cant be by interplay/black isle. they lost the code. also they dissolved years ago. and obsidian doesnt have nearly anybody there anymore who was there in 2010
Well, better no new Fallout than Bugthesda Fallout. They care about nothing else than making more money with a minimum amount of effort and three times the copy-paste.
I really would not like Bethesda level writing and character gating to muddy the classics. I seriously doubt it will do the old series justice with the level of inappropriate content.
Easiest examples being the thieving children in Fallout 2, it allowed you “solve” that problem if you didn’t have patience and got a negative quirk in the process.
A low intelligence run was almost a completely new experience with a different level of interaction that was tongue-in-cheek look at someone who really struggles with “standard” game narrative.
That not to mention how much of a mess it will be for bethesda to code for a player plus up to 5 party members per encounter ( making Charisma not a “dump” stat). I strongly doubt they can pull it off if it as a company is still struggling to make the player character plus 1 work smoothly.
I also feel that the old fallout’s sense of humour might not fly with today’s sensibilities specifically the level of objectification, a female character can use to their advantage or the level of “male power fantasy” with specific perks and SPECIAL loadout - which I am sure is something Bethesda will try to avoid as they seem to push for a more gamified systems.
And I really do not think they will be willing to make The Brotherhood play a minor role as they are like a “minor” faction that tries to avoid too much attention in setting in their mission to preserve the old tech from repeating the mistakes of the past
I strongly doubt Todd and his team are the right people to devote resources to truly capture the dark world of old fallout into a faithful reproduction. I think it would be toned down and would most likely follow a bethesda vision for the series.
Maybe I am being overly negative, but I feel even if they maybe revamped it with some prettier graphics and modern system sensibilities, it might still lose some of its soul in the process. I am willing to be proven wrong though
Cannot kill children in Bethesda games (without modding)
Fallout 2 dealt with some realities of porn, learnt about terms like being a fluffer if are not fit for porn and if you had the skills it provided a pretty salicious perk image and a stage name among a couple of other changes. Sex referencing was used quite a lot in game - sometimes disturbingly so at times.
Gravedigging fair enough, there is a perk one gets in fallout 2 that hits you with karma penalty when you do it but otherwise point taken
Joining the slavers in Fallout 2, you get branded with a facial brand telling the waste “Look at me, I am a Slaver” which had the effect to lock a character out of quests and be automatically branded an enemy of the NCR - which is a choice that can be made in the second town.
I don’t see the need to murder kids even in games so I never even tried killing a kid in fallout. The porn thing just sounds like a specific quest, and fallout 3 and 4 had equally adult quests I think. Anyways, I think people view fallout 1 and 2 with rose tinted glasses, I tried playing them after I became a fan of 3 and nv. And it was a slog playing the old ones, I didn’t get far.
Fair enough, Fallout 2 at least did deal with a lot of dark themes that I don’t see Bethesda retreading.
In regards to the kids thing, there were ways around it, it was more an annoyance having to buy back stuff that got stolen if one didn’t take those precautions and on an evil playthrough could cut the pretense and do it without much consequence besides the perk reputation as the place was a craphole anyway.
The older fallouts needed one to get into the setting to start the ball rolling, it is not a pretty game and would not be above throwing the playable character in difficult situation if they didn’t prepare for it but it had a way with its writing that helped one to roleplay once one got to a point where one got established which is an older game paradigm that isn’t popular nowadays - building a reputation, and once you have one can start to interact with the world proper.
New Vegas scratches that itch, but isn’t completely the same
I suppose it is like playing a interactive book and then falling in love with the writing and systems that represented uncomfortable realities in an interesting way.
Anyways, I think people view fallout 1 and 2 with rose tinted glasses, I tried playing them after I became a fan of 3 and nv. And it was a slog playing the old ones, I didn’t get far.
I also got into the series via FO3, and had a similar experience when I tried to play the first one shortly after completing 3. I couldn’t get past the dated gameplay and thought the hype must just be nostalgia. But the recent TV show inspired me to take another swing at the originals (being the only Fallout’s I didn’t play to death), and I actually am now of the opposite opinion.
Make no mistake, the game play feels clunky and dated even for '98 standards. And as such playing it can be a bit of a slog, especially the first couple hours. But the world building and quest design are honestly still better than 90% of modern games. I love Bethesda’s games, but the stark difference in quality regarding these two aspects can’t be overstated.
After running through both 1 and 2, I can fully see why fans of the originals seem to often feel like Bethesda’s entries failed to deliver on what long time fans came to know and love the series for. I will always love the Bethesda games, but it really isn’t just rose tinted glasses, there was some magic in the originals.
