Fallout 4 confirmed for PlayStation 4, Xbox One, and PC release
Bethesda flipped the switch on the official website for Fallout 4, and today, we're learning the game will be released on the Xbox One, PlayStation 4, and PC.
Fallout 4 will be coming to the Xbox One, PlayStation 4, and PC as the game’s official website went live earlier than expected for some today.
Bethesda teased Fallout 4 news would be released today through the use of a website that featured a countdown clock. The clock was expected to count down to 7am PT / 10am ET, but as you can see, information on the new Fallout game has already been released.
The website for Fallout 4 also includes a link to a video, which we can only assume is the cinematic trailer we learned about a few weeks ago. The video isn't live yet, although the official teaser website is still showing its countdown timer, so we assume we'll be given access to the video, and more information, at 10am ET.
A Twitter user also found the full thumbnail for the soon-to-be-released YouTube video, which we can see is taken in a first-person perspective with a dog leading the way. That image can be seen in our gallery above. And the soon-to-be-released YouTube video is below, although it's currently set to private, so we expect it to go live at 10am ET.
[Update 10:11am ET: Now that the trailer has been released, we now know Fallout 4 will be taking place in Boston as a number of iconic monuments within the city can be spotted. Boston has been a long-rumored location for the next Fallout title, although Bethesda shot down those rumors shortly after they released.]
Developing...
[Via Fallout4]
-
Shacknews
replyDaniel Perez posted a new article, Fallout 4 confirmed for PlayStation 4, Xbox One, and PC release
-
Oh boy! This is a day 60 purchase for sure! Yes I built in two months for them to fix most the game breaking bugs.
-
-
Given that Bethesda released the FNV SDK same-day as the main game, you shouldn't have to wait too long for that.
Yes, I fully expect to be busy as hell when the game comes out.
-
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
D'OH!!!!! Could've just avoided posting this till the official site went live Mr. Perez you bastard!!!!!
-
Wooo sequel to one of my favorite games ever!
-
-
Honestly there's nothing wrong with that approach. FO3 had a great core to it, just some awkward mechanics. The nice thing though is that Bethesda paid attention to what people modded into the game to address that, along with new features, and ported some of that to FNV. Weapon Mods in FNV were a direct result of the Weapon Mod Kits mod for FO3, for example. I'm really curious what popular FNV (and Skyrim) mods grabbed the devs' attentions when it was time to put FO4 together.
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
Fenway, the USS Constitution, the North End. I wouldn't be surprised if Schraftts or a version of the giant Citgo sign doesn't make it in.
-
I bet the Citgo sign is turned into a Nuka-Cola sign
-
-
the bilges of the Constitution better not be another murloc spawning ground >:(
-
-
-
-
-
-
and because the Ranger Armor was all you god damned needed!
-
The Ranger armor was sexy.
-
hell yeah. I always got it as soon as I possibly could after my initial playthrough. If you are going the small gun route I dont think there is a better choice.
-
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
"Vast competition"? Bethesda is pretty close to the only game in town when it comes to detailed free-roaming RPGs. Even if we include The Witcher 3 in the category and assume an optimistic Fallout 4 release of Christmas 2015, that's still another 6 months for people to finish up with it and get ready for something new.
-
Why wouldn't we include Witcher 3 in that category? It's a larger, more detailed free-roaming RPG with a superior story from the main quest to the tiniest of throwaway sidequests that one ups every game Bethesda Game Studios has ever made in nearly every conceivable category.
The only way it could not be in the same category is if it's excluded by virtue of simply being higher quality than the rest.
I love Fallout games, and I'll be playing this (probably at release). You're absolutely right that there's plenty of room for both games (and more) to exist and be enjoyed, but to exclude Witcher 3 from the genre it clearly belongs to seems a little dishonest to me.-
I haven't played Witcher 3*. I know it's much more open than the previous games, but I don't know how far it goes with self-directed exploration and discovery.
That's the biggest things that set the BethSoft RPGs apart, IMO: Your game is almost entirely self-directed. You can ignore the main plots entirely and do your own thing exploring and doing side content, and that works. I don't know if Witcher 3 has anything close to that amount of flexibility, hence not being sure how appropriate grouping them together is.
