I would agree, and I don't really see anyone could disagree. Fallout New Vegas was lauded for it's amazing story-telling and multiple options by critics and users alike. It wasn't something I really expected to see in this day and age, but I loved it, and it shows that a game like New Vegas can be a success.

Yes. It's like anything else. A good example would be cooking/baking... Let's say, a cake for example. How many tries would it take you to bake a 'perfect cake'? Probably anywhere between 5 - 25 (if you're good enough at baking/cooking, that is)... From Morrowind, Fallout 4 is Bethesda's 4th real try in these types of games. (Discounting Fallout 3 still and not gonna count Daggerfall and Arena due how different they are from the newer games due to limits back then and such). And with video games taking much longer time to create than food, especially Bethesda's games... It's gonna be a while before we really get the game that Bethesda probably truly wants to release...

~Edit~

But it is really amazing to watch the progress over time and see everything happening.

I like banana. And I like Fallout 4.

Morrowind only really made you deliver a package, after that you are told to go explore, join a guild etc. Skyrim is all a matter of saying you don't buy all this "Nord Nonsense." Fallout 4 wraps way too much into the MQ including numerous followers. I like Fallout 4, but it doesn't have near the freedom previous Bethesda titles have given you. Maybe it's because I'm more of a TES fan and have a different expectation for a Bethesda rpg.

Funny to see this thread full of moaning F1 F2 Obsidian fans, what a surprise lol

It was a complete sandbox, which is why I love that game the most. I don't know that I would agree the world-building was the best, but that it was simply more unique. Bethesda has always been great at creating very detailed worlds, even in Fallout 4, however I'd argue that Morrowind suffers from the same issues that plague their games as well as Fallout 4 -- namely, the lack of meaningful dialog, the lack of choices and consequences, little reaction from the world outside of the MQ, detailed and well written NPCs, ect. These are things I've been harping on for over a decade lol. It's something I want to see more improvement from in their later releases, which is why I continue to make these points.

It may not be much use convincing the members here of that, although I would agree, and it seems many others agree as well. Even the positive reviews on Steam mention these shortcomings.

I can't fathom wanting to improve a game by simply saying there is nothing or very little wrong with it. It simply helps no one. I really enjoy Fallout 4, but I see a lot of potential. I don't want them to simply copy & paste from Fallout 1 or 2 or even New Vegas. I simply want them to include elements from those games that made those games stand-out and even expand and improve upon those same ideas, adding a bunch of their own and taking the series to the next level. I don't see anything wrong with that at all.

I don't really see the correlation between the two franchises. The focuses of each are entirely different. While Fallout 3 and 4 are more sandboxy than the originals, they are still very much less sandboxy than any of the TES games. Furthermore, while the combat in Fallout 4 was very improved upon, it would have no use in TES, where I think the combat in Skyrim was their biggest improvement. The same may be true for the dialog wheel. And while they may incorporate a dialog wheel or voice dialog in TES VI, I think it will much more different from Fallout 4, not simply due to improvement, but rather due to the difference in design goals and outcomes.

It's better to compare the improvements in their own respected franchises because I really don't see any cross-over whatsoever, and none of your examples really convince me of that either.

Played all of the main Fallout titles but Fallout 3 is special to me, being my favorite in the series. Fallout 4 disappointed me. I do enjoy it and I am looking forward to Survival mode, but it is a major letdown In many regards.

Either you're insane or you're a liar.

Just look at the design of Fallout 2 and Fallout 3.

I'm inclined to agree with the NMA guy, which is probably just as surprising for him (apologies if you're a her) as it is for me.

Fallout has changed dramatically since Bethesda got the rights to it.

mmmmuuuuaha level 100something robotic expert, it was a jolly stroll and i was whistling a happy tune all along )

I liked it. Robot customization is dope and i love the mechanists lair, we need a couple more costumes to make the unstoppables. I just wish we could fast travel to it like railroad hq. The only thing that disappointed me was the weapons, one cool gun the assaultron blade, the saw and a robot head. Out of all the guns in the game who wants a crappier laser musket in the form of a head as a gun? Other then that great DLC

The differences between Fallout 2 and Fallout 4 are much more clear than from Fallout 3 and Fallout 4, even barring the perspective differences. And Fallout 2 was even a large departure from Fallout 1 in many ways. The point I would like to make is that these changes are inevitable when games change hands among developers. I don't see a problem with Bethesda's vision for Fallout, but there are things which I've enumerated above which I think could use some significant improvement.

It wouldn't hurt the series at all, and I don't see how anyone could argue that. It would help the series. Bethesda is adamant on a first-person/real-time gameplay, and I'm fine with that, but it couldn't hurt the series, and I think all players could appreciate better dialog, story, world reactivity, and player choices affecting the game-world.

lol, I'm an NMA guy too actually, but I don't hate Bethesda's games or even Fallout 4. I quite like their style, but it could use some work, which is the same for mostly any game or series. Even Fallout 1 could use some work, and Fallout 2 didn't improve some of the negative aspects of the first-game, but seemed to accentuate more of them, especially the poor-turn based combat, which could have used an over-haul in the second game, along with the poor AI. It may have been due to technological limitations, but then again, I think even SSI did it better.

So you hated Lonesome Road then? This DLC locks you into a linear multi hour trek drive.

I like it. If anything, I was quite surprised by it. The robot customization is far more extensive than I would have imagined. The possibilities for robot companions you can create are endless.


That alone I think is worth $5. On top of that with the added new weapons and armor, enemy types, quests, new dungeons, that's another solid $5.


I'm quite pleased at what I am given for the price. Even more so since it was actually only $5 with the season pass anyway.


But I'm going off topic, this is the Bethesda vs. Fallout thread or whatever. Bah, this thread svcked anyway from the moment it's creator posted it and never came back.

There is no "supposed to be" -- that's just flipping over your cards in the middle of the hand.

There is what it was, what it is, and what we would individually prefer. Yes, it's messy, but that's life.

NV is my favourite game of all time. Maybe Skyrim is a tie. But this one just might overtake them both by the time it's officially wrapped.

At least for now.

This is past post limit.