Destructoid wonders why Bethesda hasn't announced Fallout 4 yet

Nope. Unlike Fallout 3, BoS tried to be original because it did not rely on story elements that were used in the first two games. Nothing is stupider than the sheriff letting a stranger tinker with a nuclear war head. Nothing is stupider than having a settlement consisting of only children near another area of Super Mutants. Nothing is stupider than the PC being the only one to turn on the Purifier, when you have companions who are immune to radiation, unless you have a DLC which allows them to have the choice (not to mention the game never explains why you are still alive).

Trying to be original does not single handily ignore the fact that the game is horrible. As you may know, F3 does have a fanbase (even some NMAers say that its average at best) which means it's written in such a way that it allows for people to try and make sense of it (the "explain something Fallout 3 didn't" thread is proof of this). Yes the game as bad writing, but there's still something there for people to brainstorm about.

F:POS? It has no fanbase, inside or outside the fandom. It has horrible writing, writing so horrible that not even NMA tries to make sense of it, compared to F3 which at least we try. While Bethesda did not do well on the lore, from what I've read there were some people in the development circle who did play the originals and did try to put some stuff in there for fans of the classics. The F:POS developers? They openly didn't care the least bit, they even snuck a "Take That" to the fans in the credits.


No, the Enclave should have never been a powerful force in the first place. I do not care what excuse Bethesda, or anyone else can cook up to make this plot fallacy legitimate. Thousands of Enclave members died when the Oil Rig exploded, and more were being slaughtered by the NCR. They might have more bases across the nation, but the Core Region was their main location. They are remnants of the US Government, it makes no sense that they would be a major force in the East Coast when their destruction was 31 years ago.

I'm not going to try and change your opinion, it's yours of course. But Wumbology made a comment on the "John Henry Eden's Presidency" thread about the Enclaves transition which if Blue is to be believed, then even the Fallout Bible supports it. Just thought you'd might want to look it over.
 
Nope. Unlike Fallout 3, BoS tried to be original because it did not rely on story elements that were used in the first two games. Nothing is stupider than the sheriff letting a stranger tinker with a nuclear war head. Nothing is stupider than having a settlement consisting of only children near another area of Super Mutants. Nothing is stupider than the PC being the only one to turn on the Purifier, when you have companions who are immune to radiation, unless you have a DLC which allows them to have the choice (not to mention the game never explains why you are still alive).

Trying to be original does not single handily ignore the fact that the game is horrible. As you may know, F3 does have a fanbase (even some NMAers say that its average at best) which means it's written in such a way that it allows for people to try and make sense of it (the "explain something Fallout 3 didn't" thread is proof of this). Yes the game as bad writing, but there's still something there for people to brainstorm about.

F:POS? It has no fanbase, inside or outside the fandom. It has horrible writing, writing so horrible that not even NMA tries to make sense of it, compared to F3 which at least we try. While Bethesda did not do well on the lore, from what I've read there were some people in the development circle who did play the originals and did try to put some stuff in there for fans of the classics. The F:POS developers? They openly didn't care the least bit, they even snuck a "Take That" to the fans in the credits.
Did I ever imply the fact BoS being a terrible game should be ignored because it was trying to be original? No. I stated its plot was not as lazy as F3's.

I do not care which game has a fanbase. They are both the worst representations of the series, they are both not RPGs, they are filled with so many cliches, etc. These two games have so much in common that I could fill up the whole page. You people try to make sense of F3's writing, but sometimes, it becomes evem more incoherent and ridiculous when you do, so what is the point? Some of F3's quests were so badly written and thoughtout, that the Main Quest does not even compare. You cannot tell me you can make sense out of a "children only" settlement in a wasteland, with SUPER MUTANTS near the settlement.

No, the Enclave should have never been a powerful force in the first place. I do not care what excuse Bethesda, or anyone else can cook up to make this plot fallacy legitimate. Thousands of Enclave members died when the Oil Rig exploded, and more were being slaughtered by the NCR. They might have more bases across the nation, but the Core Region was their main location. They are remnants of the US Government, it makes no sense that they would be a major force in the East Coast when their destruction was 31 years ago.

I'm not going to try and change your opinion, it's yours of course. But Wumbology made a comment on the "John Henry Eden's Presidency" thread about the Enclaves transition which if Blue is to be believed, then even the Fallout Bible supports it. Just thought you'd might want to look it over.
That whole thread was literally about John Henry, I am talking about the Enclave in general. How they were still able to regain so much power, strength and memebers after their defeat in 2242. There is no "biased" or "misdirected" deconstruction of F3's plot. Bethesda's writing is totally an incoherent. Just look at Skyrim's MQ. You kill a dragon, you suddenly become "Dragonborn", and after you have killed the main boss, no one cares that you just saved the entire planet.
 
