Aww man, i still remember when people hated on fallout 2 for all the ridiculous nonsensical things it did to the setting and story.

This whole discussion is way older than fallout 3, at this point i just find it confusing the longer it trods on.

Fallout 3's 200 year jump without cultural and technological advancement is nothing against the american (non native, mind you) anolphabetic mysticism practicing tribes that had formed/de-evolved from the fo1 lone wanderer's heritage at the start of fo2.

The introduction of androids in fo3 was only a small step after the intoduction of sentient independant movable robots in fo2, not to forget the talking death claw.

Not to mention that i see no problem finding pre-war food 200 years after the war, when i already found some 80 years after the war.

So yes, tell me how coherent and more well thought out the fallout universe was, before bethesda touched it (spoiler, it was always goofy. And not as "sacred" as some argue.)

Also, the people claiming fallout 1 and 2 had dark gritty humor unlike the bethesda games, were probably laughing more at the vault dwellers getting minigunned in the original intros, instead of laughing at the vault tech/pip boy safety instructions. Shame on you!

About 70 hours in Oblivion maybe about 5 in Morrowind.

I think the design philosophy is good. However, I do think some things should always be a core part of each game.

I think Fallout should always keep SPECIAL, Skills, Perks, and VATS, but their effectiveness in game should be improved upon. My only complaint with perks in Fallout 3 was that quite a few of them just added more skill points rather than being a special perk.

*chuckles* I know right, so convenient that when he was praising Fallout 1 & 2 writing is was somehow a fact but when I say something about them it's suddenly a opinion, a "bad" one at that.

You should play a bit more of Morrowind and Daggerfall, since when you're navigating through endless and samey randomly generated scenery in Daggerfall or having your characters lifetime of training with long blades amount to losing a battle with a giant rat, It should be obvious that the games are not a simple rehash of what came before. That they try their hardest to innovate and incorporate feedback, and that the many years of development time is not a smokescreen for them copy and pasting everything.

The best part is the stories of the first and third are pretty much the same thing.

Big evil man wants to kill most of the population to make the world "more pure". They are both computers even.

But one is better because it was made over a decade ago, by a company who couldn't afford to stay in business despite putting out these prime examples of good writing.

/s

1 I never said Bethesda hasn't implemented new ideas, what I said was: "I don't think you or Bethesda would descend to the fatuity that their core ideas can't be improved upon?".Yet Bethesda has retained a staple of ideas, or "sacred pillars" in the words of Pete Hines.

2 We are talking about "sacred" ideas, it's EXACTLY religious.That's the point Pete Hines is making, that Bethesda doesn't (purportedly) consider any ideas sacred and they don't have a religious fever that an ideas has to be in a game.

It's a simple anology, what makes Bethesda's core ideas sacred is their continued veneration, were Bethesda can't make an RPG without them.

If these ideas weren't used or relevant they would no longer be sacred. Insert the Mohammed and Horus anology.

3 'If someone tells me that I've hurt their feelings, I say, "Well I'm still waiting to hear what your point is"'. - Christopher Hitchens

You stated your opinions on Fallout 1 and 2. You didn't correct [censored].

You didn't correct me just now either, you brought up two completely separate games from my post. Who said I was giving 1 and 2 a free pass? I DO think they're good games, but they are save the world.

Hell, I never said "save the world" was even a BAD thing. I like it in Oblivion, its fine.

The ONLY negative thing I said was they could have done something more dire than a water purifier.

"Getting proven incorrect". What a load of crap. You need to accept that people have different tastes than you. "I DONT LIKE THE ORIGINALS. THEREFORE, THEY WERE OBJECTIVELY BAS GAMES BECAUSE I THINK SO."

That's an exaggeration but that's the attitude I get from you. Well it just so happens that many people think otherwise.

Sacred pillars, as Pete described them, are things that simply HAVE to be in the game "because", and are decided from the get go. As I said before, Bethesda is willing to test everything, and throw out anything. They have the features they do in every game not because they are decided upon as sacred pillars, but because they are still fun in every game they make. So again, they DON'T qualify as sacred pillars by Pete's definition.

No, its not. And its obviously not in the way Pete used the word. He was by no mean implying that gameplay mechanics were anywhere close to the same level as actual religious belief.

For someone so entrenched in his thesaurus, you don't seem to really understand what people are saying a lot of the time.

This is complete flummadiddle, there would be no "Master race" if he killed most of the population.He doesn't want to kill he wants to CONVERT, to change, to mutate.

"The Unity will bring about the master race. Master Master! One able to survive, or even thrive, in the wasteland. As long as there will be differences, we will tear ourselves apart fighting each other. We need one race! Race! Race! One goal! Goal! Goal! One people... to move forward to our destiny. Destiny." - The Master

Also Interplay was under new and completely inept ownership when they went out of business, as if that's even relevant.

Great games don't become bad because of poor finances after their release .

I should have used the term change then.

Eden wants to change them to dead people and the master wants them to be mutants. Hole plugged.

They both want to get rid of what the consider impure. Same basic plot, save the way they intend to get it done.

I'm not sure how picking at word usage is relevant. It doesn't do the plot any favors.

Both are equally cheesy, but at least in 3 I can follow a man vs nature plot.

&rogue, I would correct to you but you might think I have a crush on you or something equally stupid. I never claimed the first two are bad games, so I'm not quite sure where you pulled that out of.

They just weren't as good as 3. You can go check the meta critic score if you'd like.

Again you fail to comprehend the point, what makes these ideas sacred is their continued use over such a protracted period of time.Bethesda tests "everything" (fan of hyperbole I see) and yet sticks to a lot of the same things, across a fulsome of games and years.

