Even after Fallout 4, many fans still asking for an Obsidian developed Fallout

[Spacemunkey]

I just prefer the miss mechanics from isometric turn based games as it works better than in a first person environment if you're trying to add animations to make it seem more "immersive". Maybe I'm just stuck in the ways of older gaming(since modern gaming certainly hasn't gotten too much better with age besides some things like graphics).

I come from a different older gaming background; as a kid I was always at the arcade with my friends playing Street Fighter, Tekken, MK, etc, so I enjoy a game that doesn't let me breathe and forces me to make quick decisions in combat. That's not to say I won't play turn based RPG's I'm just not married to the idea of them.

 

[ZigzagPX4]

I come from a different older gaming background; as a kid I was always at the arcade with my friends playing Street Fighter, Tekken, MK, etc, so I enjoy a game that doesn't let me breathe and forces me to make quick decisions in combat. That's not to say I won't play turn based RPG's I'm just not married to the idea of them.

I think the biggest point of it all is that the concept that was demonstrated in New Vegas (a good FPSRPG with an open-world) is a great and potentially rewarding concept. The problem is, it should've been made an IP to stand on its own, not devouring Fallout's name for marketing uses.

"Even" after Fallout 4? Uh... right.

Remember, he just works here.

don't ban me

 

[PossibleCabbage]

The thing with a FPS RPG is that you get the Morrowind Syndrome: a first person game, but your actions are governed by dicerolls.

I think it's fine to make a game in which certain conflicts are resolved by challenges to the player's skill, but have that still be meaningfully a roleplaying game because the game is designed to legitimately change based on your input both in terms of action and dialogue.

Like if a game had Call of Duty style shooting, but questing and conversations had a bunch of different potential outcomes that offer self-expression for a bunch of different character types (not just the kleptomaniacal murderhobo that video games are usually about) that would probably be okay.

The difference doesn't need to be about how high your strength stat is or how many ranks you've invested into the punching skill, the difference can be about who you choose to punch and when you choose to engage in punching.

 

[Zerginfestor]

After playing Fallout 4 for a bit and just getting bored at lvl.20-something, It's a no wonder why people want Obsidian back around: Fallout 4 is just fucking boring. It's funny how half-ass the entire game is when people bitched about Obsidian's New Vegas, yet Obsidian had a viable reason: Deadline constraints fucked them over, because Bethesda is filled with fucking idiots. This travesty of a game? 7 fucking years bashing on a keyboards, and this is what they shat out? It's pretty obvious that Fallout 4 was running on the marketing in order to get by and in hopes to hoodwink every dipshit in the gaming market. Even their shit forums are getting filled with people already bored of the entire game, not even taking them weeks, just a couple of days, to move on to something else. The lack of replayability is astounding for a Fallout game, which tells you how bad the game really is.

 

[MercenarySnake]

People on their forums are already getting bored with the game? That sounds hilarious!

I'd like to think that they accidentally named this game Fallout 4. The whole game makes no sense and sounds like it was made by an 8 year old especially when looking at quests like Cabot House and Kid in a Fridge, I mean what the hell were they thinking?

I'm hoping that even mods fail to keep this boring game interesting, that way they realize that some of us like to use our brains to play the game and keep us interested with SOME action elements here and there not the WHOLE game.

I don't even know why it's called Fallout 4, I mean what does it have in common with Fallout 1 and 2? Well that you can kill things with bullets and walking. Fallout New Vegas should of been Fallout 3 even if it was a FPS RPG.

 

[ZigzagPX4]

People on their forums are already getting bored with the game? That sounds hilarious!

I'd like to think that they accidentally named this game Fallout 4. The whole game makes no sense and sounds like it was made by an 8 year old especially when looking at quests like Cabot House and Kid in a Fridge, I mean what the hell were they thinking?

I'm hoping that even mods fail to keep this boring game interesting, that way they realize that some of us like to use our brains to play the game and keep us interested with SOME action elements here and there not the WHOLE game.

I don't even know why it's called Fallout 4, I mean what does it have in common with Fallout 1 and 2? Well that you can kill things with bullets and walking. Fallout New Vegas should of been Fallout 3 even if it was a FPS RPG.

Every quest in Fallout 4 seems like it came out of a really good mod, and not the actual base game, which should be surpassing it in sheer quality.

