How will it end?

Beth don't sell their game to their core audience. They aren't numerous enough to provide such an outcome. They sell their game to the big casual audience that buy the newest shiny thing, then lose interest after two month. You won't see those players here or on the Beth website as they aren't Beth fans. They had fun for a few weeks, then probably turned to the next new thing, before even finishing the last one. Even if the games keep getting worse, it doesn"t matter as the target isn't the fans.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Remake of Fallout 1 by Bethesda *shudders*, they will finally have the possibility to deliver the version the original developers intended but could not, because of technical limitations.

A Fallout 1 first person shooter!

1r80lm.jpg
Click to expand...

That is pretty much how they are going to advertise it should they go so far.
Or just a reboot and ignoring everything but what they made up themselves.
 
The Dutch Ghost said:
Or just a reboot and ignoring everything but what they made up themselves.
Click to expand...

I would say everything including things they made up themselves within the same game.

Fo3 might break a bit of the previously established lore, but it goes even deeper in how the game keeps contradicting itself, even if you take it as a stand-alone game.
 
I honestly cringed when I read this thread topic, and even then the thought of another Fallout game from Bethesda makes me cringe as well.

I fully expect the Fallout franchise burn in utter defeated failure like the Command & Conquer franchise did in EA's Unloving hands. That is to say the last game will be so far from what a Fallout game is supposed to be that not even their newer fans will have any remote idea what to do with it.

I would not be surprised if they keep milking the "perpetual wasteland" idea for all of their future Fallout titles, leaving the IP in a stasis of never ending hell where nothing ever changes in the world and everyone is always living in dirt.

While I understand some individuals would be pleased to see a franchise such as Fallout remain in such a state, the problem is the timeline, eventually humans will rebuild infrastructure and legit towns, cities, and suburbs will spring up.

What then? No more Fallout that's what.

I'ts not a bad thing to end a franchise, it is however, quite evil to never let one rest.
 
I wouldn't mind a (actual) Fallout game in a rebuilt area like the NCR. Sure, there would be less fights (unless you provoke them), but that doesn't be it would be less interesting.
 
What I would like to see in a Fallout game is something they haven't even tried to touch upon yet that would work very well.

Imagine if you will a location that is so over populated like a very dense city in the only real habitable area for miles. The location is so dense that crime is unchecked (a lot like city in Judge Dredd) which would allow the player to play with Fallout's mechanics with little to no issue.

The wasteland of the human imposed concrete jungle of self isolation on the boarder of madness.

Basically merge Judge Dredd with Fallout.
 
They need to make a Fallout game that takes place about a year or two after the Great War. No central city, no settlements, ammo is scarce, food is hard to find, medicine is practically a godsend, and any location with even a few ample supplies is heavily irradiated. The game needs to have unforgivable gameplay, the most brutally challenging of the Fallouts.
 
YeeCop said:
They need to make a Fallout game that takes place about a year or two after the Great War. No central city, no settlements, ammo is scarce, food is hard to find, medicine is practically a godsend, and any location with even a few ample supplies is heavily irradiated. The game needs to have unforgivable gameplay, the most brutally challenging of the Fallouts.
Click to expand...


Nothing about that sounds remotely similar to Fallout I know. You want a game like that, play Neo Scavenger. Fallout is a different thing.
 
YeeCop said:
How is that not like Fallout at all? Explain.
Click to expand...

What you're describing sounds very much like an elaborate survival game. Fallout isn't that. It may thematically be linked to survival, but that's a very small bit of what it is.
It is a post-apocalyptic turn-based RPG which focuses on themes of civilization reemergence, survival and life after nuclear war. A

Take away settlements, you eliminate the factor of civilization reemergence and anything pertaining to it, as well as a huge gameplay element. The original game was basically going from settlement to settlement, doing quests, while searching for clues to the main quest. Survival was an important thing - surviving radiation etc. - but it was more of a thematic element. Survival of humanity, survival of settlements, survival of your Vault - but when it comes to direct survival of your character, it was fairly limited to RPG standards refurbished - healing potions became stimpaks etc. It's just a gameplay convenience. Focusing on medicines and their scarcity was never a thing in Fallout (just to remind you, in FO2 you could make Stimpak from roots and flowers).
Also, food was never a factor. Sure, you had food, but it was fluff.
And as far as gameplay goes, Fallout can be a brutal game if you want it, or a fairly easy one. But it's not limited to either of those. Making it hard for the sake of being hard doesn't really fit it.

Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike your idea in general. A game such as you describe is a game I'd play. But the game you describe isn't really Fallout.
(Again, if you haven't, look up Neo Scavenger. In some ways it is a game you're looking for.)
 
How will it end? Well my guess would be that Bethesda will probably self the title like EA did to Mass Effect. However, that will take something as bad as Andromeda for that to happen. Right now I don't see that happening anytime soon. Not while their fanboys and the critics are still giving them free passes but it will happen. It happen to Bioware and it will happen to Bethesda. You are already starting to see it with the paid mod fiasco.
 
Atomkilla said:
What you're describing sounds very much like an elaborate survival game. Fallout isn't that. It may thematically be linked to survival, but that's a very small bit of what it is.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I've always wanted the survival aspect of Fallout to be developed more though.
Atomkilla said:
turn-based RPG
Click to expand...
Fo1, Fo2, and Tactics were. Can't say for the rest of them.
Atomkilla said:
Take away settlements, you eliminate the factor of civilization reemergence and anything pertaining to it, as well as a huge gameplay element. The original game was basically going from settlement to settlement, doing quests, while searching for clues to the main quest.
Click to expand...
Okay, settlements yes. A central city, no. IIRC The Hub wasn't founded until 2096. If its a year after the bombs fall, even settlements themselves are just barely starting to form. Maybe small hamlets with 5 or 6 people.
Atomkilla said:
(Again, if you haven't, look up Neo Scavenger. In some ways it is a game you're looking for.)
Click to expand...
I'll check it out. I've played The Forest and 7 Days To Die (Minecraft-esque but better) and I thoroughly enjoyed both titles.
 
YeeCop said:
Okay, settlements yes. A central city, no. IIRC The Hub wasn't founded until 2096. If its a year after the bombs fall, even settlements themselves are just barely starting to form. Maybe small hamlets with 5 or 6 people.
.
Click to expand...

Well, i don't recall that it was even possible to survive outside in the few years after the bombs fell. Then you have to wait for the first vaults to open, and the vault dwellers to organize the community themselves. I don't think the towns would be as small as you mean them to be. Probably a few hundreds would be a better estimate. On the other hand, it would take a few more years for those towns to start interacting with each other, through caravans, like those organized by Harold, some decades before Fo1.
 
naossano said:
Well, i don't recall that it was even possible to survive outside in the few years after the bombs fell. Then you have to wait for the first vaults to open, and the vault dwellers to organize the community themselves. I don't think the towns would be as small as you mean them to be. Probably a few hundreds would be a better estimate. On the other hand, it would take a few more years for those towns to start interacting with each other, through caravans, like those organized by Harold, some decades before Fo1.
Click to expand...
Exactly. After like a year, you would have to go all Metro and don gas masks in order to explore the surface.
 
YeeCop said:
They need to make a Fallout game that takes place about a year or two after the Great War. No central city, no settlements, ammo is scarce, food is hard to find, medicine is practically a godsend, and any location with even a few ample supplies is heavily irradiated. The game needs to have unforgivable gameplay, the most brutally challenging of the Fallouts.
Click to expand...

Has already been made and the criticism and most of the players hated (not me, I love it)

Fnv-dlc1-deadmoney-x360-fob.jpg


So, do not expect something like that so early.
 
How about a story of the "rise" of BoS?

That would be nicely spanning between pre-war and a few years postwar....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top