Fallout 4 Confirmed, Set in Post-Apocalyptic Boston

@kubqo: Either or, really. I think Fallout 3 is an ugly-looking game and the main quest is boring as sin, and everything about it is hella janky, but there's some really stellar side-content in there.

New Vegas is WAY JANKIER, but I think overall better written and more interesting. It puts a lot more emphasis on the various factions and politicking your way between them, which is cool. It's just a more interesting setting to play around in.

They've each got strengths and weaknesses but they're also both really good games. You won't really go wrong either way.

I'm happy about the teaser. It does not show much, but it has colors and I was afraid that they were going for a full-on grey look which I'm not a fan of.

I also like this more involved coverage of news. I'm gonna enjoy having more of that. Thank you Austin!

I'm pretty interested in this, but can anyone convince me to give New Vegas a second shot? I couldn't get into it.

The massive question now that we have FO4 revealed is..

..is there even a snowballs chance in hell that there is another FO game in development by the team that did NV?

Not that I ain't super excited for this..but more big open rpgs like this are always good.

I'm wicked awesome. I went through the ruff when I her it would be in Beantown. Fallout is the balls. Better have come Sin City references (Lyn). (just kidding...I really hope it's not full of Boston accents/expressions)

I can't help but laugh at the current Amazon page for the game

@svns: It's better in almost every regard than Fallout 3? The writing is better, the characters are better (some of the companion characters are legimitely interesting and worth keeping around) the gameplay is improved in several meaningful ways (you can actually aim and hit stuff without VATS!) more weapon variety and moddable weapons. Although the number 1 best thing about the game? You don't spend 50% of it in fucking identical underground subway tunnels.

I can understand some fatigue if you played it too close too Fallout 3, but if it's been awhile you really should give it another go.

I disagree. I've played 3 and New Vegas on both PC and 360 and in both cases, the graphics range from "somewhat acceptable" to "if someone told me this was an HD re-release of a mid-era PS2 game, I'd believe them". Just like this game, though, Fallout 3 and New Vegas did great jobs at atmosphere, aesthetics, and so on and so forth, to the point where I think those games will stand up, visually, for years to come because they nailed what they needed to.

In any case, I think this looks fine. In fact, I'd much rather see Bethesda focus on bug fixes and making sure the game works well for everyone on day 1 than see jaw-dropping graphics that crash every five minutes.

Really digging this style of news coverage, Austin you are an awesome newsman already,

I already know I'll play this game, the only news that interests me at all is the state of the engine/what engine they are using.

Nice write-up! Glad we're getting more of these.

@san_salvador: Hey, if you wanna pay for my 980!

I wonder how easy it'll be to get into this entry without having any previous experience.

Are the stories all interconnected? Or is that not how these games work?

I'm excited for this, even though I think Boston is pretty boring as far as settings go. I know the Fallout setting is built on 1950s Americana and old American sci-fi, but there are other places in the world that you could give the same treatment to (London and Tokyo immediately jump to mind as places that would make really cool Fallout settings)

@junkboy0: The only way Fallout 3 looks great is if you compare it directly to Oblivion. Yeah, it's a step up from that game, but compared to other games of the time? It was an ugly game with some impressively expansive environments. I still think those games have one of the worst character creators ever. Trying to make something that didn't look like it was hit several times in the face with an ugly bat and then reconstructed by an unlicensed bear surgeon is an exercise in futility.

I have a high end rig, and have played the prettiest of the post-apocalypse (Metro, Rage) and I think this looks absolutely fine. Though I can largely attribute that to the colour, and DENSITY of colour. The past Fallout games used their limited colour palette effectively to create an atmosphere, but I'm ready for something different. Change is good! Even if it's not pulled off perfectly, I'll at least appreciate that changes seem to be happening.

@austin_walker: Man, you keep knocking these writeups out of the park. They're such a joy to read.

As for Fallout 4. Can't say I'm excited. Fallout 3 (and New Vegas) proved to me that Bethesda should leave Fallouts to someone else.

@turtlebird95: That's prettttty good.

@austin_walker: Little known fact: the more Mad Max: Fury Road references you make in articles the better a writer you are, you've passed the test thus far. Really though Fallout is probably too sedate to really relive the masterpiece, I'll be content if there's a group that's obsessed with Norse mythology as they slowly meander toward you with Bethesda AI and you VATS them all to death. Valhalla!

@haz: I highly doubt it will have any meaningful connections to previous games. I suspect plenty of hidden references and maybe a few cameos, but I can't imagine any scenario where you need knowledge of previous games to understand what is going on.

New Vegas for example had a lot of references to stuff that happened in and after Fallout 1 and 2, but the actual story and events had next to nothing to do with them.

@haz: You don't have to worry about that at all. Having not played fallout 4 I of course can't say for sure, but if it is anything like fallout 3 or new vegas you should be able to just jump into the game and enjoy playing it.

Awesome article Austin! :D

Obsidian is currently working on a Pillars of Eternity expansion and some tank game (WTF). They did mention they are also working on some unannounced projects, so who knows?

https://www.obsidian.net/

Maybe it's just the new employee afterglow, but it's really refreshing to read an announcement article this well written and informative.

