Forum:Did Bethesda wreck fallout?

Forums: Index > Fallout world discussion > Did Bethesda wreck fallout?

I've never played the first two games, but from what i've heard, they have a much more realistic approach to the fallout world and better plots. There seems to be a lot of talk about how Bethesda "ruined" Fallout with their approach to the game, and I both agree and disagree. Yes, the story is extremely weak (the original ending before Broken Steel literally had me shaking my head with disbelief), and yes, the lack of realism compared with the other Fallout games is annoying, but, above all, it is a fun game to play. It's sort of like what happened between Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2-storyline and character development was swapped for action and big explosions. What do you think? SVeach94 13:43, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

I consider ME2 to be far superior to ME1 in terms of story and characters. ME1 is a generic space/soap opera, while ME2 is a darker, grittier space symphony. As for Fallout 3, the problem is approach. Bethesda made a game that's supposed to be fun, yes, but one that's shallow and focuses on style, rather than substance. Fallout 1/2, on the other hand, have a lot of substance with an interesting style. Yes, both are fun. But Fallout 1/2 is sushi, whereas Fallout 3 is a Big Mac. Both are tasty, but sushi's for intelligent connoisseurs (at least in the West). _Tagaziel ^(call!) 16:12, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

@SVeach94 Actually the swap between ME and ME2 was story for character development, really how much character development did you see in mass effect 1?(except for wrex) and as for the ruining thing, I don't think so the story was weak,but the world they created was vast and incredible and i don't see any problems in the canon.

You could say that in terms of applied canon, yes. As Grizzly stated in another forum, there isn't an explanation for Jet in the Capital Wasteland. Brotherhood? No. They wouldn't want druggies in their brotherhood. Enclave? Exactly the same answer as the last. I also have read that the maker of Jet never let the ingredients for Jet be known (Brahmin dung).

– 16:23, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

No! They made Fallout better! With those 1080P graphics, and better gameplay and story, and much more enjoyable and more replay value! Tezzla blah blah blah 16:26, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Christ, Tezzla, you're Harry's brother, ain't you? If you're going to be an admin, then play the original games and respect them. Oh, and by the way? The story in Fo3 sucks. _Tagaziel ^(call!) 17:26, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Ya i dont think thay messed up fallout at all, ya the main story was really lame but it was still very immersive and thay never really messed up canon eather. But hay who ells thinks its funny that the story in the DLC's was much beter then the main story, but even though i am i hard core fallout fan i dont think thay messed up fallout at all. on a saide not ME is a crappy game :P MrDot01 17:20, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

@Grizzly

I am not saying they are bad. I am just saying that FO3 is better. Tezzla blah blah blah 17:27, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

i liked fallout 3 but if you JUST hunt down the main mission stuff its not very thrilling but if you dabble little side mission here mutant brains there its much more fun but i agree there approach was a little...weak i did like the story but a few more twists or something other than OH SHIT!! THE ENCLAVE AHHHHHHHHH!!!! would have been for the best still my number 1 game ever. PS cool Seal and Toast Peters 007 16:11, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

If anything, I'd have to say Bethesda SAVED Fallout 3 (OMFGWTFGTFO!!!!!). And I know, you're all saying it sucks compared to the previous installations. But heres the thing: Black Isle Studio, the creators of Fallout, were fired from Interplay after Fallout: Tactics. If Interplay had kept the full rights to Fallout they would have undoubtedly destroyed it (See Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel, Fallout: Extreme). Bethesda actually brought Fallout closer to what it was with Fallout 3. 24.206.99.148 21:11, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

if i may add to what this guy said, bethesda also opend fallout up so more people can and would play hell VB just looked like a prittyer and posible cool fallout 2. Im really happy that we got the fallout 3 we got, it was fun and it felt like fallout just a dif game play stile. Note : it was fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuunnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn MrDot01 17:44, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...It's a tricky one really. I mean, Fallouts 1 and 2 were excellent games, with very good stories to them. And then Fallout 3 comes along... Well, I believe that it was considerably better than it's previous installments. Aside from the end of the turn-based combat, which, whatever anybody says, cannot be beaten by real-time action, there was also the story... Now, I think that Fallout 3's story is on par with the previous installments, (Yes, I know, you probably disagree) However, defeating the Enclave at the purifier didn't give me as good buzz as defeating the bosses of Earlier Fallouts. But, 5 DLC's later made me see that it is true that sometimes bigger is better. Half-BloodPrince 18:06, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

