When people say Bethesda ruined the Fallout series.

[Jimme John]

Look at this. Look at this. This is what the future of Fallout would be if Interplay had kept the IP. A shitty top-down shooter with the plot (and sales) of a B-Movie. Not to mention the absolute rape of the lore. They planned to make even more. Fallout Extreme,which was planned to be a squad based FPS that takes place in China. Fallout : BOS 2,which was planned to be another shitty top down shooter. Van Buren (Fallout 3),which,while admittedly having an OK combat system more true to the original Fallout's,had an absolutely retarded plot including going into space to stop an Enclave space laser. They would have kept shitting out games like this until they finally dwindled into bankruptcy and died like so many other obscure game companies,the Fallout series with them. Bethesda revived the Fallout series into something great,no matter how buttrustled some fanboys will get.

 

[SnapSlav]

Except... no. No it wouldn't. The game was a flop in every sense. Van Buren was ALMOST DONE when Black Isle was forcibly dissolved. Fallout as we know it would've been the future of Fallout, had Bethesda never taken the reigns.

Don't go trying to rewrite history.

 

[Moosick]

OP Status:
not told [ ]
Told [ ]
Fucking told [ ]
Knights of the TOLD republic [ ]
TOLD World Blues [x]

 

[AgentBJ09]

No, those games were not going to ruin Fallout. Those were spin-offs from the main line.

If you want to talk ruination, gauge how far a main entry strays from the core formula after at least one sequel, how much is taken away in a new sequel rather than being added or enhanced, or if there was a noticeable dip in writing quality/retconning of canon.

 

[Oppen]

You can pick between having breast cancer or AIDS. Breast cancer still allows you to have unprotected sex with someone you care about, so breast cancer must be great.
That's OP's logic.

 

[The-Artist-64]

Oh boy. No, Bethesda ruined everything. Fallout 3 makes BoS look like the greatest game in the world. You're sadly mistaken, Jimmie. I respect your opinion, but there is so much wrong with everything that you've said I don't know where to begin.

 

[Oppen]

From the few things I saw from BoS, I believe it is indeed worse than 3. But that doesn't make Fallout 3 a good Fallout, nor a great game.
In some aspects, I think Beth tried too hard to make its story look like Fallout 1 and 2, and got horrible results, while BoS, from the trailers, does the opposite, it doesn't try to be a Fallout, it just blatantly use the setting for something that has clearly nothing to do with it.

 

[PossibleCabbage]

Bethesda didn't ruin Fallout. "Ruin" would imply that they irreversibly damaged it to the point that it's really pretty worthless. They did not do this, they simply made a bad Fallout game which introduced a lot of changes that are negative. It's relatively difficult to "ruin" an IP (particularly if you're making money off of it) since you can always turn around and say "whoops, we screwed up" to undo a lot of the damage.

That Fallout is not ruined is best proven through the fact that, all things considered, New Vegas is a really good game in spite of Bethesda's changes. That Fallout 4 appears to be doubling down on a lot of the negative changes Fallout 3 made simply shows me that while Bethesda may not have ruined it, they really don't "get" Fallout. At least, their interpretation of "what is good and important about Fallout" is fundamentally different from my own.

 

[The-Artist-64]

Bethesda didn't ruin Fallout. "Ruin" would imply that they irreversibly damaged it to the point that it's really pretty worthless. They did not do this, they simply made a bad Fallout game which introduced a lot of changes that are negative. It's relatively to "ruin" an IP (particularly if you're making money off of it) since you can always turn around and say "whoops, we screwed up" to undo a lot of the damage.

That Fallout is not ruined is best proven through the fact that, all things considered, New Vegas is a really good game in spite of Bethesda's changes. That Fallout 4 appears to be doubling down on a lot of the negative changes Fallout 3 made simply shows me that while Bethesda may not have ruined it, they really don't "get" Fallout. At least, their interpretation of "what is good and important about Fallout" is fundamentally different from my own.

