https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw-sJW8mlMA

A 32 minute opinion piece about a man who hates a company.

Quote: Like their games, Bethesda's understanding of the Fallout franchise only goes surface deep.

I'm also not saying that Bethesda games aren't or can't be fun, just saying that they are fundamentally incapable of making a good Fallout game, and that they make very shallow RPGs as a whole. It's fine to like shallow things if they bring plenty of enjoyment. But it's less fine to mistake them for being something they're not. And even less fine than that to have an industry that's been deceived into thinking that this is the only way to make open world Action RPGs.

He's basically saying "It's fun, but it's the wrong type of fun." So about as nonsensical as you would think.

Also the amount of fedora-tipping in the comments is giving me a headache. These people act like they're the only smart people in the entire world. "People gave Fallout 3 too many high reviews because they never played a true RPG before."

It's not his type of fun and that is actually totally fine. The problem lies in the declaring that people who have fun with Bethesda games as not intelligent or uneducated.

This writes a guy who loves FO1, FO2, Tactics, FO3 & NV all for different reasons (and hopefully FO4 soon too).

Ahahahahhahah...... good laugh.

So basically one of those clowns that think the game should be a top down RTS?

Yeah, go and b itch about Fallout 3, that makes you so hip and cool.

Fallout 3 was my first Fallout and I have since obtained the original three as well as NV. I have to say though, the first two are BORING, and this is coming from a guy who used to play ROTK 7 for hours on end.

I wish I was capable of the mental gymnastics required to make some of those statements.

Those guys must just be a blast to be around.

So basically, he's saying: "I hate the Fallout series, so I'm going to ruin that pleasure for everyone who does!"

I do wonder what his opinion on The Burned Game is? Considering that was made under the eyes of the original IP holder.

Or does he gloss over that little factoid? Or the sales figures for Fallout 3? Or the expected figures for Fallout 4?

The same dumb BU-BU-BUT MUH GURPS! arguments as seen before eh?

Lets ignore the fact that even Interplay/Black Isle said in their original design doc that GURPS was just a base, and that they were willing to change any part of it they needed to in order to make the game fun.

Problem is as well, all stuff like this does is just reinforce the stereotype of the old rabid Fallout fans being unable and unwilling to accept Bethesda's efforts because the games don't have Black Isle/Interplay logos on them.

The comments aren't helping either side either.

I don't care much for the first 2. I'll take 3 and NV over them anyday.

It's possible to enjoy all of the Fallout games, for different reasons. Bethesda's Fallout games don't do everything I liked about the original games, but then there's some beat things that Bethesda brings to the table that the originals didn't.

Of course it's possible to enjoy one and not the other. That's fine too.

And then there's people who are essentially the gaming equivalent of a wine snob...

Let's also keep in mind all the original designers who, under no duress whatsoever, have consistently spoken well of Beth's Fallout games (I am absolutely sure that there has been some glossing, some courtesy and probably some outright BS there, of course).

I think it's the gameplay personally, it's just so freaking slow.

The first two Fallout games actually let you increase the combat speed, if that's your issue. I think they're actually pretty fast paced compared to other turn based RPGs with the combat speed set to max.

Hmm,,,

Fallout (Turn-based RPG)

Fallout 2 (Turn-based RPG)

Fallout Tactics (Turn-based Strategy)

Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel (Shooter thingy)

Fallout 3 (Sandbox RPG)

Fallout: New Vegas (Sandbox RPG)

Fallout 4 (Sandbox RPG)

Something for everyone, right?

Also, does majority rule?

My silly dream is that the first three be remade into sandbox games while the last three remade into TB RPGs. Wouldn't it be neat to have two concurrent series.

Really? I'll look into that. Most of my turn based experience comes from JRG's, maybe that;s coloring my experience?

The problem is that gamers, like myself, often get very attached to a game and they personally like specific things in that game, things that maybe some other fan of the game dont even notice. And in their eyes, true sequel to that game is what builds on the things they personally liked and thought to be important. But, the game creators, the guys who spent years thinking about it and creating it, may have totally different "feel" of what the game is all about and what the sequel needs to be.

At the end, the game is just a product and the one owning the rights to it will decide how the story goes forward. It really does not matter what we, the fans, think the game deserves.

I do personally have my doubts that Bethesda will ever make a Fallout game that embodies what I want out of the series. But I'm gonna play Fallout 4 and enjoy it because it will be good anyway. So, whatever, man.

I've felt it hard, I utterly hate Bioshock Infinite.

I must admit that was a surprisingly good anolysis. For a moment I thought it was going to be a run-of-the-mill unfounded rant from a Bethesda hater cashing in on the FO4 notoriety. Anyways, maybe this explains why I enjoyed NV more than FO3 which I found shallow. But on the defence of Bethesda, they have managed to create their own "Fallout" which has appealed and have brought to so many people of different backgrounds a new experience. Whether this experience is shallow or deep is really meaningless in the end if everyone is having fun.

In a perfect world that would be viable, and it would work... it's certainly a nice dream. I'm in a position that I can enjoy all of the Fallout RPGs regardless of what type they are, so I'm fine, but yeah it would be nice for the people who can't bring themselves to enjoy the first two, or the latter three because they don't like that particular type of RPG.

For my part the only Fallout games I haven't really liked are the spinoffs: Tactics, Brotherhood of Steel, and Shelter.

Basically this.

My best friend, a girl who lives across the street, wouldn't have been talking as much as we do now if not for Fallout as it is now. It brings people together.

I don't see the argument that "They've stopped appealing to actually intelligent people such as myself" to be really all the viable.