Opinion - How Bethesda Killed Fallout

ChatMiauleur said:

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

Click to expand...

Yes FO76 is a turd. FO3 sold extremely well and FO4 broke Bethesda sales records and if they release a FO5 SINGLE PLAYER game they will set new records.


So yes, much much more successful.

JDR13 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm aware, maybe your not understanding what I'm saying. Something you never considered I'm sure.

Anyway, I've said my piece. you think I don't understand I'm fine with that.

sakichop said:

I'm aware, maybe your not understanding what I'm saying. Something you never considered I'm sure.

Anyway, I've said my piece. you think I don't understand I'm fine with that.

Click to expand...

If you really got what he's saying, I don't think you'd attempt to refute it. At least that what it seems like you're trying to do.

If not, then indeed the misunderstanding is mine.

wolfgrimdark said:

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.

Click to expand...

Im' a bit older than you, and somehow share this opinion, could be a matter of generation. Ok myself I enjoyed FO3 and failed enter in FO4 (2 attempts, there will be more), and failed push FNV above 20H of play.

But it changes nothing, everything evolves, copy the past never worked, it ends to be cloning, and everybody end hate it.

It's all the problem of video game nostalgia and quite a part of relative failure of nostalgia crowdfunding, you can't just clone the past, too many things changed, from people to context.

I would add that for me FO2 writing was already a disappointment with an excessive teenish humor that was better hidden in FO1.

I hear what he's saying but I think that could be true of Interplay too, starting with FO: Tactics. They started to see it as a setting where they could spin off all sorts of games, like they did with the console Brotherhoods of Steel.

Fallout 3 is the same thing. The first indicator that Bethesda "didn't get it" was the removal of the tongue in cheek humour the first two games had. The point really was survival/discovery as you walked into this accidental world made from the mess that was humanity; a spiritual successor to Wasteland; a video game version of The Road Warrior. Fallout 3 felt like another FPS set in a post apocalyptic world.

As boring as Morrowind and Oblivion are, at least there was something to uncover in this big background fantasy setting. So its not like Bethesda is incapable of doing "story" in a video game.

Tongue in cheek humour in FO1? If you mean the manual, fine, the game you miss read it in my opinion.

It's not some obscure hidden reference that changes the writing and make it tongue in cheek humour. This sort of writing is right why Im' not fan of FO2 only of FO1, it's FO2 that started bretrayed the series with its stupid boredom teenish humor.

I agree with the article, although I'm inclined to also agree with Chien when he says Beth delivered what people wanted, both in regards to gameplay and setting. Just look at the success of the later games, FO76 excluded maybe? They sure as hell didn't deliver what I like most, but like most people in this forum I'm hardly a representative of the mainstream audience.

Unlike Dasale I'd actually rate FO2 the highest though, to me the quirky humour made it even more memorable than the first. Which reminds me it might be time for a replay…

wolfgrimdark said:

Article was just click-bait.

Click to expand...

Not only that. It was a singular effort in scapegoating, in shifting the blame. It is not as gratuitous as a simple click bait article is.

The article shows awareness about potential issues of the FO settings. Yet fails to wonder if it could be sold to today's audience.

The commentary section bears no ambiguity. People are aware: Bethesda made a world scale nuclear disaster something fun to overcome.

Yet they spare the question whether not doing so would have been tolerated.

FO was released twenty years ago, the set direction was not sustainable. It had to be toned down first and then reversed.

Not doing so would have meant being labeled an anti white, self hating, leftist, SJW or whatever corporation.

Bethesda has only one blame: they listened to their customers.

I believe it's highly unlikely we'll ever see another single player game from Bethesda as part of the Fallout franchise, but a few independents look to be filling that void, and I'll gladly support their efforts.