People are free to voice concern about the change in scope/direction. As Gizmo said, it's like Dawn of War 3 becoming a first person shooter instead of an rts. But, this isn't the first franchise to change direction. GTA is still GTA even with the transition from top-down to first-third person. Whether Fallout 4 reintroduces some of the core concepts of Fallout 1/2 remains to be seen. The gameplay won't be driven by character sheets, but the dialogue and story/quests are still up in the air. When a developer responds to criticism and says they want to improve their storytelling, I give them the benefit of the doubt.

We'll still see threads about the same hashed out issues with future iterations. It's inevitable but it's an absolutely tired out charade. Fallout 3 already demonstrated the direction the game was going and unless the game changes developer hands, Fallout 4, 5, 6, 7 and onward are going to mimic 3's direction. If people want to use reductionist arguments and say it's becoming more like TES, go right on ahead. It doesn't make it true, though. It's not a sin to use qualities that work in one series in another - see Dawn of War 2's similar Company of Heroes cover mechanic.

I kind of disagree with this some of the time, specifically the times that I've seen someone pop into a thread and throw out a one sentence post saying, "It's not Fallout enough," "Bethesda is ruining the series," or most stupidly "It's not a true RPG." These one off, significantly subjective statements, do nothing for the conversation, and I have seen a couple people seem to rely a bit too much on these simplistic posts. I will admit some have made some excellent arguments or comments (including you), not enough to convince me to be pessimistic, but enough to consider your point of view.

But, I see some of the pessimism as being based around an unrealistic ideal, that the Fallout games should rarely evolve, innovate, or try new ideas (in this case, I am not meaning these to mean the same thing). Sometimes this will result in a game being significantly worse (I would argue that Modern Thief, Final Fantasy 13, Resident Evil 5/6, etc.), but other times it'll make them better (Rock Band, GTA 3 (SA and 5), Saints Row 4) or different (Fallout 3/NV, Bioshock Infinite, Final Fantasy PS1 & 2 games). I think the best example of this that I know of is Star Trek OS & TNG versus DS9, both had different and yet interesting takes on the Federation, the main gripe from some fans is that DS9 makes it seem like the Federation is not the Utopia that Roddenberry envisioned, while others feel that the Federation is more interesting with some flaws and that it always had these flaws. It's just someone adding their own vision to the universe, and maybe stumbling in some areas

Additionally, the word fan is short for something, and it just depends how much of -atic part you identify with that can potentially blind you from real positives in the Bethesda Fallout Universe. I will admit that there have been some things I've been wary about, and there are still somethings that I am wary about, but overall I remain generally optimistic.

Lastly, don't you mean descendant, not Ancestor? (Sorry, I know I'm being a jerk about the word check)

My... You took the words right out of my mouth and then mutated them into a more coherent and articulate version of themselves...

I'm just disappointed in the lack of real innovation being applied to anything outside of the novelty gimmicks. Too much of the presented gameplay and gunplay format is still too closely identical to FO3's already mediocre engine. Nothing about FO4 has really "evolved" enough to fit the new expectation of a better refined modern engine. Graphics aside, not much at all of FO4 gives me the impression that the limits from FO3 aren't still carried over constraints because none of them are being thoroughly focused on. Be it FO4 or FO10. It shouldn't be unrealistic to expect Bethesda to do more than just boast their gimmicks if their gameplay isn't even up to date. I say this because I envy Last Of Us too much as a FO fan.

Experience.

I always try to not get too optimistic about games, like others said it often leads to disappointment.

On the ruining of Fallout, well that's what big game companies do . Not totally serious but let's be realistic, big companies don't think like hey here's this old franchise that was 2D iso turn based, hmm well it's 2008, yeah let's keep it that way . They'll go with the flow. To the people saying Fallout 5,6,7... etc. will remain in the direction of Fallout 3, you sure about that?

Nothing is really sacred in the pursuit of more sales, be prepared for another generation of angry old fans when Fallout 6 is a mobile game .

I think it is all part and parcel of being a Beth fan. Sure, we always complain about the future direction of the game we love so much, but there is nothing wrong with that. We all invest so much time into the Fallout and ES series and deserve the right to complain or comment. Really we wouldn't wish it any other way. I screamed from the heavens about how horrible Skyrim is but it still doesn't stop me from playing it to death. It will be no different with Fallout 4. In this case having no information is leading us to speculate based on our past experiences.

