The Bethesdafication of Fallout

J

JoshBadWriter

First time out of the vault
Hey everyone, I made a video essay about how Bethesda has changed Fallout over the years, and how those changes have impacted Fallout 4. I compare the game a lot to Fallout New Vegas as opposed to the older games, but it still covers a lot of what the franchise used to be about. I'm looking for input for future video essays, especially ones about Fallout. I've got a couple more videos planned for Fallout 4 and I'd love to hear how I can improve my videos.

 
I started watching, it is good.... but when talking about ending I had to turn it off because I haven't finished FO4 yet. haha giving it a chance though... I aggree what the video says.
 
Yeah, I think anyone who isn't seeing F4 with rose tinted glasses is saying New Vegas is better.
 
Yeah, New Vegas is a much better game.
In relation to the Video, I would say that it's okay to compare 4 and New Vegas. After all, New Vegas was the game before 4, it set the standard for the Fallout series in terms of it being an FPS.
In all honesty, 4 seems like a huge step back, and with time to really think about it, 4 takes a step from 3.

I would say that Bethesda could be let off for 3, it was their attempt at making a Fallout game and it may not have panned out so well.

In all honesty, I don't get why Bethesda bought the IP. Fallout wasn't really a game that everyone knew about (new fans like me got in through 3), and it's clear they don't know what to do with the Fallout name.
They should have just made their own IP, say it was influenced by Fallout but make it their own streamline game. That way, they wouldn't have the connotations that Fallout is known for.
An ideal world would have been that Troika got the Fallout IP, Bethesda make their own IP and everyone is happy.
 
Millim said:
Yeah, New Vegas is a much better game.
In relation to the Video, I would say that it's okay to compare 4 and New Vegas. After all, New Vegas was the game before 4, it set the standard for the Fallout series in terms of it being an FPS.
In all honesty, 4 seems like a huge step back, and with time to really think about it, 4 takes a step from 3.

I would say that Bethesda could be let off for 3, it was their attempt at making a Fallout game and it may not have panned out so well.

In all honesty, I don't get why Bethesda bought the IP. Fallout wasn't really a game that everyone knew about (new fans like me got in through 3), and it's clear they don't know what to do with the Fallout name.
They should have just made their own IP, say it was influenced by Fallout but make it their own streamline game. That way, they wouldn't have the connotations that Fallout is known for.
An ideal world would have been that Troika got the Fallout IP, Bethesda make their own IP and everyone is happy.
Click to expand...

Well, known IP or not, having a whole series worth of lore is easier than making your own. Bethesda at the time were still pretty decent with lore and writing - nothing near world class, but good in its own right. They would have seen the potential in having a whole world and history to work with. Even if they don't use all of it. Especially if they don't use all of it, actually, so they can save it for sequels.

The problem is that the point of divergence lied with Fallout 3. The moment that game released, Bethesda's Fallout gained a following. Now they actually have a stake in the game and something to lose. Which meant they had to keep going with it as safe as they could - leading to Fallout 4. I'm assuming they took as little as possible from Fallout: New Vegas because they wanted to be unique and as different from the old games as possible - they probably have a post-it note in their design documents about making their Fallout as different from old Fallouts as possible.

Had Bethesda went with a new IP, I would venture to say isometric Fallout would've died in Troika's hands, and Bethesda's ES with guns IP would've gone popular anyways. At least now in Bethesda's ownership, if they have time and money to kill some point in the future they could still outsource an isometric spin-off. So that's why I preferred Fallout in Bethesda's hand. At least, that was until Fallout 4.
 
Millim said:
In all honesty, I don't get why Bethesda bought the IP.
Click to expand...

Some very smart person at Bethesda saw the potential in the burgeoning open world genre and rising popularity of the first person shooter. An established franchise meant less lore writing, and the probability of securing established Fallout fans (which worked), while gaining new fans with the impressive open world (for its time) and gameplay mechanics (this also worked). Additionally, a sequel to an established franchise looks better to investors than a new, risky IP. Obviously the new IP would have had the same or similar success, but that's business for you.

