What was the Funniest Argument You've had with a Bethesda Apologist?

Just a few hours ago you would have let me have the same fate as the mayor of Nipton. So, why the hate for MATN? I like him, but Thenthapple is my favourite. And what's the codex?

 

MATN is a views whore and he only did the Fallout 3 and 4 videos because he knew it would get him views, specially if you compare those games favorably to the game a lot of people believe to be the much better experience (that being New Vegas), and basically used the excuse that New Vegas is his favorite Fallout to avoid criticism for poor argumentation. And it worked because i have ran into idiots that also parrot his bullshit and they think everything he says has point, when a lot of his arguments don't make much sense, or are flimsy at best.


I don't recall he ever comparing Fallout 3 and 4 to Fallout 1 and 2, because even he knows he would get blowback in the comments for that.

 

I think you're being cynical. Fallout 4 gets a lot of hate and so does 3 but to a lesser extent. I feel bad for the people who mindlessly parrot back what Jon says, you people were brutal with me and I was original.

 

I'm not that much of a black hearted harpie. Plus you seem nice enough and willing to listen to both sides unlike most Bethesda fans that come here. Not about to let you get thrown into the lions den.
With MATN is because he seems to have no understanding at all on what made the original Fallout's great. He most likely got his start in Fallout on either 3 or 4 and probably views the old games as outdated or inferior. Plus, as @Norzan said, MATN is a view whore and knew that lambasting a popular cult classic game like New Vegas will get him a ton of views, especially with Bethesda fans as many of them hate New Vegas. If he did that with the originals the likes of the Codex would have eviscerated him.

If you want to know why many of us hate Fallout 3 here is a video series that talks about Van Buren. The Fallout 3 that could have been. Doing so you can see why many of us here are so jaded with Bethesda Fallout:

 

I'll watch the video, I'm mildly familiar with Van Buren. No idea why they chose that for the code name. Van Buren was a shit president there were so many better options. Polk, either Roosevelt, Cleveland, Truman, but they chose the president people called Van Ruin.

 

Interplay used to use the code names of presidents for their projects. Plus, as you stated about Van Buren, the name should have been a hint at the state of factions like the Brotherhood and NCR as well as the state of the world in the game.

 

Broke my heart when he said they took away Heavy Handed. But Van Buren seems cool, a shame that they were 95% finished with the game and couldn't get it to the public. Is there only 200 members on this site?

 

It fluctuates with people coming and going.

 

So, is a Melee build viable for a first playthrough in Fallout? Or will it just be: Your bones are scraped clean by the desolate wind. Your Vault will now surely die, as you have.

 

Hey there is absolutely nothing that speaks against personal preference. You like what you like and no one has a right to judge you on that. When you see Fallout 3 as a superior game that's ok. Nothing wrong with that. There are people on NMA that genuely enjoyed playing Fallout 3 as a game.

What really is the real problem when you try to have a discussion about let us say the development of Fallout 1, what the people that made it intended and what they tried to achieve. And when you look at their quotes and design documents they always wanted to make a top down, turn based game. That's a fact. And it becomes a problem when people simply say, yeah, naw I think first person is a better representation of that! Huh? That's like saying doom would be better if it was a racing game or something, simply because you prefer racing games over first person shooters. Makes no sense.

To many confuse personal preference with design choices.

 

Well, Interplay sold Fallout to Bethesda so it's on them.

 

I think you're missing the point. I was talking in general. If you want, let us take Bethesda as example. I am sure a lot of people would be pissed if Bethesda made Elder Scrolls 6 a top down, turn based Real Time Strategy game with iso-metric graphics. Why? Because their previous games followed a different direction where it was a sort of RPG with first person mechanics. It's a complete change of design. I mean I am sure there would be also people out there that would prefer Bethesda to make such a turn based game. But it would still be a major shift and alinating previous experiences. You know what I mean? You can judge something objectively without your preference thrown in.

 

That wouldn't happen, but I understand your point. So, when it comes to the whole franchise, is New Vegas the best?

 

Depends on you and your preferences. I would say it's a decent RPG in the Fallout setting and I prefer it over Fallout 3 and 4 as I believe it is the closest to what Fallout is from those 3 games. A decent spin off so to speak which tells its own story.

But if you ask me if it was let us say a good Fallout Sequel? I would say, no. A Fallout Sequel for me personaly really should be a top down game with turn based game mechanics.

 

Is turn based gameplay really that good?

 

Again ... missing the point. I thought I explained it in previous posts. This is not a question what's good or bad. It's like ice cream. Chocolate is not inherently better to Strawberry or Vanilla. It's simply a flavour. Some prefer Chocolate others Vanilla. The point is that you simply can't sell someone who loves Vanilla Chocolate as Vanilla. Get what I mean? The point isn't what's better. The point is what you expect.

*Edit

I like both, turn based and first person. But I don't really see a first person Fallout as a Fallout Sequel just as how I would not see a turn based Elder Scrolls 6 as a Sequel to Elder Scrolls games. I could have funn with all of those games regardless of the gameplay if the gameplay is of high quality. I did enjoy New Vegas. But a Fallout Sequel for me, should be turn based and top down.

 

As the Codex has stated on their Steam Curator page in regards to New Vegas, "It is good for what it is."
Obsidian tried to get the best with both worlds and the results are mixed to say the least. RPG fans praise the game as being one of the best RPG's on the market while old school Fallout fans consider it good for what it is but wish that the game was turn based. There is a reason why many old school Fallout fans consider New Vegas to be more in line with Tactics then a true sequel and that is mainly due to New Vegas not being turn based.

As @Crni Vuk said, it is all about preferences. I take it you haven't played turn based games before. You may find them to be slow and frustrating at first. You have to really plan ahead instead of going in guns blazing like you would in Fallout 3, 4 and New Vegas. You may not like it at first but give it time and it may grow on you or not.

 

It seems like a lot of people are stuck in the past and can't let go. Begin Again. What is the Codex?

 

Yes and no. It's way more complicated than that:

Interplay only sold the right for Bethesda to make 1 Fallout game, with an option for 2 sequel games after that. Not the full IP.
Then they got money problems and were forced to sell the rights to Bethesda (I can't remember if by court or outside court), with exception of the rights to make an online multiplayer game.
Interplay got money problems again and Bethesda sue them for breaching the MMO contract or something like that and took Interplay's rights for the MMO Fallout game.
Later Bethesda sued Interplay once again to make them stop being able to sell the classic Fallout games (Fallout 1, Fallout 2 and Fallout Tactics), and took the rights to sell those games for themselves (so now Interplay couldn't even sell the games they made, while Bethesda would be the ones selling those games and getting that money).

What's interesting is that Bethesda only bought the rights to make 1 to 3 Fallout games when they heard that Troika Games were already in negotiations to acquire the IP for themselves. Troika Games was made by previous Black Isle Studios members, including the creators of the Fallout IP.

Bethesda has a bad habit of dragging smalling companies to the ground and kick them while they're down. Usually acquiring them or forcing them to shut down, while getting their games and rights to sell them and/or IPs.

Here's a post I made years ago that goes into more detail on how Bethesda screw some specifics studios:

 

It's refreshing to know that Bethesda approaches business Rockefeller style.