No, they HAVE done damage which cannot be undone. It can never return to its roots, unfortunately, due to the overwhelming popularity of Bethesdan Fallout. Black Isle will never be getting their hands on it again, and I'll bet Obsidian won't get a shot at making New Vegas 2. It just doesn't seem likely. So, yes, they ruined it.

 

[Jimme John]

You can pick between having breast cancer or AIDS. Breast cancer still allows you to have unprotected sex with someone you care about, so breast cancer must be great.
That's OP's logic.

Are you trying to say it would be better for Fallout to be dead than have ot owned by Bethesda?

 

[The-Artist-64]

You can pick between having breast cancer or AIDS. Breast cancer still allows you to have unprotected sex with someone you care about, so breast cancer must be great.
That's OP's logic.

Are you trying to say it would be better for Fallout to be dead than have ot owned by Bethesda?

The question reminds me somewhat of the 'quality or quantity' situation, that being: would you rather live longer and be more uncomfortable, or die more comfortably? Trust me, you always want to go for quality.

 

[SnapSlav]

Oh boy. No, Bethesda ruined everything. Fallout 3 makes BoS look like the greatest game in the world.

I STRONGLY disagree with you, here. As far as best-to-worst rankings of every FO game in the series goes, FO3 is SOLIDLY above FOBOS. It's just better, because no matter bad how it is, it IS fun; mindless, immature, cathartic fun, but fun nonetheless. Not being thought provoking in the slightest or not being challenging in the least doesn't make it "un-fun". FOBOS, however, just isn't fun at all, on top of looking bad, on top of playing bad, on top many other "bad" things. That doesn't mean the next best game is ANYWHERE near as bad as FO3... just that it is NOT worse than FOBOS.

The greatest reason why FOBOS couldn't have POSSIBLY ruined Fallout the way FO3 has, is because, back in 2004, "Fallout" reminded people of FO1/2/T, NOT FOBOS. Even though it was the newest game in the series, it was so far removed from the series that people didn't even recognize it. But now? When your average gamer says "I love Fallout", what are they talking about? 9 times out of 10, they're talking about FO3. It would be fine if the game they were referring to REPRESENTED the core series, or its foundation... but it doesn't.

You can pick between having breast cancer or AIDS. Breast cancer still allows you to have unprotected sex with someone you care about, so breast cancer must be great.
That's OP's logic.

Are you trying to say it would be better for Fallout to be dead than have ot owned by Bethesda?

This is a very empty-headed question. You're assuming that the alternatives to Bethesda purchasing the rights would be the franchise dying. Again, STOP TRYING TO REWRITE HISTORY. The bidding wars for the FO license were INTENSE. MANY companies were lining up to grab the rights because the series was SO ALIVE. Again, Van Buren was almost complete around the time the license was swept up by Bethesda. Before that, FOBOS was released (shitty or not, it was a game RELEASE, indication of the franchise being ALIVE, not at all dead). The alternatives to Bethesda buying the licensing rights was Obsidian buying the rights, or many other alternatives. EVERY alternative to Bethesda's acquisition was better than Bethesda's acquisition, and NONE of them are comparable to "a slow and painful death"... or ANY death at all.

 

[The-Artist-64]

Oh boy. No, Bethesda ruined everything. Fallout 3 makes BoS look like the greatest game in the world.

I STRONGLY disagree with you, here. As far as best-to-worst rankings of every FO game in the series goes, FO3 is SOLIDLY above FOBOS. It's just better, because no matter bad how it is, it IS fun; mindless, immature, cathartic fun, but fun nonetheless. Not being thought provoking in the slightest or not being challenging in the least doesn't make it "un-fun". FOBOS, however, just isn't fun at all, on top of looking bad, on top of playing bad, on top many other "bad" things. That doesn't mean the next best game is ANYWHERE near as bad as FO3... just that it is NOT worse than FOBOS.