I got a better question than "did bethesda wreck fallout?" brace yourself old school fallout fans because this is serious "Will you ever shut up about it and get over it?" does it matter, the fallout games were getting progresively further away from the heart of the series, and thematically (lets ignore the story and the gameplay for a moment) fallout 3 brought it back to what it was supposed to be from the start. ralok 18:26, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?! Bethedesa SAVED Fallout, it was a dying franchise, and it looked hopeless, but Bethedesa bought the rights, and now the series is back in action.

The first 2 were good and all, but 3 was much easier to get into, and the combat was fun as hell.

Doctor L Weegee

I recently got F3, and I don't got any complaints about it. I'm planning on playing 1 and 2 someday, to fight the army of mutants and for the freedom of the games. But I've always been more into FPSs. In F3, I found myself barely shooting and using VATS a lot. I think F3 is probably better than the first two. but here's the thing... It's an opinion. Some people say it's a great game, it made Bethesda richer, so it's a total win-win. the people who dislike it didn't lose anything. in fact, the interest in Fallout is why New Vegas is being made. that guy's right, they saved it. oh yeah, I can't help but think of TES fanboys when i read this kinda stuff. the ones that say they ruined TES and Morrowind when they made Oblivion. Dunmer999 01:24, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

They didnt ruin it. both f2 and f3 had a lot of content and are great games. The only thing i like more about F3 is that the turn based stuff is gone. It used to bug me that sometimes you have to spend 3-4 turns to reach the end of the map so you can escape from a random encounter, now you just drop everything and run for your life :D / Trivium

JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 15:42, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Ruin? No. Not put nearly as much effort into it as they should have? Most definitely. As much as the first two games' frustrate the crap out of me, they are extremely deep experiences. Fallout 3 was fun, but it just wasn't as nuanced as it could have been. Fallout: New Vegas, on the other hand, is close to perfection. The story, the mechanics, the Meltdown perk. *dreamy sigh* Schneidend 21:54, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear what Bethesda did. They interpretated it into their own idea of RPG's which is The Elder Scrolls. Fallout 3 is clearly not a game for the story, it's more for the exploration and gameplay of and RPG. I don't think I'm the only one who has played Fallout over and over again having a different experience every time. Fallout 3 was made for people new to Fallout, if Black Isle Studios had made Van Buren, then it would be a completely different Fallout world as we know today. Maybe Bethesda's first attempt at Fallout wasn't a masterpiece but a building block for future Fallout installments, as we know that Bethesda and Obsidian Entertainment intend to make more Fallout games than just the two, we could see a much wider and complex idea of Fallout when Fallout 4 eventually comes out. ~ Captain California

Well, there is one thing for certain that Bethesda wrecked about the series. Consider this:

• At the time of Fallout (2161), Harold is just a crusty old mutant. He may have a sapling on his head, but certainly nothing close to a tree.

• In Fallout 2 (2241, 80 years since the events of Fallout), Harold is still technically the same old mutant with his priceless sense of humor, but he only has a twig protruding from his head at this point.

• By the time of Fallout 3 (2277, a mere 36 years after the events of Fallout 2), Harold is now rooted to a spot in a rocky sanctuary on the other side of the country with his roots spanning hundreds of yards in every direction. And despite the fact that he is completely encased in a solid tree trunk, he can still talk to you.

I would pay money to get the opportunity to take him out of that game altogether. They should have continued his story in New Vegas instead, as it would have been much more reasonable.

