So ,should we hope that Fallout will die /stop?

I don't see why anybody should hope for it to die. I mean, yeah, annoying to find fans who had not experienced the old games, and I often have to find myself correcting them about the lore, but hey, I get it. Bethesda has a new audience, and likely much bigger than the classic Fallout fans. As a company, they're out to make the most money and the fact is, they're doing so.

Fallout now is for a different set of fans. Simple as that. Sometimes, scraps may fall from their plate for the older fans, if they let Obsidian take another shot, but that's as far as it will go.

Personally don't see why people should wish for its death and take away from the new fans. Classic Fallout was going to die with or without a company taking it over. Death by inactivity or death by soft reboot. At least this death allows some groups to enjoy something out of it.
 
What Bethesda did to Fallout has happened to numerous other IP's across every medium. You strip an IP of all the elements that kept it niche, which in Fallout's case would be everything that made the old games great - isometric with turn-based combat, dialog trees, and skill checks, with plenty of C&C and ample amounts of customization for your characters play style.

Then you rip the guts out of it, molding it into something that looks the same but loses the soul in the process. This New and Improved IP will attempt to wow you with things that aren't necessarily true to the source - the original template on which any continuation of the IP should follow.

This is why you get horrible shit like Resident Evil 6 or Terminator: Genisys. I know Crni would agree with me on the latter. When you try to gaudy up a series to appeal to a much wider demographic, you actually toss aside a portion of your fanbase who chose the original product BECAUSE of it's niche qualities. If you look at comics, let us say Marvel for instance - they too toss aside portions of their fanbase to appeal to younger people in their teens while tossing aside the ones in their 30's and above. This is why you get people freaking out when they killed Spider-Man and had Doctor Octopus possess his body.

I won't argue if they should or should not try to spread their appeal to more people, since they are a business and they are in it for the caps, but it doesn't change the fact that their product does not appeal to me. I won't be supporting them in the future if I can help it. That means buying used and/or other means.

That means fuck you Doom, fuck you Fallout 4, and go fuck yourself Bethesda, Bioware and Blizzard. Oh and a massively huge fuckaroo to anyone that thinks a dumbed down FPS with no skills, Bioware romance, immortal companions and a dialog wheel, is better than the originals.

:boy:

* TorontRayne reserves the right to change his mind at a future date.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's already dead, I wouldn't wish it to stop just beecause the Buffalo Bill game wearing it's skin doesn't appeal to me. It brings joy to many so it would be kind of cruel to push the button on it just because I personally can't dig it.
 
TorontRayne said:
What Bethesda did to Fallout has happened to numerous other IP's across every medium. You strip an IP of all the elements that kept it niche, which in Fallout's case would be everything that made the old games great - isometric with turn-based combat, dialog trees, and skill checks, with plenty of C&C and ample amounts of customization for your characters play style.
Click to expand...

I don't think that dialog trees, skill checks, choice and consequence, and character customization are things that have been stripped away because they are unpopular to the masses. I think they're simply consequences of being considered too expensive when we cater to things that the masses do seem to like (e.g. fully voiced dialogue and huge playground sandboxes.)

Like when you have to pay an actor to say whatever lines you have in your dialogue, you're going to naturally write fewer lines. When you have an audience that's clamoring for more and more loot caves, you might consider it a better use of development resources to then write two quests instead of two ways to do one quest.

I think thought that this is not inevitable. As AAA budgets for graphics climb and climb and climb, the whole "pay a writer and pay an actor" thing is going to become a smaller percentage of the overall budget, so it seems reasonable to do more of it. I'm not sure how you fix the "people get mad if you can't do everything in a single playthrough" problem though.
 
Last edited:
Vault17 said:
It's already dead, I wouldn't wish it to stop just beecause the Buffalo Bill game wearing it's skin doesn't appeal to me. It brings joy to many so it would be kind of cruel to push the button on it just because I personally can't dig it.
Click to expand...

This is definitely an apt comparison. Fallout 3 is certainly Fallout 1/2 with its penis tucked between its legs, dancing in front of a mirror naked with makeup, wearing the skin of a great big fat person with Goodbye horses playing in the background.
 
PossibleCabbage said:
TorontRayne said:
What Bethesda did to Fallout has happened to numerous other IP's across every medium. You strip an IP of all the elements that kept it niche, which in Fallout's case would be everything that made the old games great - isometric with turn-based combat, dialog trees, and skill checks, with plenty of C&C and ample amounts of customization for your characters play style.
Click to expand...

