T
TorontoReign
Guest
Gonzalez was one of the good writers that was around for Fallout New Vegas and he rarely gets mentioned alongside other more well known dudes like Sawyer and Avellone.
Will in ten years Fallout still be relevant as a series?
- Thread starter The Dutch Ghost
- Start date
Gonzalez was one of the good writers that was around for Fallout New Vegas and he rarely gets mentioned alongside other more well known dudes like Sawyer and Avellone.
Norzan
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
They might be there but they are no longer the same as they were in the past. Their recent output has been decent at the absolute best and a far cry from what they used to release in the past.
Iprovidelittlepianos
Vault Senior Citizen
Outer Worlds kinda sucked in my opinion, I think that’s the main reason some people don’t have faith in Obsidian anymore.
Kaptin
Slayer of soyjacks
Chris Avellone is no longer part of them and he was one of the main reasons new vegas is so great today and their latest attempt to "create fallout aka the outer world" turned into a mediocre game with modern progressive politics like most bandit leaders are pathetic and weak and they are manipulated by strong independent females, if I remember most OG members except for Sawyer who made New Vegas are no longer part of Obsidian and honestly it doesn't matter as original fallout franchise is already concluded with new vegas, I take Bethesda fallout as a separate franchise because it plays differently and behaves differently.
Kaptin
Slayer of soyjacks
And who knows? Maybe Bethesda improves and they will finally, after X years, deliver us a proper fallout game.
I think you are asking a little too much from reality, even it can't bend the chance of possibility that far.
Kaptin
Slayer of soyjacks
Sometimes the only thing man can have is hope.
Hope is a lie.
Chris has said before he didn't do all that much on New Vegas outside of 3 of the dlcs.
Honestly, i love Obsidian, but it's clear their love was in two franchises (Star Wars And Fallout). Everything else they've put out, well it's not set the World of fire (heheeh).
Outer Worlds was their way of replicating the success of Fallout And I've said before, it could prove to have a better sequel. One which takes the established elements of the first And improves on them.
I still think with Sawyer, Cain And the rest of the team, they could put out a great Fallout game.
This took a little longer than I had intended.
As usual, I got stuck somewhere and started doing other stuff.
No, I don't mean to say that the original games should not be fondly remember or that they are now tarnished by the Bethesda entries. (though I really hate the retcons)
What I was more trying to convey, I feel that Bethesda's entries should not have the impact that they have.
As if the Bethesda designers and writers are such creative minds.
Or that their stuff should also have an impact on other PA related media.
Because it feels like it sometimes does.
I just find it awful that Bethesda's entries are better remembered and seen as good examples of the PA game genre.
Why the hell am I not surprised?
I don't mind fan fic. I am guilty of it myself, and god knows how much I want to live up to the original works and that the writers and others fans tell me I have made something as equally good which will be just as fondly remembered.
Hell my biggest wish is to make a Fallout game, or new stories based on someone's comic series.
I want to live up to the examples, not to steal credit but be added to it.
But imitation is not always flattery
Perhaps.
It is indeed easier to pick the best from the past, where as in the present or the future it is a lot more difficult.
Sometimes though I do think it was easier to pick a 'winner', a game, a movie, or a series you knew from the description, preview, teaser, or trailer that it was going to be good.
It had this immediate grip on your interest.
I miss that these days, but I am also a lot more jaded then I was back when I discovered a lot of the classics.
I know it is not fair to compare present or future productions to the best of the past, but when said new productions bank on the legacies of established names.
Maybe a little of my frustration that I felt that I never had a good idea of my own also comes into play.
My own pettiness or jealousy.
I don't doubt that they may still have the wish or intention to do so, but I think that modern day game development philosophy or expectations of how much a game has to sell is standing in the way.
We already mentioned here a few time before that the focus on making a game as mainstream as possible to appeal to as many people, despite that I dislike that approach, is not a flawed one as the evidence shows us.
As usual, I got stuck somewhere and started doing other stuff.
No, I don't mean to say that the original games should not be fondly remember or that they are now tarnished by the Bethesda entries. (though I really hate the retcons)
What I was more trying to convey, I feel that Bethesda's entries should not have the impact that they have.
As if the Bethesda designers and writers are such creative minds.
Or that their stuff should also have an impact on other PA related media.
Because it feels like it sometimes does.
I just find it awful that Bethesda's entries are better remembered and seen as good examples of the PA game genre.
Why the hell am I not surprised?
