If you could change one thing...

SiriusShenanigans

SiriusShenanigans

Those who write on Heaven’s walls...
Pobodies nerfect. Even in your favorite games there is something to improve upon. What would you change in your game to make it better?

I'd probably add more master interactions in fallout 1. In fallout 2, I think I would try to implement some running antagonists for the story and work on developing personal storylines for companions.
 
The stupid jokes are why I find Fallout charming. Fallout can be kinda bland if you don't have their sense of charm making you grow attached to it.
 
Give all Fallout games a development time of 4 years.

I would love to see what Fallout, Fallout 2, Fallout Tactics and Fallout New Vegas would be if they had proper time to make the games.
 
Improve one field where all games are just average at best- combat.

For the OG Fallouts I would make a combat system that somewhat merges Fallout skill and aiming system with some cover and stance mechanics and maybe to some degree destructible environment (ala Silent Storm?).

Combat in newer Fallouts is a little harder to redesign, but I imagine starting with something like Project Nevada and some of it's add-ons. NPCs would also run out of ammo and combat would be much more deadly (so no more surviving point- blank headshot from 12 Gauge). I would also throw in something that evolved from FO4 cover system (so enemies have more than 2 ways of shooting from behind the cover).

Also I wouldn't be against non-lethal combat options- in OG Fallouts some melee or unarmed weapons like clubs, cattle prod, fists or boxing gloves could knock- out enemies. Ranged non- lethal weapons like taser or dart gun could also be added.

In newer Fallouts I would just copy STUN. It adds several ranged and melee weapons that are non-lethal and adds option to tie NPCs with duct tape, rope, handcuffs or belts while they're unconcious or you use a stealth takedown on them.
 
If it's just one thing... I would make the main quest in Fallout 2 more branching (i.e. open up a route for sympathising the Enclave in a couple of ways and give appropriate ending slides and narrations for it).
 
Fallout Tactics had the perfect combat for an RPG, so it's kind of a shame it wasn't an RPG itself. So, that's the obvious change to make - give the RPGs the Tactics combat.

Alternatively, make New Reno it's own game. With the possible exception of Tarant, it's far and away the best role playing area in any game ever...but doesn't really fit Fallout. Break it out, and make it into a game in it's own right.
 
One thing I might change in Fallout Verse (out of so many things i wishes)
... Fallout 3 to take place much sooner. in the Capitol Wasteland.
 
Lone Cat said:
One thing I might change in Fallout Verse (out of so many things i wishes)
... Fallout 3 to take place much sooner. in the Capitol Wasteland.
Click to expand...
Well wasn't that the original plan for Fallout 3? Different timeframes get thrown around on when exactly it was to be set, but it was meant to be a soft reboot masquerading as a prequel. A lot of the problems in the game could easily be solved/overlooked if it didn't treat the entire East coast like incompetent hobos at the same time the west coast had its shit together.
 
Ayelander said:
Well wasn't that the original plan for Fallout 3? Different timeframes get thrown around on when exactly it was to be set, but it was meant to be a soft reboot masquerading as a prequel. A lot of the problems in the game could easily be solved/overlooked if it didn't treat the entire East coast like incompetent hobos at the same time the west coast had its shit together.
Click to expand...

Lots of problems would be solved if the game was set, say 20 years after the war, but not all and you get a heap of additional problems as well.

Water scarcity and the wasteland...aesthetics we got have would made a lot more sense, along with a shitty level of civilization present. Pre-War nostalgia would fit a theme really, really well. The level of destruction shown would only add more to the atmosphere etc. Many things would simply click.
However, BoS and Enclave would be an even bigger problem then (to be frank, Enclave existing in and around DC at that time could actually be explained by a competent writer), but BoS would just be lore-breaking, plain and simple. Same goes with Super Mutants which don't make sense on East Coast whichever way you look at them.

All in all, earlier time period in FO3 would have benefited the whole game, but would still require massive re-writing to have any logical, thematic and lore consistency - something I'm afraid Bethesda would fuck up regardless.
 
Atomkilla said:
Lots of problems would be solved if the game was set, say 20 years after the war, but not all and you get a heap of additional problems as well.

Water scarcity and the wasteland...aesthetics we got have would made a lot more sense, along with a shitty level of civilization present. Pre-War nostalgia would fit a theme really, really well. The level of destruction shown would only add more to the atmosphere etc. Many things would simply click.
However, BoS and Enclave would be an even bigger problem then (to be frank, Enclave existing in and around DC at that time could actually be explained by a competent writer), but BoS would just be lore-breaking, plain and simple. Same goes with Super Mutants which don't make sense on East Coast whichever way you look at them.

