.
I'm looking forward to hearing some news on this.
Also, Shouty McRantface, you should avoid calling people morons and dumbass's unless you're absolutely sure you haven't made a load of mistakes in your post and made a fool of yourself.
kevicus12 on 26 Jan '13 said:
I love that idea. I have an image of massive, mutated trees and hedges growing out of the concrete roads and inside ancient, long-abandoned buildings. And there can still be areas where radiation has made it impossible for nature to reassert itself, so Bethesda don't have to throw away the grey and brown inks. Plenty of possibility for the best of both worlds, I reckon.