Bethesda may say it's because they are "fun", but it's ultimately because they don't want to remove them at all.Much in the same way that exponents of any sacred idea will give excuses for the continued existence, religious or otherwise.

The fact Bethesda keeps using these ideas is what makes them sacred, again referencing the point about Mohammed being sacred while Horus or Thor is not.

My cycle was Oblivion - "This is kinda cool, but not my all-time favorite"... Fallout 3- "Way freakin cool, definitely my new favorite!"... Fallout New Vegas - "Hot damn, even better than F3!"... Skyrim - "Pretty cool, better than Oblivion, but not even in the class of the Fallout games other than the cool new environment".

The most prevalent core principal is the way combat and exploration is handled.

First person RPG is kind of their thing, because it sells well. Changing other aspects is a great idea but you're either turned based (which has very little market interest), third person, or first person.

You can do the latter 2 already, and turn based to a lesser extent through vats.

Going all out turn based would be a great way to make a bad game. You can pick at them refusing to change that, but abandoning that would have them go the way of interplay.

1 By that logic every antagonist in every plot ever has hankered for change of some sort, rendering your point totally vacuous.

2 Again this is erroneous, the Master doesn't care about xenophobic notions of purity, he only cares about what will work and the humanity hasn't proved so as instantiated by the great war.

3 Read my previous point...

4 A Man vs Nature plot?

5 By that non sequitur no Fallout game is as good as Grand Theft Auto 4 or 5...

[Citation needed]. Their willingness to make games like Redguard and Fallout Shelter disproves this idea.

That not what defines something as sacred, nor was it how Pete was using the word.

Sacred gameplay pillars are ones that are kept around simply because the game has always had them, regardless of if they are fun, good, or beneficial to the game. Keeping something around because it IS fun and working, and not simply because the past games had them isn't the same.

And that is ultimately why your argument is fallacious.

Have you ever considered that maybe they aren't?

If anything it was Interplay abandoning Turn based gameplay that eventuated in their downfall, with FO:BOS largely killing them off — which was real-time.

As I've said before, Turn-based gameplay isn't the death of games.It's only the death of developers ultimately or significantly impelled by cupidity.

No, by that logic the plots of the stories are eerily similar. Both villains find humanity impure and wish to change that.

Both are computers who were formally just "normal". Eden came to the realization that humanity had to be purged, and the master came to the realization that it had to evolve. Both give you a 10 minute speech detailing how and why they are accomplishing their goal.

They are everything but exact copies of each other.

And man vs nature is done in 3 because you can simply wander around and survive. You know what man vs nature is I assume?

And yes, no fallout game is as good as GTA 5. In capitalism, (our society) what sells is what's good. GTA 5 sold ~50 million copies. I'm not sure if that counts steam since they don't show information, but if no that number is when higher.

Going turn based would make a game this large a commercial flop. It can work for smaller projects but not for triple A games. There is too much money poured in and the interest isn't big enough.

You can claim one can't speak for the entire market, but who's making a triple A turn based game currently? If the potential for money was there, people would be making them.

What sells is what's good? Think about that statement.

Bethesda doesn't do open-world RPGs because of sales. If it was about money, there are easier and more profitable alternatives.

Like?

They would have to invent a new IP and hope it's as well received as TES or FO. That's easier than what they are doing now?

Right now they release a game every few years and they crush the industry. Abandoning that to follow another model would be a lot more difficult and risky.

Considering they make what they want, do you think maybe they just like those aspects?

Just because something isn't a "sacred pillar" doesn't mean it can't make it to the next games. This is stuff that you can point to many open-world games and say.

Those things are not "sacred pillars," but are things the developers want to include because they enjoy them, or because they have reasoned them to be necessary for achieving some end.

Pete is talking about things developers believe necessary without reason; e.g, "Our last game had this, so our current game must have it too."

Like working in another, more profitable industry.

You don't make games if you're after the really big money. Work with money itself.

1 It's simple psychology, if you're really curious look up self-serving motivated reasoning or approximate and ultimate causality and yes they ultimately don't want to or at least haven't wanted to do based on precedent.If anything Fallout shelter proves my point, they'll gladly experiment on smaller game but when comes to something of a greater scope they are instantly rest upon their sacred pillars.

Also to use a spin-off to try confute my point shows that you care only about winning an argument, and not about the matter discussed ( as is the case with sophists).

2 Never said it was, but in this peculiar case it's a significant factor.

3 To keep sacred ideas in itself is to the purported benefit of the game, at the fear of a lesser game without these "icons".Much like Bethesda's usage of Super mutants, BOS and the Enclave in Fallout 3.That's a self-refuting statement and you probably should have noticed it before you posted.

An idea can be sacred and have benefits, that's what anyone of faith has to believe (10 commandments anyone).Again spot the anology, and I won't apologies if even the most fugacious of references to religion disgusts you.I'll spell it out before you become strident, sacred ideas religious or not can have benefits, I merely used religion to illustrate it as it's the most obvious example of what is considered sacred.

5 Fallout 3?

If anything I'm too critical of Fallout 3, my argument is that metacritic isn't an objective metric, if it were GTA V would be the best game of all time.

Basing the quality of Fallout 1 and 2 on this scale is asinine, the same scale that Fallout 3's DLC fails to reach an 85 on.

Can anyone provide proof that BGS contemplates main series non-spin-off canon games, that don't have the precepts that I've mentioned such as an open world, player freedom being their absolute priority and a world of interactive objects?

BGS may consider these elements fun, but they ultimately don't think they can make a main-series FO or TES game without them and there's nothing to suggest they would make a main-series game without them.