All in all, earlier time period in FO3 would have benefited the whole game, but would still require massive re-writing to have any logical, thematic and lore consistency - something I'm afraid Bethesda would fuck up regardless.
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
Atomkilla said:
Lots of problems would be solved if the game was set, say 20 years after the war, but not all and you get a heap of additional problems as well.

Water scarcity and the wasteland...aesthetics we got have would made a lot more sense, along with a shitty level of civilization present. Pre-War nostalgia would fit a theme really, really well. The level of destruction shown would only add more to the atmosphere etc. Many things would simply click.
However, BoS and Enclave would be an even bigger problem then (to be frank, Enclave existing in and around DC at that time could actually be explained by a competent writer), but BoS would just be lore-breaking, plain and simple. Same goes with Super Mutants which don't make sense on East Coast whichever way you look at them.

All in all, earlier time period in FO3 would have benefited the whole game, but would still require massive re-writing to have any logical, thematic and lore consistency - something I'm afraid Bethesda would fuck up regardless.
Click to expand...

Well I think the Fallout timeline is WAY too expanisve, and all the newer Fallout games should be condensed by a hundred years and the first two games with daes half that from their startdates, so 2121 2162 2177 and 2181 for Fallout I-III and new vegas.

But even if you're going with the 200 years mark for Fallout 3, having DC as desolate is A-OK, there are special cicumstances (Vault 87). Just make it clear the rest of the East Coast is redevolping at a rate similar to the West Coast. The problem wasn't Fallout 3 the problem is Fallout 4. Fallout 3 was mediocre, but Fallout 4 is where Bethesda really REALLY shat the bed.

EDIT: the only thing that would make Fallout 1 and 2 better would have been superior modding tools so that new content could be added into current games and added modularly. This is why Fallout New Vegas is the best of the series: thrid best story but infinate mods.
 
Last edited:
Charwo said:
EDIT: the only thing that would make Fallout 1 and 2 better would have been superior modding tools so that new content could be added into current games and added modularly. This is why Fallout New Vegas is the best of the series: thrid best story but infinate mods.
Click to expand...

Speaking of Locations\quest mods, i used to want to have all of them in the same package. Now i prefer total conversions over addon mods. (no need to go through familiar locations, easier to balance gear\character levels, more liberties with location\timeline, more control over beginning\ending, plot structure, and more cohesive experience) Megamod or Global Mod are good for adding small mods, but as soon as it become medium\big, it doesn't fit that much, as a cohesive experience. Tried Oblivion Lost recently, which is moderately big addon, and i think it would have been much better if it was a Total Conversion, instead of an addon.

On the other hand, i would have loved being able to launch all these little adventures from the same executable, like the additionnal campaigns for The Witcher (or maybe Arcanum, as well?) You have a menu ingame which allow you to choose which campaign you gonna play. Those are different playthrough, launched through the same base game.
 
naossano said:
Speaking of Locations\quest mods, i used to want to have all of them in the same package. Now i prefer total conversions over addon mods. (no need to go through familiar locations, easier to balance gear\character levels, more liberties with location\timeline, more control over beginning\ending, plot structure, and more cohesive experience) Megamod or Global Mod are good for adding small mods, but as soon as it become medium\big, it doesn't fit that much, as a cohesive experience. Tried Oblivion Lost recently, which is moderately big addon, and i think it would have been much better if it was a Total Conversion, instead of an addon.

On the other hand, i would have loved being able to launch all these little adventures from the same executable, like the additionnal campaigns for The Witcher (or maybe Arcanum, as well?) You have a menu ingame which allow you to choose which campaign you gonna play. Those are different playthrough, launched through the same base game.
Click to expand...

Arcanum had no DLC or expansions. That is a game a game that desperately needs a remake. Only make the combat not suck (seriously it was made after Fallout 2 and the combat is actually much much worse).

