Brivoo
Powered by Radiant AI
The title.
Fallout 4 vs Fallout 2
- Thread starter justsettheradio
- Start date
The title.
DirtyOldShoe
Some kind of lucky
Fallout
So by your logic that if something has Fallout in the title, it is a fallout game. Perhaps you can advise me on how to play the Marianas Trench - Fallout, to me it looks like a music video, but I am not as scholarly as you, please teach me.
Brivoo
Powered by Radiant AI
If it is part of the Fallout franchise and continuity, it is a Fallout game.
This is a stupid conversation and I refuse to continue it further.
DirtyOldShoe
Some kind of lucky
Neither of those are true and you know it.
So is this, way more fun that that knockoff Fallout 4
Does that mean I win?
Dr Fallout
Centurion
Hey, you've ignored mine! Sure I agree with you... but surely... it's worth something?
DirtyOldShoe
Some kind of lucky
It's called "Fallout"
No, it has zombies, 28 days later zombies.
Does it? I played it and I didn't see any, I did see things that were named "super Mutant" But they kept going on about how humans created them so I knew they were not really Super Mutants.
You got me there, you know if it had only one that you could get semi endgame I might argue you, but because there are 33 you can get at level 1, you have a point.
I own Fallout. The idea anyway, and they can't take that away from me no matter how hard they try. Fallout lives through me and you and many others here. I know that Fallout does not exists in Fallout 4, because it would try to get out. Fallout, the idea, is bigger than what Bethesda can handle. At best, they can scratch the surface and have a knock off money grab, but as many mentioned here. Bethesda lost touch with depth after Morrowind's success.
Dr Fallout
Centurion
Actually Bethesda owns the idea too! They own everything connected with Fallout! Sadly...
DirtyOldShoe
Some kind of lucky
They don't own my thoughts. Fallout is a part of me and I grew up with it. When I bought Fallout 4 and played enough of it to know how bad it is, I stated playing 2 again. I have created characters with that game, they are memories and I own them, not Bethesda. I don't want their Fallout games because they aren't my Fallout. It would be okay if there was any connection to what I grew up with, but all it is now is product placement. Take Starry Night by Vincent van Gogh, Let's say Bethesda bought the rights to it, repainted it to look like this, Starry Night IS a masterpiece and it connects to my soul. The second image is a poor attempt at a recreation and I am not wrong in saying it is not Starry Night, because it is not, not only in medium, contrast and skill but also in feeling and depth. I may not have the rights to sell Starry Night, nor do I possess the original, but it is a part of me and my life. It is a creation that I consumed and I choose to be vocal about its undervalue.
Dr Fallout
Centurion
I like your emotion and what you say, but in the end all you're doing is taking part in denial. Bethesda does own Fallout, nothing much you can do about it.
ZigzagPX4
The Swiftness of the Ranger
Forgive me for the brashness, but it's deeply pitiful how some people will go into denial over truth that they don't like. Fallout 4 is part of the Fallout series. Locking your doors, closing your windows and plugging your ears won't change a damn thing. It's probably more in Bethesda's favour, someone doing that.
There are NMAers - many of whom are original members and some probably Codexians - who are silently reading these threads and shake their head at statements like "Fallout 4 is officially part of Fallout", but it is undeniably and objectively true. Those NMAers who do that, they're only distressing themselves and adding nothing but negativity to the pool of opinions of the forum.
"Isn't doing that exactly what this forum was made for?" Well, correct. I'm also a relative newcomer, so this statement is technically disrespectful. But in light of the freedom of opinion allowed here, I will complain about this, mostly because the amount of denial some people here have is so ridiculously laughable that it's impossible to just ignore it.
There are NMAers - many of whom are original members and some probably Codexians - who are silently reading these threads and shake their head at statements like "Fallout 4 is officially part of Fallout", but it is undeniably and objectively true. Those NMAers who do that, they're only distressing themselves and adding nothing but negativity to the pool of opinions of the forum.