I don't think that dialog trees, skill checks, choice and consequence, and character customization are things that have been stripped away because they are unpopular to the masses. I think they're simply consequences of being considered too expensive when we cater to things that the masses do seem to like (e.g. fully voiced dialogue and huge playground sandboxes.)
Click to expand...

Eh. Can't say I agree. Many Bethesda fans don't like C&C. They feel like they are being restricted. Any kind of restriction whatsoever pisses them off. I've heard numerous times about how locking you down to certain factions for the last quests is so bad since they don't want to play another character. They hated the fact that you had to actually try to go north from Goodsprings if you wanted to go that way. You couldn't just stroll north with your head up your ass. They say you could only go a certain way to get to the Strip.

This is either an outright lie or they only played the game once without attempting to figure out alternate routes. There is the route north from Goodsprings, the direct route straight through Sloan, or further east through Hidden Valley. Most people seem to go Novac way if they're too scared to risk going near Golden Geckos, Deathclaws, and Cazadores. Hell Chance's Knife is directly north of Goodsprings if you want an early unique weapon. You could also go near Searchlight if I remember correctly. There are probably a few other ways. I hope these pansies cry a river when the"rubber-banding" in Fallout 4 spawns a Deathclaw in some area they aren't supposed to go to yet and they get murdered.

You may be right about the cost being a factor. It could simply be due to the audience wanting a certain thing, so they are catered to. If you don't care about solving quests multiple ways, you can just do everything in one playthrough. Another thing is many people hardly pay attention to the dialog anyway. I can't tell you how many times I have heard the story from Fallout 3 is more memorable, yet they say New Vegas didn't have one memorable moment. The Strip alone was pretty memorable to me. There were more interesting factions in the Strip than the entirety of Fallout 3. The backstory for the NCR, House, and Legion was handled perfectly. Caesar had more character in the brief moments you get to speak to him than any character in Fallout 3. What does Fallout 3 have? Even then compare both New Vegas and Fallout 3 to the original two games. No contest.

When I speak of character customization, I mean character builds. First Elder Scrolls was drastically changed, then they went to Fallout. Cutting skills does limit you to certain roles. Perks are not going to cut it. Perks alone can not offer as much variety. Besides the fact that there aren't that many of them. You take out traits, skills, complex dialog, and C&C - you get a pizza without the toppings. The fucking thing doesn't even have cheese on it.

Sorry to say but the average Bethesda fan does not want to play a true RPG. This is all about maximizing profits. A shitload of Kickstarter backers say they want real cRPG's. Fallout went from a PC game based on pencil-and-paper mechanics to a FPS with some stats and the vague notion of being a RPG. This is fine if you like Elder Scrolls, or maybe Borderlands I guess. If you like Fallout 3 that is fine too. But the old games are better RPG's. Some fans still want Fallout to be like that. Wasteland 2 doesn't really fit the bill. It's a different kind of RPG in it's own way.

But let's look at that for a minute. Wasteland 2 is now coming to consoles. Think if Fallout had went to developers that actually made isometric turn-based RPG's. It could be coming to consoles now in it's original form. It would be in a better state I believe even if it was "streamlined" for console users. I think it comes down to If it aint broke, don't fix it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
PossibleCabbage said:
TorontRayne said:
What Bethesda did to Fallout has happened to numerous other IP's across every medium. You strip an IP of all the elements that kept it niche, which in Fallout's case would be everything that made the old games great - isometric with turn-based combat, dialog trees, and skill checks, with plenty of C&C and ample amounts of customization for your characters play style.
Click to expand...

I don't think that dialog trees, skill checks, choice and consequence, and character customization are things that have been stripped away because they are unpopular to the masses. I think they're simply consequences of being considered too expensive when we cater to things that the masses do seem to like (e.g. fully voiced dialogue and huge playground sandboxes.)

Like when you have to pay an actor to say whatever lines you have in your dialogue, you're going to naturally write fewer lines. When you have an audience that's clamoring for more and more loot caves, you might consider it a better use of development resources to then write two quests instead of two ways to do one quest.

I think thought that this is not inevitable. As AAA budgets for graphics climb and climb and climb, the whole "pay a writer and pay an actor" thing is going to become a smaller percentage of the overall budget, so it seems reasonable to do more of it. I'm not sure how you fix the "people get mad if you can't do everything in a single playthrough" problem though.
Click to expand...