Fallout 4 is a well-done total conversion mod for Fallout 3, that's how it felt! But then there's the 60 dollars and you're snapped back to the reality of Bethesda forgetting they're making a game they have to sell. I mean, it's written like a mod - pandering, a bit fanfiction-ish, lots of humour and references and plenty of lore misunderstandings. The gameplay features are focused at the most immediately gratifying ones. If it was a mod, and free, for Fallout 3, it would be excellent.

But as a game? Eh...

 

[tekhedd]

Comparisons to Witcher 3 are appropriate. Aside from flavor, the gameplay target is very similar. If you think about it, there are a lot of quests in W3 that you can't talk your way thorugh: bandits, scripted sequences--just try to have a conversation with a Griffin.

Witcher 3 is very much about exploring, fighting, talking to people, and crafting crap. And so is Fallout 4, more or less. The difference is that Witcher is the third generation of combat and exploration gameplay style that obviously goes back to several earlier games. W3 feels a *lot* like Gothic, to me, right down to the sense of humor. The gameplay is decades old.

Fallout 4 reminds me of Gothic for different reasons: its failings. The combat system is evolving and just starting to be decent; yes this is largely accomplished by giving up on its turn based roots and falling back to tried-and-true-and-boring FPS mechanics. But still, it's evolving. I think the issue here is that Bethesda is not refining the third generation of a game trying to deliver an established playstyle, but instead trying to invent something that is in some way connected to Fallout, but still plays like The Witcher. It is an experiment.

In other ways, they're trying to make a Fallout Witcher. And actually I have no problem with that, that's a neat idea. (Although as many people have commented, they should be making two different types of games with the IP because clearly there's room for it.) The problem here is that in terms of game mechanics we're around the Gothic II stage of evolution.

And of course we have Bethesda's writing. A humorless world is a dead world. Someone said that Bethesda fails to get the Fallout sense of humor, but that seems to miss the point; does Bethesda even have a sense of humor?

 

[MutatedPanda]

I think the only problem I've ever had with New Vegas was having a really hard time actually making it to New Vegas. Granted, that's more or less because I suck. But no matter what, it was still more fun to feel like I sucked at a Fallout game, than to feel like an absolute god.

 

[Lanfear]

Someone said that Bethesda fails to get the Fallout sense of humor, but that seems to miss the point; does Bethesda even have a sense of humor?

The only laughs I ever get out of a Bethesda game are from its technical fuckups.

 

[MercenarySnake]

The only laughs I ever get out of a Bethesda game are from its technical fuckups.

Same, that and the ragdoll physics like when someone's limbs go completely limp in the most unnatural way possible. I don't know how it's immersive when someone falls over dead in such a manner that it looks like their bones go missing.

 

[LemerPod2468]

I think Korin is right because some of the people from Black Isle studios went to Obsideon and created New Vegas so they know how to do it right.
But Bethesda is still an amazing company with it having the Elder Scrolls.

 

[LemerPod2468]

]CRBASF23, member: 88402"]Bethesda should have taken notes from Obsidian, this is how you make quests:

Your are so right man!!

 

[ZigzagPX4]

Comparisons to Witcher 3 are appropriate. Aside from flavor, the gameplay target is very similar. If you think about it, there are a lot of quests in W3 that you can't talk your way thorugh: bandits, scripted sequences--just try to have a conversation with a Griffin.

Witcher 3 is very much about exploring, fighting, talking to people, and crafting crap. And so is Fallout 4, more or less. The difference is that Witcher is the third generation of combat and exploration gameplay style that obviously goes back to several earlier games. W3 feels a *lot* like Gothic, to me, right down to the sense of humor. The gameplay is decades old.

Fallout 4 reminds me of Gothic for different reasons: its failings. The combat system is evolving and just starting to be decent; yes this is largely accomplished by giving up on its turn based roots and falling back to tried-and-true-and-boring FPS mechanics. But still, it's evolving. I think the issue here is that Bethesda is not refining the third generation of a game trying to deliver an established playstyle, but instead trying to invent something that is in some way connected to Fallout, but still plays like The Witcher. It is an experiment.

In other ways, they're trying to make a Fallout Witcher. And actually I have no problem with that, that's a neat idea. (Although as many people have commented, they should be making two different types of games with the IP because clearly there's room for it.) The problem here is that in terms of game mechanics we're around the Gothic II stage of evolution.

