Opinion - How Bethesda Killed Fallout

I've recently replayed both Fallout one and two (over the past six months), and last week I started replaying Fallout: Tactics. When you replay these gems, you will quickly realize just how badly this franchise has failed, and while I agree that Interplay initially killed the thing, Bethesda had a real opportunity to pick up the pieces and make something glorious. They failed, and this was an excellent article to read, thanks for the posting.

Originally Posted by sakichop
Can you kill something tha was already dead?

That is not dead which can eternal lie.

I was going through some old videos and came across this one.


I'll still pick Witcher III for GOTY even nowadays over Fallout 4.

I came late to the party and never played 1 or 2. I really enjoyed 3, but 4 bored the hell out of me to the point where I restarted a few times and never got very far at all. Now I barely remember it except for the base building aspects which I found tedious and clunky.

…jabs at mid-century Americana aren't at the expense of those of us who grew up in it, but rather those who don't buy into it. And they aren't subtle jabs so much as graceless haymakers, landing with a guffaw and a wave of nausea.

Like I said, I had fun with 3. But that sentence from the article sums up my feelings towards the "humor" in the game and the reason why I just do not like them any more. And makes me only barely lukewarm about the upcoming game from a different developer that looks like a retread of fallout to me. Can't remember the name, but it takes place on a different planet? It hasn't been released yet.

Originally Posted by Carnifex
I've recently replayed both Fallout one and two (over the past six months), and last week I started replaying Fallout: Tactics. When you replay these gems, you will quickly realize just how badly this franchise has failed, and while I agree that Interplay initially killed the thing, Bethesda had a real opportunity to pick up the pieces and make something glorious. They failed, and this was an excellent article to read, thanks for the posting.

Bethesada never ever did any game having any relationship design with Fallout 1&2. If they had tried make a true Fallout 3 it would have been a big fail.

Common, a true Fallout 3 without turn based, non sense. Bethesda making a turn based game, non sense, unlike the clear potential that had Bioware to do that.

So yeah Bethesda Fallout 3 changed all and eventually didn't reused well some aspects, but I found it rather fun anyway. Morrowind and Fallout 3, i have yet to enjoy anything else from them.

As an old guy (54) who has played FO1 and 2, FNV, and FO4 (and only about 30 or so hours of FO3) I can say I enjoyed all of those listed. People change, the world changes, games change. I don't bemoan change just because of change. I base my enjoyment on the game itself. I liked FO1 and FO2 both. I did not like FO3 but liked FNV and FO4. I do not like FO76.

I enjoyed Icewind Dale and the BG series. I also enjoyed POE1 and 2, enjoying Kingmaker currently, and many other games old and new.

Article was just click-bait.

This isn't about change, this is about completely fucking up a game world/setting.

Is someone still playing Fallout 1? Last time I checked Steam database dozens of thousand are still playing Fallout 4 despite its age. I am not sure about number of players in Fallout 76 but I am sure it is much bigger than the numbers of players of Fallout 1/2. What is there to kill I wonder?

Originally Posted by Stingray
This isn't about change, this is about completely fucking up a game world/setting.

Yep not a fan of how they used the lore and how Bethesda wrote off the Lone Wander from Fallout 3. The whole coup and death of Sarah Lyons was pure BS also.

I think the word "killed", gives the wrong impression. Of course it didn't kill the franchise, it just changed it so much that it's not the fallout that the fans of 1 & 2 knew and grew up with.

Also, it is quite unfair to compare the number of people playing F3 & F4 with the ones playing the original ones. A very large number is probably too young to have played the older ones. That does not mean that we cannot compare them based on setting, story and atmosphere, where the older ones shine and are vastly superior in my opinion.

Originally Posted by sakichop
Can you kill something tha was already dead?

I suppose obsidian or someone of that ilk could have made a fallout game in the vein of the old ones and had tyranny, torment or even POE level sales but that would have been a drop in the bucket compared to the sales and popularity that Bethesda brought to the franchise. It may have made the core fallout fans more happy but would have done nothing to expand the IP or bring it to a new generation of gamers.

