BarackSays
It Wandered In From the Wastes
As long as Obsidian hangs around, we'll be fine.
It Wandered In From the Wastes
LuckyShot7777
First time out of the vault
To me the classic series is just fine, because NV pretty much resurrects the nostalgia that Bethesda oh so awfully neglected with 3. Like bringing back factions such as: the NCR, Crimson Caravan, FoTA, and the REAL BoS. Also bringing back creatures like geckos (as annoying as they were in 2), pray mantises, mutated plants, and the various types of Deathclaws such as mothers & the young ones. Plus the usage of characters, factions, and locations from Van Buren was just simply jaw dropping (at least to me lol). So the Fallout franchise is still doing good, as long as Obsidian can make a spin-off. But if I could I would love to interview Todd Howard and question his bullshit knowledge on the series 
Knight Captain Kerr
Still Mildly Glowing
I don't hate Fallout 3 or Bethesda so this question probably wasn't directed at me. But no, the series hasn't ended for me. I still like Fallout 3, despite its numerous flaws. I prefer 1, 2 and New Vegas. I think Fallout 4 will be good, and it isn't unlikely that is will be better than Fallout 3. But I'm fairly confident that it won't be better than New Vegas. I'm hoping Obsidian gets to work on the series again in the future.
FalloutTroll
Mfw no snow
It ain't dead for me thats for sure
Enclave Sigma Soldier
First time out of the vault
Re: Has the Fallout series ended for you, Bethesda/Fo3 hater
Had Beth made the main quest a little less freaking linear. Brought back Fallout's classic morally ambiguous style and had an imaginative non recycling of old ideas story. Didn't put faction/characters on the east coast with very thin plot reasons for being there and pretty much only there for brand recognition. Then just maybe Fallout 3 would have been great.
But no its not dead to me. I think of Fallout 3 as a decent game overall but not a very good Fallout game.
Arin Matthews said:
Had Beth made the main quest a little less freaking linear. Brought back Fallout's classic morally ambiguous style and had an imaginative non recycling of old ideas story. Didn't put faction/characters on the east coast with very thin plot reasons for being there and pretty much only there for brand recognition. Then just maybe Fallout 3 would have been great.
But no its not dead to me. I think of Fallout 3 as a decent game overall but not a very good Fallout game.
fred2
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
Re: Has the Fallout series ended for you, Bethesda/Fo3 hater
Thinking that a company will invest money to resurrect a franchise, spending 8 figures number on it and keep it in the same format that didn't produced a successful game in years and other players are moving away from, for the benefit of some tiny minority niche market. - CRAAAAAAAZY
While I too was upset about FO3 direction, I understand beth motives. FO3 was a perfect restart(for them) and commercial success. Which allowed the creation of New Vegas, which may not offer the type of gameplay I would prefered, but was a good fallout title which I enjoyed.
Those are people with low INT, crazy sense of entitlement or just a venomous bitterness.Arin Matthews said:
Thinking that a company will invest money to resurrect a franchise, spending 8 figures number on it and keep it in the same format that didn't produced a successful game in years and other players are moving away from, for the benefit of some tiny minority niche market. - CRAAAAAAAZY
While I too was upset about FO3 direction, I understand beth motives. FO3 was a perfect restart(for them) and commercial success. Which allowed the creation of New Vegas, which may not offer the type of gameplay I would prefered, but was a good fallout title which I enjoyed.
Here we go again, it starts to feel like a routine...
"To face the beast NMA, you must answer these questions three..."
A lot of the people you are just dissing on helped make this franchise become what it was before Interplay went broke.
Without them there would not have been a Fallout 2, Fallout Tactics, and a crappy spin off.
Let alone the legacy of a game franchise Bethesda felt would be suitable to reskin as an Oblivion spin off but now as a post nuclear theme park.
If anything I would call you people entitled, believing that Fallout needs to be changed in order to appeal to your fickle tastes.
Can't have something that doesn't appeal to the mouth breathing masses right? How dare designers ignore them.
Well good for you, welcome to the town of "I don't give a crap".
You know, a lot of old school Fallout fans would have been perfectly fine if Bethesda had made a PA franchise completely of their own but using Oblivion as a basis.
Sure, it would have not have reached the status of Fallout but we would have accepted it for what it was; Bethesda's own PA license.
But no, Bethesda took an existing franchise that did not need resurrecting at their hands, so they must also take any dislike and criticism that comes with it.
Do us a favor, and tell the rest of Bethesda fans to come up with some new lines, your old excuses are honestly starting to get boring.
"To face the beast NMA, you must answer these questions three..."
A lot of the people you are just dissing on helped make this franchise become what it was before Interplay went broke.
Without them there would not have been a Fallout 2, Fallout Tactics, and a crappy spin off.
Let alone the legacy of a game franchise Bethesda felt would be suitable to reskin as an Oblivion spin off but now as a post nuclear theme park.
If anything I would call you people entitled, believing that Fallout needs to be changed in order to appeal to your fickle tastes.
