That's part of the problem. Want. Don't Want.

What happened to happy acceptance and dealing with it?

Further, your wants, or, your don't wants are entirely subjective, and may not be a reflection of the majority experience.

How then can everybody be happy?

Mods.

Bethesda isn't ever going to be able to please everyone all the time. No one can, and, it would be a black hole for money if Bethesda created a dev team to address and resolve every trifling little want, need, or perceived desire from every spoiled little 12 year old fan boy snowflake with an over inflated sense of self worth and entitlement about their wants and needs.

Thus, mods.

You want super hard core realism? There's a mod for that.

You want a gun that kills everything with one shot? There's a mod for that.

You don't like the way the UI looks? There's a mod for that.

You don't like the new Perk system? There will be a mod for that changing it back to the old Skills system.

You don't like the companions? There will be mods for that.

You want My Little Pony in your game? There's a mod for that - https://youtu.be/mtDSw-eppBg

Any problem you might think you want to have, there will be a mod for it.

Mods are part of the game.

The game is designed for mods with modding in mind.

How can anyone be happy with a fallout game that the gameing press is going around saying

seriously the guys at Beth need to realise that a few months from now people will be complaining that you lied to them when you said you can make a spaceship in Fallout 4 when they were talking about minecraft

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/fallout-4-base-customization-will-have-more-option/1100-6429227/

That's silly. You can compare art no matter what the separation in time or style. I can compare Picasso with Rockwell with Da Vinci. I can compare Star Wars Episode IV (A New Hope) with Star Wars Episode VII (The Force Awakens). In fact, if people want to carry on a franchise they espouse to be fans of, they invite comparison to the work they're continuing. Star Trek Into Darkness is a bad movie on pretty much every conceivable level. It's script is a mess, the villain's identity is masked behind a twist that serves no purpose in the narrative, the villain's character changes to whatever it needs to be in that particular instance, and all of the other main characters are right back where they were at the start of the reboot in terms of character development. But what makes it a true cinematic abomination is that it has the audacity to call itself Star Trek. Sure, it's displaced temporally from the original series by decades, but that series still means something in popular culture, and to take that name and those characters, gut them, and wear their skin as a macabre suit to get dollars from people who want to see that series continue is awful. More recently, Jurassic World revived an old IP to shake millions of dollars out of moviegoers. The film is awful and deserves to be hanged by a noose made out of the very same nostalgia that is the only reason the movie even exists.

Now, my connection to the first two Fallout games are not strong enough, nor do I think Bethesda's Fallout games are bad enough, to quite be at that level, but look at the garbage Atari has been shoveling out lately. Look what they did to Asteroids for God's sake. Asteroids! Asteroids: Outpost is a game that has absolutely nothing in common with the namesake it so callously draqes itself in, like a burglar wearing your great grandfather's skin to ask you for money. Are you honestly going to look at the catalogue of crap that Atari wants you to pay actual money, cynically cashing in on name recognition, and tell me that you can't compare the games that are coming out now with the games that came out earlier in the series because it's somehow "unfair?"

You're damn right I'll compare games that come out today with games that came out in the past, just like I'll compare them with games that came out this year. Especially if they are part of the same franchise. Why? Because I don't have the attention span of a goldfish, so I don't have to act like a game coming out this year can't be compared to something that came out in the past because people don't think it's fair for completely arbitrary reasons. Neither me, nor theses games, exist in a vacuum, especially the ones that are part of a franchise, even if the IP has changed hands.

For the record, just because I find a later game in the series to be worse than its predecessor isn't synonymous with "bad." I still think that Final Fantasy VI is the apex of the series, but I still think most of the games that came afterwards are still good, and even those that I'm not fond of I can typically find something praiseworthy.

The game industry and Fallout has changed (for the better i think)

Some people just find it hard to accept it ....

And are being nostalgic to the "old days when the grass was greener" .

We'll never know.

It could have. And it might've not had. It could've also been that one of the recent Kickstarters by InXile or Obsidian was a Fallout game; had the IP been available (and Beth fans would've been none the wiser with what ever Todd would've cooked up instead).

It's called Fallout and they make it look like it's not a spin-off, therefore I will compare it to Fallout. It's not my fault BGS's creative capacity is insufficient to make their own universe.

I said that? Where? Certainly not in my previous post.

i cpuld argue you on that , but i understand your point

what i meant is that the era has changed the original fallout was designed in a era of post coldwar euphoria and it shows

second gaming has evolved aswell from a niche hobby to a multi billion mainstream industry that caters for a ever expanding gamer audience

if they try to keep on the same formula as the original game with the same original ausience they will eventually falter and i know you understand that aswell

what i am upset about is that people are already judging this game before they even played it all because people do not like change even if the changes are a improvement and i do not know if they are a improvement maybe they are maybe they not i will see if i play the game

Some people think it has improved (the majority)

Others think it degradated to a shooter. (the minority)

Everybody has his own taste, and like i said before the hardcoe fans are being nostalgic to the old days .