The greatest reason why FOBOS couldn't have POSSIBLY ruined Fallout the way FO3 has, is because, back in 2004, "Fallout" reminded people of FO1/2/T, NOT FOBOS. Even though it was the newest game in the series, it was so far removed from the series that people didn't even recognize it. But now? When your average gamer says "I love Fallout", what are they talking about? 9 times out of 10, they're talking about FO3. It would be fine if the game they were referring to REPRESENTED the core series, or its foundation... but it doesn't.

Well, I can't argue with that. Makes sense.

 

[Oppen]

You can pick between having breast cancer or AIDS. Breast cancer still allows you to have unprotected sex with someone you care about, so breast cancer must be great.
That's OP's logic.

Are you trying to say it would be better for Fallout to be dead than have ot owned by Bethesda?

No. If you want my opinion on that, read my post on the relevant thread, which isn't this one.
I'm just mocking a flawed argument with a different flawed argument. Period.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Look at this. Look at this. This is what the future of Fallout would be if Interplay had kept the IP. A shitty top-down shooter with the plot (and sales) of a B-Movie. Not to mention the absolute rape of the lore. They planned to make even more. Fallout Extreme,which was planned to be a squad based FPS that takes place in China. Fallout : BOS 2,which was planned to be another shitty top down shooter. Van Buren (Fallout 3),which,while admittedly having an OK combat system more true to the original Fallout's,had an absolutely retarded plot including going into space to stop an Enclave space laser. They would have kept shitting out games like this until they finally dwindled into bankruptcy and died like so many other obscure game companies,the Fallout series with them. Bethesda revived the Fallout series into something great,no matter how buttrustled some fanboys will get.

Do you not see that FO3 is effectively FOBOS 2; and among all the Fallout titles, most resembles FOBOS in form, function, and fiction?
(We got the short straw in that deal.)

The team responsible for creating Fallout, left Interplay during the initial stages of Fallout 2... just after the car was working IRRC.

Had Bethesda not [upped their] bid with their Oblivion purse; Troika or Obsidian might have had a chance; and Troika had been working on a very slick looking RPG, that could have easily been converted to be Fallout 3.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzYmQyHl2bc

 

[Jimme John]

Oh boy. No, Bethesda ruined everything. Fallout 3 makes BoS look like the greatest game in the world.

I STRONGLY disagree with you, here. As far as best-to-worst rankings of every FO game in the series goes, FO3 is SOLIDLY above FOBOS. It's just better, because no matter bad how it is, it IS fun; mindless, immature, cathartic fun, but fun nonetheless. Not being thought provoking in the slightest or not being challenging in the least doesn't make it "un-fun". FOBOS, however, just isn't fun at all, on top of looking bad, on top of playing bad, on top many other "bad" things. That doesn't mean the next best game is ANYWHERE near as bad as FO3... just that it is NOT worse than FOBOS.

The greatest reason why FOBOS couldn't have POSSIBLY ruined Fallout the way FO3 has, is because, back in 2004, "Fallout" reminded people of FO1/2/T, NOT FOBOS. Even though it was the newest game in the series, it was so far removed from the series that people didn't even recognize it. But now? When your average gamer says "I love Fallout", what are they talking about? 9 times out of 10, they're talking about FO3. It would be fine if the game they were referring to REPRESENTED the core series, or its foundation... but it doesn't.

You can pick between having breast cancer or AIDS. Breast cancer still allows you to have unprotected sex with someone you care about, so breast cancer must be great.
That's OP's logic.

Are you trying to say it would be better for Fallout to be dead than have ot owned by Bethesda?