I don't mind fan fic. I am guilty of it myself, and god knows how much I want to live up to the original works and that the writers and others fans tell me I have made something as equally good which will be just as fondly remembered.
Hell my biggest wish is to make a Fallout game, or new stories based on someone's comic series.
I want to live up to the examples, not to steal credit but be added to it.
But imitation is not always flattery
Perhaps.
It is indeed easier to pick the best from the past, where as in the present or the future it is a lot more difficult.
Sometimes though I do think it was easier to pick a 'winner', a game, a movie, or a series you knew from the description, preview, teaser, or trailer that it was going to be good.
It had this immediate grip on your interest.
I miss that these days, but I am also a lot more jaded then I was back when I discovered a lot of the classics.
I know it is not fair to compare present or future productions to the best of the past, but when said new productions bank on the legacies of established names.
Maybe a little of my frustration that I felt that I never had a good idea of my own also comes into play.
My own pettiness or jealousy.
I don't doubt that they may still have the wish or intention to do so, but I think that modern day game development philosophy or expectations of how much a game has to sell is standing in the way.
We already mentioned here a few time before that the focus on making a game as mainstream as possible to appeal to as many people, despite that I dislike that approach, is not a flawed one as the evidence shows us.
TheodoreRoosevelt
First time out of the vault
their trailer mocking other trailers with the outer worlds 2 didn't really help their case.
I think the franchise will be relevant. There's enough people that will like whatever Fallout is out there. Fallout 76 not included, I guess maybe.
For me, personally, it became irrelevant once Fallout 3 came out. Like many people here on NMA, my experience of the game was suffering while waiting for it to get good, then the game ended.
NV was very slightly better, but still bad. And this is considered almost unanimously as the best post Fallout 2 Fallout game, so no reason to go on any further.
Now, the reason I think they were bad, besides the awful reuse and screwing up of BOS, NCR etc', is the game engine. Bethesda's games just look bad. NPCs look like shit. Old ruins don't look enough like shit. I had very few moments of immersion when I played 3 and NV. Kinda felt like an alien playing them.
Fallout 1 and 2, in contrast, looks awesome. Plus, they have one of the best soundtracks of any game. Even the UI gives you the sense of post-apocalyptic ruin.
If the next games will look and feel less like computer code and more like a post-nuclear role-playing game, then I think Fallout could remain top franchise for a long time.
tl;tr
It will be relevant, but it could be more relevant if the next games will look and feel better, by, at the very least, changing the game engine.
For me, personally, it became irrelevant once Fallout 3 came out. Like many people here on NMA, my experience of the game was suffering while waiting for it to get good, then the game ended.
NV was very slightly better, but still bad. And this is considered almost unanimously as the best post Fallout 2 Fallout game, so no reason to go on any further.
Now, the reason I think they were bad, besides the awful reuse and screwing up of BOS, NCR etc', is the game engine. Bethesda's games just look bad. NPCs look like shit. Old ruins don't look enough like shit. I had very few moments of immersion when I played 3 and NV. Kinda felt like an alien playing them.
Fallout 1 and 2, in contrast, looks awesome. Plus, they have one of the best soundtracks of any game. Even the UI gives you the sense of post-apocalyptic ruin.
If the next games will look and feel less like computer code and more like a post-nuclear role-playing game, then I think Fallout could remain top franchise for a long time.
tl;tr
It will be relevant, but it could be more relevant if the next games will look and feel better, by, at the very least, changing the game engine.
Kaptin
Slayer of soyjacks
So NV was bad because graphics were ugly and because it's not Fallout 1 and 2? I'll give you a pro tip if you want to argue why fallout new vegas was bad don't use graphics or
nostalgia glasses as your points, Engine was dogshit but that can be fixed now with modding and it's 2010 game it won't look better and the only thing what was ugly in new vegas
were the models but saying new vegas was garbage because of terrible graphics is just absurd. The story was an immense improvement over fallout 3, super Mutants became once super mutants and not super mutants in Bethesda style. Raiders were once again wasteland gangs and not just psychos torturing for the lulz, you had
freedom of choice to do whatever you want, your dad wasn't forced onto your character and you also weren't forced to be 19 years old vault dweller and those things weren't quoting you "a slight improvement" it was an enormous change. Fallout is going to be relevant because it's a known popular franchise and Bethesda won't hesitate to make another sequel just to milk fans.
Wrong approach. Zorchar wasn't saying NV wasn't an improvement over Fo3, they were saying it was worse than Fo1/2. Not everyone is a rabid Bethesda cultist, fortunately.