"Isn't doing that exactly what this forum was made for?" Well, correct. I'm also a relative newcomer, so this statement is technically disrespectful. But in light of the freedom of opinion allowed here, I will complain about this, mostly because the amount of denial some people here have is so ridiculously laughable that it's impossible to just ignore it.
DirtyOldShoe
Some kind of lucky
You sound like you're reading off a different website kiddo, as in your comment does not bring with it a level of personality, but then again, you like loot and shoot sims so I shouldn't expect any less.
Fallout 4 is a loot and shoot game made for people that can't think for themselves. This is not based in negativity but fact. For you to label such statements or thoughts as being in denial or negative that just means that your feelings were hurt at some point and you are getting defensive over a product. That does make me feel bad for you, but I know when you grow up you'll be a bit wiser.
When I read the words that appear under your name, I sense that they are not genuine, as if someone else is telling you what to write. This just how the words feel. Definition for newcomer.
Your understanding of the word denial frightens me. I always provide links and definitions to words, so that individuals with lower intellect and less experience have an easier time and also to share undisputed fact.
Hmmm, seems like something a 8 year old would do, accuse someone of something after just doing it. Pft.
Not really. I suppose it would sound interesting to a 13 year-old as that would be in there age bracket.Colleges allow 13 year-olds? Sounds like an interesting one.
Last edited:
whirlingdervish
Brahmin Cavalry Commander
There is a noticeable difference between 'Fallout' as a setting and set of concepts for making a cRPG in that setting, and Fallout as a franchise of games of varying quality.
Fallout 4 fits in the second type of 'Fallout', but not the first.
It tries pitifully to ape the setting without actually getting it right except in the smallest bits, done by some artist who apparently cared or got lucky, and it would be asinine to consider it an actual cRPG that uses any of the concepts vital to the rest of the Fallout games that fall into the first type.
Saying "But it's really FALLOUT because Bethesda owns the IP and can name anything Fallout" is the real sign of denial here.
Fallout 4 fits in the second type of 'Fallout', but not the first.
It tries pitifully to ape the setting without actually getting it right except in the smallest bits, done by some artist who apparently cared or got lucky, and it would be asinine to consider it an actual cRPG that uses any of the concepts vital to the rest of the Fallout games that fall into the first type.
Saying "But it's really FALLOUT because Bethesda owns the IP and can name anything Fallout" is the real sign of denial here.
ZigzagPX4
The Swiftness of the Ranger
Fallout 4 being a shit Fallout game - and a shit game in general - does not put it outside the Fallout series.
It's how I write! We're getting into the realm of false psychological analysis now?
I never said it wasn't a shit game. But if someone makes a goddamn racing game and it's legally part of the Fallout series then it is part of the Fallout series. I don't have to like it, you don't have to like it, but that's how it is!
Not even trying to mask insults? I like harsh truths but you're really just making this personal rather than keeping this a civil discussion. I am a RELATIVE newcomer, and you are in denial. The definition is correct. See above for why you are in denial.
Could you at least use something more substantial than age if you're going to try and insult people? Ironically, this is a fairly immature route to be taking.
It's how I write! We're getting into the realm of false psychological analysis now?
I never said it wasn't a shit game. But if someone makes a goddamn racing game and it's legally part of the Fallout series then it is part of the Fallout series. I don't have to like it, you don't have to like it, but that's how it is!
Not even trying to mask insults? I like harsh truths but you're really just making this personal rather than keeping this a civil discussion. I am a RELATIVE newcomer, and you are in denial. The definition is correct. See above for why you are in denial.
Could you at least use something more substantial than age if you're going to try and insult people? Ironically, this is a fairly immature route to be taking.
whirlingdervish
Brahmin Cavalry Commander
Simple question:
If Todd Howard takes a dump and calls it Fallout 5 with the blessing of Bethesda, does that make it the next real Fallout?
If Todd Howard takes a dump and calls it Fallout 5 with the blessing of Bethesda, does that make it the next real Fallout?