And I don't like total conversions because smaller mods allow more flexibility in trading them in and out. With Nexus style mods I can pick and choose which stories go into my Courier's saga. And in Fallout 1 and 2 because there's no overlap, it would be really hard for the map to feel cluttered the way an open world game feels.
 
ironmask said:
I would take out the shitty jokes and references in fallout 2.
Click to expand...
i would add a million more to every game ever. god i love this shit. fallout 2 oozes personality out of every corner like it could come out of your computer and start talking 2 you about Monty Fucking Python and punk bands from the 90s.

make new vegas more like its dlcs. the base game is ok but the two best characters (mr house and caesar) are people players r gonna kill because of how their portrayed and every other leader of a faction is fucking boring they should rename the ncr to lullabye camp because literally who fucking cares about mrrrrrrrrrrr money and pol i tics. dlcs are like fucking dead money rob a fucking casino because some crazy guy whos obsessed with power and money told you to oh heres this cool ass super-mutant with multiple personality disorder who is super smart and super dumb at the same fucking time and some gay mute bitch who cant even fucking talkkk and heres dean domino hes obsessed with fucking over some dead dude and fucking some dead chick and hes also a celebrity from the old world (none of these are boring) and heres honest hearts joshua fucking graham and his gay sidekick, old world blues is fucking crazy, lonesome road is just a fucking murder fest till uylesses whos a total fucking vengeful badass DAMN all the dlcs are super fucking cool and then you go back to the base game and its like oh yeaaaaa hooover fucking dam who cares​
 
Charwo said:
Well I think the Fallout timeline is WAY too expanisve, and all the newer Fallout games should be condensed by a hundred years and the first two games with daes half that from their startdates, so 2121 2162 2177 and 2181 for Fallout I-III and new vegas.

But even if you're going with the 200 years mark for Fallout 3, having DC as desolate is A-OK, there are special cicumstances (Vault 87). Just make it clear the rest of the East Coast is redevolping at a rate similar to the West Coast. The problem wasn't Fallout 3 the problem is Fallout 4. Fallout 3 was mediocre, but Fallout 4 is where Bethesda really REALLY shat the bed.

EDIT: the only thing that would make Fallout 1 and 2 better would have been superior modding tools so that new content could be added into current games and added modularly. This is why Fallout New Vegas is the best of the series: thrid best story but infinate mods.
Click to expand...

The F4 should've set 20-50 years post war. isn't it possible to make Fallout without either Supermutants OR BoS or even FEV?
But then again. the continuity fuck-up began when Betty bought the brand. Fallout Tactics were taken HALF HEARTED (partially canon and patially not so), the Eastcost story arc should begin RIGHT AFTER the conclusion of FT, Also the likes of Conrad Kellog doesn't seems to make a sense AT ALL. particularly with the Institute completed the 3rd generation Synth. why keep the original Kellog around with implants rather than making his Synthetic Twins complete with his memory?
Also introducing the Institute early in Fallout 3 did mess things up pretty good. this means that the 4 must be the 3 sequel (and same goes to the Old Gang's New Vegas, which sets 4 years AFTER the beginning of F3 (which in the in universe timeline, the First Battle of Hoover Dam did take place). even worse, Dr. Zimmer and his Synth side kick didn't even return to The Commonwealth in 2287 either! no further explaination why or whether did the Lone Wanderer killed him or spared him.
 
For each game, or the franchise in general?

If we are talking about each game (or at least the ones Ive played and know well enough):

- Fallout 1: Give more clarity (in-game) to how Ghouls originate. Kinda hard in this game (at least for me) because most of the things I would like to change of this game are too subjective/vague (AKA "The game is a bit short")

- Fallout 3: Only one? Well...if they want to make the availability of clean water an important plot point, then do more to emphasize that clean water is important. A lot of aspects of The Pitt would fit a bit better in the main Fallout 3 plot IMO, in the sense that life in the Pitt is a death sentence one way or another and that if you have control of the solution to this problem, then by extent you have control of the region. TLDR: Do a better job of showing clean water as something important.

-Fallout New Vegas: Beating a bit on the dead horse with this one, but for me it has to be Caesars Legion. Definetly the faction that needs some more context.

Cant comment about the rest since I dont know them well enough

Now, if we are talking about the franchise in general, I dunno. Get a time machine, go back in time and eliminate a certain german, which enables the Soviet Union to gain more power and threaten the...No, wait, thats not it. Go back in time to San Franscisco and prevent the psychic madman known as...Nevermind, thats also not the right one either. Go back in time, eliminate Einstein, which then allows the Empire of the Rising Sun to make an attack on....No, no, hold on. To go back in time, replace Emil Pagliarulo with a competent writer, creating a time paradox in which Fallout 3 is better and reality folds in on itself. Yeah, thats the one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top