What Will Fallout 76's Failures Mean for Fallout 5?

AbullSinCara said:
I hope FO5 will be taking place in west US though, tired of the same fo3/4 area in the east, too boring there.

Or a new spin off really should take place in the west, as it was with FO:NV.
Click to expand...

I really don't want any Fallout game made by Bethesda to touch the West Coast. Years ago I had hopes they would let Obsidian make games set in the west, while Bethesda handles the east, but sadly that didn't happen.

Don't remember where I read it, and don't know if this is debunked or common knowledge or whatever, but someone with apparent insider info said that Bethesda has some kind of a petty hatred for New Vegas and the fact that many players, especially fans of the original Fallouts, consider NV to be far superior to both Fallout 3 and 4. So they will never let anyone else, especially Obsidian, to do another NV-like game again.
 
I’m hoping that Beth will learn, or else not create 5 at all, and let the series die. But let’s be honest, that’s unlikely. Chances are it’ll be a 4 clone, or an ES6 with guns, similar to how 4 was basically Skyrim with guns.
 
AureliusofPhoenix said:
I’m hoping that Beth will learn, or else not create 5 at all, and let the series die. But let’s be honest, that’s unlikely. Chances are it’ll be a 4 clone, or an ES6 with guns, similar to how 4 was basically Skyrim with guns.
Click to expand...
Bethesda learns plenty with each release, of theirs, and of their partner/competitor's products.

Unfortunately for us they study a different audience than us [IE not the fans of the series]—and they don't give a damn about Fallout except in the ways they can dress up their TES template with the IP assets.

What they learn will never result in a better Fallout game; merely a more marketable one... for that is all that it is to them; a product skin for TES.
 
Vegeir said:
I really don't want any Fallout game made by Bethesda to touch the West Coast. Years ago I had hopes they would let Obsidian make games set in the west, while Bethesda handles the east, but sadly that didn't happen.

Don't remember where I read it, and don't know if this is debunked or common knowledge or whatever, but someone with apparent insider info said that Bethesda has some kind of a petty hatred for New Vegas and the fact that many players, especially fans of the original Fallouts, consider NV to be far superior to both Fallout 3 and 4. So they will never let anyone else, especially Obsidian, to do another NV-like game again.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard similar things but I find it hard to believe. If Bethesda actually takes enough pride in their games to hate the fact that someone else showed them up, they would probably make better fucking games.

Bethesda are incompetent and greedy but I don’t think they’re actually invested enough in the creative process to be that petty.
 
Octavian said:
I’ve heard similar things but I find it hard to believe. If Bethesda actually takes enough pride in their games to hate the fact that someone else showed them up, they would probably make better fucking games.

Bethesda are incompetent and greedy but I don’t think they’re actually invested enough in the creative process to be that petty.
Click to expand...

They point at F3's GOTY and F4's sales charts and say 'we got something. NV didn't even sell 7 odd mil copies. Pass! We're the best! Na-na-na-na!"
 
I hope it goes back to a grimmer looking tone. Appalachia and The Commonwealth were too bright for the series. Too many trees, too many mostly-intact buildings.
 
LovinglyGaslight said:
I hope it goes back to a grimmer looking tone. Appalachia and The Commonwealth were too bright for the series. Too many trees, too many mostly-intact buildings.
Click to expand...
In a way, the series are distinct for that reason. NV was more like “classic” Fallout, while still being brighter than the originals. Beth Fallout, all the way back to 3, relies on repopulating mostly intact buildings and has that brighter feel, spiritually (3) if not physically (4 and 70shit).
 
AureliusofPhoenix said:
In a way, the series are distinct for that reason. NV was more like “classic” Fallout, while still being brighter than the originals. Beth Fallout, all the way back to 3, relies on repopulating mostly intact buildings and has that brighter feel, spiritually (3) if not physically (4 and 70shit).
Click to expand...
I guess thats true, but even if it wasnt straight up dark af, Fallout 3 was still closer to a darker tone than 4 or 76. They've been getting just progressively more upbeat tonally, and progressively more colourful and saturated visually and I dont think either of those are what Fallout should be about.
 
