Obsidian Cannot Save Fallout

No you don't understand. Fallout 2 (a game that was panned here at release) had dumb shit so it is ok for Fallout 3 to have it.
 
Yeah, but why don't you debate any of the points I bring up? Stop being a pussy and answer why you have this false equivalency going on. Go look it up I will wait.
 
chunglord420 said:
If they pull it off right NMAshitters will be BTFO eternally.
Click to expand...
Trying too hard there, buddy. Trolling is an art you are using improperly.

That is also fabulously optimistic as hell because they haven't made C&C work even once in any Fallout game they made. Every attempt at C&C has resulted in having no consequences because Bethesda goes out of its way to remove them, so that their retarded fans don't get angry by being locked out of content.
 
Last edited:
Are you sure you are 20? You seem a little on the slow side. I know you played Fallout 3 with your older brother when you were a kid and now you are defending your childhood the best way you can but....

iu
 
chunglord420 said:
76 already had those. Graham and the robots at the train stations sell shit
Apparently, there's gonna be choices and consequences. If they pull it off right NMAshitters will be BTFO eternally.
Click to expand...
How are any meaningful choices or consequences going to be taken in an mmo like 76? Is it going to be le epic faction wars, where faggots like yourself can post on the 76 reddit about how based the raider faction is or how cringe vaulties are? Or maybe it will be some repeatable shit quests that have some supposed consequences after the game that you won't witness? Both sound shit to me but the latter sounds much more likely.
 
Last edited:
The thread title is correct though. Obsidian turned into a great big pile of shit.
 
chunglord420 said:
Fallout 3 is a pretty good RPG. It has it's faults, yeah. But it really isn't bad tbh. It gets lumped in with pieces of shit like 4 and 76 just because it was made by the same company. Are we gonna say Morrowind and Oblivion are the same as 76 just because Bethesda made them?
Click to expand...

In Fallout 3's roleplaying design they removed and merged skills that didn't need to be merged, they also made SPECIAL far less important for a character style.
That's bad.

In Fallout 3's writing we have Megaton where instead of living at an airport they got help from nuke cultists to go to an airport and drag pieces of it back to a hole in the ground so that they could live around a bomb.
That's bad.

In Fallout 3's world design all we get is a pretty wasteland but all civilized settlements are laughably bad in how miniscule they are. Doesn't matter if you blame the engine or the world map or whatever else, fact is that the towns are a pathetic shell of what they used to be. We got a mile wide ocean with an inch of depth. That's what open sandbox exploration gave us, just a dungeon themepark.
That's bad.

For Fallout 3's art design they redesigned classic art assets for no good reason and sometimes the end result actively breaks the lore. Such as ghouls now being burn victims than before when they were pretty much decomposing bodies with organs sticking out.
That's bad.

If you thought Fallout 2's balance was bad with hypercriticals then it still got Fallout 3 beat on its meat-sponges that require more damage than a behemoth to take down.
That's bad.

Fallout 3 also has Mothership Zeta.
That's really bad.

Fallout 3 might not be as big of a stinking pile of shit but it's still a stinking pile of shit. At the very least Fallout 4 and Fallout 76's gameplay is a bit modernized and shooter'y. (If you're gonna go first person and dungeon crawl all the time with a modern/futuristic setting then make it a good shooter). I can play Fallout 4 and use titty mods and wrestler deathclaws and have a pretty good time. Fallout 3 on the other hand does not play well. Its gameplay is so awful to me that I can't even enjoy FNV for the good elements it has.
 
I agree with this title. Even if Nu-obsidian got to make a new fallout, it wouldn't be as good as NV. The people working at obsidian are the not the same people who worked on NV except for a few people. I still haven't played The Outer Worlds yet, but as I watch gameplay videos and watch reviewers who I trust to review games, all I can think about as I watch is how mediocre and boring this game looks. Not to mention it's bad art style. And everyone looks like they recently came from a tumblr convention. The writing is so bland and forgetful and the game looks too easy. Like they were too scared to challenge their players. I still have to play the game and judge it for my self though.
 
Being part of Microsoft would also play an interfering role.
Even if NuObsidian got to make a new Fallout game which of course would be advertised as the "sequel" to Fallout New Vegas in doubt MS would give the team complete free reign. If not Bethesda would get in the way with the demands of what they think a Fallout title should be like (and what is not allowed because their inhouse team wants to play with it) Microsoft would have its own demands.

This would be a really corporate interference developed product should it ever happen.

As a spiritual successor The Outer Worlds falls short and I don't mean the world size but rather the design itself.
Even Tim Cain and Leonard Boyarsky made it clear I think that this was never really going to be like Fallout.
But even as its own IP I find it underdeveloped from what I have seen and read. It doesn't need to reinvent the wheel but it doesn't even copy the existing wheels that well.
And this game really suffers from being overhyped by some people.
 
If someone could buy the Fallout IP, and remake each game to be more consistent, and fully flesh each game out, then rename Fallout New Vegas to Fallout 4 and make Van Buren but call it Fallout 3, then the real F4 and F3 are renamed Fallout Synth and Fallout Capital Wasteland??? Then maybe the world could be saved???
 
Ugly Kid said:
If someone could buy the Fallout IP, and remake each game to be more consistent, and fully flesh each game out, then rename Fallout New Vegas to Fallout 4 and make Van Buren but call it Fallout 3, then the real F4 and F3 are renamed Fallout Synth and Fallout Capital Wasteland??? Then maybe the world could be saved???
Click to expand...
I don't think it's legally possible to just rename a released product like that, at least not the versions we have now.
 
Ugly Kid said:
I meant like, remaking New Vegas and Van Buren, but releasing them as Fallout 4 and 3.
Click to expand...
True, but I think that might cause a bit of confusion. Seems like a bit of a hassle to use that kind of naming convention and risk all sorts of problems just to stick it to Bethesda. Businesses are out to make money and mud slinging to their potential detriment isn't a great business strategy.
 
Honestly, I wouldn't want to see them get remade.
New Vegas is fine as it is, I treat it more of a coda to the first two Fallout games, which have their own story wrapped up pretty nicely.
Many of that games themes feel like a definitive answer to the themes of the first two games, and even if it isn't consistent in gameplay or continuity, it feels like that one spin-off game that also concludes a trilogy.

Fallout 3 and 4 are what the series will be going forward, for better or for worse. It's not the story that matters in those games, but only how long the Player can play for.
Well, Fallout 4 is more of that, F3 feels like the heart and effort was there, but sadly it just wasn't enough.

And to answer the original question, the only People who can save Fallout is Bethesda, and they won't do that. In fact, Fallout doesn't really need saving. The more we get upset about it, the more it'll hurt. New Vegas had the meta theme of letting go, and I think that was Obsidian telling us to let go.

It's a shame, yes, but there are so many new games coming out that scratch that RPG itch. Plus we have numerous mods for the Fallout games we do like. The Community's creativity and will is what will keep Fallout going, at least the heart of it.

Now, thanks for coming to my Communism talk.
 
TheHouseAlwaysWins said:
Nintendo, Activision, Valve, EA, Bethesda, etc have all become bad because that's just how the forces of capital work in regards to getting as much profit as possible.
Click to expand...
As late as I am to this, I have to somewhat disagree with this. Nintendo has its own problems but placing it in the same category as "bad" as Activision or EA is ludicrous.
 
Some projects I understand. Remaking Super Mario 64 for the PC sounds like something Nintendo should do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top