I think there's some truth to what they're saying. NV's NPCs aren't exactly pretty; you really need either FCO, NVR or a mix of both to cure the Mojave's potato face pandemic, which is thanks to Gamebryo. But apart from that I agree. Having to install just 1 or 2 mods isn't exactly world-ending, and the game is still playable and audiovisually appealing in its own way (as are Fo1 and 2) without those improvements. Vault 22 is still my favourite video game level of all time for exactly that reason (and a few others).
You need more than just "graphics to argue that a game is bad, or that "it looks ands feel like computer code rather than a post-nuclear role-playing game". Otherwise, why don't you check out Fo4? It's audiovisually stunning. Best Fallout game, Game of the Year, changed my life, cured my cancer, 10/10.
Iprovidelittlepianos
Vault Senior Citizen
As fans of Fallout: New Vegas I feel it’s important to remember that the crappy FPS bullet-sponge gameplay doesn’t hold a candle to the janky turn-based bullet-sponge combat of the originals.
Norzan
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Except New Vegas didn't screw up anything with those factions. In fact, it brought back to BoS being actual BoS and not whatever bullshit it was in 3. And New Vegas had a reason to use BoS and NCR again because, you know, it's set in the West Coast where these things come from.
This is about as bad as the people claiming Wind Waker sucked because of the graphics. That's such a shallow reason to call a game bad, made worse by the fact that New Vegas is so much more than its admitedly mediocre graphics. Let's forget RPG elements, writing, quests, dungeons, and many other things and solely focus on such a shallow thing to determine a game's quality.
The irony of this claim is that many fans of the Bethesda Fallouts will claim Fallout 1 and 2 look like shit and that's enough reason to not play them. So it's hilarious to see the reverse.
Graphics are a big part of it, but it's not all. It's also the non immersive game UI like inventory and looting have no item pictures, the bad VATS implementation which makes your character rely on your own set of skills as an FPS player, the "[barter 20/25], [speech 40/50]" nonsense when using skills, quest markers. It's the whole package. The game engine should be scrapped and replaced by something more appealing and story RPG oriented IMO.
Exactly. I'm not saying its the "graphics". NV's graphics are obviously objectively better. I'm saying it's graphics are really not immersive, in such a way that it completely ruins the experience.
Norzan
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Uh? It's the opposite. The VATS using the character's skills as calculation for the chance to hit.
You mean skill checks? You know, those things that allow roleplaying by giving different characters different ways to access quests and other content? What's wrong with this? Fallout 1 and 2's system might not have been exactly the same, but the intention was the same.
Okay, that does suck. But it's not like you have to actually follow them since the game tries to give general directions.
What you pointed out is NOT the whole package.
Except you are. You can't extrapolate anything else from "this game looks bad" except the graphics are bad.
I'm confused. So they are objectively better but are not immersive?
Last edited:
Kaptin
Slayer of soyjacks
No graphics are just a gimmick to give you better immersion there are so many great games with primitive graphics if we compare to our standards (Quake 1, 2, Doom, CnC, Dune, AvP2) And these games are masterpieces despite them looking really ugly.
And what faction got butchered in New Vegas? BoS is again OG BoS, the NCR are no longer the good guys? And since when they were the good guys? You know there is a thing called character development and it's explained in the game that After Tandi's death the republic just became corrupted as hell because they are emulating the pre-war system but their emulation is flawed and they lack laws and tools which functioned as pillars to that system even Marcus is going to tell you they expand too fast and there are is going to be civil war in the NCR.
the soundtrack being shit? Do you know that they actually reused some music from FO1 and FO2? Like if you enter Primm NCR camp you can hear FO2 music? So you are saying the same soundtrack is shit in new vegas but in fallout 2 it's a masterpiece? Also you are telling me this track once you storm NCR prison to wipe out the powder gangers is trash? or the final battle at hoover dam? Or when you enter the legion camp and you get the Rome vibes?
All I'm saying is that the game engine is the main reason the game is bad. Maybe it was good for other games, I don't know. And yeah, I also hate the graphics, but it's not the main reason these games are bad.
Of course some elements are good. Perhaps if NV was made with a different game engine, I would have loved it.
About the skill checks - it doesn't have to be that obvious where the game actually tells you what you need to succeed. Plus, it could use some variation in skill roll methods.
The reuse of the BOS and NCR to such a massive extant is what put me off most about NV and 3's storyline.
I don't remember these tracks so maybe I agree I don't know. Generally the stupid 50's music as an in-game theme is very bad IMO.
Last edited: