Bethesda wasn't the only contender for the license, just the highest bidder.

Looks like you failed again dark...

Did the nails hurt when they put you up on the cross ? Fallout failed ? How exactly ? Interplay did, for sure. I doubt Fallout was the reason they died - although I'm sure you'll find some that will argue that was the case. If Bethesda didn't buy the licence, Fallout would be in many people's possession - more so with GOG - and be like Wing Commander, a fond memory for a lot, and a recurring one for a good portion. Heh, not being pushed out to market, a fate worse than death.

No smoke without fire.

I presume nothing, your previous comments made it more than clear the scope of your knowledge of events. Unless your brain was taking a holiday at the point you drew up that post, in which case it was just bad timing. I've quoted you, the accusations are there. It is clear you dictated a group of people would be dissatisfied with nothing less, and anything more, than a t and i copy. I pass off facts as opinion, it's very different, if I was to pass off opinion as fact, without the relevant facts to back it, I would be a hypocrite, quote me on that.

The franchise didn't fail. I'll reiterate a certain Interplay manager who's name shall not be mentioned cancelled Van Buren, which lead to the eventual lay off of Black Isle Studios, and the Fallout license put up for sale to the highest bidder. I also wouldn't agree that Bethesda's intervention saved Fallout from any 'backwater' fate. Obsidian, or Troika, or any similar developer would have gladly worked on Fallout 3 had they won the bid for the license. The chances that "FO would be on some back water forum no one visits but the die hard fans" would be slim chances at best.

How many games done in the Icelandic language have you heard of? Does that mean they are no good, from you not hearing of them?
~and some accuse me of grand generalization and loose deduction.

Perhaps not every Joe Schmo was the intended consumer. Would you like to play a custom Hangman game that used esoteric medical terms? does that mean its not great, because you don't like it or can't cut it when you try to play?

The games of which you speak [without reference] are revered by many and acknowledged by most as some of the best out there in the genre.

What you've read is like reading a stripped down translation where the subtlety and double meanings have been lost. Fallout 3's writing and adherence has been panned even by those that love the game. (Its not the really the draw for this title).

So am I , and I can tell you right now that C&C does not mean Command & Conquer here... It means Choice & Consequence.

The tone of some of the posts in the last page or so is starting to erode the thread. Keep on that course and it will end up with a thread lock. Feel free to argue or re-argue, as the case may be, your pros and cons, but watch your posts and don't personalize arguments with snide personal remarks.

Yeah, like Gizmo said - popularity isn't always going to be all that accurate a judgement of quality, when we're talking about videogames. There's plenty of high-quality games out there that never sold well. I thought Beyond Good and Evil was one of the most well-constructed and compelling Adventure games I played on the last generation XBox, but judging from the sales I'd wager there's quite a lot of people that either never of heard of it or don't know much about it. If I mention Starflight, Zork, Pirates!, Xcom, or Ultima to the average gamer they're probably not going to know what I'm talking about - but that doesn't mean those weren't good games just because they didn't sell well by today's standards. (Those of us on the forums might get the references, of course - but just by virtue of posting on a videogame forum sort of means you're of a certain class of Nerd... )

And vice versa - just because everyone knows about a game doesn't mean it's going to be all that good. I'm sure even the most casual gamers generally have heard of Resident Evil 5, but it's not exactly the best game out there.

Lastly - of course there's merit to the original Fallout games. For starters, the first one sold well enough to warrant rushing out another sequel within a year of the first game's release. And let's not forget that Bethesda thought those games were great enough to bid on the license from Interplay and make their own Fallout games. If Fallout 1 and 2 were just average games were destined for oblivion - then why are we now playing a Fallout 3, ten years after those games released?

Not everyone is going to like Fallout 1 and 2. In the same way that not everyone is going to like Fallout 3. There's probably quite a lot of people out there who don't any of the 3. Myself - I happen to like all three games. But I don't like in Fallout 3 all the sames things I enjoyed from the original games. For me, I think that qualifies as a disappointment. I honestly don't see any reason why I shouldn't be able to enjoy all (or even the most crucial) things I enjoyed from the original games along with the additions brought to the table with Fallout 3.

There is zero tolerance for any posting aimed at personally discrediting another member of the forums.

Members may expect to be suspended for disrupting the forums. That is all. This thread is finished.