This is a very empty-headed question. You're assuming that the alternatives to Bethesda purchasing the rights would be the franchise dying. Again, STOP TRYING TO REWRITE HISTORY. The bidding wars for the FO license were INTENSE. MANY companies were lining up to grab the rights because the series was SO ALIVE. Again, Van Buren was almost complete around the time the license was swept up by Bethesda. Before that, FOBOS was released (shitty or not, it was a game RELEASE, indication of the franchise being ALIVE, not at all dead). The alternatives to Bethesda buying the licensing rights was Obsidian buying the rights, or many other alternatives. EVERY alternative to Bethesda's acquisition was better than Bethesda's acquisition, and NONE of them are comparable to "a slow and painful death"... or ANY death at all.

Interesting. I never knew that anyone besides Bethesda was vying for the Fallout IP. Regardless,I like what Bethesda did with it. I still appreciate and like the original Fallout games,but IMO the Bethesda ones are better.

 

[Mr Fish]

Oh boy. No, Bethesda ruined everything. Fallout 3 makes BoS look like the greatest game in the world.

I STRONGLY disagree with you, here. As far as best-to-worst rankings of every FO game in the series goes, FO3 is SOLIDLY above FOBOS. It's just better, because no matter bad how it is, it IS fun; mindless, immature, cathartic fun, but fun nonetheless. Not being thought provoking in the slightest or not being challenging in the least doesn't make it "un-fun". FOBOS, however, just isn't fun at all, on top of looking bad, on top of playing bad, on top many other "bad" things. That doesn't mean the next best game is ANYWHERE near as bad as FO3... just that it is NOT worse than FOBOS.

The greatest reason why FOBOS couldn't have POSSIBLY ruined Fallout the way FO3 has, is because, back in 2004, "Fallout" reminded people of FO1/2/T, NOT FOBOS. Even though it was the newest game in the series, it was so far removed from the series that people didn't even recognize it. But now? When your average gamer says "I love Fallout", what are they talking about? 9 times out of 10, they're talking about FO3. It would be fine if the game they were referring to REPRESENTED the core series, or its foundation... but it doesn't.

The way I look at it in regards to Fallout 3 ruining Fallout is that it is the beginning of the end. It's not the end itself, but it's enough to see the eventual downfall. Fallout 3 ruined Fallout because it gave the masses who didn't even know Fallout existed an idea of what Fallout is and now they control what Fallout will become and so Fallout will begin to slip further away.

A match thrown into the sofa chair is not a burning house, but allow the spread for long enough and it will engulf everything. Fallout 3 is the match engulfing the sofa chair, Fallout 4 is the room set ablaze, Fallout 5 will likely be the house burnt down.

/cynicism

 

[SnapSlav]

Interesting. I never knew that anyone besides Bethesda was vying for the Fallout IP. Regardless,I like what Bethesda did with it. I still appreciate and like the original Fallout games,but IMO the Bethesda ones are better.

The truth comes out. Now everything else makes more sense.

The way I look at it in regards to Fallout 3 ruining Fallout is that it is the beginning of the end. It's not the end itself, but it's enough to see the eventual downfall. Fallout 3 ruined Fallout because it gave the masses who didn't even know Fallout existed an idea of what Fallout is and now they control what Fallout will become and so Fallout will begin to slip further away.

A match thrown into the sofa chair is not a burning house, but allow the spread for long enough and it will engulf everything. Fallout 3 is the match engulfing the sofa chair, Fallout 4 is the room set ablaze, Fallout 5 will likely be the house burnt down.

/cynicism

It's not cynicism if you're simply acknowledging what's happening. That's essentially what I've said is the major failing of FO3. Not that it's a terrible game (because it is simply mediocre), but because it's not a GOOD game, and yet it's what people think of when they hear or say "Fallout". A franchise that by all means OUGHT to be associated with high quality storytelling, setting, and hardcore RPG mechanics. These average gamers don't know shit about the originals, but they think that FO3 represents Fallout.