However, after visiting the Let's Play videos on games like Witcher 3 I cannot get back to playing Beth games fast enough. Yes the are annoying at times, but they are also bloody good.

Just keep in mind that for every person on these forums who is pretty active word wise in their dislike of FO4, 90 percent will still purchase it and play it (even if it isnt straight away but like a year or more down the road).

A lot of what we see most of the time is people deciding to joint a vent thread because.. they can.

If I dislike a game, Ill just stop playing it. I have no desire to post into a forum group about why I dont like something.

However we are in the age of facebook where I get sent 4 different version of 'Your pefect Super Hero name' posts from 4 seperate people

It's the internet. Bitterness and negativity abounds.

First time around, that impression is there, but 1,000th time around it starts to get a wee bit repetitive, especially when every thread gets turned around and OT because of it.

Agreed. I don't post 100 times a day on every SW games forum complaining that they haven't redone X-wing V. Tie Fighter (even though they should).

GTA still plays with the same core principles and experiences despite the perspective change. It is still real time action, car jacking, road rage and mayhem. (Fallout could've done this too to a certain degree, but it didn't.) Fallout's change has been much more radical going from a top down narrative and reactivity heavy turnbased PnP/tabletop emulation to a loose sandbox-simulationary first person shooter with some token elements of its RPG past tacked on top for show.

As for the OP... It's not looking to get any better in any way that matters in the context of Fallout (on the contrary). Where it is getting better, is the world simulation in a sandbox aspect and it's insistence on being an FPS now.

sceptic is a better word than pessimislm

and why , mainly bethesda marketing tactic on one hand and the complete lack of further information outsode the E3 conference

not that i want to know the story line , , but the lack of further information about their rubberband scalling , why the voiced protagonist and even further details on how the leveling sustem will work beside oerks and S.P.E.C.I.A.L.

the way how they hyped this game by showing a demo s on a select group of people mostly those working for the many gaming sites while we the ones whos money they are actually after are left in the dark it is frustrating

I already had a huge dissapointment with the witcher 3 a game that was promoted as the open world rpg

actually the game is so linear and completely lacks any rpg elements it looks more like a jack a,d slash arcde game than anything else

i don t want this to happen with one of my favorite franchises aswell

that why all the sceptis

The world needs complainers. People that make you think twice before doing your everyday human sacrifice to your Godd Howard poster.
They're like...the Watchmen.


On the more serious side, people who complain aren't certainly haters. Why? Because they care Fallout, they wouldn't be here if they didn't, expressing their feelings towards the new games of the franchise.
Many of you say "If you don't like it, just leave." what's the point? What will leave is a great Fallout fan, and what will remain is a forum full of boring threads about how Bethesda is awesome. Will there be critiques? No. Will the company see what they can improve? Certainly not thanks to you.

And why would they settle with what they have? Almost all next-gen games are Open World now, I don't see how that's an improvement. I'm not saying the map will svck, I'm pointing out that Beth can also concentrate on RPG features, something they could've done, because after decades of Sandbox games they can certainly start to revamp other things. I don't expect a novel, but I want them to show us that they tried and they care.

Say what? You must have played a very different game than I did...

Uh, are you sure you want to make that comparison? The "Watchmen" were all, to varying degrees, unhinged individuals. At best.

That saved the world from a nuclear world.
Walt...is this a coincidence?

Still, I just like to have these fans called "Watchmen" but not being THE Watchmen from the comics/movie.

Twice burned.

It is the case that some of the same arguments and speculation surrounded FO3 before its release; and those voicing doubt were often chided that the game had not released yet [so how could they know]... and yet certain things were obvious, or seemed very likely... and ~predictably they happened...
They will happen again.

I started with old Fallouts, so bear that in mind when judging my opinions.

When it comes to gameplay mechanics, I really don't mind the change to first person. This is one of the factors why us old school Fallout fans get a lot of flak because we reputedly hate that change. Character develoment was a bit of hit&miss but the changes coming in Fallout 4 might be for the better.

The real issue is content, it's quality. This is where Beth struggles seriously. Fallout 3 had abysmal main quest, horrendous dialogue, NPCs with less personality than charred tree stump, etc. Fallout 3 felt like a TES set in a postapocalytic world which it should have not been. To put things in perspective, New Vegas did absolutely everything better, especially when it comes to writing which is quite crucial in Fallout. Some claim FO3 had better wasteland but I have to disagree on that, it was filled with too much stuff. New Vegas felt like an actual Fallout game, I really enjoyed playing it and that's my opinion as a old school Fallout fan.