Anyway, I'm really looking forward to seeing what they've done with Fallout. It's been a long time since the last one, and while FO3 and New Vegas each had interesting worlds, the mechanics and combat always left me disinterested. If they can slide in a fix for their clunky combat, I'm in.

I'm still super excited, but the animation of that dog looked real Bethesda-janky to me. This makes me suspect they're using the same engine still, which would be a bit annoying after all this time.

Also the low poly-count on the dog and the dude (weird club hand especially) were strange, and seemed out of place set against the flippin' gorgeous backgrounds.

Been waiting for this announcement for a long time now.

The problem with Bethesda from the angle of someone playing their games is that their writing tends to be...not very good. Obsidian was a perfect match. But unfortunately from the angle of an independent game studio, Bethesda is basically Satan. So no, I don't think so.

Consider me reasonably excited for what they'll show of this at this year's E3.

Nice article, I enjoyed this.

I can't wait to see how they do with post-apocalypse Boston. Living here and growing up here I'll probably spend way more time aimlessly wandering in the game and seeing the different areas they put in and what I'll recognize.

I'm getting that Fallout itch again, might go back and finish the Fallout 3 DLC.

The fact that it's in Boston doesnt mean much to me.

Speech savescumming was even dumber on PC because quicksave/load was so fast on an SSD.

The 3rd one is a very solid game, I even think it has superior atmosphere to New Vegas. Both are so similar that if you don't like one, you will certainly not like the other. I recommend playing FO3 first and if you want more, play new vegas, because that's what new vegas is, more FO3. If you can get a game of the year edition with all the DLC for either game I recommend that as well. You can miss it but it adds some fun stuff.

@austin_walker love these slightly more in-depth news articles you keep pumping out. Beats the usual blog fodder I've come to expect among most sites. Alex was doing a killer job too, but the frequency from a dedicated news guy is appreciated.

We all know this new generation isn't returning the "graphics" we would have anticipated from previous console leaps but where it clearly makes up for that is how much bigger the world can be. The sheer size, the density of quality content and the way the world comes to life in a game like The Witcher 3 is probably the trend we should expect during this new generation (I say new because we are only now starting to get some games that truly show it.)

Also, let's be honest, this game does look pretty fucking good. This isn't your brown, irradiated Fallout. The amount of NPCs, the "god rays" and the complexity of the terrain is nothing to turn your nose up to. The pieces I'm assuming people aren't too fond about are the flashbacks. It's supposed to be a contrast between this detailed, abandoned and overgrown house a new, sanitary home. It's the 50's. These homes were barely lived in. I have a feeling it supposed to be a little unsettling because of how clean it is.

I'd also like to play as a dog. Please let me Bethesda. Pretty please.

@kubqo: fallout new Vegas in my opinion is the better game then fallout 3, it has basically the same engine, but better more complex game play and a better more complex world. which is no surprise as it was developed by obsidian, who made fallout 1 and 2. As a bonus you can get this game and its truly great dlc on steam for cheap and then mod its graphics so that its darn near current gen.

I didn't like F3, it was very bland for me, but loved New Vegas as I thought it was very well written (something Bethesda could never do in any of their games.) So uh... I don't know what to say to ya. Try both.

I almost didn't pick up New Vegas for the exact reason that it just seemed like more of the same, but I ended up enjoying it way way more than I expected. They are very similar in a lot of ways, but they are different enough that you could like one and not the other.

Whatever you do, don't count out one of them, they're both worth trying. it's just a question of which to try first.

@geraltitude: lol hazing the new guy... want to correct my school papers?

@zeik: Your correct fallout 3 looked like crap (until mods) but Bethesda has NEVER cared about graphics and Fallout 3 (when it wasn't crashing) played better then ANY Witcher game, also the Witcher games were just as buggy.

Well written piece, GB chose wisely.

I wasn't arguing they did care about graphics. The guy said those games looked great. I was saying they did not.

Also nope nope nope on that other stuff. Not even a little. Bethesda is the reigning king of buggy games.

My first impressions was, "holy crap, there's color!" I'm still a little depressed that the graphics aren't that great. Maybe that was console footage? Either way, I am looking forward to more information, and like Austin said, maybe some gameplay, at E3.

I just hope as soon as you leave the Vault, you're greeted by a warm and composing voice:

"YO SULLY, WHAT THE FAHKIN' FAHK HAPPENED 'ERE? GODDAMN STEEL BROTHAH GUYS WENT BALLS OUT ON FITZY AND THE BOYS. SHOOTIN' 'EM 'ERE AND THERE, LIKE A GODDAMN MESS."

@mabuti: I really hope not. Just want a good old single player experience.

I want a Big Dog companion, if we're going to Boston.

I SECOND ALL THIS.

The animations look real slick to me, love the brighter and more varied look of the world, AND super pumped it's in my home state. Now I just have to wait a few years until I can afford a machine that would actually play it.

Yep. Austin is great. Keep this mix of News/Opinion articles going up. It's fantastic and something sorely missed from this site.