Is Bethesda Softworks better than Bethesda Game Studios?

[Bofferbrauer2]

HoloDust said:

Jpcc86 said:

Sure, but the numbers we are talking here are not exactly "average" at all. In any case im not talking only sales-wise. EA for example can make (and it does) bad games that sell very well, but those games are not exactly in the "goty" discussion like Skyrim or Fallout4. 

But my point is I dont really consider these to be "its got good reviews but its got bad rep amonst the audience games" like, lets say, The Last Jedi film did. I literally cant picture Skyrim as a game were we say "this is where TES went downhill" like I do with FF13, because I very rarely encounter anyone who gives it bad rep, almost everyone loves it. And again, it made TES a more accesible franchise for general audiences, and not only the niche hardcore role playing audience it had.  

That happened already with Oblivion, Skyrim was yet another step down from what TES once was.

As for Fallout, Bethesda never really understood what that world is about, and though FO3 was somewhat descent RPG, it was pretty bad Fallout. FO4 was both bad RPG (though, not really RPG at all, rather FPS-RPG hybrid) and horrendous Fallout.

I had to search a while, but I found the video I was looking for. It explains the differences between Fallout 1,2, Tactics, Brotherhood of Steel and the later Fallouts, when Bethesda had the license. It'notes that while Bethesda superficially replicated Fallout mostly, they didn't understand it or it's tone and thus couldn't extract it's essence. In other words, Fallout 3 is as close to Fallout as Fallout was to Wasteland: A spiritual successor, as while it has the Fallout name, it's just not the same.