Morrowind was my first Bethesda game. I love it so much!

I read the forums during the build up to Skyrim. The same stuff happened there.

Bethesda will not put the same game out twice. What I mean by that is that every one of the TES games has new systems. Now same thing with their second Fallout they developed.

I personally think that they themselves like trying new things. I also think they want to make the games as simple as possible to cater to as wide an audiance as possible. I believe they must think if their systems are too complicated then they wont sell well. Seeing as Morrowind sold less than Oblivion sold less Skyrim.

I think they need to realize that Morrowind grew fans into Oblivion making more hype into skyrim. Had they refined and not simply gutted whole systems and simplified the rest they would have still sold millions, because they make great games and it shows. That way the older fans would be happier and theyd still get new sales due to the fact they are good at what they do.

That doesnt happen though. If you like something about a Fallout game or a Tes game then sooner or later your going to be dissapointed cause that system you like and hope they improve upon is going to be cut out the next game. Its replacement will probably be kinda the same, but simpler. However their will be some brand new system or systems added, so hopefully it works out in the end.

For some, its fear of the unknown.
For others, the notion that it was fine before.

For more still, this particular franchise has been changed and twisted too much. So much so, that expectations are low. In some of these cases, I don't think there's anything Bethesda could have reasonably done to mitigate this. I understand this concern; it's not unfounded. Though I don't share this opinion.

I've watched games change for some amount of time- as I know others have- so this is how I view this:
Change isn't implicitly bad or good. It is merely potential. Potentially bad or good, sure, but I am a fan of potential itself. Finding things that work, and even that don't, allows progress.
From what i have seen so far, and not being a staunch series purist (even if it is my favorite series), I don't see anything that is a turn off. There are some things that I would have done differently- since change was being made anyway. But I have no fears of disliking this game in any real capacity. I am looking forward to it.

This. It's as if we're expected to be in some sort of circle jerk of praise for everything Bethesda does and any sort criticism or questioning of a certain aspect that has been shown to us is greeted with asinine replies and nonsensical generalizations; the nostalgia goggles one is quite frequent. I understand that some people take it to a whole new level of absurdity and their criticism is far from constructive in the slightest (I.E. "Fallout 4: An Open-World Shooter" thread), but that's not representative of everyone who finds something about what was shown questionable and feels to need to criticize it. Overall, it just comes to show some of those who zealously get defensive at the slightest hint of criticism are no better than those who sometimes criticize in a non-constructive rant.

For me personally, there are numerous changes I am skeptical about, however, these days I'm just too lazy to complain much anymore. Others are able to say what I think needs to be pointed out and I can simply agree with it. And despite all of this, I'm still very interested in Fallout 4. But there is nothing wrong with being skeptical about it and not "SUPER PUMPED BRO".

It's not so much that Bethesda's perfect, and how dare you voice concern. I just find a lot of it disingenuous when people just call the game dumbed down, or deride it for not being New Vegas.

I've seen very little in the way of that. To be frank, the people complaining about criticism have done the least to contribute to the discussion. Most of the concerns I've seen have been about the voiced PC and the skills system. Where does New Vegas factor into this?

I understand your frustration, but really the majority of the folks who voice their concerns have very thoughtful arguments for their viewpoints. You shouldn't let the few malcontents who seem to be against the game simply because it exists get to you.I for one appreciate the folks who voice their concerns in thoughtful, reasonable ways. There are some folks out there though who clearly have nothing constructive to say about the game, it's always going to be garbage because "reasons".

New Vegas is nearly always mentioned in the types of discussions you mentioned. Almost always.

Of course New Vegas will be mentioned, it was the last Fallout game that we've gotten. Fallout 3 worked the exact same way as New Vegas on the skills and dialogue front, so it's an argument that I simply don't buy into. People are not making the comparison to New Vegas specifically, but the old games in the series as a whole. I feel as if some people are very quick to perceive the mention of New Vegas as veiled Bethesda bashing.

The difference for me is that with Fallout 3 one could make a lot of excuses for the design decisions they made and after FNV it seemed like Bethesda may very well be interested in adapting to how a Fallout game should be created rather than trying to just rehash TES with a Fallout paintjob.

Whereas with Fallout 4 it shows quite clearly to me that Bethesda has not a single little clue what Fallout is about and they show zero progress and this time there are no excuses to be made so Bethesda has to stand up to all the scrutiny me and others who feel like me can muster.

The difference is that Fallout 3 gave us a little bit of hope for Fallout's future while Fallout 4 crushed that hope and wiped its ass with it.

