It's all speculation and subjectivity anyway, but to my mind I don't think anyone was ignoring anything with the Bethesda reboot. It's arguable how faithful they were to the lore, of course - but I don't actually remember coming across that many glaring errors that weren't explained. A few things I'd have liked to see justified a bit more, but overall I don't think they did that bad of a job on that front.

But again, it's all opinion. Not everyone's going to like it, but that's unavoidable anyway. I feel it's entirely possible to have your own particular vision for something while still respecting what had gone before. If you feel differently then we'll just have to agree to disagree and that's not the end of the world either.

I don't know if it's entirely accurate to say that "the Fallout you knew no longer exists," though. Those games still exist - they're there, you can buy them and if you own them you can still play them. They haven't disappeared. If I didn't like Fallout 3 it wouldn't mean I could no longer like Fallout 1.

Personally, I'd still like to see a spin-off of the Bethesda reboot (a la Tactics or something) that had a more traditional focus. (I've also said in the past I'd be open to everything from Fallout: Wasteland Chef to Fallout: Brahmin Racing, though. ) It's a big world out there full of possibilities, so who knows what Bethesda might do as a spin-off or license out to another company to expand on the franchise. "Will never return" has quite an air of finality for something that's so speculative, I think.

You seems to have troubles understanding fandoms. The only reason BGS has bought the game was the existing and very much functioning fandom. Just like with FireFly, it got closed, yes, but it's fandom is stil there and still very active. Such epic fandoms can easily outlast even BGS, that why they are worth paying millions for, even if some people see them as just Names.

That's not what I meant... Obviously you can still buy the old games off GOG if you want. What I was suggesting is that kind of game going forward no longer exists. BGS is not going to make Fallout 1 or Fallout 2.

It's a possibility BGS might allow someone to do a spin-off like Obsidian did with New Vegas. That was a bit of an exception to the rule, though, as many of the developers from Obsidian worked at Black Isle, so they were already intimately familiar with the franchise. Otherwise, BGS doesn't generally do spin-offs unless they develop them (like Fallout Shelter).

ESO is a spinoff of TES, but that's in-house by Zenimax Online. I would be very surprised if BGS were to ever have anyone develop a Fallout spinoff in the vein of the original games by Black Isle.

You really are overexaggerating just how massive a "fandom" Fallout had. It was a fairly popular RPG on the PC back in the 90s. The PC community at that time was small and a niche compared to consoles. That still largely is the case today.

The only reason Bethesda Softworks bought Fallout so that Bethesda Game Studios could make a game was because many of the developers liked the old games and wanted to revive the franchise. Fire Fly is a good comparison because it is also a cult classic that actually didn't do that well at the time but has this cult following of fans.

BGS has respected the franchise by revitalizing it and making it far bigger than anything Black Isle did. With a new lead and development comes inevitable change and a new direction. You can be angry and disagree with BGS's direction all you want, but you obviously seem content with it on some form or level as you are on their forum talking about their franchise.

I think so too. Some people just think that if you critique something that means that you don't like it, that is not true.

There are just some things that i don't like about it and if i would not talk about it, then how is BGS going to find out about it? Despite what people think, forums and feedbacks were not made exclusively for ass kissing.

Because every time that I walk away, an hour later I want to come back.

Many of them had never heard of it; a few may have actually played it; I strongly doubt that any were fans of it.

Emil Pagliarulo and Pete Hines were game reviewers at the Adrenaline Vault at the time, and so it's a good bet they at least knew of it, (and probably played it).

That's highly speculative, though. You may be certain about your assumption, but I don't feel that's the only possible conclusion available by any means. Maybe they were only motivated by the existence of a small niche group of fans, or perhaps Bethesda simply thought they had something to bring to the table with a different take on the franchise. Or a combination of those two, or something else entirely. This being real life, I'd wager there many factors that went into their decision to purchase the IP in the first place. Since neither of us are exactly industry insiders it's all just a guessing game anyway.

But the "only" reason? Kind of doubt that, personally.

Well unless you actually work at Bethesda Game Studios and were there with Pete Hines and Todd Howard when they decided to seek the franchise, I'll have to take your statement with a grain of salt.

Assuming "many of them had never heard of it," that merely bolsters my point of how niche Fallout actually was as a franchise. BGS has been making games since the 80s. They've been making TES games since Arena was released in 1994. It would be utterly shocking if the leadership and senior developers weren't even aware of other PC games that were relatively popular at the time. Either way, Fallout is far bigger and more popular than it ever was before. I doubt many would say the games before Fallout 3 were better besides the niche fringe of older fans that preferred the older games.

There were [a few] Dev posts admitting it.

And so you must see how bizarre that makes paying millions of dollars for it... Millions for an IP that nearly all of their intended audience likely never heard of; and certainly wouldn't know or care about the name or the details. Why bother? Why not just make an in house PA sandbox title, for no licensing fees?

Surely it's obvious that their audience would buy anything they release, and they would have had just as much ~if not more success with whatever they made. They did not need the IP at all.... They didn't use it for anything but window dressing.

IMO they ruined it for nothing.

From the naivety of your post (no offence intended) i could have guessed that you were a console user. Anyway please stop comparing Black Isle to BSG, those were very different times, back then it was very hard to get peoples attention, because the game industry was like million times smaller.

Is there some way I can like or highlight this post? On a forum I used to be on long ago we lime greened any post we thought was really good.

As ive said many times before, there is something in gaming for everyone, you just have to find it. When people get stuck on something in gaming that isnt for them, it makes me think they are more dedicated to feeling disappointment and rage at something as great as a video game instead of finding love and passion for something as deserving as, yeah, a video game. Nothing in gaming truly dies, and with the current golden age of niche games being brought about by the internet and kickstarter we are overflowing with games that can appeal to any specific type of person on the planet.

