By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Has Bethesda ruined the Fallout series (and my big rant!)?

 

Has Bethesda ruined the Fallout series?

Yes 53 52.48%
 
No 33 32.67%
 
Its improved it 15 14.85%
 
Total:101
SvennoJ said:

But it let me build this

Wait, was there some kind of urgent struggle going on?

New Vegas was the best imo. I did complete all the story paths in Fallout 4 yet none really let me play it the way I wanted to. New Vegas was far more satisfying story wise. The environmental stories plus building stuff saved Fallout 4. Missions were just a means to collect materials while exploring the environment. Great world building, yet missions were shoot, loot, trade for scrap to build with...

Gathering the huge amount of copper needed to power my Totoro sign kept me going for half the game lol


In the end it was more fun than the witcher 3, which I ended with a huge bank account and nothing to do with it. In F4 I build several towns with all those dead bodies!

Looks good! Wonder if the 15 people in the town will put it too good use...



Made a bet with LipeJJ and HylianYoshi that the XB1 will reach 30 million before Wii U reaches 15 million. Loser has to get avatar picked by winner for 6 months (or if I lose, either 6 months avatar control for both Lipe and Hylian, or my patrick avatar comes back forever).

Around the Network

Fallout 1 and 2 still stand as one of the best CRPGs ever made...Fallout 3 was decent game, just not very good Fallout, but Fallout 4 is not even RPG, not to mention how bad of a Fallout game it is.

So yes, Bethesda ruined Fallout - pity Obsidian didn't managed to get the IP in the first place - but then again, last thing Bethesda made that was really good was Morrowind, so no surprise there.



I hope they give Obsidian another chance before F5.



HoloDust said:
Fallout 1 and 2 still stand as one of the best CRPGs ever made...Fallout 3 was decent game, just not very good Fallout, but Fallout 4 is not even RPG, not to mention how bad of a Fallout game it is.

So yes, Bethesda ruined Fallout - pity Obsidian didn't managed to get the IP in the first place - but then again, last thing Bethesda made that was really good was Morrowind, so no surprise there.

this !



1-2 were the better of the series, though I enjoyed my time with 3-NV, 4 feels like it's trying to be a pure shooter but at the same time strapping itself to the clunky Gamebryo engine as well as some leftover RPG elements. Bethesda should have just made a spinoff Fallout series that has a focus on action/shooting with the main series keeping a focus on pure RPG elements, they could have even gone back to making the main series in the same style as 1-2, I would have loved that.

Also the settlement building option combined with how clunky it works along with AI that acts as dumb and lifeless as bricks really didn't make for a good idea to toss into the game. It would have worked much better if the game were more RPG like along with AI that made use and reacted to what you had built rather than snapping itself to a chair and going with the usual eating/drinking animation, walking around and then sitting on a chair, rinse and repeat. Seeing AI function like that gets really stale with Bethesda games.



Mankind, in its arrogance and self-delusion, must believe they are the mirrors to God in both their image and their power. If something shatters that mirror, then it must be totally destroyed.

Around the Network
Spike0503 said:
I hope they give Obsidian another chance before F5.

Same. If we're being real, in terms of RPG games, Bethesda have sucked since Morrowind. Oblivion, Skyrim, F3 and F4 are good but they're kind of more sci fi/fantasy/action games now.

New Vegas is better than anything Bethesda have done since Morrowind.



Pemalite said:
I completed and loved Fallout 3. Any of the later games... Played for like an hour or two and just got bored.

I probably found Fallout 3 so enjoyable probably because it was so fresh at the time, but boy did it age quickly though.

I would argue that Fallout 3 is one of the best aged games of its generation in terms of gameplay and replayability. It looks pretty good. the same can be said about New Vegas.

maybe you're just not uhm... a fan of this type of game? because outside of the Elder Scrolls there aren't really that many games that play at all similarily in terms of the open options and world



SvennoJ said:

But it let me build this

Wait, was there some kind of urgent struggle going on?

New Vegas was the best imo. I did complete all the story paths in Fallout 4 yet none really let me play it the way I wanted to. New Vegas was far more satisfying story wise. The environmental stories plus building stuff saved Fallout 4. Missions were just a means to collect materials while exploring the environment. Great world building, yet missions were shoot, loot, trade for scrap to build with...

Gathering the huge amount of copper needed to power my Totoro sign kept me going for half the game lol


In the end it was more fun than the witcher 3, which I ended with a huge bank account and nothing to do with it. In F4 I build several towns with all those dead bodies!

I agree with you, a big flaw in Fallout 4 (imo) is that the player is so limited on what CHOICES they can make. All of the dialogue options and quest decisions feel like they generally ultimately result in the exact same thing and in cases where you do get some form of decision making it tends to be black and white with almost no effect on the world outside of said quest



Chazore said:
1-2 were the better of the series, though I enjoyed my time with 3-NV, 4 feels like it's trying to be a pure shooter but at the same time strapping itself to the clunky Gamebryo engine as well as some leftover RPG elements. Bethesda should have just made a spinoff Fallout series that has a focus on action/shooting with the main series keeping a focus on pure RPG elements, they could have even gone back to making the main series in the same style as 1-2, I would have loved that.

Also the settlement building option combined with how clunky it works along with AI that acts as dumb and lifeless as bricks really didn't make for a good idea to toss into the game. It would have worked much better if the game were more RPG like along with AI that made use and reacted to what you had built rather than snapping itself to a chair and going with the usual eating/drinking animation, walking around and then sitting on a chair, rinse and repeat. Seeing AI function like that gets really stale with Bethesda games.

the AI communities are really dumb.

In fact the community and building system I think damages Fallout dramatically. the pay off is not worth it. its okay to screw around with a bit to kill some time but it gets boring quickly unless you have some sort of obsessive goal in terms of a massive monument to build.

there's an issue when in a matter of a few hours time you can make a community of NPC's that are bigger than any other community/town in the game. It just really pulls you out of the immersion.

It also doesn't help that literally zero of the NPC's in your own small set up communities have any personality, choices, quests. its just like "oh here you go, here are 15 random generic programs living in your old town". blagh. 

the community building is also distracting in the sense of how absurd it really is that you can just pick up random things and put together structures like magic. I know its a game and they are going for the popular Minecraft esque stuff, but Fallout in the past has done a pretty good job at immersion and believability in terms of its own world. When you can replicate practically any other community in a matter of minutes or hours its like :/ also one thing I always felt made Fallout awesome was the concept that you ARE sort of a vague 'wanderer' entering a dangerous world. It felt like both the player themselves AND the character could sort of automatically connect relate because the game literally has you wake up in a vault, come out of a vault, wake up from being half dead, etc. 

like you're wandering this weird world and interacting and becoming a part of it. but a wanderer doesn't build giant structures and tons of communities with generic lifeless NPC's populating them that in no time can rival the biggest game settlements out there.

I don't know. I just find it all very frustrating. Bethesda seemed to realize that throwing in like mulitplayer would kill the immersion factor within the world yet they seem to fail to recognize that the settlement building platform, especially how they went about it, probably kills the immersion much worse than playing with friends would have



Goodnightmoon said:
No they didn't, they gave it another direction and the results, while imperfect, were pretty enjoyable. The reason why Fallout is a mainstream hit is them, if the new games were like the old, they could be good, of course, but they would be probably pretty niche.

how is making it a shooter a new direction? Thats a 180p, much more than from Resi 1 to 4 to 7. Its like a completley different game now