And of course we have Bethesda's writing. A humorless world is a dead world. Someone said that Bethesda fails to get the Fallout sense of humor, but that seems to miss the point; does Bethesda even have a sense of humor?

They have an identity crisis. It's been made clear time and time again that by changing their aim once every single minute, they won't be able to achieve anything properly. Notice how every Bethesda game basically changes focus based on what's currently popular?

What they should be focusing on is making their IPs have an identity of its own, no matter if it's good or bad. Remembered for being crap and used as a guide for what-not-to-do is better than being forgotten because you're made up of nothing but other people's work.

 

[retardette]

serious question, not trolling. Why are so many people asking for a Obsidian Fallout? I thought New Vegas was almost as bad as Fallout 3. The difference to me was not big enough to justify the obsession over it.

 

[Izak]

serious question, not trolling. Why are so many people asking for a Obsidian Fallout? I thought New Vegas was almost as bad as Fallout 3. The difference to me was not big enough to justify the obsession over it.

Most people think that the mix between Obsidians writing, word-building and ability to make a coherent sequel combined with Bethesda's hack and slash, erratic gameplay made a damn fine Fallout game, though allot of people still think Fallout should have stuck to it's isometric roots but whatever.
completely unrelated but NV was rated the second best Fallout game in NMA's latest pole which is pretty fucking impressive considering this place was made to worship the OG Fallouts.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Well, to be fair XCom 2 has shown recently that even to this day turn based top down combat can still work. A game with the looks and feel of Xcom 2, with the tactical depth of Jagged Alliance 2 and the rich storytelling of Fallout 1? I don't see why that should not work. Of course ... you won't sell 30-35 million units with that approach. But who said Fallout has to?

 

[ZigzagPX4]

But who said Fallout has to?

Bethesda.

Of course ... you won't sell 30-35 million units with that approach.

With the exception of several Nintendo and mobile games, there's only been two to three games tops that has managed to sell that much. Even for Bethesda that's not going to be an aim. The only games in the 30 million-and-up range alone are somewhere along the lines of Tetris, Wii games, Mario games, Minecraft, GTA V, and Diablo III.

Well, to be fair XCom 2 has shown recently that even to this day turn based top down combat can still work. A game with the looks and feel of Xcom 2, with the tactical depth of Jagged Alliance 2 and the rich storytelling of Fallout 1?

On that note, Civilisation V sold 5.8 million copies and is one of the best-selling PC games as of today, so it's not like there's no market for strategy enthusiasts.

The turn-based genre gave up right before gaming started hitting mainstream. All it takes is for one big publisher to fully fund a game and have it be successful for people to see how great of an idea it is but... I don't know.

Both first-person shooters and open-world games used to be great, but then once AAA companies started getting a hold of them they became derivative and boring. Don't know if people would enjoy a world full of clones of XCOM: Enemy Unknown with varying themes and gimmicks. Do we really want the next cash cow genre to be turn-based strategy?

 

[Crni Vuk]

Dude, you know how much flying fucks we give about what Bethesda says?

​

You know I was just pulling a big number out of my ass, just to make a point. I could have said 10 million, to make it more realistic. Point is, a company like Bethesda, has to sell at least 1 million games, just to get the production cost in. They have to sell big, to earn big, I get that and most people here too, I guess.

Thing is, no one ever asked from Bethesda to turn Fallout in to an AAA product that actually requires to sell that many units. And in the end turning it in to something it simply never was meant to be. A fucking first person shooter.

There are countless of games and companies out there which are succesfull without selling millions of copies. And that's what I am trying to say. Without the intention to attack you now, I really mean this in general. So sorry for this little rant, It just always grinds my gears, because this "It has to make money somehow!" Is soooo often used as a very shitty excuse today, even though, you don't have to. It is a totally stupid and very wrong fallacy to believe that all games (or products) HAVE to be like Oblivion/Skyrim/ or something from EA to be either profitable or succesfull. That you have, at all times, to reach as many people as possible. No matter if it makes sense or not.
What depends is the margin youre looking at. If you can continue with the work you do or not. If you're a company like Mc Donalds, yeah you have to sell millions of burgers to make a profit. I guess. But that doesn't mean every fucking restaurant out there has to start to make fast food to be succesfull or profitable.

Fallout, was comparable to a nearly perfectly cooked meal. A recipe, made and refined over the years for a very particular taste. But it was perverted by Bethesda into vey simple fast fastfood. Not to spicy. Not to complicated. Just enough so it can reach millions.
​

Both first-person shooters and open-world games used to be great, but then once AAA companies started getting a hold of them they became derivative and boring. Don't know if people would enjoy a world full of clones of XCOM: Enemy Unknown with varying themes and gimmicks. Do we really want the next cash cow genre to be turn-based strategy?

Of course not. And that's not what I am saying. Or well, what I am trying to say. What I mean is, the argument, those things could not work, beacuse they don't sell. To that I simply say. Why do they have to? Games like CoD or Skyrim have their place. I won't even argue about that. Even if I think Skyrim has as much depth like a white sheet of paper.
But there has to be room even for shallow entertainment. And it sells a lot of games, so in that respect, it is very succesfull. No reason to denny that. But those are exceptional in some sense. Not the norm. And not every game or product has to be designed in a way that it has to sell that much. Yet, many fans of those games talk about it, like it has to be the norm. It doesn't sell 20 million? Than it must be garbage! I am sure! Turn based is dead! Hardcore RPGs are dead! They can't be sold to the masses. So it's shit.
I think you know this particular mindset. And I find it disgusting honestly.

I mean yeah, you can't like everything. And not everything can be super popular. But there still has to be enough room, even in AAA gaming, to allow for some diversity and creativity. Or you always end up in a situation like Behtesda, with selling a clear FPS as RPG. Simply for the argument, because it works!

So I am not asking for a world full of XCom clones. I am just saying, the idea that turn based as design is outdated, is rubbish and wrong. And you can be sure about one thing. Turn based will never dissapear from gaming. XCom has shown that very nicely. But who knows? It might become as popular like first person shooters in the future, and FPS games will suddenly become the outdated mechanic. I mean I doubt it, but who knows for sure? Trends and the people that follow them can be really fucking crazy sometimes ...

 

[ZigzagPX4]

I already know everything you said, and I suspect that if one's a poster on NMA then they probably already know too, so I don't really know who this rant was supposed to be aimed at, since the people who need to see it (and there are people who do) will probably never get to see it anyways.

Dude, you know how much flying fucks we give about what Bethesda says?

Well, Bethesda's the one in charge of the series, that's all I'm saying. What you want and what they're going to do is miles apart, and my personal philosophy is that if nothing can be done about it, it's not worth talking about.​

​

You know I was just pulling a big number out of my ass, just to make a point. I could have said 10 million, to make it more realistic. Point is, a company like Bethesda, has to sell at least 1 million games, just to get the production cost in. They have to sell big, to earn big, I get that and most people here too, I guess.

Thing is, no one ever asked from Bethesda to turn Fallout in to an AAA product that actually requires to sell that many units. And in the end turning it in to something it simply never was meant to be. A fucking first person shooter.

There are countless of games and companies out there which are succesfull without selling millions of copies. And that's what I am trying to say. Without the intention to attack you now, I really mean this in general. So sorry for this little rant, It just always grinds my gears, because this "It has to make money somehow!" Is soooo often used as a very shitty excuse today, even though, you don't have to. It is a totally stupid and very wrong fallacy to believe that all games (or products) HAVE to be like Oblivion/Skyrim/ or something from EA to be either profitable or succesfull. That you have, at all times, to reach as many people as possible. No matter if it makes sense or not.
What depends is the margin youre looking at. If you can continue with the work you do or not. If you're a company like Mc Donalds, yeah you have to sell millions of burgers to make a profit. I guess. But that doesn't mean every fucking restaurant out there has to start to make fast food to be succesfull or profitable.

Fallout, was comparable to a nearly perfectly cooked meal. A recipe, made and refined over the years for a very particular taste. But it was perverted by Bethesda into vey simple fast fastfood. Not to spicy. Not to complicated. Just enough so it can reach millions.​

And my point was that Bethesda are banging their heads against the wall from the start. Fallout in terms of theme and genre was already a niche from the start and they've been beaten to all fronts of gameplay by several other AAA corporations. In comparison with your metaphor, Bethesda is like a startup company trying to catch up with McDonalds in one-tenth the time using one-tenth the resources, which is literally impossible. They won't last, and that's why I'm not worried.

