Bofferbrauer2 said:
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. |
Yeah, I remember that video, I've enjoyed it, although it just scratches the surface of how much Bethesda completely missed the point of Fallout. For me, apart from great world building, dark humour, vast freedom to tackle problems in so many different ways, what really stood out are settlements, and how hugely different and uniqe they were in first two games.
I like his "Old Fallout showcased the world whose ethos was shattered by nuclear bomb. New Fallout let you build a gun that fired nuclear bombs". It sums up greatly disparity between:
Tim Cain's (creator of Fallout) - "My idea is to explore more of the world and more of the ethics of a post-nuclear world, not to make a better plasma gun"
and
Todd Howard's (Bethesda) - "We can't apologize for being a role-playing game...We need to build a first-person shooter, and it needs to be a really, really good one"
FO 1/2 are some of my most memorable gaming experiences ever and it hurts to see what Bethesda has done to that IP.