But the game industry has changed, and so did Fallout.

Nothing weird about that, it's like evolution, but with games.

But some people can't accept that .....

So what if times have changed or the number of customers has grown? That shouldn't be used as a shield against criticism for not being as good as what came before.

I'm not advocating staying the same for the sake of staying the same. But changing for the sake of changing isn't good either. Look what happened when the game industry decided that RPGs, Survival Horror, and single player games weren't popular anymore and suddenly stopped making them. Games that had been those suddenly started tacking on elements from other genres or play styles to try and fit in with the "popular" model, losing what had made them successful in the past.

A growing number of potential customers doesn't justify the changes either, because the number of potential customers was and still is theoretically "all the people on the planet." But the idea of reaching a "wide audience" has caused games to shoot themselves in the foot in an attempt at "mass appeal," ironically creating a game that doesn't really appeal to anyone because it doesn't know what it wants to do. To use Final Fantasy as an example, Final Fantasy XIII was intended to "fix" Square Enix's model of JRPGs because the industry had suddenly decided those didn't sell, and the result was a trilogy of games that was constantly trying to reinvent its combat system to some weird marriage of live combat and turn based battles that didn't gel, failing to capture new fans and alienating old ones. Then, Bravely Default came along and did a good job, and Square Enix suddenly realized that JRPGs, the very genre that turned it into a name, still worked, and they said they were going to go back to it. But without any evidence they suddenly decided they had to change, and it didn't work. Because Final Fantasy was fine. It didn't need to change. It needed to be Final Fantasy. And I think the fans of the original games would say that Fallout didn't need to become TES to survive either.

I'm interested in seeing your numbers.

Also, don't forget that what you call evolution can still lead to a dead end.

I can accept a lot of things. Trying to dismiss concerns in design as just being nostalgic is not one of them. If you have an actual argument for why this system is better, by all means, give it.

1.Just the same people from this forum writing the same things "bethesda is evul" "they ruined fallout!!!" while the others trying to convince them otherwise. (look at this thread and count the people who say those things and the others)

I think the likes and dislikes on the youtube videos say enough......

2.How exactly explain pls.

3.Better graphics,better gameplay,bigger world, good atmosphere, more things you can craft, building your own village .... i could go on.

Ps: Also a bigger fanbase

By the way, mods should not be used as an argument to excuse a developers design decisions and not everything can be fixed or altered with mods. If it could I would've modded FNV and FO3 to be exactly like the older games. But even if I could mod the games heavily to the point that they were exactly like the older games that doesn't make it a valid argument, because the version of FO3/FNV that I'm playing is different from other people's versions and so I'm excluded from the discussions of canonity(?) and official content.

Mods are not an argument in favor of Bethesda or any development studio for that matter. Hell, saying that mods are a valid argument is just as well as admitting that the game is so messed up that mods are a necessity. If a game necessitates mods then the quality of the game is highly debatable.

Mods are icing on a cake, or a cherry on top. It should not be the foundation. And it should definitely not be used as an excuse for why the cake now resembles a mountain dew and doritos lunchpack. Oh I'm sure I can cover up a lot of the mountain dew and doritos with mods (icing) but it doesn't change the fact that when I pick a slice and bite down into it I'm going to get a mouthful of mountain dew and doritos. [edit] And to further this anology with hefty does of bitterness: And while people may enjoy mountain dew and doritos it doesn't mean that it is a cake and considering that this is the next instalment in a series of cakes I'm expecting and demanding a cake not mountain dew and doritos.

TLDR

Mods should be a neat addition to an already great game. Not a necessity to fix or restructure it entirely to resemble its predecessors (if that is even feasible/possible at that point).

Good, good. Let the hate flow through you!

I'm clogged up, too much hate and bitterness. I'm feeling quite bloated.

The Old Guard are set in their ways.

Fallout 4 looks to me and many others to be the best Fallout yet.

You speak the truth. Some people just hate bethesda no matter what.

Bethesda saved the fallout series, and all those people do are complain.

They havent even played f4, yet its terrible. They are clueless

People were upset about Fallout 4 while it was a rumor (Boston? BOSTON?!?!?!?! How DARE THEY!!!!). Upset just before it was announced (y u mayk us w8), then upset after it was announced (the graphics are terrible... TERR-UH-BULL!!!!). Now they're upset every time we get a new tidbit of information (I have to start this game married?! With a BABY?!?!). They'll be upset when the game comes out and then upset after.

You watch.

Somebody will come around 1 second after the game launches, driving the bandwagon, screaming stupid phrases that everybody (everybody!) will repeat just because it's fun for them to be on a bandwagon.

"Unfinished game!"