Can't have something that doesn't appeal to the mouth breathing masses right? How dare designers ignore them.
Well good for you, welcome to the town of "I don't give a crap".
You know, a lot of old school Fallout fans would have been perfectly fine if Bethesda had made a PA franchise completely of their own but using Oblivion as a basis.
Sure, it would have not have reached the status of Fallout but we would have accepted it for what it was; Bethesda's own PA license.
But no, Bethesda took an existing franchise that did not need resurrecting at their hands, so they must also take any dislike and criticism that comes with it.
Do us a favor, and tell the rest of Bethesda fans to come up with some new lines, your old excuses are honestly starting to get boring.
fred2
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
I understand, your passion for FO1/2, classics which are part of my childhood, that I still comeback to play after all those years. So let me assure you that there was no disrespecting intended toward any "old' timers", me included 
I share your feelings about this routine, I had my share of FO3 fanboys, however, this is a different routine about people who like gritty realism and yet unable to see it even when it is right in their face. If you want to start a thread about how we wish some middle size publisher did for FO what Paradox did for strategies(at least for me) great, but this routine about beth repeated in every thread has run its course and no one likes a whiner.
I don't want to upset you, but the reality is that as far as Beth and the whole world, the answer to all the points in your previous post is already know to you:
I share your feelings about this routine, I had my share of FO3 fanboys, however, this is a different routine about people who like gritty realism and yet unable to see it even when it is right in their face. If you want to start a thread about how we wish some middle size publisher did for FO what Paradox did for strategies(at least for me) great, but this routine about beth repeated in every thread has run its course and no one likes a whiner.
I don't want to upset you, but the reality is that as far as Beth and the whole world, the answer to all the points in your previous post is already know to you:
So find some other way to vent, bitterness is not healthy for anyone.
Audio Video Disco
First time out of the vault
I came to this forum to escape the bethesda/obsidian madness.
And then I bump into this.
War. War never changes. (that felt pretty appropriate for a first post.)
And then I bump into this.
War. War never changes. (that felt pretty appropriate for a first post.)
I don't think that's not a good reason to write first article to here to introduce yourself. 
http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1994&start=4260
here's the thread for introduce yourself.
and nice name.
http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1994&start=4260
here's the thread for introduce yourself.
and nice name.
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
fred2 said:
You have literally zero sense of what you are talking about here. We are not bitter. Go to ANY thread not related to Fallout 3 and you won't find ANY bitterness.
We're only bitter when it comes to this game, because guess what? It's really, really terrible. It is an insult to our intelligence. It is healthy for us to respond with bitterness.
Well no, clearly FO:NV took a big step in the right direction of how to revitalize the series. I think it required a bunch of patching plus the ammo/survival/consumable mods to get it most of the way back, but I think it did a great job of getting alot of my original enthusiasm for the series back, which had been at a low ebb following FO Tactics and FO 3. Plus, I even had the fewest issues with companions in FONV than I did in ANY Fallout title lol, so it went even farther than the original for me in that respect!
It depends though on whether the right lessons are learned about difficulty and limitations, and Beth doesn't seem to get that part of game design. I think if Obsidian gets to keep going with FO titles, we get more FO titles, and if Beth goes all in-house, we get more Skyrim gameplay style.
Finally, Wasteland 2 beta is coming, if any titles is going to grab the brass ring, it'll be that one IMO.
It depends though on whether the right lessons are learned about difficulty and limitations, and Beth doesn't seem to get that part of game design. I think if Obsidian gets to keep going with FO titles, we get more FO titles, and if Beth goes all in-house, we get more Skyrim gameplay style.
Finally, Wasteland 2 beta is coming, if any titles is going to grab the brass ring, it'll be that one IMO.
cameroncr95
First time out of the vault
All game franchises are "Dead" then if the way many of you are explaining above is "True".
Resident Evil, Spyro, Crash, Silent Hill, Grand Theft Auto, Tomb Raider, The Sims, Elder Scrolls... the list goes on. All of those franchises had massive changes from gameplay, graphics and more. Does that make them "Dead"? No.
Fallout 3 and NV are great games. Besides, just remember that if bethesda never would of made those 2, this series would of been "Shelved" with Fallout: Piece Of Shit as the final game.
Resident Evil, Spyro, Crash, Silent Hill, Grand Theft Auto, Tomb Raider, The Sims, Elder Scrolls... the list goes on. All of those franchises had massive changes from gameplay, graphics and more. Does that make them "Dead"? No.
Fallout 3 and NV are great games. Besides, just remember that if bethesda never would of made those 2, this series would of been "Shelved" with Fallout: Piece Of Shit as the final game.
Oppen
FIXT n°1 fan
I haven't played the others, but GTA is pretty much the same since 3, and The Sims really didn't change that much (at least until 3, is there any more than 3?). I don't know how players of previous GTAs took that change, though.