Last edited:
I do not care which game has a fanbase.

I used the fanbases as an example of how bad F:POS is compared to F3, F:POS has none while F3 is considered okay by even some NMAers, the people who know more about Fallout then anyone. When even NMA tries with a game as problematic as F3 while not giving two shits about F:POS, it should say that F3 doesn't have the worst writing. F3's writing is bad, but compared to POS it's slightly better.

You people try to make sense of F3's writing, but sometimes, it becomes evem more incoherent and ridiculous when you do, so what is the point? Some of F3's quests were so badly written and thoughtout, that the Main Quest does not even compare. You cannot tell me you can make sense out of a "children only" settlement in a wasteland, with SUPER MUTANTS near the settlement.

Please don't say "you people", there are many opinions and views here on NMA and saying "you people" makes it sound like your trying to act superior (even if your not). And there has been a number of ideas about some of F3's quests which I have found engaging. Now I will not lie, F3 does have some pretty outlandish quests but it's interesting to try and make sense out of them. Just thought I'd share this but I found someone who came up with the idea that perhaps the kids in LL came from the adults in Big Town. It's an okay idea I guess, but it's got to be better than kids just popping up into existence. I don't know what to say about the super mutants though, maybe the kids abuse their immortality? :smile:

That whole thread was literally about John Henry, I am talking about the Enclave in general. How they were still able to regain so much power, strength and memebers after their defeat in 2242. There is no "biased" or "misdirected" deconstruction of F3's plot Bethesda's writing is totally an incoherent. Just look at Skyrim's MQ.

The post was not literally all about JHE, the post I added was more about why the Enclave moved to the East and that the idea was possibly encouraged by the Fallout Bible. I will not lie, I have no idea how they regained the power to move over to the East so quickly although Wumbology's comment made it seem that the Enclave had no where else to turn so decided to try this East Coast idea. I guess the outposts the Enclave had around and about would help with their journey but that's using suspension of disbelief.

As for Skyrim, you do not just "become the Dragonborn" by killing a dragon. You were always the dragonborn, it was just until you absorbed his soul that you never knew you were one. Nobody caring that you saved the entire planet sounds stupid to me, but aren't you sure there aren't dialogues for the NPC's that acknowledge you killed Alduin? I do know that NPC's gain dialogue for certain quests you complete.

I just want to outright state that I'm not trying to justify F3's writing, I just don't believe it's writing is worse than POS's that's all.
 
Last edited:
You people try to make sense of F3's writing, but sometimes, it becomes evem more incoherent and ridiculous when you do, so what is the point? Some of F3's quests were so badly written and thoughtout, that the Main Quest does not even compare. You cannot tell me you can make sense out of a "children only" settlement in a wasteland, with SUPER MUTANTS near the settlement.

Please don't say "you people", there are many opinions and views here on NMA and saying "you people" makes it sound like your trying to act superior (even if your not). And there has been a number of ideas about some of F3's quests which I have found engaging. Now I will not lie, F3 does have some pretty outlandish quests but it's interesting to try and make sense out of them. Just thought I'd share this but I found someone who came up with the idea that perhaps the kids in LL came from the adults in Big Town. It's an okay idea I guess, but it's got to be better than kids just popping up into existence. I don't know what to say about the super mutants though, maybe the kids abuse their immortality? :smile:
I acknowledge there are many opinions and views on this website that differs from mine, but I do not think "you people" makes me look as if I am trying act superior. Regardless whether or not the children came from the adults in BT, it is still stupid that the developers would place them next to an area full of mutants, alone, without adult supervision.


As for Skyrim, you do not just "become the Dragonborn" by killing a dragon. You were always the dragonborn, it was just until you absorbed his soul that you never knew you were one. Nobody caring that you saved the entire planet sounds stupid to me, but aren't you sure there aren't dialogues for the NPC's that acknowledge you killed Alduin? I do know that NPC's gain dialogue for certain quests you complete.
The game never explains why you were the Dragonborn (Maybe it did, but I am not interest in researching it), or why you were the Chosen One. Certain NPCs such as the of Jarl of Whiterun, acknowledges that you kill Alduin, but still gives the Dragonborn little respect. The guards would complement you, then say, "So, you are one of the Companions. What do you do, fetch the mead?"(*facepalm*, even when I have become the leader of the faction, I would still here that quote).

I just want to outright state that I'm not trying to justify F3's writing, I just don't believe it's writing is worse than POS's that's all.
I never implied that, and when I mean writing, I am talking about almost every quest in the game.
 