"Not beta testers!"

"How dare Bethesda !"

It's going to be a jolly good time on these boards in the first few months after this game launches... I'm kind of looking forward to that alone!

1. Hate is not always unfounded.

2. If Bethesda had not bought Fallout there were others who would've. So Bethesda "saved" Fallout? Not really. Take Bethesda out of the equation and you had like 3 other companies next in line to buy it.

3. I can judge what something is going to be like by what I've seen of it and compare it to the predecessors. Do I know 100%? Of course not, but I know enough to be very cautious and I know enough to know I do not like the direction it is going. Besides, I'm not saying Fallout 4 is going to be a bad game. Far from it. If Fallout 4 didn't call itself "Fallout" I'd probably be quite interested in it. However I'm not going to judge Fallout 4 as a game on its own merits, not this time. I'm judging it as a sequel and as a sequel it looks like trash to me. It looks like a fun game but a very poor sequel. And considering I'm a fan of the series I'm going to treat it as a sequel. And I have seen of the footage and the details they've given us it seems far more like a re-iteration of Fallout. Not a reboot, considering the "4" at the end of the title, but they are reiterating what Fallout is. And that iteration is not what I fell in love with 16 years ago.

In regards to mods, if mods being a valid excuse for a game's downfalls isn't an absurd enough line of thought as it is, folk don't seem to realize there is an entire other half of the consumer base they need to appeal to on console who do not have access to mods. That isn't the case no longer obviously, but it was for many years and people still used modding as an excuse for when one aspect of the game was heavily flawed.

Even more so, who knows how modding on console will end up, and what limitations there will be. Because oh boy, there will surely be limitations if they think a console is going to try to run mods. This coming from someone who plays extensively on both PC and console, before you start tooting your own horn.

This isn't random. Any changes that directly contradict the intent of the series game are going to be a problem; and any changes don't, and expand upon the series gameplay shouldn't be an issue. [doesn't mean they won't be ~but they shouldn't be.]

Agreed. That's a fairly likely outcome.

This happened with FO3, due to it trying to be two different games at once for two different audiences.

The catchphrase was "SPORK!"
(And not undeserved IMO.)

Not "no matter what". They could've projected their efforts and enthusiasm more on things those "some people" appreciate - and even without sacrificing much of their own staple flare; but they didn't.

Saved it from whom or what; and in what manner?

After reading "hate isnt always unfounded" against bethesda. Well that is exactly my point. You are blinded by your hate. No matter how great a game is, if you see bethesda its terrible.

Yes bethesda saved the fallout series after your favorite company destroyed it beyond belief.

F3 and nv are the best games ive ever played (f1 and f2 tied for second best)


And bethesda gets exactly what fallout is. I first played fallout almost 20 years ago and when i played f3 i was overjoyed. My favorite series survived and came back stronger than ever.

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/5/5b/Herve_Caen.jpg/revision/20130324143547

This is sort of what I am talking about. I know you can have an idea of how something will be based on information but you really shouldn't make a final judgement either for or against the game when you haven't even at least seen the game played in full, with no presentations. That being said you don't HAVE to try the game or even like the series ever again. But I'd ask you to at least give it a chance since you've been a longtime fan.

Like I said before, every time there's hate for the release and then every time a majority of the complainers/complaints die out after release. It's kind of a ridiculous cycle that should be broken.

In the manner of head amputation and subsequent life support. In the end it was healthy and could be expected to live a long time with continual maintenance; and was to all appearances mostly the same except for the missing limb.

This is a very interesting point of view. It implies that the thing offered is good in its own right, and that the receiver should be thankful. It ignores the probable uselessness of the substitute to the receiver and chides them as ingrates.

Imagine if buying car parts worked that way.

1. I'm not blinded by it. I was optimistic prior to the initial Fallout 4 trailer. I was actually holding out hope for Fallout 4. I saw tons of ways that Bethesda could make compromises to cater to the old and the new and I saw FNV as a great example of Bethesda wanting to at least try to move Fallout into a direction more fitting for it. 'Then' the information started dropping about Fallout 4 and I started to grow resentful and bitter. I wasn't resentful and bitter at the start, I became so after seeing what Bethesda is doing to Fallout 4. There is a big difference this and being blinded by hate from the get-go to the point that I wouldn't be open-minded at all and just chalk everything up to being absolutely awful. And so what if I'm "hateful" now? It doesn't mean I'm blinded by it. I'm not different from the ones who are excited for the game. They were at an equally neutral standing as me prior to Fallout 4's details being dropped and once they were dropped some became hyped and some became resentful. If I'm blinded than so is anyone who's excited for the game as well.

2. You're missing the point. Others were vying to buy the IP. Besides, if Bethesda saved Fallout they wouldn't be doing what is practically the equivalent of Fallout: Brotherhood Of Steel 2.