There's also the consumption oriented market. You don't want a game that ages well, you want a game that is hot for a season, and you want them to buy the next shiny new thing the next season. And that's far easier to achieve if all games focus on things that develop quickly. Narrative isn't one of those things. Graphics are, and that's IMO the reason there is so much emphasis done around them. Note I'm not judging, just describing. If you go a different way, unless you are really, REEEEAAALLY, innovating, you won't get big.
 
hokutonoken said:
Waaaahhhh!!!!!! Waaahhhh!!!!! If it's not like I want it no one should have it!
Click to expand...
Even if you would rather have a Fallout with the same turn based strategy as the original,the Bethesda Fallout games are objectively good games,and I would rather have the series live as what it is than have it die as a turn based strategy game from the late 90's.
 
Jimme John said:
Even if you would rather have a Fallout with the same turn based strategy as the original,the Bethesda Fallout games are objectively good games,and I would rather have the series live as what it is than have it die as a turn based strategy game from the late 90's.
Click to expand...

How do you define a game to be objectively good? I'd love to know.
 
ChildServices said:
>inb4 he cites sales figures
Click to expand...
>tfw due to the excessive dominance of the art market by profit-driven hacks, artistic innovation is now only welcomed if it is in some way profitable, where language now exists to serve paper, where photographs exist to serve billboards, where love exists to serve Clinton's Cards, where stagnation is valued due to safety of investment, where 6 or 7/10 is considered an 'average' quality game in an increasingly corrupt and 'bought out' group of major journalists and excessive homogeneousness, where dissenting and more critical journalists are blacklisted, where games are rated on a time:price ratio and where negativity and difficulty and philosophy and interrogation of one's beliefs are considered pretentious and 'not fun', where excessive manipulation of and pandering to select most profitable groups mean that companies have so much market control that they can publicly fuck over their customers/entire demographics of people and people will still buy from them, where an artificial gaming economy has been created out of platform exclusives where almost all the platforms are insultingly overpriced and designed to either fail or become obsolete within a set number of years often without backwards compatibility thus effectively erasing significant portions of history, where poorly-functioning peripherals and gimmicks are called innovation, where the word 'iconic' is abused in the same way a horny teenager has a cock redder than a blood orange, where an already generic deathcore band can devolve into literally ripping off Linkin Park and where mentioning any of the above is considered 'pretentious' and 'arty-farty'
>this is not my beautiful house this is not my beautiful wife
 
Last edited:
Oppen said:
How do you define a game to be objectively good? I'd love to know.
Click to expand...


There are no objectively good games. It's all a matter of how much a game (or a book, or a movie) whatever is compatible with the expectations, values, and preferences of the person playing it. There can be intersubjectively good games because they do something that almost everybody agrees is desirable (though the opposite is easier to demonstrate in principle, e.g. a game giving periodic painful electric shocks to the user would be almost uniformly judged as bad even though some people might enjoy that quite a bit.) But basing quality on the whims of the masses seems to be a suspect strategy.

The best you can say is that Fallout 3 is a game that a lot of people like for whatever reason, and because of that it (and games like it) shouldn't go away entirely. That does not resolve the question of why we shouldn't ask, expect, or demand its successors to be better .
 
PossibleCabbage said:
The best you can say is that Fallout 3 is a game that a lot of people like for whatever reason, and because of that it (and games like it) shouldn't go away entirely. That does not resolve the question of why we shouldn't ask, expect, or demand its successors to be better .
Click to expand...

Even while I think that's true, counting sales figures is kind of a trap. "How?" some may ask. Well, there's this thing: legally, to obtain the game you should buy it. So, you probably don't know if you like it or not until *after* you've been added to this sales figure.
Of course, some people play in a borrowed copy for a while and then buy it if they like it.
Some other people pirate it to try it, some other pirate it and that's it. Sales figures, point is, are not representative of how many people liked the game.
 
As others have said, I get nothing from Fallout's death and I will even agree that the worst Fallout game was made under Interplay. That being said, Fallout 3 was dogshit, but New Vegas was a solid game. As long as there's the potential for a New Vegas sequel, I want the series to stay alive in some form.
 
No. Fallout doesn't deserve to die.

There is always hope with the modders. If they keep up even after it's death...

Well then let's hurry up it's demise!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top