Last edited:
I acknowledge there are many opinions and views on this website that differs from mine, but I do not think "you people" makes me look as if I am trying act superior. Regardless whether or not the children came from the adults in BT, it is still stupid that the developers would place them next to an area full of mutants, alone, without adult supervision.

Agreed, the kid town idea probably would've been better if it were a directly after-the-war approach, presumably without mutants in the area.

The game never explains why you were the Dragonborn (Maybe it did, but I am not interest in researching it), or why you were the Chosen One. Certain NPCs such as the of Jarl of Whiterun, acknowledges that you kill Alduin, but still gives the Dragonborn little respect. The guards would complement you, then say, "So, you are one of the Companions. What do you do, fetch the mead?"(*facepalm*, even when I have become the leader of the faction, I would still here that quote).


I didn't think that the game needed to explain why the player was the Dragonborn, the world needed to be saved from a dragon invasion and only Dragonborns can do it. Being a Dragonborn seems to be given to mortals Akatosh deems worthy so it would make sense in a way that you'd just only find out about once the invasion started. I agree that small dialogues aren't much for saving the world, but I blame that more on lack of a cutscene or two where everybody would celebrate or something.

I never implied that, and when I mean writing, I am talking about almost every quest in the game.

I know, I just wanted establish that I wasn't condoning it's writing.
 
Since when facing challenges means punishing ?

PS: If it wasn't called Fallout, some flaws would still be there, but the scenery would make a little bit more sense, a few years after the bombs...
 
I didn't think that the game needed to explain why the player was the Dragonborn, the world needed to be saved from a dragon invasion and only Dragonborns can do it.
That's what often seperates good storytelling from bad ones. Deus Ex Machina! The gods decided to send you on this incredible fetch-quest of uber-awesomness to save the world from ancient and unspoken evil that could devour the world any minute! The next thing the player does is spending the rest of his days hunting bears and getting drunk in a tavern near whiterun. The world doesn't care anyway. So why should the player?

The issue with this approach is that Bethesda creates a Sandbox environment that doesnt take it self seriously. I mean it is alright that the world/game gives you a lot of (rather meaningless) stuff to do. But when it comes down to the pacing of the story and the story telling than someone at Bethesda really creates a huge mess. They always try to give the player this feeling of epicness or urgency to the plot, but it simply doesn't work out well. For many different reasons. One is that the plot simply doesn't look epic. Towns with 20 people getting attacked by a group of 15 soldiers ... and they call it a civil war. Or a demonic Invasion on the whole province stoped by a group of people (see Oblivion). The other is awfull writting that never acknowledges what the player does. Morrowind was doing a much better job here in my opinion as it simply avoided any battles of epic proportions. Everything was in the loore, the time of big battles was long over. And the job of the player was to stop Dadoth Ur BEFORE he became a real power and building a huge army to take over the land. Urgency and pacing doesn't work so well in a setting where the player can be so damn easily distracted by every flower on the wayside. Saving damsels in distress or a situation where in real situations minutes would decide the outcome ... oh but the player has still to clear a couple of dungeons and hunt some deer or what ever.

I understand why so many people, particularly those that actually don't like RPGs, feel so happy with Oblivion/Skyrim/Fallout 3, they can do everything without real consequences, but the storytelling of those games is still awfull.

The only situation where Skyrim actually feels really awesome is the first 15 min. after the game starts. Why? Well because the player has no clue about the plot. The character is simply thrown in to the world with a chance to start completely fresh. That is actually a good thing! Because there is no urgency and it works very well with the pacing of the world. It invites you to explore and do something as you don't have a reason to believe that the world is in real danger, things really start to go downhill after Whiterun in my opinion. When you become the Dragonborn.

What I don't understand is why Bethesda (or most RPGs actually ...) never give the player the chance to actually ... fail, in something. Imagine if you have a situation with hostages and if the player acts to slowly or simply doesnt care, the hostages die, where the NPCs might even blame the player for it, lowering his reputation, the game doesn't have to stop here of course, just creating different outcomes. Maybe sometimes even quests you simply CAN'T win, no matter what you try. The whole world always feels like it is only waiting for you, yet no one cares that you solve their little issues.

Such situations where you can fail though would have to be used sparningly of course, or they become just another boring game element. But if used carefully it can spice up the game and story a lot. Another really great situation in Skyrim was the Infiltration of the Embassy, not so much because of the story, but because it was "different", it really feelt like the skills that you got up to that moment could be used effectively! Characters with high stealth skills had really an chance to use them now and if you failed here than you had no chance to get out to level them up. You had a chance to really roleplay here, a rare occasion for Bethesda games. More of that please! Sadly there was really not enough of such situations in the game. Same for Fallout 3.