Bethesda knew and does know exactly what they're doing with this franchise--business wise. I guarantee they have a road map of the next handful of games in the series, and how they're going about them--not lore, characters, setting, etc., but business plans. That's what gets us the promise of DLC through a "season pass," none of which is decided on, planned, developed, or otherwise. They knew what they were doing because they're talented and shrewd businessmen. Black Isle were dreamers and artists with lofty ideas they wanted to share--something that only really exists on the indie market now. That's the game industry today.
 
Sn1p3r187 said:
Shoot but I will say New Vegas is just better for me man. Better story and better aspects in a way.
Click to expand...

I don't even think there is an argument to be made for Fallout 4's quest design being superior. Take a look at a dissected NV quest.




Now go play the Cabot Quest.

Where you are presented exactly two options, Kill crazy telepathy man or do not kill crazy telepathy man for his bottled goo for no story benefit. And then what does this crazed demi-god do with his newfound freedom? Chill on a really comfy couch forever, apparently. Yay for no consequences and adding jack all to the overall plot.
 
Deeves said:
I don't even think there is an argument to be made for Fallout 4's quest design being superior. Take a look at a dissected NV quest.




Now go play the Cabot Quest.

Where you are presented exactly two options, Kill crazy telepathy man or do not kill crazy telepathy man for his bottled goo for no story benefit. And then what does this crazed demi-god do with his newfound freedom? Chill on a really comfy couch forever, apparently. Yay for no consequences and adding jack all to the overall plot.
Click to expand...


No one liked Fallout 3 for the quests, I mean c'mon. You will see that every single opinion on why Fallout 3 was great was due to its atmosphere, which for its time, was arguably pretty tense and engaging.

Fallout 4 ditched the atmosphere, which was actually Fallout 3's only unique aspect. That's why it appeared even more generic than Fallout 3. Now, I know people are going to have mixed opinions over this whole "Fallout 3 has a good atmosphere" thing, but I stand my ground.

So why isn't there a larger demand for Obsidian being at the helm again? Well, it's simple. Several people who started with Fallout 3 and enjoyed Fallout: New Vegas considerably more didn't even know Obsidian developed it - they thought New Vegas was a Bethesda game. Understandably, the lack of an engaging narrative in Fallout 4 confused a lot of people who came to Fallout 4 because of NV.
 
JoshBadWriter, regarding something you mention in your video.
For a video game series to remain relevant and improve on a previous title it must of course grow, but not all change is a logical 'evolution' (I hate using this word to describe development) on previous gameplay/quest development/storytelling/etc.

Fallout 4 is not necessarily the logical 'next step' for the franchise, it is simply a path, and it speaks more about the developers and what kind of audience they want to attract, rather than what they think would help improve on their previous design, or really feels in the spirit of the franchise.

Personally I think that even with Fallout 3 that they should consider the new Fallout games more like spin offs rather than real continuations on Fallout 1 and 2. (though New Vegas regarding story, factions, NPCs, and so on feels like a sequel to those mentioned titles).
Especially Fallout 4 feels like a spin off, and only in the distance connected to the Fallout brand. As you said, I think expectations and reception would have been different if Bethesda had instead created its own PA game brand instead of buying up an existing franchise.
Reception by fans from the old Fallout games would also have been different as we would have treated this franchise by its own merits and weaknesses instead of constantly referring to the old games or Fallout New Vegas.
 
"The Bethesdafication of Fallout" or "How to make money the Bethesda way".
1. Buy an IP, gut it of any semblance of the original game, and slap the meaningless but cute caricature on everything, including the tie-in mobile game.
2. Churn out a sub-par FPS with a "Fallout" skin.
3. Watch the nerd money roll in.
4. Promise to do better by fans of the IP in the next game.
5. Repeat same process with the next game.

I shouldn't be surprised at this point. Bethesda is in the business of making money, and they figure that they can't make real money by catering to the needs of fans. Of course, then there's the merchandising money to be made...


9dbcfa45382e95cddf1f1d2a24ee21e7.jpg
 
ZigzagPX4 said:
I would venture to say isometric Fallout would've died in Troika's hands
Click to expand...

Ideas don't die that easily. At worst it would lay dormant until crowd-funding took off. And most probably we would have Fallout 3 made by inXile in place of Wasteland 2. I'm not saying I'm not happy with inXile releasing Wasteland 2 - just I'd be even happier with FO3 made by them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top