Originally Posted by Dhruin
Without trying to troll - that depends entirely on what they do, doesn't it? Is a bad game better than no game?

I think the "you guys should be glad *someone* is doing something with the license" argument has been overused.

This has led to a knee-jerk reaction from some people (I see Bradylama, the guy who wrote the anti-hype piece, use it a lot) to just say "No, we were content with letting the license die. It's not our fault it's been revived, it would've been better off dead."

A kind of spurious point, because unless there's an RPG heaven, I don't see how Fallout is "better off" dead…

I don't know, there really isn't a yes-no answer and it depends on what Bethesda does with it. For comparison's sake; Tactics was better than nothing, BoS was worse than nothing.