Thank you for more eloquently writing what I couldn’t really properly get out
There are things in Fallout 2 that stick with me since the first time I played it more than a decade ago because their are moments that feel impactful - it made me feel guilt for my actions, it made me laugh at something totally ridiculous and it has charm and subtlety that I feel Bethesda games struggle with.
spoilerI am playing it now, fallout 2 with restoration mod, it is totally different to the modern takes but I can still appreciate it because I can remember a lot of it and therefore know that I am going to suffer through some early game difficulty but I can still gleefully remember building a character that could pop eye balls from ten paces with a BOZAR, remembering Cassidy has a medical condition, remembering to leave farm girl alone unless I can bs, don’t bother with the Wanamingo’s until I am stronger, Marcus is a bro, a mother with a her child in refugee tents outside a city, refusing people coming in without them being able to provide something, and her asking to find out about her husband, intelligent deathclaws, hubologists, Vault City Entrance exam, gecko power plant and be sure to antagonise the Enclave over the monitor, the hooded man on the bridge asking riddles, the dogmeat dimension, the unlucky dog, super mutants don’t mess with until endgame, reno, vault tec and I can go on and on.
I played and finished fallout 3 and new vegas, played a bit of 4 and besides New Vegas giving me some of that old fallout charm, it does not have as nearly as memorable moments that live rent free in my head
There’s a quest where you find a ghoul child locked in a refrigerator on the side of the road (it’s implied he’s been in there since the war). You have the option of selling him to a named member of the gunners.
Honestly I think InExile should be given the IP for a game or two. Wasteland two and three while obviously in a different setting still have a lot of that classic charm.
I can see them doing a better job of it yes, they are probably the closest to understand the how the older Fallout works and already have experience making games like it too in a more modern setting
They'd meddle. Like with the tv show, where they nuked the capital of the NCR four years before new vegas. Problem is that the president of the NCR flies into New Vegas in the game from Shady Sands, so Shady Sands could not have been nuked.
Considering how bad Bethesda is at understanding the concept of time I wouldn’t be surprised if the actual dates on events end up saying the bombs dropped before New Vegas. This is Bethesda after all, they literally had a plot twist around a person aging and to hide that twist they just made it so that another person didn’t age.
The timeline in the show says “the fall of Shady Sands” which was an event from 2277 to ~2281.
We can assume “the fall” started when the NCR decided to siphon water from Vault 33.
We know Moldaver was there, and fell in love with Rose (Lucy’s mother) during that time.
Some time after, Hank (Lucy’s father), arrived and failed to convince Rose to return to the Vault, but took Norm and Lucy from Rose, before detonating the Nuke.
The NCR is certainly aware of the risks involved with fucking with the Vaults. They must have been desperate to choose to siphon water from a functional vault without knowing what is inside.
My best guess is the NCR made a choice to grow Shady Sands as fast as possible without considering how to provide resources for everyone.
Personally, I feel they always intended the fall to be the nuking, but someone put the wrong date on the blackboard, and now they’re trying to get the story straight again :P It does allow for some interesting possibilities, though.
The timeline in the show only says “The fall of Shady Sands”. While that was unclear, Howard did explain it, and it’s ridiculous to keep sticking to the whole “they deleted Fallout: New Vegas from canon” theory.
People were sharing all sorts of conspiracy theories about how Bethesda is trying to erase F1, 2 and NV from history before Howard did the interview, like here: pcgamer.com/…/in-which-i-mostly-debunk-the-latest…
It’s tiresome to see the wrong interpretation repeated, even after they set the story straight.
If they changed the story even a little bit, it wouldn’t be the D2:R treatment. D2:R is literally the exact same game with better graphics, and the option to swap back to the OG graphics at any time.
seriously where are these people coming from thinking the story would change? hell, why even fucking change anything? takes more time and work to change things.
4 yes, Starfield no. But fallout 4,nv, and fallout 3 were revolutionary, ground breaking games so I don’t get the hate.i definitely get my money’s worth when I play a modern bathesda game, so I don’t hate on them. There are some truly awful AAA games out there.
I honestly thought Elden ring was trash, so everyone has their tastes.
Fallout 4s writing was pretty objectively bad, the gameplay was a huge improvement though.
Fallout 3 was pretty disappointing to most people who were expecting something like Fallout 1 or 2 but the story was definitely more competent than Fallout 4, still mediocre though. Never heard anyone call it revolutionary.
New Vegas was made by Obsidian, not Bethesda and it’s a solid way to compare what good story looks like.
New Vegas wasn’t made by Bethesda.
While Fallout 3 was fun, the only “groundbreaking” part of it might be VATS. But it’s still just bullet time, so that goes to Max Payne, not Fallout 3.
But then you say Elden Ring is trash while trying to say Fallout 4 is revolutionary… So, you got me with the trolling. It took me a minute to realize you were pretending.
That it does. Because they published the game. It uses their engine. And they own the IP.
They did not make the game though. Fallout: New Vegas is a post-apocalyptic role-playing video game developed by Obsidian Entertainment and published by Bethesda Softworks.
Based on a bathesda owned property. Again, just because a studio outsources their work doesn’t mean it’s not theirs. Most Hollywood CGI is done in India, etc doesn’t mean it’s an Indian movie
As a big fan of 3, NV, and 4, I have to ask… What is groundbreaking or revolutionary about any of them?What did any of them bring to the table that hadn’t been done before?