Besides, if it is refined for a particular taste and does make a big profit to go with it, even if it doesn't have to, isn't that good thing nonetheless? My answer is no and my point explains why.​

​

Of course not. And that's not what I am saying. Or well, what I am trying to say. What I mean is, the argument, those things could not work, beacuse they don't sell. To that I simply say. Why do they have to? Games like CoD or Skyrim have their place. I won't even argue about that. Even if I think Skyrim has as much depth like a white sheet of paper.
But there has to be room even for shallow entertainment. And it sells a lot of games, so in that respect, it is very succesfull. No reason to denny that. But those are exceptional in some sense. Not the norm. And not every game or product has to be designed in a way that it has to sell that much. Yet, many fans of those games talk about it, like it has to be the norm. It doesn't sell 20 million? Than it must be garbage! I am sure! Turn based is dead! Hardcore RPGs are dead! They can't be sold to the masses. So it's shit.
I think you know this particular mindset. And I find it disgusting honestly.

I mean yeah, you can't like everything. And not everything can be super popular. But there still has to be enough room, even in AAA gaming, to allow for some diversity and creativity. Or you always end up in a situation like Behtesda, with selling a clear FPS as RPG. Simply for the argument, because it works!

So I am not asking for a world full of XCom clones. I am just saying, the idea that turn based as design is outdated, is rubbish and wrong. And you can be sure about one thing. Turn based will never dissapear from gaming. XCom has shown that very nicely. But who knows? It might become as popular like first person shooters in the future, and FPS games will suddenly become the outdated mechanic. I mean I doubt it, but who knows for sure? Trends and the people that follow them can be really fucking crazy sometimes ...​

My point was, according to the patterns of the modern entertainment industry, it's all about draining everything popular dry. This article about the new Deadpool film by James Gunn can pretty much be applied to gaming, too. It's not about being unique nowadays, it's about copying the one that makes money. Now, there's no doubt a faithful isometric Fallout sequel is going to be pretty popular. The name's big and XCOM 2 already shows there's a market out there for it.

I'm just saying, the moment a fully-funded AAA turn-based isometric game succeeds and leads the market, then we're gonna have the entire next generation going after the genre as the corporate default, just as open-world games are now, and first-person shooters were last. And whenever the AAA industry gets their hands on anything it's pretty much ruined for the rest of the generation.

Everything can be sold to the masses. Here I would rather Fallout just stay where it is and have a spiritual successor that's made by an indie company, because laugh it all you want but it's very possible turn-based isometric strategy is going to get cash-cowed and become basically Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty - when that happens, someone's going to do it in a very streamlined and unsatisfying way, it will sell millions, everyone's going to copy them, and you can just guarantee that we won't be seeing decent isometric RPGs again for a very long time - but rather, indie and AAA copies of whatever the isometric RPG equivalent of Call of Duty is going to be.

And that, I think, would be terrible. So in a way, Bethesda isn't going to last and isometric RPGs should stay off the grid, remaining rare gems rather than cash cows, because AAA corrupts everything it touches. My conclusion is that maybe Fallout would be better left dead, and let it pass the torch to a faithful, low-key spiritual successor by either Obsidian or a skilled indie group of developers.

My point had nothing to do with Bethesda and AAA companies in general taking good games and ruining them by stripping them bare and draining the life out of them by selling streamlined crap wearing the series name, all in the name of profit. You've been over that point in so many posts and it's already a common fact of life, at this point. Corporations taking good things and ruining them for money has been noticed - it's just that when you can't do anything about it, it's not worth mentioning, which is why the majority of gamers would rather rightfully just sit down and be quiet about it.

What can we do about it, then? What do you think we can do? What could people like the posters at NMA and gamers who want games to be more than mass-marketed crap do to make companies stop? The answer's nothing, nothing, and jack-all nothing. Throwing my personal philosophy out one last time, and it's my opinion and mine alone. If nothing can be done about it, it's not worth talking about.​

​

 

[Crni Vuk]

Well, Bethesda's the one in charge of the series, that's all I'm saying. What you want and what they're going to do is miles apart, and my personal philosophy is that if nothing can be done about it, it's not worth talking about.

But, I like complaining.