Thanks for the info I will keep that in mind. I over exaggerated a bit. Still, when New Vegas is four years old, it would have sold just as much or more than Fallout 3. It was a smash hit just like Fallout 3 and for people to other wise is just foolish.

I agree. Given enough time, New Vegas may outsell Fallout 3's total yet. Wouldn't surpise me at all.

Am I missing something or are you calling Fallout 1 a crap Fallout??

Going by that...

Fallout 1 - Crap
Fallout 2 - Good
Tactics - Crap
Fallout 3 - Good
New Vegas - Crap

If you include the Burned Game...

Fallout 1 - Crap
Fallout 2 - Good
Tactics - Crap
POS - Good
Fallout 3 - Crap------\
New Vegas - Good---(neither of these two outweigh calling the Burned Game good no matter what you think )


EDIT: Yes I know Gabriel means to start with FO3 calling it crap

I mean from now on, not from the start.

The figures tell us nothing since we do not know the extent to which FNV's success was due to FO3's success. How many people bought New Vegas because they enjoyed Fallout 3? I know I did.

MAKE MORE SENSE!

(jk)

I wouldn't say most of them do, search for "Vegas" in Skyrim General Discussion and you'll see that there's a lot of people who will defend Bethesda whenever someone dares to criticize them or Skyrim, and who will trash Obsidian and New Vegas whenever either is mentioned. Some of the complaints these people direct at New Vegas are just ridiculous, such as "it doesn't show instead of tell", as if Bethesda's games aren't guilty of this.

Bethesda isn't really growing as a developer, it says a lot that after buying a franchise which was the polar opposite of what they had released up until that point, that they decided to turn it into a carbon copy of their existing franchise. Bethesda is a one trick pony, this much is obvious, and I don't think encouraging this is good for either Fallout, or the development studio.

Bethesda either has the talent and experience in-house, or has the money to acquire the talent from anywhere ~to be able to make the best Fallout game possible... they do.
(But the best Fallout game possible won't outsell Fallout 3 as they made it). They're not silly; they play with high stakes and make good bets. They will never make a "good Fallout" game [IMO] ; but they will always make a good selling Fallout game.

Wow Gizmo you just made me sad

They are a very rich company, I am sure they can hire great writers and I am sure Obsidian's people are always willing to give advice and help out.

Well, duh. We knew this long before FO3 came out.

I didn't. I had never heard of the company before reading they had leased the license. I bought the Oblivion CE and was very impressed by the engine ~but it never occurred to me that they would clone it straight with just an art change and minor rule cosmetics.

That happened to me too, even though I had played Oblivion before. I honestly didn't expect Fallout 3 to happen the way it did -- not even when they told it was going to be an FPS.

Well aren't you two the optimists of all-time.

It definitely will be interesting to see what road Bethesda takes with FO4: will they make a TES clone, will they look at FO franchise as something that needs a different philosophy or something in between (like FO3). Hope for 2nd option: I may be a big TES fan, but FO is FO and as much as I like FO3 and NV, it is not the road to take.


If I learned one thing here it is that Bethesda can never satisfy critics. If they get close to it, many critics will get delusional and say that game x has stuff it doesn't and new game will never top that (MW fandom).
Also, every player has a different vision of how something needs to be done and that tends to...create troubles.

Bethesda does listen to criticisms tough them handling them is not that successful. Most of OB's faults were created as reply to criticisms towards MW (in that age and time, people were actually rational about that game rather than pretend that it was without faults... or pretending it had stuff it doesn't...) and SR did fix quite some problems from OB (like OB's lore butchering (story was never good in TES, but lore is a different story), ridiculous level-scaling (still better than Amalur's tough... ), trashed computer generated landscapes in order to return to hand-made landscapes, added perks to make up for losing the skill quantity (no, nymph language skill is not useful!), etc.)
FO4 will fix some stuff people criticize about, but there is 0 guarantee that it will not create new problems and people will definitely find something else to criticize and pretend that the old problem was never there so for them nothing was fixed.


Every well-known production company has a number of sales they think will be reached no matter how little they try.
Than they come up with a bigger number that than and they intend to exceed it.

If final sales are around it, the game was alright.
If it is below, the game was bad no matter how much it outsold competition X: what matters is that the spent budget did not return as much money as they wanted (in other words, lose of money), that the future guaranteed sales will be smaller and that they generally failed to reach expectations, both theirs and player's.
If it is above than... well, they are happy to say the least (Skyrim's success).

Selling just because it is labeled TES or Fallout is below expectations and not something that will make the developer happy.


At least for their first Fallout game that is to be expected. Bethesda never did any other kind of RPG but TES-like and jumping immediately into waters they have no experience with might have given us a game much worse than F3... definitely less successful... so they went with proved formula. However, they had quite a few years to work on that so lets hope they took that into consideration and make F4 more different from TES.

Obsidian did a great job in making the Fallout 3 critics happy. There will always be critics but with Fallout 3, it was/is a huge split in the fanbase of fallout. Obsidian did a great job in bridging that huge split. If Bethesda desides to ignore all all the improvements of Fallout New Vegas and goes back to making Fallout 3 level of Fallout. It will just make the fan base more divided and pissed at one another. By the way for those that don't know. Alot of the improvements New Vegas made, were things that were brought back from Fallout and Fallout 2 but completely ignored and left out of Fallout 3.


The only thing that makes developers happy is money. If they can sell a steaming pile of crap and get away with it, they will. If the fan base is blind enough to keep buying their crap over and over again.

I'm curious what features are those. (I haven't really played them in depth yet)

Traits
Damage Threshold
Reputation System
Working Economic System
Ammo weight

Those are just the game mechanics brought back to Fallout with New Vegas. I am sure I might be forgetting some.

Well in terms of the things listed, I can see how people might of seen Fallout 3 a little lacking in RPG respects. I really want Traits to make a comeback in the next game, they make for much more fun character builds.

I didn't really know what Beth was about at that time, I genuinely didn't expect a straight copy of Oblivion with a different paint job.

I like the parallel between fallout and TES. I never really liked the old Fallout games, they weren't deeper, or better written or more fun to play, or more complex IMO. I think that's just something elitist fan boys say, trying to pass off opinion as fact. Despite what any of you may want here's a fact: A return to Fallout's old format would be disastrous for Bethesda, they would lose millions. I doubt they're willing to go through with it for the sake of a couple hundred fan boys who won't be satisfied with the final product anyway.

Edit: fan boys, I said. Is fan boys, censored?

Err, no. They really, really were. I sense somebody who didn't actually play them. Or just a lad who wouldn't know good writing if it bit him on the [censored].

I've played a myriad of games, good writing is just a matter of opinion and in my opinion they were not better than Fallout 3 or NV. By the way why is [censored](fan boys) censored?

Because it's inflammatory and baiting.

You're right thought. Good writing is just a matter of opinion. There's no objective difference between T.S. Elliot and Tom Clancy.

So you're gonna tell me that Fallout 1's storyline is worse than Fallout 3's, Skyrims or Oblivions?
At least it didn't pull an "end of the world card" out if it's ass. (It didn't Unity was not the end of the world, just progress for a new, better world. (In Master's eyes))
I mean Oblivion? It had a god that just wants to wreck [censored].
Skyrim? It had a dragon-god thingie that wants to kill off all humans cause it thinks it's the master race.
And Fallout 3? It had a dead faction brought back to life and in increased numbers just so that it could pull the same trick as in Fallout 2 only in a far less practical way.