your spot on with what your saying...the very vocal minority hates it while the masses love it..but everyone is entitled to their opinions

Actually, not quite spot on. Black Isle had nothing to do with Interplay's mismanagement.

This is a disingenious argument.

If it's not true to the spirit of the predecessors then it has failed at maintaining a standard of quality. It doesn't matter who owns what. According to you they could slap a Fallout sticker on a banana and it would be a real Fallout game. That is obviously not the case though.

It's a factual argument...it dosnt matter what any predecessors did they no longer have anything to do with it...it might not be "your" type of fallout but it is what bethesda says it is

It's the difference between the kids table and sitting with the grownups. There is an actual conversation to be had here, and pointing out who currently owns the rights to the franchise is not it.

I wouldn't dispute the factuality of the argument, but since no one is disputing Beth's ownership of the IP or their right to use the brand, I question the relevance of the fact in question.

Or if you're not worried about relevance, then I can just say "Grass is green, therefore you are always wrong forever", and anything else you post, I just have to say "it's a factual argument" and I win.

Hey, choose your rules of engagement. I don't mind either way

Even though I like Fallout 4 very much since there is a lot of things to still love about the game, I feel, and many others also do, that Bethesda have lost a lot of their integrity and uniqueness with this game. It just does not feel like they are doing their own thing anymore. And it feels more like they are looking at what is popular and trying to jam that into their game. It is sad to see and it makes me worried about the future of their games. Bethesdas games to me have always been something I could never get anywhere else. A sort of quality and integrity in their products, a bit like Rockstars / GTA of the RPG genre. The studio that does not ape after what other are doing, but leads in the front as the innovators with their own vision and confidence, pouring their soul into their game world and making it feel like it is alive and breathing inside the screen. Now with this game we have legendary loot drops feeling like they could be ripped right out of Borderlands and a dialogue system with a limiting voiced character on top that would make anyone not familiar and just seeing the game in dialogue think they are watching a Bioware game, not a Bethesda game. No matter how fun the game still is, this sort of thing have really hurt my respect for Bethesda, and this being their lowest rated game in their main series (Fallout and TES) I think it is obvious they are down on the wrong path. I just hope they will have the self-respect to turn it around.

May I ask you a question?

What is the goal with using such an argument? As it seems to me which please correct me if I am wrong. That you wish to prevent any kind of nuanced discussion regarding fallout 4 compared to previous titles in the series.

Edit:

On Topic: I may be a new player to the series, started with 3 and have 1 and 2 on my back log of games I need to play. However a majority of your complaints seem to be things that they carried over from the pre-existing lore.

Talking player character: Not really an issue that is lore breaking, granted it doesn't leave much room for deviation to the tone of voice. Defiently something that could be improved upon with a saint row style of selecting your characters voice prior, and possible their personality typing.

Story: while I have my personal problems with the story, It doesn't deviate to much from the fallout standard in terms of style only thing that is more in your face is how your character reacts(less in the players control).

Vaults: always have been social experiments to test different stressors on isolated populous for the enclave

Power armor: I will agree was given too early in game. (at the very least shouldn't have been a full suit) But I can understand the design tactic used for it. "Give the player a taste of power and a good set piece as a hook".

Crafting and base-building: These features could have been done better (RTS, wasteland defense), However I do welcome their additions to the series as official mechanics, as they do fit in with some of the themes of the first games, mainly rebuilding of society. (hopefully hitting at going post-post apoc setting in the next beth fallout)

survival elements: Have been done albeit not perfectly but to the satisfaction of a small group of players in Fallout: New vegas, this feature set can be very hit or miss but fallout 4 survival setting is really more of a ultra-hard mode, and not like hardcoe mode in fallout: NV so it really isn't a complaint I understand.

discussion is always good I would never seek to impede that... my argument only applies to those who only go around spouting "this isn't a real fallout"..it's a very real fallout just maybe not the kind they want..I love the older games I think they're classics, fallout is easily my favorite series...but to so willfully say it isn't a real fallout is simply wrong..and I see it said at least 20 times per thread like this...it's ok if you don't like the game..but don't be willfully obtuse just for the sake of conflict or starting a us vs them thread..that's all lol

Maybe we should have a FAQ:

Now, correct me if I am mistaken, but I recall reading that Beth stated GTAV did have an influence on Fallout 4's development.

I need to look for the article link though.

Except that none of that is an answer to anything. It's an inane put-down designed to close off discussion instead of fostering it.

According to that argument they could slap a Fallout sticker on a banana and call that the next game. It just doesn't make sense.

You missed the joke.

I read something like that http://www.gamespot.com/articles/fallout-4-interview-we-re-probably-doing-too-much/1100-6428336/

From the link:

Going by some answers in this thread, this sounds reasonable.