Dont get me wrong, 3 and 4 are enjoyable “comfort blanket” style games with fun maps to explore. And NV is one of the gold standards in interactive narratives. But Bethesda hasn’t really broken ground since Oblivion.
Before fo3 I had never played a big open world game that had guns, explosives, all those quests, etc. I was a big fan of oblivion and I loved seeing that style transferred to a post apocalyptic world. I had never even heard of fallout before 3, so the entire world was fresh to me and I never would have been introduced to it had it not been by bathesda. The vats, the quests, etc, really pulled me in.
Well, we are in good company there. Got my start in the series at 3 as well and I fucking love the shit out of that game. Groundbreaking or not, it’s still a joy to play. Plus, no one did environmental story telling like Bethesda.
People like to shit on bathesda, but they introduced me to a great series. A series that frankly would be dead and mostly forgotten, had it not been for bathesda picking it up. Before they came along, fallout had become a button mashing, platform adventure game, just check out Fallout: BOS, for PS2.
I like Bethesda, and obviously they do have very vocal detractors. Though you might want to pull back on the overly zealous defense of Bethesda, as you are kind of just being the opposite side of the Bethesda hate coin.
Plus, it’s not really fair to say Fallout would have been dead and mostly forgotten if Bethesda hadn’t picked it up. It was a popular enough series that Bethesda went into a bidding war to get it. And Troika games, a studio started by Tim Cain, Leonard Boyarsky, and Jason Anderson (the original creators of Fallout), also tried to buy the rights to the series but were outbid. If not but for Bethesda’s big wallet, it’s very possible we could have seen the rise of a very different Fallout with the original creators at the helm. Which a part of me will always be sad we didn’t get to see. Still, I can cry myself to sleep on my copy of New Vegas, so at least we got two fun Bethesda games and one of the greatest RPGs of all time out of Bethesda’s purchase.
Also, if we are going to shit on BoS, then it’s only fair to say that Bethesda’s handling of the franchise has also gotten worse overtime. It’s not like 76 is a shining example of quality. (To be fair, I actually enjoyed both BoS and 76, as I’m a bit of a Fallout shill, but that doesn’t mean I can’t be objective about the problems of the series.)
I wish Microsoft would force Bethesda to share their toys with other people.
Todd Howard is the epitome of the egotistical rich wannabe need who takes his toys away if someone does something better than he does.
Gamers love Obsidian’s rushed bullied New Vegas better than 3, make sure they never get another chance to let someone else into their sandbox.
They try to copy Mass Effect’s dialog system and voiced protagonist to do “something new” it backfires. Fallout 4 has no real tied story to it besides a few lines from a single quest from Fallout 3. The Factions are a copy and paste job based around an AI system so they don’t have to write content.
I find it wasetul of Microsoft that they Purchased a studio and IP worth Billions and will allow them to gather dust for over a decade without any ROI? Why aren’t they starting to force Bethesda to make something with the Fallout IP.
InXile should at least be allowed to remaster Fallout 1. They have Brian Fargo still there to oversee it. It all reminds me of Doctor Who taking a break when they were at their peak popularity, then coming back after losing most of their fans.
I never said I had proof in the first paragraph. The fact that 76 got dumped on a nobody studio means other studios did use the IP to create a fallout 4 mod. But, it was a newly purchased studio who made 76. Microsoft owns enough that they could make a game with another studio bypassing Bethesda if they want.
MS doesn’t care about ROI or the games. They just want to control big studios and ips so they can force people into that Xbox ecosystem. Monthly subscriptions are where the money currently is at. And if they can dominate games they can shape the future to ensure more people stay in the MS product line.
I don’t think so. The Xbox ecosystem is about to stop existing the way it exists right now, likely turning into Steam Machine type boxes. Then GamePass has already been discussed as expanding platforms. So really MS is just aiming to sell GamePass which they can’t do through 3rd party deals so they buy their own studios and rely on their ROI by way of subscription sign ups.
It’s not like the things they make are exclusive either, they could be doing the Epic Games (gross) model of exclusives but MS really hasn’t been doing much of that. Which means they’re acting more as a game publisher for sales outside of gamepass and therefor do want the ROI from these studios.
Ah, it’s fine. I think the important part is keeping these games runnable on modern systems. I think D2 resurrected did a pretty good job of this, and the time is right since Fallout seems to have exploded in popularity.
I recently tried to replay some games of my childhood. I’ve tried Dune II, Sid Meier’s Civilization and Alpha Centauri and I couldn’t play them because the UI is too dated, but Fallout an Fallout 2 are still great, 27 years later.
I think the top-down style is what makes the first two stand on their own, unique platform. They should keep the style and make it fresher and easier to enjoy in the modern day. Otherwise, it’s just 3D Fallout but the story is different. More 3D Fallout should just come in the form of new games.
Besides, enough 3D open-world games exist in general. A real Baldur’s Gate III competitor would be welcome.
Add comment