We could compare it to its contemporaries, like Starcraft or Diablo, both of which sold millions of copies. By any stretch of the imagnation, the games were duds.

FO 1 and 2 were huge, streaming piles of [censored], with a ridiculous combat system - when a contemporary game like Diablo managed a much more dynamic and intuitive system that becamse the standard until 1st/3rd person took over - and a long and convoluted plot with lots of potential outcomes, assuming you weren't so bored you gave up and used the CD as a coaster.

We could compare it to its contemporaries, like Starcraft or Diablo, both of which sold millions of copies. By any stretch of the imagnation, the games were duds.

FO 1 and 2 were huge, streaming piles of [censored], with a ridiculous combat system - when a contemporary game like Diablo managed a much more dynamic and intuitive system that becamse the standard until 1st/3rd person took over - and a long and convoluted plot with lots of potential outcomes, assuming you weren't so bored you gave up and used the CD as a coaster.

All of Beth's games are flawed - Morrowind was the worst of the most recent 3 and completely broken - and while its easy to be critical of the unfinised feel of the games, the sheer size of the worlds made it possible for all kinds of errors can get though quality assurance and playtesting unidentified. Both Obivion and FO 3 were much better games. I have no real issues with FO 3 gameplay, and just make all of the weapons a lot more lethal with GECK. As for not maintaining the lore of the original series, who cares, its only a game, not a legal or religious document.

Lets see.

Plan A

Lets make a game using a turn based combat system that we know everybody hates and scrupiously follow the lore of that game. We will make the few thousand peop-le that actually liked fallout 1 and 2 happy but we will go broke because the game will be crap and no one will buy it.

Fallout made #4 on the list of top games of all time produced by PC Gamer in 2001. It made #5 on the IGN list of the top 25 PC games of all time[7], and is usually placed in similar lists. It also won the award of "RPG of the Year" from GameSpot, and has since been inducted into their "Greatest Games of All Time" list.[8] Fallout made #55 on IGN's 2005 top 100 games of all time,[9] and #33 on IGN's 2007 top 100 games of all time.[10] It is notable that all review scores for Fallout are consistently high and none are lower than an eight (out of a maximum of ten), with the only criticism involving its graphics. One notable criticism, however, has passed through the fan base, and that is that while the character creation allows for an extreme amount of variance, some of the skills and optional attributes are useless. Also, the early game can be very difficult for non-combat-oriented characters.

We could compare it to its contemporaries, like Starcraft or Diablo, both of which sold millions of copies. By any stretch of the imagnation, the games were duds.

OK, I have played all three games FO 1, FO 2 and FO 3.

FO 1 and 2 were huge, streaming piles of [censored], with a ridiculous combat system - when a contemporary game like Diablo managed a much more dynamic and intuitive system that becamse the standard until 1st/3rd person took over - and a long and convoluted plot with lots of potential outcomes, assuming you weren't so bored you gave up and used the CD as a coaster.

All of Beth's games are flawed - Morrowind was the worst of the most recent 3 and completely broken - and while its easy to be critical of the unfinised feel of the games, the sheer size of the worlds made it possible for all kinds of errors can get though quality assurance and playtesting unidentified. Both Obivion and FO 3 were much better games. I have no real issues with FO 3 gameplay, and just make all of the weapons a lot more lethal with GECK. As for not maintaining the lore of the original series, who cares, its only a game, not a legal or religious document.

So, you're simply not the target audience of the Fallout games. Now tell me, why should a sequel to Fallout be made to appeal to people who hated the originals? Wouldn't it be better if Bethesda simply created a new post-apocalyptic franchise? It's not as if people who don't like or didn't play FO1 and 2 would care.

Sure, but Beth having a successful marketing department, decided to exploit the name to increase the interest in the game from people who had heard about over the years. Beth is used to people complaining bitterly that their new game svcks compared to the previousl game. If you have been on these forums for any length of time then you would know that The Elder Scrolls Morrowind is the greatest game in the history of the universe. compared to Daggerfall, and Oblivion svcked compared Morrowind. Beth now has the francise, and has decided to rebuild it in the image of its or successful RPGs, knowing that proponents of FO 1&2 would be bitterly opposed.

Companies like Troika and Black Isle go out of business while Beth lives on producing heavily marketed, but flawed and more or less unfinished, products.

Indeed. The original games were so [censored] they have been consistently awareded best game of all time by many reviewers over the years. There is just no argument whatsoever both games were released to wide critical acclaim. That is a FACT.

Its also ironic that X-Com: Enemy Unknown/UFO was also recently nominated best game of all time. These games are all turn based aswell.

Here is the link:

http://pc.ign.com/articles/772/772285p3.html

Ironically, Fallout was ranked 5th. No mention of Fallout 3 in the top 10.

It's really not that surprising that Fallout 3 was not on the Top 10. Nor even the entire list. That list was from 2007.

Oh yes, and oversight by my part. HAS Fallout 3 been awarded best game of all time as of 2009?

Thats an honest question btw.

Best game of all time? What is that, something from MTV? How is anyone supposed to pick the best game of all time? That's like picking the best movie of all time, or the best song of all time, or the best person of all time. It's pointless, meaningless, and impossible.

Best game of all time? What is that, something from MTV? How is anyone supposed to pick the best game of all time? That's like picking the best movie of all time, or the best song of all time, or the best person of all time. It's pointless, meaningless, and impossible.

Not quite totally meaningless to have a game called the Best of all time, usually that moniker is applied to games that are remembered long after their release, like Fallout, Wing Commander, Civ II. The fact that they are remembered speaks a great deal of their quality and you end up with their creators getting stuff like that Game God title PC Gamer used a while back. Can't say alot of games these days will be remembered 10-15 years after their debut, but ah well.

Not quite totally meaningless to have a game called the Best of all time, usually that moniker is applied to games that are remembered long after their release, like Fallout, Wing Commander, Civ II. The fact that they are remembered speaks a great deal of their quality and you end up with their creators getting stuff like that Game God title PC Gamer used a while back. Can't say alot of games these days will be remembered 10-15 years after their debut, but ah well.

Companies like Troika and Black Isle go out of business while Beth lives on producing heavily marketed, but flawed and more or less unfinished, products.

What's sad is those companies get killed because of poor management, while the gaming community SUPPORTS unfinished and distinctly flawed products, and ultimately less interesting games.

The stories those two companies made were interesting, and engaging. Stories now a days are a lot less interesting then they were in RPGs from a decade ago. The only story in a game I've played recently that I found to be really interesting would be FEAR, but that's mainly because of the unexpected ending of the second game. I tell ya, I did NOT see THAT coming.

They attempted to serve a very small market...even back then the RPG market was small. Small customer bases make it even riskier to develop games.

What's sad is those companies get killed because of poor management, while the gaming community SUPPORTS unfinished and distinctly flawed products, and ultimately less interesting games.

Really? Im sure we all have favourite films, games, books, etc. I think that is what they are trying to apply here.

The point is I am refuting an argument that ''everybody hates turn based games and that the first two fallouts were flops''. Thats untrue on every level.

That is all.