Sure us old guys that have been gaming for 30 years know about fallout but there was a whole generation or two of gamers that didn’t. Bethesda didn’t kill fallout they resurrected it and made it a household name even if us old timers or fallout purist don’t like what the resurrected it in to.

Not sure if you actually read the article (I'm guessing you didn't), but you sort of missed the point.

It's not about expanding the IP or how many people are playing it. It's about how Bethesda failed to emulate the exact style of the older FO games. He's basically saying the newer games don't have the same soul.

I agree with what he says for the most part. The dialogue and humor in the newer games is incredibly hamfisted compared to Interplay's titles.

That doesn't mean I don't like Bethesda's games though. I actually find them more immersive due to the first-person view. I can only imagine how much better they could be though if Bethesda hired quality writers and voice actors.

I think the writer of that article missed the issue with the last few Fallout games. When I see people complaining about how Fallout has gone downhill, it's because of gameplay and bugs, not some philosophical or political BS. Bethesda keeps dumbing down the RPG elements in Fallout and Elder Scrolls games, and RPG fans keep complaining about that. Obsidian found a good balance with New Vegas, but I don't think there would have been many complaints if they had made the RPG elements a bit more prevalent.

The story, as far as I care, comes down to: People went balls-to-the-wall crazy with atomic energy after WWII and then there was a war with China and this world is the result. There's the sheer number of screw-ups (and just plain weirdness) that you see made by the people in the Fallout universe, which is kind of humorous in a way, but then there's the dark, post-apocalyptic aspect there as well. What's well-liked about the story in the Fallout games isn't whatever philosophical angle the article writer is talking about, but the player's ability to be who they want in that world and actually make an impact (like nuking a town you don't like for a handful of caps).

I thought F03 and New Vegas were great. The engine and system really strained to interest me with F04. Nothing new worth attracting. 76 is just a ridiculously weak idea.

Originally Posted by JDR13
It's not about expanding the IP or how many people are playing it. It's about how Bethesda failed to emulate the exact style of the older FO games. He's basically saying the newer games don't have the same soul.

I'd like to add a couple of discussion topics:

1. If people play "new" Fallout and don't play "old" Fallout than we all can agree that "new" Fallout killed "old" one, can't we?

2. Which Fallout is a real Fallout? "old" Fallout or a "new" Fallout? Is the "old" Fallout a real Fallout because it was produced before the "new" one?

3. Should "new" Fallout inherit settings and properties of the "old" one and why? Because they both called Fallout or because one company bought another and now new owners have to stick to unwritten inheritance laws?

Ouch… You REALLY missed the point.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Ouch… You REALLY missed the point.

Yeah.

Has nothing to do with "old and new Fallout"(there's no such thing).

It has to do with Bethesda using the setting to produce a niche game which has nothing to do with the previous games(yes, even the console ones), and failing miserably by reusing the engine of a single player game full of bugs that they never cared to fix and were carried over to their poor attempt at a multiplayer game.

As previous people have said, it has absolutely nothing to do with how many more play the new ones compared to the old. The old ones are over 20 years old now and new gamers might not even want to try them due to being so, especially graphics wise.

However, that has nothing to do with what is discussed here. Bethesda made new fallout games that are very different to what fallout used to be. That's it, nothing more, nothing less.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Not sure if you actually read the article (I'm guessing you didn't), but you sort of missed the point.

It's not about expanding the IP or how many people are playing it. It's about how Bethesda failed to emulate the exact style of the older FO games. He's basically saying the newer games don't have the same soul.

Read it and got his point, That's why I said they resurected it into something else. Something purists might not like.


It's changed not dead and that change made it more successful. Which means they didn't kill it and it's very much alive just different.

more successful? Yeah look at that tombstone over there with the Fallout 76 RIP on it.

Originally Posted by sakichop
Read it and got his point, That's why I said they resurected it into something else. Something purists might not like.

It's changed not dead and that change made it more successful. Which means they didn't kill it and it's very much alive just different.

He's not saying it's dead in the way you seem to think he is, and it has nothing to do with being a purist or how successful it is now. It's about fundamental differences between Interplay's games and those that came after.

I think some people here understand what he's saying a little better than others. It might have to do with being more familiar with FO 1&2.