Giving the player a lot of skills is one thing, creating real oportunities to make some use out of it another. In other words, creating a role playing experience.
 
Last edited:
That is the reason; along with feeding the ego, and straight-up empowerment fantasy. Bethesda's games are not RPGs, they are meant as the digital equivalent of WestWorld.

I had never been able to put to words why fallout 3 felt so wrong compared to other RPG's I like (like the STALKER series or obviously the classic fallouts) but you hit the nail on the head with that one. Too many RPG's make you feel you are important by telling you that you are, all to few give you the chance to earn that importance or the skill to be better than everyone else.
 
I Want to see what the A-Team [Bethesda Game Studios] can do
(Quote from the article)

Hilarious. The fact that the author considers Bethesda more qualified to direct the new Fallout game just boggles my mind. He does realize that New Vegas was created by people who actually worked on the classics, right?
 
I Want to see what the A-Team [Bethesda Game Studios] can do
(Quote from the article)

Hilarious. The fact that the author considers Bethesda more qualified to direct the new Fallout game just boggles my mind. He does realize that New Vegas was created by people who actually worked on the classics, right?

It probably has to do with personal taste.
I am in the same camp as you but not just because some of the people at Obsidian worked on Fallout 1 and 2, but because their effort on storyline, quests, and NPCs in Fallout New Vegas, and some other games they made such as KOTOR2 and Mask of the Betrayer speak for themselves.

A lot of Obsidian games could use more bug testing and should have been more stable but you can never say that the developer put no effort in coming up with good internal lore where as that of Bethesda often is a slapdash effort, mostly relying on the tropes and perhaps the idea that they can bury any effort at good story, quests etc. if they provide the gamer just plenty of space to roam around in.

It doesn't matter how big the lands are and how many caves or dungeons there are to explore, if there is nothing worthwhile about them worth exploring other than random junk, then these places are just a lot of pointless filler.
Lets instead have less locations but that are far better worked out and that hold our interests.
 
Last edited:
A lot of Obsidian games could use more bug testing and should have been more stable but you can never say that the developer put no effort in coming up with good internal lore where as that of Bethesda often is a slapdash effort, mostly relying on the tropes and perhaps the idea that they can bury any effort at good story, quests etc. if they provide the gamer just plenty of space to roam around it.
And Beth games are just as buggy, but they seem always to get a way with it.
 
Oh I definitely remember a few such moments in Fallout 3.
At one point the game was dead set on crashing every time I wanted to walk around the Lincoln memorial using the path that was clearly for that purpose.
I had to climb over all kinds of crap to finally get around it.
 
I Want to see what the A-Team [Bethesda Game Studios] can do
(Quote from the article)

Hilarious. The fact that the author considers Bethesda more qualified to direct the new Fallout game just boggles my mind. He does realize that New Vegas was created by people who actually worked on the classics, right?

It seems clear to me that this author simply played Fallout 3 first, and based all of his (or her?) subsequent opinions on that. It's the only reasonable explanation I can think of. Also, he's fooling himself if he thinks Bethesda is going to learn anything from New Vegas. Skyrim had all of the same mistakes and half-@ssed implementation of their other games.

Like other people on the forum probably are, I'm fairly offended by the implication here that Fallout 3 was the originator of something, despite the 3 in the title, and also the droves of nearly identical Elder Scrolls games preceding it.
 
"The issue with this approach is that Bethesda creates a Sandbox environment that doesnt take it self seriously. I mean it is alright that the world/game gives you a lot of (rather meaningless) stuff to do. But when it comes down to the pacing of the story and the story telling than someone at Bethesda really creates a huge mess."

This is why I've felt that they should just cut main storylines out of their games. They are inevitably the worst part. Especially in Skyrim, I mostly preferred to ignore it for as long as possible. And in Fallout 3, the main story was mostly just me feeling compelled by the game to do things that I didn't care about.

"What I don't understand is why Bethesda (or most RPGs actually ...) never give the player the chance to actually ... fail, in something."

Probably because writing failure scenarios, or any alternate outcomes requires a lot of effort and content. Bethesda clearly prefers to spend their time packing in more quests instead of deeper quests.
 
Bethesda clearly prefers to spend their time packing in more quests instead of deeper quests.


That's a good joke, didn't New Vegas have like three times as many quests as Fo3? Most of them were a lot better than 3's generic fetch quests too.
 
Bethesda revealed "Wolfenstein: Old Blood" at PAX East. So I guess that's one franchise they won't be having that alleged conference at E3 about.
 
Doubtful. I'm sure Bethesda is aware that no one cares.
I have a strange feeling that it may be new Doom or Dishonored, although Fallout 4 is the most probable, since Fallout 3 hype is getting weaker and weaker.
 
Back
Top