Brivoo
Powered by Radiant AI
My original point wasn't an affirmation that Fallout 4 is a Fallout game and we must therefore blindly accept it. It's a terrible Fallout game, but a Fallout game nonetheless; much like any other franchise, this one has its terrible moments.
I do not believe that simply refusing to accept that Bethesda owns the canon now will accomplish anything but feed the forum's general negativity; rather, I think it would be best to accept what they did right (not much, admittedly) and tackle what they did wrong so to properly criticize them and hopefully change future installations for the better.
I understand what is meant by saying 'Fallout 4 isn't a Fallout game' and for what it's worth, I agree. I often state that it rather seems like an AU fanfiction of the original Fallout: all the elements are there, but represented to fit the setting and made worse by amateurism and incompetence. But it is important to recognize that 'Fallout 4 isn't a Fallout game' isn't, at its most literal, a correct statement and to insist so will simply cause the involved users to become pariah's in the community's general view, rather than veterans of the series who Bethesda should listen to.
Spacemunkey
Vault Senior Citizen
If it's served on a plate by Pete Hines then yes.
DirtyOldShoe
Some kind of lucky
To @ZigzagPX4 yes. Not to speak on his behalf, but his acceptance of Emil and Todd lead me to that conclusion.
whirlingdervish
Brahmin Cavalry Commander
They don't own the canon. They own the intellectual property.
Their legal right to use the NAME "Fallout" on their products does not give them the legal right to retroactively redefine what Fallout means, or what previous installments did.
If I own the patent to some device like a Toaster, I don't get to turn it into a hot air balloon and call that a Toaster and act as if every previous Toaster that someone made or used didn't matter anymore.
Their legal right to use the NAME "Fallout" on their products does not give them the legal right to retroactively redefine what Fallout means, or what previous installments did.
If I own the patent to some device like a Toaster, I don't get to turn it into a hot air balloon and call that a Toaster and act as if every previous Toaster that someone made or used didn't matter anymore.
Brivoo
Powered by Radiant AI
Owning a patent isn't the same as owning a franchise. Owning a franchise means you own all intellectual property relating to that franchise, including the canon. Though, frankly, I don't consider it much of a problem; Bethesda has shown several times that they are willing to retcon themselves for the newer games, so the resounding 'meh' the fanbase gave in response to Fallout 4 and sudden spike in New Vegas sales should, at the very least, push them to employ Obsidian once more; if not that, then they might up the quality of their own games in an attempt to regain those lost fans.
I'm not going to lie; if push comes to shove and Fallout 5 is even more garbage than this one, I'll probably retreat to Fallout 1,2 and New Vegas and decide to declare the other instances non-canon for my own sake (not to say that I don't tend to keep the two separate anyway) but as it stands, complete denial over the legitimacy of Fallout 4 won't do anything other than alienate fans like NMA from the rest of the general audience that Bethesda receives feedback from.
ZigzagPX4
The Swiftness of the Ranger
Alright, this definition does make sense. This is what I mean. Bethesda does own the intellectual property, and they would probably sue the asses off people who try to make their own Fallout. Though I would argue that they actually can retroactively redefine canon, but that doesn't mean you would have to accept it. IMO, while the canon doesn't completely belong to the fans, traditional definition says it does belong to the original creators - yes, yes, George Lucas and those alike are exceptions, because other writers were involved and Star Wars wasn't a unique idea. I guess that makes Obsidian the godsayer of what is and isn't canon then.
In the end, I just like accepting what's dictated as "official" because frankly, I'm intimidated by having to consider multiple definitions and viewpoints at once, and yes that makes me dumb but frankly, for now, dumb is fine by me. If you don't like to do what I do, perfectly fine, but Fallout is still by all means legally the property of Bethesda. The absurd part I mentioned seeing is the people who actively deny Fallout is owned by Bethesda, and that in their own little world the Fallout IP still legally belongs to Black Isle.
Well, if the papers and the stiff suits say so, what can you do about it? Sue them for owning it?