LovinglyGaslight said:
I guess thats true, but even if it wasnt straight up dark af, Fallout 3 was still closer to a darker tone than 4 or 76. They've been getting just progressively more upbeat tonally, and progressively more colourful and saturated visually and I dont think either of those are what Fallout should be about.
Click to expand...
You're gonna fit in well here.
 
LovinglyGaslight said:
I guess thats true, but even if it wasnt straight up dark af, Fallout 3 was still closer to a darker tone than 4 or 76. They've been getting just progressively more upbeat tonally, and progressively more colourful and saturated visually and I dont think either of those are what Fallout should be about.
Click to expand...
I agree! It's a nuclear wasteland and should look grim. I'm okay with a little color, but FO4 and 76 waaaaaaay overdid it.
 
The nuclear wastelands we have, such as Pripyat, are vibrant green choking forests. I got nothing against seeing Green or color in Fallout. It's their stupid plots that grate me the most.
 
Black Rose said:
I agree! It's a nuclear wasteland and should look grim. I'm okay with a little color, but FO4 and 76 waaaaaaay overdid it.
Click to expand...
I honestly believe that the flora would be ok in a game set 210+ years after the war, less It was in the desert
 
From Bethesda's perspective the failures are probably seen as the things that make this game unlike their previous games. (Lack of the expected quests & npcs; microtransactions; and too many bugs...even for them) And while there is a market for multiplayer Fallout, their seemed to be plenty of people who didn't want that. So that would lead to the idea that if they just make their next game a single-player game, then everything will be fine. But that next game is Starfield, because to them they are all basically the same game series...



So the general nature of Fallout 5 will probably be more heavily influenced by Starfield and TES 6 than Fallout 76, but who knows.

I wonder if we will see world sizes go back to Fallout 4 / Skyrim size, or if the map size of Fallout 76 is the new normal. I don't know if the map size of Fallout 76 is seen as too empty, which might lead to scaling back in future games; or if in using geo data they discovered an easy way to make huge maps.
 
Lagwagon04 said:
We probably won't see another Fallout for another 10 years (exaggerating a bit) unless they let another company make it. Bethesda will be too busy with Starfield and the next Elder Scrolls.

I want another Fallout to wash away the taste from Fallout 76, but maybe its a good thing if Bethesda doesn't make another.
Click to expand...



Maybe its a good thing if Bethesda doesn't make it?! OF COURSE IT'S A GOOD THING, we already have seen what a mess was Fallout 4 and a little bit the little mess Fallout 3 was, why do you think they would do it right this time?
 
Bethesda Fallouts are absolutely terrible, so how they are gonna wash away the taste of Fallout 76? If anything, another one made by them will just make things worse.
 
acid_cat.gif
 
I would be interested as long as it's similar to The outer world without the rick n mortyness of it (haven't played tOW yet becaus eof it, but watched reviews)
 
Reverie said:
The release and reception of Fallout 76 has obviously been … a mess. I’ve even seen a lot of people speculating that it has been such a disaster that we won’t even see a Fallout 5. Considering that Bethesda hasn’t been talking about a Fallout 5 anytime soon, I can see where that is a possibility.

I think it’d be downright foolish to abandon such an iconic property altogether though. This raises a lot of questions. Will a longer break before Fallout 5 help or harm the franchise? What does Bethesda need to do with Fallout 5 and in the meantime to ensure the franchise has a future?

One idea I saw proposed by gaming journalist Matt Morgans at VGR is to hand over development of Fallout 5 to a third-party. He adds, "The process might be even easier this time around, too. Bethesda’s parent company, ZeniMax, now owns Arkane Studios, id Software, MachineGames, and Tango Gameworks; any one could potentially take over development of an interim Fallout title."

Personally, I could get behind this, as that worked out very well in my opinion with Fallout New Vegas.

What are your thoughts?

Source: VGR
Click to expand...

I would reply with, "What reason would they have to make a new single-player title if the multiplayer game is bringing in more money with less effort?"

Hell, we haven't seen anything for TES VI outside of that one flyover trailer with the title.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top