Thank GAWD for Jim Sterling, can't wait.

Who's Jim Sterling? Is he yet somebody else who deludes himself with the fantasy that he is some sort of authority or arbiter over what is and isn't proper? They are like cochroaches, aren't they?

You forgot to yell at the kids for being on your yard.

Jim Sterling fighting 'for' the gamer? He fought against gamers last year, he's over.

I hear he will be wearing a Mariachi outfit.

Do you know why?

Because noone expects a Spanish Jimquisition.

That doesn't make sense. Mariachi is from Mexico, not Spain.

Pretty much. Don't get me wrong it is always nice to listen to opinions of those that are not bound to a contract with a publisher. They can be honest and direct, often brutal, which is needed. Yet it is their opinion, and opinion isn't fact. So even of Jim Sterling thinks Fallout 4 is overrated and i love it, then why should it matter?

I'm marking this topic for potential read a few weeks after the game has been released.

This is a big reason why there will never be a "proper" Fallout game.

Bethesda want to cater to their fan boys and the lowest common denominator, rather than make a game that is most true to "Fallout".

Whew. Jim gave it a 9.5 out of 10. Crisis averted. Going to be playing it within two hours. Linked my key to Steam. I'm New Zealand for the next 24 hours.

This is true; and it's been the gist of my posts on the subject for quite some time.


It is also true that they have had control over it longer that the architects of it, but anyone can tack onto a foundation, or destroy it and rebuild... That doesn't validate their work as an extension of the original; it's what they build that does.

EG. http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/NewManagement_zpsa5xcc1ez.jpg

Hey leave our Parthenon alone, we can destroy it ourselves just as well...

Anyway, I think that Bethesda's adapation of fallout was actually the best possible adaptation that could ever have been done by anyone. Even if many aspects were neglected, the open world sandbox element of the Bethesda games really fits in the Fallout universe.

For sales potential, in this environment? Sure, I can agree with that. If the original crew themselves got together and released a Fallout:Classic, in the same vein as Pillars of Eternity, it could not hope to compete with the sales of FO4. Sad but true.

*(Sales being no indication of quality either.)

True, sales are not an indication of quality. Not that quality is not rewarded, but a developer nowadays can spend 1$ on development and 1 million $ on marketing and still sell better than the developer who did the opposite. When companies like EA thrive... Plus graphics are a must for a lot of people, so an isometric game won't have much luck...

I have the best memories from 1 and 2. It is not only about the memories, these games were masterpieces, writing was excellent, there were impactfull choices to be made at every damn corner, all quests could be completed in different ways, more dialog skill checks etc but... even if Bethesda is not as good in these aspects of the game, I consider their adaptation an evolution. It doesn't have to remain isometric and VATS is the closest it could get to a turned based gameplay. Their huge explorable worlds + modding capabilities (for me) make up for the all of these.

On the other hand, if it remained isometric and developed by a good company in this age, there could still be huge explorable worlds, modding would be even easier and maybe they wouldn't have to sacrifice rpg goodness for graphics. I guess we will never know.

I consider it mutation; and personally, I think that it does have to... however, one can only drool at the thought of an AP based Fallout sequel with combat that plays like either of these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py7rpUz0eIw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9Gz2FIlPXk

It's still just his opinion, that's something that's often lost with glowing reviews of games; both the good and the bad are subjective. It's especially arresting in the comments section of the IGN review, nobody claims bias or bribery if it conforms to their notions of what praise a game deserves.

Exactly this point, you may consider the newer fallouts to be better or worse than the originals, you may consider the notion of a 'proper' fallout to be entirely subjective, and you may also think that the series has reached new heights under Bethesda.But you can not reasonably claim that Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 represent a natural progression or evolution from the original games in the series; the differences between the two are arresting.

Since this has become mostly about comparing old Fallout games with new Fallout games I'm moving it to the series section.

Would prefer a smaller world with more detail, bigger isnt better.

Doesn't stop them from being wrong tho.

Im curious about what the criticisms of the new game are beyond story is crap?

I mean what plot points do people have a problem with?

Minor peeve [very minor]

Fallout had REALLY good weapon sounds. FO3 ~I don't really remember any of those. I just watched a combat gameplay video with the PC in the gunship (shooting a super mutant), and the minigun sounds like a teletype machine.

[Watching more of it...]
Yeah, I definitely don't like the new VATS, or how it makes the weapon fire faster than it should. If you played those sequences at full speed, the pistols would be shooting four bullets at a time.

R91 in Fallout 3 sounds amazing to me.

I'll have to give that a listen then.

__

What's the deal with all the ghouls seemingly ~hybernating?~ exposed on the ground playing at corpses?

Feral ghouls are literally zombies in Fallout 4.