They do not seem to want to take in any direction towards Fallout. We've seen that; it's perplexing... Why bother buying it in the first place and making a sequel? People have gotten over it, but they can still point at it with disdain. It will always be official, but it will never be right.

*No one here expects them to change it.

In what reality can sacrificing the story you written for the sake of more game-play be justified as a plus? It shows that they don't care about the universe and just because people ask for something doesn't make it right. They should have stuck to their guns. I don't even care about an open ending, it's just the fact that they gave in.

Also stop projecting, not everyone who dislikes Bethesda's direction is an "Old School" Fallout fan for you to take down - I was 5 when Fallout 1 came out.

EDIT: Considering it adds lore for future games then no I am not "golden" because it will still affect future Fallout games; it was a bad choice and strikes of their [censored] attitude towards the universe.

Presumably so they can use the item designs, history and lore, and characters without fear of copyright infringement lawsuits. They didn't want to make a Fallout game in the style of the old ones because that isn't their style of game, they just wanted to make their own style of game within the Fallout universe.

Personally I wouldn't have called it Fallout 3 if I were in their place, I'd have called it just Fallout, to clarify that stylistically at least that this is a reboot of the franchise.

Personal taste, maybe your opinion is they haven't, but obviously in Beth opinion they have taken it in the direction of Fallout, and judging by the sales figures for 3 and the buzz sorounding pre orders for 4, lots of folks share that opinion.

And obviously they haven't honestly fully gotten over it, since if they did they know there is nothing constructive to get from that disdain and could use that energy to just leave the franchise and turn it into passion for another.

They didn't need any of it; they are capable of making their own post-apoc franchise; even one with a twist like fallout's retro 50's setting. To me that's like some one else buying TES for the trappings, and planning an RTS.

I don't think it's anyone's opinion (or that any opinion would matter) ~I think it's easily provable by 1:1 comparisons. That wouldn't change (or justify it) even if I liked it, and did my best to belittle the original game.

One either does or they don't; I don't see that they did.

an elder scrolls rts?.....I would buy that in a heart beat!

Would you buy it [want it done] AS the official Elder Scrolls 6? [Not a spin off title.]

All video games are technically role playing games. You take on a role and play that character. FPS games have migrated from their 'classic' state as well. In the olden days of yore you didn't level or get skill points in fps.. you just got better guns as you progressed through the game world. All things change, evolve, borrow from each other. It's a good way to get lots of people to buy your game.

Notice that people really enjoy vats?.. They don't seem too disappointed that fallout is no longer a turn based game. I would happily play a new fallout turn based game.. but I'm sure if they brought that feature back there'd be a lot of complaints, even though that's what fallout originally was. Bethesda's past games have never fit a mold and they've changed the rules with every new game. It's seemed to work so far.

From what I've seen, they have made the same game for twenty years; cosmetic alterations don't really count as significant changes ~IMO. It's always the same game.

With few refinements and streamlining acts on gameplay (the core remains).

Ultimately its the thought and opinions of the IP owner, so if Beth think they did, they did. Your still free to have a opinion, but ultimately it all it is and Beth have no responsibility to listen to it, nor any responsibility to act upon it.

Mods do not excuse bad design from criticism. You can disagree with people who think it is bad design, but to shrug things off and go "mods will fix it" is inviting a lot of terrible decisions.


That's one of the major strong points in my opinion. The Great War was 200 years ago (more hopefully). The situation of DC made it seem more like 2 years (at least in regards to most settlements, looking at you, Little Lamplight!), and was too washed out in gray, brown, and green tint. It seemed like it was trying to evoke horror at the Wasteland, but it was so bleak I felt the Capital Wasteland wasn't even really worth fighting for, as it was too lifeless and joyless to be worth saving.

Stepping away from the "Grim, serious, and joyless is 'Mature'" fallacy and adding some color, life, and actual signs of progression is a good thing to me. Now if only Warner Bros. would learn to do the same with their comic book movies.

That doesn't chime with reality IMO. People can think they have something right, and it's not.

In the US, in non-incorporated areas, a person can buy a house and they own it. They can [afaik] even change the electrical wiring themselves ~to suit their wish... But that doesn't mean those changes will be right ~or even work.

What does the comment in italics have to do with post-ending play? The quoted comment was referring to the fact that the main story was done, and that followers were added after the fact. Some of those followers ... Charon, Fawkes and RL-3 ... were immune to radiation and could have gone into the water purifier in the players stead, saving the player from dying. But instead of changing the ending or denying the player those followers, they allowed it to happen anyhow which caused the story to break down a little if you happened to have had one those followers.

The quote is from this http://www.1up.com/features/fallout-3-afterthoughts?pager.offset=1.

If it's just a matter of what you consider "artistic integrity", then further discussion on the matter is pointless. I have no desire to take down anyone and for the record I AM one of those old school Fallout players. Sorry if you felt "projected" on....

Ah yeah, forgot what the original context of that interview was. I've referenced it before and knew it was about the ending. But not, as I original said, some weak justification to make DLC. They knew that adding them would make the entire ending to their game redundant before it was realised and still did it anyway - that's actually even worse.

As with all of my game purchases I'd watch gameplay videos of it first to see if I'd like it, but if I did, and assuming at the time I can afford it and have the right platform for it I'd buy it. I'm a big fan of the Kaiserreich mod for Darkest Hour so it might be exactly what I'd like, though I'm not so much a fan of just Darkest Hour itself, I bought it for Kaiserreich after seeing videos of that, not for the regular game itself, so who knows.

Considering that I like Oblivion more than Skyrim in many areas it could well be a blessing in disguise if the franchise otherwise would have continued moving away from what I like since it would now at least be moving towards something else I like.

Well, except that an RTS would be a radical shift in genre. Whereas Fallout 3 was still an RPG, even if it wasn't an RPG in the form you prefer. Different styles within same genre.

The immediate response to anyone bashing Bethesda is to consider them so Old School Fallout fan who hasn't moved on and I don't like being put in that category. Had I not played Oblivion I would likely never have played Fallout.

It's not about the artist to me, it's about the canon and lore of the world. I consider that to be top because it's the basis then of all future games and especially don't like it being sacrificed for minor gameplay additions.

Fallout was never a RPG, it was never played on a tabletop.

There could have been but Bethesda's lawyers took it down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_(role-playing_game)

Personally, I would consider it wrong on too many levels; for it to be an official sequel.

For one thing TES has always been about creating a reactive first person world... That by itself is enough to invalidate an RTS as an official sequel ~IMO.

My choice to mention 'RTS' was arbitrary.
How about use 'RoA' instead.

*'Realms of Arkania'

Not actually so. The Black Isle team would play their designs as a table top game to iron them out.

*Also... Combat in Fallout derives from GURPS. [For Fallout itself was once http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/Gizmojunk001/latest_zpsyrsouz2n.jpg.]
http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/yep_zps1417cd1d.jpg

** And I would call it one of the best RPGs ever made; not better than Planescape ~as an RPG... but a better game.

I cant see why Bethesda going to companies that know how to make shooters in order to fix up their own mechanics is a bad thing. Its in fact the best think I've heard from E3. (gameplay wise). And manual skill over perk skills being the bigger influence on play style is equally a widely needed change imho.

Eh I still feel that Fallout 3 onward were a bit less obtuse and more fun to play than 1 and 2. Not that they were bad games.

To make a better shooter, yes. But that deviates farther and farther from what the Fallout series' inception and reputation entailed; what it was, [and is] supposed to be.