Fallout 4 releases and it’s disappointing but it’s okay because it’s just a blip. They had some good new ideas in there, they were just balanced out in the other direction by a lot of bad ones. Bethesda’s track record is still solid, if somewhat tarnished.
Fallout 76 releases and it’s disappointing but that’s because they’ve never made (and shouldn’t have made) an MMO before. A lot of the coverage is centred around the shoddy launch, which doesn’t really matter for a non-MMO title.
I went and played Fallout 1 because I loved 3 so much… It took a few false starts (1 intelligence was a terrible call for a first playthrough lol, it ended bad)
Now I see it, 1 and 2 were so brilliant with the role playing and story that I can’t go back to 3! 😊 So many choices, strong characters, just brilliant.
I recently did another playthrough, starting with 1. When I got to three, I spent a couple hours with it and just gave up. It’s just so shallow, bland, and lacking compared to 1 and 2.
New Vegas is the sequel 1 and 2 deserved, and Bethesda tries really hard to pretend it doesn’t exist.
I have always thought of Fallout 1 as such a pure RPG experience that gives you freedom and options. The main story line only has two objectives you must complete to beat the game, but getting there requires going out into the world and figuring out wtf to do and where to do it.
But at the same time, most of the people who played Fallout 3 never played 1 or 2. By the standards of the time, and for what the game presented itself as, it was pretty cool.
It’s crazy to me how close that system was to being great and then seeing what they did with outposts in Starfield. While I didn’t really care for how it worked in vanilla, the ability to customize your base was awesome. Babysitting settlements was a chore, but SimSettlements fixes that. Starfield you can’t do much to customize it and it essentially useless from a mechanics standpoint, except for grinding a bunch of levels by cheesing time compression planets, but I’ll just use the console if I want to do that.
The problem with Starfield’s settlements is that they are entirely resource mining operations. They aren’t really settlements in the way Fallout’s are. You have to spend a phenomenal amount of time to get the perks needed to make it even remotely useful or manageable, and by the time you get there, it’s not even worth it (which is true for most of Starfield’s mechanics, IMO).
The problems is that’s not what Fallout is. It’s not a settlement sim. But when I played F4 for the first time, it felt just like Fallout Shelter with a quest tacked onto it, which is not at all what I wanted. Especially the way the game strongly pushes you into the Minutemen. It makes it extremely tedious for a new player. After the first time, I walked away from the game and didn’t come back to it for over a year. I decided to give it a go and completely ignored the Minutemen, and it was such a better game. But you have to know you can do that.
Also it wasn’t until modding was opened up that the settlement system got good, IMO.
F4 has only had staying power simply because of the modding community. It’s succeeded despite Bethesda. Modders took an extremely mediocre game and made it something much more rich and interesting.
As you mentioned, they didn’t make ESO. Entirely different studios involved in the two games. They probably should have spent some time with the Zenimax developers before trying FO76 though.
Fallout New Vegas was made by Obsidian
i know but i’m roleplaying a semi-informed fan
i think it’s fair to say that at least a portion of bethesda’s reputation is built off that game
Fallout 3 was garbage compared to Fallout 1 and 2
Fallout 3 isn’t even comparable to the originals, it’s a completely different game.
The story, the world and the roleplaying are comparable and Fallout 3 is way worse in that regard. New Vegas reached the old heights again.
NV is overrated, the writing of the originals was on another level
Agree to disagree.
I went and played Fallout 1 because I loved 3 so much… It took a few false starts (1 intelligence was a terrible call for a first playthrough lol, it ended bad)
Now I see it, 1 and 2 were so brilliant with the role playing and story that I can’t go back to 3! 😊 So many choices, strong characters, just brilliant.
I recently did another playthrough, starting with 1. When I got to three, I spent a couple hours with it and just gave up. It’s just so shallow, bland, and lacking compared to 1 and 2.
New Vegas is the sequel 1 and 2 deserved, and Bethesda tries really hard to pretend it doesn’t exist.
I have always thought of Fallout 1 as such a pure RPG experience that gives you freedom and options. The main story line only has two objectives you must complete to beat the game, but getting there requires going out into the world and figuring out wtf to do and where to do it.
Can’t you even skip one of those goals? What a great game 😁 It really does let you work it out, but not in an annoying puzzley way
Only as far as storyline and setting go. Other than that, it was an okay shooter.
Yeah… but storyline and setting is what made Fallout so great.
But at the same time, most of the people who played Fallout 3 never played 1 or 2. By the standards of the time, and for what the game presented itself as, it was pretty cool.
That’s why I said “compared to 1 and 2”. 🙄
FO4 settlement mechanism is amazing. It’s literally a 1st person city builder. I can’t think of any game similar to that yet.
It’s crazy to me how close that system was to being great and then seeing what they did with outposts in Starfield. While I didn’t really care for how it worked in vanilla, the ability to customize your base was awesome. Babysitting settlements was a chore, but SimSettlements fixes that. Starfield you can’t do much to customize it and it essentially useless from a mechanics standpoint, except for grinding a bunch of levels by cheesing time compression planets, but I’ll just use the console if I want to do that.
The problem with Starfield’s settlements is that they are entirely resource mining operations. They aren’t really settlements in the way Fallout’s are. You have to spend a phenomenal amount of time to get the perks needed to make it even remotely useful or manageable, and by the time you get there, it’s not even worth it (which is true for most of Starfield’s mechanics, IMO).
The problems is that’s not what Fallout is. It’s not a settlement sim. But when I played F4 for the first time, it felt just like Fallout Shelter with a quest tacked onto it, which is not at all what I wanted. Especially the way the game strongly pushes you into the Minutemen. It makes it extremely tedious for a new player. After the first time, I walked away from the game and didn’t come back to it for over a year. I decided to give it a go and completely ignored the Minutemen, and it was such a better game. But you have to know you can do that.
Also it wasn’t until modding was opened up that the settlement system got good, IMO.
F4 has only had staying power simply because of the modding community. It’s succeeded despite Bethesda. Modders took an extremely mediocre game and made it something much more rich and interesting.
Elder scrolls online??? They didn’t “make” it, but they were damn familar with the mmo scene.
As you mentioned, they didn’t make ESO. Entirely different studios involved in the two games. They probably should have spent some time with the Zenimax developers before trying FO76 though.