Technically speaking, Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel is a Fallout game. I mean it's legitimate and valid and developed as a Fallout title. It is now, rightfully, considered completely non-canon and generally ignored by both development and the fan community.

There's no much in Fallout 4 that deviates from Bethesda's previous design philosophies. The most jarring would be the voiced protagonist and while I like the experiment with it and wouldn't care if that became a thing going forward, I also wouldn't shed tears if it reverted back to a more classic dialogue model.

Settlement Building actually goes back to Morrowind, when you determined certain aspects of your Stronghold and Raven Rock. Skyrim also experimented with building via Hearthfire. Fallout 4 just ramps up the amount of freedom available, while at the same time being severely limiting. The build limit is something I chaff under. It's impossible to build a truly unique Wasteland community if every piece of furniture and every individual shack is tallied to an arbitrary total. My communities have become communes simply because there is no realistic way to build unique habitats for every member of the community as well as the basic infrastructure needed to keep a community thriving.

The shooting emphasis...Bethesda games have always been combat oriented. Even the much lauded Morrowind, like Daggerfall before it, was dependent on combat. Fallout 4's really no different in this regard, though an easing of charisma checks in speechcraft would really help things out. Thus far I've only been able to talk my way out of a situation once.

Now in regards to the franchise, yes Bethesda's offerings have been "dumbed down" from Fallout 1/2. HOWEVER, Bethesda's offerings are a lot more open ended then Fallout 1/2, which didn't have a game world so much as unique set pieces and the sporadic random encounter (of which 90% of those were hostile). There were no Cambridge Polymer Labs or Super Duper Marts to explore in Fallout 1/2 - there were no buildings that had no relevance to the overall plot but told confined stories themselves. Yeah, Bethesda's games don't have as much quest depth as the Interplay/Black Isle offerings, but the trade off is being given a game space that has a lot of little stories to tell and is interesting in its own right.

Traveling from Vault 13 to 15 was just a line on a game world, with Shady Sands being "optional" as a first stop. Exiting Vault 111, you can pretty much go wherever you feel like and do whatever strikes your fancy. I remember many a college night scouring the Boneyard tiles for anything interesting. There was nothing to see, because those tiles weren't relevant for anything but random encounter maps. There wasn't anything interesting to look at. Fallout 3 and 4....they had a lot of interesting things to look at.

Yes. Yes, he did. So did I, until you mentioned it and I actually went back and read the whole post.

I am rather enthralled with the term "Fallout banana", though...

=== Edit to add ===

Agreed with the whole post, but especially those last two paragraphs. I personally feel New Vegas proved that Black Isle-esque depth and Bethesda-esque "world detail" (for lack of a better term) aren't mutually exclusive, and could make for a damn compelling game that could satisfy both old-school fans and new ones alike if done properly.

Trick is that "done properly" bit.

Fallout Banana: A Post-Apocalypse Nuclear Fruit.

The Glow in Fallout 1? Mariposa and the Sierra Army Depot in Fallout 2?

Fallout 1 and 2 had side dungeons with their own stories, not nearly as many as the newer ones, but they were definitely there.

Fair enough, but one or two side areas (more if you run Fallout 2 with the Restoration Project that restores the EPA) are hardly in the same vein as Bethesda's vibrant wastelands. Fallout 1 and 2 tell specific stories, with a little bit of deviation depending on choices and skills. Fallout 3 and 4 tell more fluid stories, wholly dependent on the player's own experience in the Wasteland.

Yep. A Vault Dweller looking to replace a broken Water Purifier, or else procure water some other way, is much more specific than

And the world of Fallout 4 is much more responsive to player decision. In Fallout 4 if you kill a child or appear in advlt movies everyone remembers it, and you can work missions out in different ways. In the first two Fallout games you had several ways of saying Yes and one way of saying no, and saying no just meant you're not doing that mission yet.

Really, New Vegas was the worst of the lot as far as dictating your character to you. Worse yet, it didn't tell you it was dictating your character to you until 4/5ths of the way through the game: "Oh, by the way... *Lonesome Road*". That little stunt really soured me on the whole Courier 6 story arc.

Lonesome Road was a chore for me. Obsidian really gaffed there, trying to put in Arroyo levels of tragedy into my story when the place meant nothing to me.

The irony being they'd already done Lonesome Road with Dead Money and Honest Hearts. I felt more conflicted about what to do with the Sierra Madre and Zion then I ever did with the Divide.

Honestly, OP, cry some more.

Voice can be turned off in sound settings. QQ solved.

Difficulty of game can be jacked up extremely high as well. QQ solved.

If you can do any better with the Fallout franchise, I'd love to see you try. I highly doubt you could though, since you can't even figure out the sound settings.

And children if you look just above you can see a garbage post.

Remember now, you are not allowed to criticize anything, or point out the flaws in anything, unless you can do it better.

That children is the way to growth.

it doesn't take a chef to know that a meal is bad.