Bethesda NEVER Understood Fallout Video Essay

[RangerBoo]

I came across a pretty good video on how Bethesda never understood the Fallout series. The guy does a good job deconstructing everything from the lore, tone, humor and world building.

 

[Gizmojunk]

This video was fairly spot-on, for the most part. However, I think it more likely that Bethesda understood that a greater financial success would come of catering to their established audience—sad as that is.

I'd imagine that under them, the rich Fallout IP (with its speculated 'world of tomorrow' made into fact, destroyed by nuclear war, and where even the physical laws of reality are bent to their 1950's fear & expectations), was deliberately reduced to the pitifully simplified 'elevator pitch' of their "1950s—but in the future"... all for the sake of easy acceptance by new customers.

It's hard to argue against them in this—from a strictly pragmatic view of profitability. A success from a perfect Fallout sequel (one that hit all the hallmarks of this grand RPG series) would not generate nearly as many sales (and repeat sales) as the couture crap they shipped for their targeted audience.

With FO3, they used the gutted Fallout IP as pelt to re-skin Oblivion for a second chance at selling it again. Fallout fans be damned.

 

[Norzan]

Nah, up until 76 Bethesda had fantastic PR. New Vegas was miles above Fallout 3 in terms of everything and it sold extremely well, proving that a competent RPG can sell well. And it's also a game that a lot of Fallout 3 fans like as well. The Bethesda brand for a while could sell anything.

Bethesda could have literally picked any franchise with guns and made it into an open world game and it would have sold regardless. Unfortunately Fallout was the one picked because of Black Isle going under.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Bethesda could have literally picked any franchise with guns and made it into an open world game and it would have sold regardless.

That's the gist of it; they could have made Dune III, and it would have played like this:

 

[zegh8578]

Bethesda understood

Sums it up, and I often find myself having to remind people this. I don't fault people for trusting their favorite publishers, or for trusting art and entertainment to have an honest basis to it, but sometimes the answer is "yes, they understand perfectly - they just chose to do things differently, because anything else would not be economically viable to them."

I still remember back-in-the-day, when Beth devs promised old-time fans "We all have FO1 and 2 installed on our personal laptops!" as a reassurance that they would not change the tone or the feel of the game. So - they themselves were fans, they played the games, they *knew exactly* what a Fallout game was *supposed* to be like. They also knew that changing it into something else, then flipping off all the crying old-schoolers, while swimming in grateful new fans GOTY-awards, would be much more rewarding financially.

 

[RangerBoo]

Sums it up, and I often find myself having to remind people this. I don't fault people for trusting their favorite publishers, or for trusting art and entertainment to have an honest basis to it, but sometimes the answer is "yes, they understand perfectly - they just chose to do things differently, because anything else would not be economically viable to them."

I still remember back-in-the-day, when Beth devs promised old-time fans "We all have FO1 and 2 installed on our personal laptops!" as a reassurance that they would not change the tone or the feel of the game. So - they themselves were fans, they played the games, they *knew exactly* what a Fallout game was *supposed* to be like. They also knew that changing it into something else, then flipping off all the crying old-schoolers, while swimming in grateful new fans GOTY-awards, would be much more rewarding financially.

I think the biggest problem with Bethesda is the same problem plaguing the entertainment industry as a whole. That is that the industry only wants to please normies. There are two types of fans. There are the die hard fans who even after a movie, video game, book or tv show end will still talk about it, make mods, buy anthology books or comics and make accurate cosplay costumes of the characters for conventions years after the franchise ended. Normies on the other hand will just consume what is the new flavor of the month and maybe buy a few of those Funko Pop figures and move on to the next new hot product. I mean, how many normies still talk about Game of Thrones after it ended?
However, normies are more numerous then the die hard fans and as such they are the fans that the corporate entertainment industry want to please. However, I think these corporate big wigs are starting to see that normies are much harder to please then die hard fans. The die hard fans are people from all walks of life and they all collectively have one rule and that is:
1. Respect the established lore and characters.

The normies (especially the normies that plague the godforsaken wasteland that is Twitter) on the other hand have much more demanding rules and those are:
1. Make a product for everyone.
2. Represent everyone in your product.
3. Don't offend anyone with your product.

Because of these rules products made for normies are very bland, uninspired, creatively bankrupt, try hard, mindless and feel like they were assembled in a factory. The thing about normies is that they more often then not flock to products that took a creative risk and became popular with word of mouth. They really don't go for products that were pander to them but damn do they try to insert themselves into the fandoms of these products and try to change things until said product is nothing more then a Frankenstein monster of its former self.

 

[hexer]

The criticism from the video is well know by now.
I remember this site campaigned hard in 2007./2008. to make sure Bethesda doesn't stray away from Fallout canon both in lore and art style. But of course they did in the end.
Their marketing should probably take the most blame for changing the soul of Fallout.

 

[RangerBoo]

The criticism from the video is well know by now.
I remember this site campaigned hard in 2007./2008. to make sure Bethesda doesn't stray away from Fallout canon both in lore and art style. But of course they did in the end.
Their marketing should probably take the most blame for changing the soul of Fallout.

The best comment in response to the video:
"NMA-Fallout was 100% aggro about Bethesda buying Fallout. And they were right."

Second best comment:
"NMA is 100% aggro about literally everything."

 

[Black Angel]

My problem with this video is how he's fine with Fallout 4 (even got one fucking thousands of hours in it) AND implying Fallout Tactics is as bad as Fallout: Piece of Shit.

 

[Norzan]

My problem with this video is how he's fine with Fallout 4 (even got one fucking thousands of hours in it) AND implying Fallout Tactics is as bad as Fallout: Piece of Shit.

Yeah, that kind of made it somewhat hard to take him seriously, even if what he's saying is mostly true. Don't know how people can trash the Bethesda Fallouts for a lot of their problems and turn around and play possibly the most emblematic example of all the issues Bethesda Fallouts have for literally one thousand hours.

And Tactics is better than all Bethesda Fallouts combined, even with the questionable lore changes.

 

[Black Angel]

Well, I guess I can see people spending one hour in Fallout 4 if they think Bethesda learned a thing or two from New Vegas, and expecting some improvements or whatever. Or perhaps they're in, 'it should get better the more I play'. But one thousand *fucking* hours? AND saying people didn't care for Tactics?

 

[RangerBoo]

Well, I guess I can see people spending one hour in Fallout 4 if they think Bethesda learned a thing or two from New Vegas, and expecting some improvements or whatever. Or perhaps they're in, 'it should get better the more I play'. But one thousand *fucking* hours? AND saying people didn't care for Tactics?

Well I can understand the guy in that he probably enjoyed Fallout 4 for the mods and what not. I've have a ungodly amount of hours in Skyrim for that reason even though I am very critical of the game. If you're just looking for a game where you don't take the game seriously, can put in a ungodly amount of mods and run around and explore the world on a lazy and rainy Saturday then I can see people playing Fallout 4 and Skyrim. I will give the guy props for being critical of Fallout 4 even though he liked the game.

 

[Norzan]

>playing Skyrim for any reason



Gotta burn the infidels! Burn!


On a serious note, i do have games that i'm extremely critical towards that i actually play for time to time. Still don't know how you can get over one thousand of hours of Fallout 4, even modded. That game is the most mod unfriendly game in the series, to the point the previous two games have a lot more mods by comparison.

 

[Bethesdaretconman]

That's what happens when you have an entire different group of writers. Same thing happened with Silent Hill.

 

[0wing]

Little too late to criticize Bethpizda and a little too hypocritical. This faggot sucks Todds limp dick when it's all about Fallout 4 and is okay with Bethpizda being Bethpizda and their parent companies' shady business practices up until Fallout 76 happened. What a faggot, amirite?

 

[Charwo]

Well I can understand the guy in that he probably enjoyed Fallout 4 for the mods and what not. I've have a ungodly amount of hours in Skyrim for that reason even though I am very critical of the game. If you're just looking for a game where you don't take the game seriously, can put in a ungodly amount of mods and run around and explore the world on a lazy and rainy Saturday then I can see people playing Fallout 4 and Skyrim. I will give the guy props for being critical of Fallout 4 even though he liked the game.

How? Skyrim is basically post-apocalyptic in the way Fallout is supposed to be. The countryside is a lawless hellhole, war is everywhere but there are odd and awe-inspiring cities that are thriving despite the perils of overland trade. It has horses, it's pretty, it's vibrant it's visually interesting.

Fallout 4 is none of those things. In Skyrim 200 years have actually passed. There's a new dynasty, new kingdoms, new ideas. hell, the Imperials are becoming Italian, which is by far my favorite bit of world-building, There are old bunkers to be raided, sure, but they are isolated sideshows.

I can do EVERYTHING in Skyrim I wanted in Fallout 4 that I can't do in Fallout 4:
Ride Horses, look at pretty animals, fight for the soul of a nation and restore the old empire (America in this case, piss off Enclave), visit places that have developed since the end of the world (the end of the Tiber line in this case),

The world of Fallout 4 is a tomb, a dirty filthy hovel in the ground filled with Morlocks. Boston wasn't nuked, and yet Bethesda decided to make the entire east coast the Blackreach without ANY surface world.

The story is shit, but frankly, it's the world-building that makes this unplayable for me. Oh and while the MQ in Skyrim is as boilerplate as a waiver at the state fair, it's actually executed with a fair bit of flair, and love and certainly respect.

Although to be clear I LOATHE the Elder Scrolls because it's fantasy at it's very worst (even the stars aren't powered by fusion, they are literally tears in the universe.....fuck off game).

 

[Norzan]

How? Skyrim is basically post-apocalyptic in the way Fallout is supposed to be.

No, Skyrim is not even remotely close to looking like post apocalyptic. I don't know which version of Skyrim you played, but the one me and many others played is the generic viking version.

The story is shit, but frankly, it's the world-building that makes this unplayable for me. Oh and while the MQ in Skyrim is as boilerplate as a waiver at the state fair, it's actually executed with a fair bit of flair, and love and certainly respect.

The story of Skyrim is just as shit as Fallout 4's. You are basically a special snowflake because the games tell you are that. And that's not even mentioning Alduin, which has to be one of the worst villains in fiction.

 

[ironmask]

Even though the criticism is late, at least more Bethesda fallout fans are starting to wake up and see how mediocre the beth fallouts are. You couldn't make a video like this when fallout 3 was still new without getting bombarded with dislikes and fanboys trying to defend the game as much as they can.

 

[RangerBoo]

Even though the criticism is late, at least more Bethesda fallout fans are starting to wake up and see how mediocre the beth fallouts are. You couldn't make a video like this when fallout 3 was still new without getting bombarded with dislikes and fanboys trying to defend the game as much as they can.

Indeed and even with people who still enjoy those games are looking back at these games with a more critical eye. I mean, I love New Vegas but I am still critical with it.
I recalled something a YouTuber name It'sAGundam said about Bethesda which I think is accurate. Bethesda back in the early 2000's to mid 2010's was much like DSP during the early days of YouTube. DSP was one of the only people doing Let's Play's of video games on YouTube. Likewise, Bethesda was the only game company making open world action rpg's with mod support. As such they garnered a large audience and legion of fanboys. But just like with DSP who ended up getting competition with Let's Play's with much more talented gamers we are seeing other game companies showing that they can do open world action rpg's with mod support better.
One of those companies is of course CD Projekt Red. CD Projekt Red showed that story, dialogue and rpg elements don't have to be sacrificed for exploration and action. Stuff like that, they proved, is superficial to a rpg which is something Bethesda has yet to grasp. With the success of Disco Elysium I think we maybe are seeing a comeback with crpg's. Many of these Bethesda fanboys from Fallout 3 are now older and, like all things with age, their taste have probably changed and now they probably are looking for games that offer a more meaningful experience. With the Outer Worlds coming out and making people go "Oh wow! Fallout 4 is shit compared to this!" and with games like Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines 2, Wasteland 3 and Baldur's Gate 3 coming out this year, which are not only being developed by veterans of both the game industry and the rpg genre but also by former Black Isle developers, I would be sweating if I was Bethesda right now and looking to do a course correction on everything.

 

[Charwo]

No, Skyrim is not even remotely close to looking like post apocalyptic. I don't know which version of Skyrim you played, but the one me and many others played is the generic viking version.


The story of Skyrim is just as shit as Fallout 4's. You are basically a special snowflake because the games tell you are that. And that's not even mentioning Alduin, which has to be one of the worst villains in fiction.

YOu're not getting what I'm saying. Post-apocalyptic isn't about dead forests and environmental decay or anything like that. It's about government collapse. Even without the Storcloacks, the authorities have lost control of the countryside. You have, with the exception of Rorikstead, which I thin is magically protected and Riverwood, the countryside is lawless, trade is paralyzed, the State is failing and has been for a long time. Both the empire and Skyrim are fallen, and Skyrim is failed state where you are a law unto yourself with not even the pretention the popo can stop you unless you step foot in the cities.

Tsat's post-apocalyptic. Warlords, insecurity, banditry. Skyrim is just a level 1 post-Apoc compared to Oblivion whereas Fallout is a type 2. But it's closer to what Fallout 4 should be given its date and unnuked location. And it's also where Fallout 1 was getting and where Fallout 2 and NV were. So I got to do al the things I'd want in a post apoc game, because I had a world somewhat worth fighting for when I could deceive myself this wasn't Elder Scrolls.

As for the shitty storytelling....this is boilerplate fantasy going back to Lord of the Rings. Alduin's a shitty villain, so is Sauron. Frodo's a chosen one. Alduin and Sauron, and to a greater extent Morgoth, Sauron's old boss, are exactly the same character: a rouge element of heaven that shirks duty for personal vanity and coorts his brethern with promises of power.