Beth knows how to make decent TES but making a Fallout is a different matter. I plan to keep my expectations on more realistic levels. However I won't jump to conclusions just yet.

It's because a lot of companies have decided to screw us over (hell: some of them had the gall to lie to us directly (like Bioware (EA!) with their Mass Effect 3 marketing - from the endings to it really taking into account the players decisions etc. etc. - or Ubisoft with their botched Assassin's Creed: Unity (which is a clunky port with performance issues!))) lately.

It's something that makes you cautious and not very optimistic...hell: I'd count Bethesda, too because I myself didn't like Skyrim at all (!) - Oblivion (despite worse graphics and glitches/crashes) is way better IMHO!

So, in light of that: Is it any wounder we aren't 100% optimistic?

greetings LAX

I've only played Fallout 3 and New Vegas, and I have a lot of reasons to be concerned with design choices with Fallout 4. From the decision to include voiced protagonists (something that doesn't bother me in other games but I dislike in games where I am supposed to be designing my character in more than a cosmetic fashion, even more so in this case because Todd Howard and others are spouting nonsense about Voiced Protagonists making the STORY better rather than mentioning any interest in refining their WRITING, which is akin to prescribing kleenex to someone with a cold as if that actually solves the problem), especially when everything that I've seen of the man's performance in Fallout 4 has ranged from uninspiring to flat-out terrible, to the stripping of Skills and forcing SPECIAL to work double duty, diluting character differentiation by blocking off roads like Weak But Skilled Unarmed builds, unlikable jerks who could still convince you they were right, people who came off like drooling idiots in most everything but were savants in Science, Medicine, or Repairing machinery, etc., there are a myriad of things that come off as straight up bad decision making or at the very least fail to get me pumped at all, and that becomes really worrisome when those elements are taking center stage and being marketed heavily.

So if you want the most straightforward answer as to why I'm so pessimistic?

Because Bethesda hasn't done a good job to make me feel optimistic.

It's the expectation level that I find bemusing.

If games like Skyrim or The Witcher 3 svck, then I struggle to think what sort of game would make a person happy, assuming it was possible to make it.

I don't know if Fallout 4 will be a masterpiece or a disappointment,

but I'm certainly not taking a 'lack of information' as proof of the latter, that would be illogical.

Game threads often say more about the posters than the game.

If all some posters can do is rant in a bitter and twisted way on forums, then that's a reflection of their life I guess...

Some are more critical than others, which is completely understandable to a certain degree. People are spending their money on this game, so naturally they're going to expect a certain measure of excellence to be met. People don't want to buy something that's subpar. So, at the of the day, I think we're all just extremely passionate Fallout fans who want this game to succeed and be the best it can be. And no matter how good this game may be when it drops, some people will still inevitably have things that they dislike about it... they'll never be the perfect game because they'll always be two people with their own opinions and beliefs, so you just can't please everybody. But there's a difference between giving constructive insight/criticism and just being blatantly unreasonable... but I personally hope for the best but expect the worst in most cases, but I have faith that BGS will deliver and go above and beyond... but I can't really say at this point in time... once the game rolls out and I've played it long enough, that's when I can fully judge it.

I have never seen a satisfactory argument or attempted explanation of why disliking "change for its own sake" is risible. The changes made to the Fallout series were tantamount to redesigning a http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/Useless.jpg. Such changes can make a the thing useless for its intended purpose, and make the name deceptive; it's no substitute for the right thing. It's not hatred of change as they mistakenly call it; it's frustration at a useless tool; or a tool http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/hammer_evolution_zpsvgphzn45.jpg in the redesign.

If a Surgeon asks for and expects a scalpel [by name], a diamond studded silver fork/mp3 player isn't going to cut it for them ~no matter how cool it is.
Not all changes are positive.

The most devoted fans to the Fallout series are usually the most critical, weird huh? You'd think it's the one's worshipping every little thing Bethesda throws out, but nope, it's the one's usually making critical judgement and placing caution first.

If only this would happen to every other fanb-oh wait.