Yahtzee correctly likened several of the themes of Bioshock as blatantly ripping off Fallout (a compliment), because he was referring to the originals; he was well aware of what Fallout ACTUALLY was. But that was 8 years ago, and FO3 hadn't come out yet. Meanwhile his peers in the game journalism industry CONSTANTLY look at FO4 and say, unironically, "This looks JUST like Fallout!" while happily contributing to the hype machine. They're just a sign of the direction things are going. More people are going to associate Bethesda's incarnations as what represents Fallout, and eventually they WILL be what it is about. The old guard will still be right that the originals are still what the series means, because those are what made the series in the first place. But eventually, if nothing changes, there will be more Bethesda churn outs than non-Bethesda churn outs. It's just a matter of time.

On the plus side, TES has been around for about 20 years, and yet only has 5 sequential titles. So MAYBE this means it will take a LONG time for that to happen.

 

[mef]

It's just better, because no matter bad how it is, it IS fun; mindless, immature, cathartic fun, but fun nonetheless.

Please, tell me what's fun in F3. Please, tell me. And if you say "combat" I'll laugh at you. I'm not blindly hating, but I seriously can't think of one thing that was remotely fun in this game. Even so praised "exploration" is bland and meaningless because the world is stupid and makes no sense. ot: As was said before, not only Bethesda wanted rights to Fallout. If Beth didn't have bought it, someone else would, Fallout wouldn't die. Heck, it probably would be better off.

 

[Mr Fish]

It's just better, because no matter bad how it is, it IS fun; mindless, immature, cathartic fun, but fun nonetheless.

Please, tell me what's fun in F3. Please, tell me. And if you say "combat" I'll laugh at you. I'm not blindly hating, but I seriously can't think of one thing that was remotely fun in this game.

Well, you know how sometimes you get stuck on doing some trivial activity and for the life of you you can't stop? Like you have a string or cable that is all tied up and you don't really need this cable but you started to try and untangle it and you'll be damned if you'll let it get the best of you. That's kind of what I got from Fallout 3. There isn't really any point to exploring this dungeon filled with Raiders, you already got the equipment you need since the game bombards you with stuff. It's easy to reach the level cap so it's not like you have to go here for grinding purposes. Hell, you might've already reached it, giving you less reason to go there. No it is a subconscious kind of reasoning. You don't know 'why' you go there you simply see that there is a dungeon and like an automaton you're drawn in. Maybe this didn't happen to you but it was what happened to me at least. Bethesda are good at creating hundreds of shiny spoons that they dangle in front of us and since Fallout 3 is a game where you turn off your brain as you play it you don't overthink it. You simply see the shiny spoon and go "I want it". There's no reason for it. You got shiny spoons already, and you got way better cutlery than the plastic shit Bethesda spraypainted. But it doesn't change the fact that, well... It's shiny. And you want it.

So what's fun in Fallout 3? Well after 800 hours in the game in retrospect I have no damn idea. I suppose I've grown as a person or my standards have increased or the veil has been lifted from my eyes. Whatever the case is I have no idea. I tried to go back to Fallout 3 to freshen myself up on what criticism I have of it but I also tried to enjoy it as a game on its own merits just like I did before and I was so god damn bored the entire time. After trudging along for 40 hours I quit.

I have to look at it in retrospect, cause I don't find it fun now but I found it fun at some point and the only reason I can think of is the shiny spoons. Distractions. Mindless distractions. It's the kind of enjoyment you get out of untangling a cable/wire/string. You could just toss the tangled shit into the bin but you feel a compulsion to want to untangle it. You're max level, you have the gear you need, there is zero reason for you to really do anything. But the compulsion to explore a map marker you just found is quite overwhelming.

Fallout 3 isn't really fun, not to me. It's a soulless husk that wears "fun" as make-up and people are fooled into it. Including me.
But I know why I found it fun at one point, because it is a turn-off-your-brain kinda game.
No pesky restrictions and you don't have to worry about actually thinking most of the time.
Just indulge in your inner monitor-zombie and and carry on.

For some that's enough to enjoy a game.