DubConqueror: What strikes me (in a negative way), is that the atmosphere of the game is much more cheerful than the Fallout 3 that I know: the landscape is sunnier, the trees more colourful, the whole mood of 'let's get out of the Vault, recolonize the world and make Virginia great again', the uptempo music.

DubConqueror: Actually, Fallout 3 looked too bleak, two centuries after a nuclear holocaust nature will be flourishing more than what can be seen in the Capitol Wasteland (look what happened in Chernobyl: nature does even better with nuclear fallout but without humans interfering than with humans around).

KneeTheCap: All in all, sounds like a perfect game for me since I absolutely love crafting, base building and the Fallout setting :D

Breja: Unfortuantely for me, crafting and base building are the last things I want in an RPG. I downright despise crafting. I play those games for adventures and exploration, not to tinker with shit. I'll loot, buy or steal what I need, thank you very much.

KneeTheCap: Any info on forced PvP? If PvP is optional, this game is totally for me. If not, then I have to carefully consider whether or not I'll get this one.

All in all, sounds like a perfect game for me since I absolutely love crafting, base building and the Fallout setting :D

KneeTheCap: It's a good thing that there are lots of games for every taste.

OneFiercePuppy: The nukes, at least, are arbitrary, as described in the conference. They can't be precisely targeted amd can hit monster lairs, individuals, or "random players".

Building also appears to be done with coins, exactly like Fallout Shelter, which means there will be microtransactions, almost without a doubt.

So, no private servers, possibility of getting nuked at any time, pay-to-win mechanics ("you can move that building anywhere" will result in fortresses getting dropped with base defenses ready to go), and apparently no sensible lore at all (gameplay clearly included X-01 power armor, which shouldnt be invented for 200 more years). Also, no VATS, and no clear sense of what levelling up does for character progression.

It might be a fun game for a broad audience, but every detail they showed sure is a thumb in the eye for anyone who is a fan of Fallout. It's not quite as bad as the C&C reveal but it clearly was made with no regard for the fans, and rather by people who said, "Hey, ESO is making money. Do that again, but call it Fallout and make it smaller"

Breja: This. Much as I like wandering around Fallout's wastelands, I'd love those games to have more varied environments including places were nature thrives. Not only would that make sense, it would also make the games more fun to play in the long run.

Matewis: Well, there was this place in Fallout 3, but it was pretty well hidden. I completely missed it on my first playthrough :P

DubConqueror: I've only done one playthrough - and not encountered it. Where can it be found?

Pheace: Nothing beyond 'You can absolutely play it solo' I think. But there's a sea of possible differences in that definition still. If that just means I can go solo, have a tougher time, and still get griefed by anyone that feels like doing so then I'm going to be disappointed :(

Matewis: Oh I can't remember exactly. I was exploring along the edge of the map, in what seemed like mountenous terrain, and just stumbled across it. It's called the Oasis: http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Oasis

Matewis: Well, there was this place in Fallout 3, but it was pretty well hidden. I completely missed it on my first playthrough :P

Breja: As did I. Regrettable, but I won't do a second playthrough just for that. I liked F3 just fine, but not enough to play it all over again.

Sometimes it's almost scary to think of all the stuff I probably missed in all those huge RPGs.

Tauto: Online only.Not here,another bites the dust.

darktjm: I absolutely loved all of the BGDA games that came out around that time, except for one. That "Fallout" game was the first game I ever returned to the store simply because I was downright offended by it. I guess it shows what we could've expected from Interplay, had they kept the franchise. In retrospect, though, they only pissed me off by doing the same thing every other Fallout-named game seemed intent on doing: nerfing my favorite weapon. Turing the turbo plasma rifle into some sort of multibeam laser weapon was a little over the top, though. Plus disrespecting The Bomb: making radiation just a form of poison (probably due to the fantasy roots of the engine), and all things that glow, and only things that glow are radioactive (a mistake made by Tactics as well, although to be fair 2 was heading in that direction). Of course disrespecting The Bomb is one of my main gripes against 3 as well, given that the destruction of DC looks more like WW2 conventional damage than the aftermath of even a single nuclear strike (and don't get me started on Megaton's pathetic bomb). In fact, the sort of fighting that was going on in the capital at the time of the game could easily have produced the damage we see; it's almost as if DC completely avoided the nukes.

GR00T: And don't get me wrong: I had a blast with FO3 and thought it was a great, fun game. But I found NV to be much better.

LiquidOxygen80: Far more than the online elements, because I'm guessing like Ark, etc, you can still start, maintain and play, your own servers and operate them privately, so you can simply limit randos effing with your setup.