In other words: People are cautious because of the work Bethesda made in the past. Companies don't usually improve in the base structure if the base structure "Just Works".

joking aside, your question has been answered, honestly: Different tastes and caution is in some, so don't mind it.

One should not make the mistake to confuse criticism with pessimism though. There are many different opinions and ways to approach a game that isn't released yet. Particularly when you think about Fallout 3 and if Fallout 4 will improve on it. Can anyone remember the situation with companions immune to Radiation and the purifier at the end of Fallout 3? One really big concern, at least for me. I hope Fallout 4 will do better in that part. It's not always either about being super happy and thrilled or hating everything you see. There can be many nuances.

No more illogical than taking it as proof of the former, which is equally unjustified.

Bitter rants are no more twisted than ridiculously optimistic ones, however for some reason you don't seem to have a problem with folks who post the latter.

No, actually BGS' direction for Fallout is excellent because they are expanding on the original works. If not for them spending millions of dollars and years of work, Fallout would still be dead as it was when they acquired it.

See, the problem with claims like the one above is that they are stated as absolute universal truths rather than simply personal opinions. In other words, the above quote states unequivocally that the original "legacy and lineage" of Fallout "may as well be" dead. No, not true at all, merely one (minority) opinion, at least if we judge the original Fallouts and their reception in sales and critical success versus BGS' continuation and expansion.

Falout 4 is certainly not "tenuously (at best)" an ancestor. That would be impossible, obviously, since Bethesda owns the rights and is expanding on the original, extremely limited concepts presented almost two decades ago. From everything we have seen and know about FO4 so far, it is the best installment to date. That could change once the game is played by us, of course, but that's how things are right now. It certainly makes the original games look extremely bad, and I am not talking about the graphics.

Your view of BGS' Fallout 3 is certainly not the minority, but rather the majority. Very few people think that Fallout 3 is inferior to the original Fallouts. We can see this by both the general market success of the game as well as its critical reception, and the fact that its success (far greater than FONV) has enabled Bethesda to invest the time and money to continue the franchise, unlike the lack of success of the original games. I'm not sure why you would think that your view is the minority unless you are only considering the vocal minority of original Fallout fans here and a few other places who complain about FO3 while raising specific points that are not even valid complaints, particularly when FONV has the same elements with far worse problems. Like anything else, vocal minorities are simply loud, not the majority. If the majority enjoys something, they tend to not say anything at all, but the actual results (sales, critical acclaim, etc) show the majority's viewpoint. The only way this would not be true, at least in any capitalistic system, would be if a minority of people who were extremely wealthy were able to skew the demonstrated results via their wealth (e.g., buying millions of copies of something, bribing critics to offer positive views, etc.).

To those who claim that people who look forward to Fallout 4 are hopelessly optimistic while the complainers, ranters, etc are offering astute pessimistic criticism, give me a break! The vast majority of positive posts for Fallout 4 that I have seen here and elsewhere are evaluating it based on what has been shown and the fact that the game is FINISHED aside from squashing bugs prior to mastering for retail sale. They are not praising anything that hasn't been shown, unlike the complainers and ranters. In fact, some of the positive posts offer personal preference criticism of elements that are in Fallout 4 that they'd prefer not to have such as voiced PC (which the lack of hasn't made sense for almost two decades, but anyway...). In other words, even optimistic posts have offered personal criticisms and have certainly not been purely hype, positive acclaim, unlike the complainers and ranters who have only criticized things that have not (and could not have) been shown such as multiple decisions, story, character development, consequences, etc. The last point doesn't even matter because pretty much no game offers any major consequences to actions except perhaps Japanese visual novels and adventure games. Even something like Mass Effect was pretty much a joke for major consequences. In ME, we saw ONE major choice in the entire first game deciding one crew member living or dying... one major consequence out of an entire game that was marketed as being all about choice and consequence.... that's where we're at, pretty much, except for the completely different outcomes in multi-path, multi-ending Japanese visual novels and adventures where major consequences for choices are fundamental. It's pretty crazy for complainers to whine about choice and consequence in a BGS game where you have a great deal of freedom while the majority of the industry, especially in the Western markets, doesn't even offer any freedom at all, let alone any kind of choice and consequence. There's nothing to offer as a counter-example in Western development, so why complain about the lack something that no Western developer does, especially when we have not (and could not have) seen that mechanic for Fallout 4 so we cannot know about it (or the lack of it) until the game is out and we play it?