Most people don't complain about the changes of graphics, also. They do complain about the fact it is no longer a true RPG, and with reason, as IT IS a RPG series. To say those games changed in the degree Fallout changed from 2 to 3, is to say The Sims stopped being a life simulation game, or Silent Hill stopped being survival horror. It's part of the identity, and identity much lost in the transition.
Bethesda made only one of them. And yeah, both are great games for today's standards, they just don't live up to the name of the franchise, which were done in (what is IMO) the golden age for RPGs. NV is, IMO, vastly better than FO3.
Also, Fallout 3 shits in lore and consistence (I avoid the word logic because some people tend to misunderstand it as following our world's rules, instead of what formally logic means), which harms a game where one interesting aspect is how its world develops.
5545Trey
Underground Deviant
No, but New Vegas felt more of a Fallout game than anything else that came after the first two games.
RetroAmerica
It Wandered In From the Wastes
The Fallout franchise died when Fallout 3: Van Buren was cancelled.
5545Trey
Underground Deviant
The franchise never died, it was BoS that almost destroyed the series. Fallout 3, despite its general hatred in this website, restored the popularity of Fallout.
naossano
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I would say that Fallout is currently suffering schyzophrenia.
- On one hand, you have a publisher that release reskinned TES games and call them Fallout, make them officials.
- On a second hand you have ton of incredible mods (Mutants Rising, Resurrection, Van Buren, Fonline, Ashes of Phoenix) still being made, that many players aknowledged as canon/faithfull but won't be officially canon and won't bring money to their makers. It has been 17 years since Fo2 has been released, and yet, the best mod are things of the future.
- On a third hand, almost any publisher/devellopper that make an isometric RPG, TB or RT, mention Fallout, and Baldur's Gate or Planescape Torment as main inspiration, (means Fallout is alway mentionned while the other could be different), and a good number of them are making money on the disapointment over Fallout 3. It started with Wasteland 2, but many others are growing and making incredible games, just because big publishers refused games like Fallout. They aren't officially Fallout, but they sell well and remind the customers what Fallout actually was (and could be again). On the other hand, the open-world game makers mention the TES series, not the Fallout 3 series.
- The publisher remaining totally silent for years. Could be making a Fo3 clone, but could also be unsecure of what to do next considering the disapointement over their entry is feeding the competition.
I would say that the franchise is on a very turmoiled phase.
We don't know which of the three phenomeons is gonna survive the other two, but there is definitally life out there.
Another thing of interest. Fo1-Fo2-FoT still gains new fans amongs old people, but also young people. Contrary to what some people want to say, those games still have their power to attract even today. Regardless the publisher behavior, i doubt it could kill the franchise for good. (or that he actually want to) As long as those games exist, they have the power to live on. They still have a big influence, anyway...
PS: Feargus isn't the guy with the money. He is the guy that handle the money & logistic, the guy that communicate with other companies to get some dev contract, and also a guy that have relevant things to say on the games, having past experience in RPG video-games. Sure, he is not a writter, but he doesn't sit all day spreading the money.
- On one hand, you have a publisher that release reskinned TES games and call them Fallout, make them officials.
- On a second hand you have ton of incredible mods (Mutants Rising, Resurrection, Van Buren, Fonline, Ashes of Phoenix) still being made, that many players aknowledged as canon/faithfull but won't be officially canon and won't bring money to their makers. It has been 17 years since Fo2 has been released, and yet, the best mod are things of the future.
- On a third hand, almost any publisher/devellopper that make an isometric RPG, TB or RT, mention Fallout, and Baldur's Gate or Planescape Torment as main inspiration, (means Fallout is alway mentionned while the other could be different), and a good number of them are making money on the disapointment over Fallout 3. It started with Wasteland 2, but many others are growing and making incredible games, just because big publishers refused games like Fallout. They aren't officially Fallout, but they sell well and remind the customers what Fallout actually was (and could be again). On the other hand, the open-world game makers mention the TES series, not the Fallout 3 series.
- The publisher remaining totally silent for years. Could be making a Fo3 clone, but could also be unsecure of what to do next considering the disapointement over their entry is feeding the competition.
I would say that the franchise is on a very turmoiled phase.
We don't know which of the three phenomeons is gonna survive the other two, but there is definitally life out there.
Another thing of interest. Fo1-Fo2-FoT still gains new fans amongs old people, but also young people. Contrary to what some people want to say, those games still have their power to attract even today. Regardless the publisher behavior, i doubt it could kill the franchise for good. (or that he actually want to) As long as those games exist, they have the power to live on. They still have a big influence, anyway...
PS: Feargus isn't the guy with the money. He is the guy that handle the money & logistic, the guy that communicate with other companies to get some dev contract, and also a guy that have relevant things to say on the games, having past experience in RPG video-games. Sure, he is not a writter, but he doesn't sit all day spreading the money.
Last edited:
DarkCorp
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I don't think it would end. Bethesda just needs to outsource any kind of Fallout spin-off title that would not effect their numbered games.
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
Did it really?
(Or did it introduce a new audience to something almost unrelated, but called by the same name; and make that popular instead?)