* I didn't especially enjoy the previous games. I'm weirdly picky about my RPGs, and I haven't been able to identify exactly what determines how engrossed I end up. I think it might have to do with how quests are delivered and managed: Put me at the start of too many threads at once and it becomes one of the few cases where I suffer from the paradox of choice. I don't know where to start, so I get fed up and quit.-
Pretty self-directed.
http://witcher3map.com/v/#2/0.2/-22.7
That's the second of three zones, it's bigger than the entirety of Skyrim by itself.
Creatures don't have soft levels like they do in BGS games, so you may find monsters that kick your ass, or you may outlevel something and find it really easy if you grind other things for a while. There's a main plot you can follow, and a ton of really detailed sidequests you can attack in any order you please.
Structurally it's very much like a BGS game, but the quests are much more detailed and in most cases, much better written.-
I found a ?? wyvern unmarked guarded chest last night. It killed me in one hit
-
-
is ?? a level rating for enemies or did I imagine it?
-
-
They're two different things.
The skull means that it's high enough level to be a tough fight. The ?? means it's so many levels higher that they're not even going to tell you.
In my experience, if I can see what level it is, it's a tough fight, but doable with patience and the right tools. If it's ??, you run away because you'll do so little damage as to not be worth it.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No pleasing gamers.
-
-
-
Looks great! It looks just like Skyrim with guns
-
-
I missed the HairWorks™
-
Not sure how they will create a plot that lives up to Fallout 3's water purifier. To this day I still get chills thinking about how that water got purified and what a grand undertaking it was to purify the water.
You have your work cut out for you, Bethesda.-
I liked the water purifier plot in F3, but are you referring to the timed end-game in the first Fallout? I got a huge sense of urgency from the first Fallout's overarching plot. I got caught up in all the other side-quests in F3 and was able to stave off the main quest until I had sufficiently explored the Wasteland.
-
I was being sarcastic. Personally I thought Fallout 3's main plot was terrible, and I pick on it whenever the opportunity arrives.
Fallout 1 - Save your vault, rehabilitate part of the wasteland with the GECK, stop a mutant army trying to corrupt the human race.
Fallout 2 - Save your tribe, prevent a Nazi-like faction from wiping out the majority of humanity along with most other life in the wasteland. You're a descendant from the character you played in the first game.
Fallout 3 - Save daddy, purify the water around Washington DC.
Fallout New Vegas - Find whoever attempted to murder you by shooting you in the skull, discover their motivations, prevent a faction of slavers/murderers/rapists from taking control of a key territory in the wasteland (or join with them if you're into kinky anal).
Out of all these plots, Fallout 3's just missing something. The game was not bad by any means, it deserved its success, but I hope they can come up with something better for the main plot for FO4.-
What about a time-sensitive quest that has an 'off-switch' built into it, where if you complete your objectives, game time is extended and you continue on with a larger, over-arching plot?
If you don't complete the time-sensitive plot the game ends and summarizes your progress to that point. Maybe kinda like an 'easy mode' ending, that would spur the player to proceed differently on their next play through.-
I think that's a really cool idea. The main plot would work similarly to the first two games, only the game wouldn't be over if you used up all your time exploring. Instead, you'd just get a less desirable ending. So the structure of the main plot could be similar to the first two games, which I'd view as a plus.
Unfortunately the conventions of modern gaming are such that I don't think the main plot in FO4 will work that way. Too many people would complain that they felt like they were railroaded into doing the main quest earlier than they wanted to in order to get to "best" ending.-
It would definitely be a balancing issue, and looking at Beth's track record over the last games with breaking quests, a difficult one. Perhaps providing something as incentive for completing the timed quest for future use within the larger plot? Maybe completing the time-sensitive quest would net the player with a specific augment/perk/or weapon that would be usefull for other paths in the main storyline? Maybe this time sensitive quest must be activated first, and isn't active at the outset.
I agree that these conventions would be less appealing to modern gamers, but it would be a cool approach to the narrative delivery.
So many cool possibilities, I love speculating on this!!!
-
-
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
Graphics certainly looked like it could be handled by the WiiU lol
-
-
[deleted]
-
LOL!!
-
-
[deleted]
-
Must. Wait. For. CE.
-
-