But let's put it like this, all of the criticisms I have of Fallout 3 seems to still be present in Fallout 4 and Fallout 4 has a lot of new additions or changes which I find to be detrimental to a Fallout experience. Basically, if Fallout 3 was 26 bad then Fallout 4 looks to be 26 + 18 bad. That's another difference, Fallout 3 is bad, but Fallout 4 looks horrendous.

I'm upset because the changes from 2 to 3 and now 3 to 4 leaves us with some kind of abomination that is wearing a skinsuit of Fallout. But that is not Fallout. I'm upset because the game franchise I love the most is being ruined by people who have no clue what they're doing even after blatantly being told what to do by Obsidian. I'm upset because of all the loose ends and cliffhangers I won't be able to get an answer to because anything made by Bethesda I will consider non-canon. I'll stop being upset when Bethesda stops ruining Fallout.

people always get upset when something they are so used to change even if the chage improves on the original

there are some things i am a worried about true n but i have not played the game yet and neither have them ,

The next best thing you can do is vote with your wallet.

I will.

At least you have principles.

Fallout 4 looks so awesome!!!! Cant wait.

But isn't New Vegas considered by many better than FO3 because of the story, quests and characters?

Something we know little about.

When I saw NV adds and clips for that, I wasn't much impressed as I thought it just looked like a big DLC..

Why would I ask myself an irrelevant question? Ask yourself, if you're a fan of the entire Fallout series, how is this different from Fallout. How far has it spun off. Not to mention Oblivion was incredibly inferior to Morrowind in everything but graphics and character creation.

The complaints somewhat fade away after release likely because there's no point in crying over (someone else's) spilled milk.

Now I'd like to know what's the point of the whole thread. Silence criticism? That seems to be one of the second most favourite past time here.

One of the most repeated things here is something along the lines of "Bethesda now owns Fallout so Bethesda says what's Fallout and if you don't like it, too bad, nobody is forcing you to buy it. Stop coming here and complain". I think that sums up the forums well.

But we do know the quality of writing in Bethesda's last two games, Fallout 3 and Skyrim. And while it's possible that they've improved immensely, it's also possible that Stabby Joe, the guy known for stabbing, isn't going to stab you. But I still wouldn't advise being alone in a room with Stabby Joe.

Except the post I replied to was mainly talking about Bethesda having learnt nothing from New Vegas.

While this maybe true, I just don't see how you can tell based on what's been shown.

I agree. It's a gigantic leap of faith to assume that Bethesda, for the first time in its existence, will produce a well-written video game with Fallout 4. That isn't to say it cannot happen. It's just that it is unlikely to happen.

fascinating detail

alot of these critics are going after bethesda with a almost religious zeal

how can you know that fallout is going fail if nobody of us NOBODY had played it yet

my second point is that alot of people keep forgetting that if bethesda had not taken over the Fallout IP there would not be a fallout any more or in the worse case some diablo clone

third point the original Fallout is almost 20 years old it is pretty unfair to compare 2 games from a complete different time perod tech,ology changes so do social concepts and ideas

ever wondered how the original fallout would look like if the original developers had todays technology

not much different of what we will get now

I'm sorry, but I don't want to rate a game with mods on it. What you said doesn't really make sense.

I have great nostalgia for Oblivion and my first impressions of Skyrim were great. When I got the game, at first I was gobsmacked by the beauty but later on, the beauty was found to be skin deep.

My main complaint about the game is that a lot of quests were just "do this or ignore this". In "Lights Out!", you couldn't tattle to the guards neither could you kill that filthy Argonian. I was constantly railroaded towards doing something that I didn't want to do in order to progress. Other complaints were removing attributes which were "fixed" by a mod, removing spell effects which were "fixed" by a mod and forced quests which were "fixed" by a mod.

All of the faction questlines, except the Dark Brotherhood, had tons of plot holes. But it shouldn't have been like that. At least the College storyline was supposed to be this epic story about time travel, but instead it was "Oh, don't kill Ancano yet!" in every quest until the final one.

Although I suspect Bethesda won't improve their writing to NV standards (although I can see they're trying) that quickly, I remain optimistic that we will have choice and consequence this time round and no railroading a-la Skyrim.

PS. I don't like the argument that Fallout 4 is Skyrim with guns. Fallout 3 was a massive improvement over Oblivion in terms of world building, but the choices were left little to be desired.

A good artist knows when to stop.

And explain this: Why is turning Fallout into a Diablo clone any worse than turning it into an Elder Scrolls clone?

>stop comparing the original game with bethesda version , they are 2 complete different games set in the same universe made by 2 complete different like you said artists

bottom line is that the franchise would have died without bethesda and now it is their game and if they feel they can make a more interesting game than that is their choice , if people do not like it they will not buy it

sure there are some aspects in Fallout i am do not like but i will judge the game AFTER i played the game and icould be well i will even like the voiced protagonist or even that stupid dog