Except, I'm not a console gamer... Honestly, my profile picture of my character wearing the Emperor's regalia in ESO should have made it obvious I'm a PC gamer... Clearly you cannot have a civil and reasoned discussion as you are too busy making conclusory statements and trying to make us believe Fallout was something more than it was. It was a cult classic that appealed to a niche audience. If you didn't even play games on the PC in the 90s, you wouldn't have even known it existed. I understand you are obviously a big Fallout fan, but it's not Star Wars or Star Trek. Stop trying to make Fallout into something it never was.

Of course they aren't because those are already made and successful in it's own right with most who played them.

BGS had a big job on it's hands to make the game their own and stay as respectful to the original lore as possible. They have done that fairly well and this is the game going forward. They have never demanded that the old fans love it. They hoped they would but in the end, they had to make it in a way that fit their vision and used their expertise. And you know, that's just ok. In fact, that's life. Things are re-invented with a twist all the time. Sleeping Beauty into Maleficent. Both are wonderful in their own right but they are very different. The existence of one does not threaten or diminish the existence of the other nor should it. Likewise, the Black Isle/Interplay Fallouts and the Bethesda Fallouts should likewise not threaten or diminish the existence of the other and they are both well made and exceptional games. It should have never been nor should it ever be a contest. Two talented teams both deserving of respect for the years of work they have put into this and doing their best to bring us the games we want in our games. Striving for success in their chosen careers. Never forget that this is their job and their own personal success depends upon the job they do. Most people hope to do a good job no matter our career choices.

It was indeed more, and the reason is in ~why it appealed to the niche audience.

**Also... Appealing to a minority segment does not marginalize a title's merit*; (to me) it suggests a merit far above the average (and something worth looking into). This is shown because it kept ranking as a top RPG for years after its release.

*Nor does appealing to a majority segment magnify a title's merit.
(Or even suggest great quality, in and of itself. It generally suggests the opposite, in the way of a compromised design for maximum tolerance among a far broader range of gamers. Some with mutually exclusive tastes.)

Niche games can afford to be really good and really targeted. They can dare to hit the bullseye of one segment, and miss all of the other targets, where as the mass-appeal titles MUST http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/FO3_Arrow_to_the_Knee.jpg.

Regardless of how you might feel in no way changes what Fallout actually was. Baldur's Gate certainly was far more popular and likely more successful than Fallout and yet I have not seen BioWare make a concerted effort to go back to their roots (Dragon Age is arguably a spiritual successor). It would make even more sense for BioWare as they created Baldur's Gate, yet they have a new style and philosophy for how they build their games now.

Ultimately, this is a business. What sells well persists through time and what does not sell well disappears into obscurity. You'll have the exception of a cult classic (Fallout, Duke Nukem, Mirror's Edge, etc.) that will be revitalized in some form or fashion, but this is not the norm. Trying to qualify something that is "good" and something that is "bad" is a waste of time as it's purely a subjective matter.

Every franchise has merit and offers to the fan a some form of entertainment. I personally believe Call of Duty has been terrible since every game for years now have essentially copied CoD4:MW1, yet it is still the most profitable shooter in the gaming industry to date every year.

Profit and popularity have no bearing on the quality of a game; and I was only referencing quality. I have no concerns about the popularity or success of a title.

Jeff Vogel makes better RPGs on his own than many many more popular RPGs made by large teams.

I dont know how many hours i put into skyrim and god knows how many characters i created... and i never even saw those ants

Skyirm for PC has a 94 on metacritic.Based on 32 critics in total giving it all positive reviews. Are you going to ignore the fact that Bethesda's games are acclaimed by so many critics, just because they sell too much to appeal to your sense of feeling special because you enjoy non-mainstream things?

It's not how much they sell... it's what.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXJX-tnuZ0c is only possible in the Bethesda era FO titles.

In FO3 the PC can choose to beat the hell out of anyone, and then by back their good reputation with bottled water. The game has no precepts from the series at all.

Fallout PCs lived by their skills and stats; but for FO3 PCs, the skills & stats are optional; and skills are gone in FO4. Todd Howard makes Fantasy/Sci-Fi simulators ~not roleplaying games. The Fallout series has been skinned alive by Bethesda, and the hide wrapped around the TES skeleton.

Thats not answering the question. What gives you the authority to say that Bethesda's games are awful as a objective truth, when by every other metric of reviews and fans they are received very positively? You are not the only person that gets to decide what is good or bad.

What makes you think I said they were awful?

*But let me ask you this: If a company that made weed-killer, reformulated it into a grass and weed-killer... does that make it better for being new and improved?

You've said that Bethesdas games are low quality because they are not niche games. You also said that they've "ruined" Fallout.

What gives you the authority to say that as a fact, and not as a opinion?

Ive already given my answer to that. We've gone through this many times before. It seems every discussion with you turns into a parrot of the same exact points we've made over the past 7 years. Nothing ever changes.

I concede. And please, if you've got something to say, don't edit it in after the fact.

Anything diluted isn't pure stuff. FO3 aims for the shooter fan, and the RPG fan, and as such has vestigial RPG mechanics that cripple the shooter experience... and yet to make the perfect shooter game would negate the point of the weapon skills.

*As for ruining Fallout, What can be said that hasn't been made plain many times before. FO3 is essentially unrelated to the series. Anyone can see this by direct comparison. It's like a triptych http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/Part3_NewManagement.jpg finished in another style.

I have never mentioned grass and weedkiller before on the forum.