Of course, I have a few other complaints about the game, but just as well with Fallout 2. Still, I much enjoyed both games. Excluding Oasis. -- Ghouly89 ^(Talk) 05:13, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr = Q: Did Bethesda wreck fallout? A: No

Slightly longer version: Bethesda bought the IP of Fallout and made a multimillion dollar game that has won numerous awards, spawned another best selling spinoff [Fo:New vegas] and is enjoyed by millions of gamers and fans of FO 1&2. Just considering those facts alone, how is it then that then the idea that Bethesda "wrecked" Fallout be considered? It is, quite frankly, ridiculous and it is the sort of topic that belongs on disgruntled fanboys blogs and NMA forums. In addition, its also a really lame question as it is the equivilant of this: did Atari ruin the D&D CRPG's when they took over the IP from SSI in the mid 1990's? Answer = No. Just because a company does something slightly different to a previous one with a gaming world & IP, does not mean it is ruining it, despite what rabid fanboys whine about. Change and development are part & parcel of the gaming industry and I for one, am grateful that Bethesda took a defunct game franchise from a defunct company and ran with it. FO3 & FO:NV are not like the previous outings and that is a good thing. Seriously, no one today would bother ploughing in the capital to produce a game that looks and plays like one from 10 years back as only a select few die hard fans would buy it. Bethesda have breathed new life into a gaming universe that is Fallout and while some may not like it, they most definately haven't wrecked Fallout. Captain Taipan 01:54, December 30, 2010 (UTC)

Well, you are correct in saying Bethesda revived the series, financially. However, thus far, the central topic of discussion here is "Did Bethesda wreck the storyline of the series". Sure, most any game company with money can buy an old 2d title/series and spawn a sequel in a 3d engine. What Bethesda failed to do with Fallout 3 was develop an original, captivating, deep RPG to complement that 3d engine. That is the category where the original Fallouts (1 and 2) cannot be touched. At least, in my opinion. Fallout 3 was fun for the first play-through, but replay-able over and over? Not likely. Especially not when I know exactly how it will end every single time. -- Ghouly89 ^(Talk) 04:52, December 30, 2010 (UTC)

I don't like everything they did with Fallout 3 and its DLC content storywise (mostly crude rehashing of stuff from previous games and Van Buren) or the engine they used, but they resurrected the franchise in a definitive way. Without them we'd be waiting for Interplay to possibly make Fallout Online and not have two more Fallout games in the franchise. I think it was wise of them to have Obsidian make New Vegas, they should probably cede all the story-work to them and impose discipline so that Obsidian does't behave like Obsidian (i.e. over 9000 bugs/game).--72.71.221.70 18:23, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

Bethesda did interpret in their own terms and indeed went in a different direction than interplay, but they didn't wreck it, more of changed it. The story isn't bad, it's just new, and needs further refinement through its future additions. I believe they'll be adding the whole East Coast story, just as Interplay did the West Coast story. however, to say that it wrecked the franchise is dramatically incorrect, because at the point Bethesda received the licensing for Fallout, Fallout was turning into a half-assed developed game with poor titles and terrible games being released (Van Buren excluded, of course), and though to many Fallout 3 is dramatically inferior to Fallout 1 and 2, you must admit that Fallout 3 is superior to Fallout Brotherhood of Steel, which was the direction it was heading.

If it wasn't for Bethesda, half of you would have never even heard of Fallout. It would have ended up a dead franchise from Black Isle shutting down. Be grateful. Bethesda could have just passed over Fallout. MoonshadowDark

No, Fallout would not die. It'd simply get picked up by another studio, likely Obsidian or Troika. Bethesda was simply the rich kid on the block. We don't owe them anything. _Tagaziel ^(call!) 12:53, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

Bull. No one would pick it up because Black Isle was turning it into crap. We owe Bethesda for the revival of Fallout. Obsideon wasn't even founded until Black Isle dissolved. And even if they did, they would have run the games into the ground by styling it after Fallout: BoS. It's Bethesda's Oblivion engine that saved the games. So yes, we owe them alot. MoonshadowDark

We owe them the whole goddamn franchise. Interplay was dead, Black Isle Studios was turning it to shit, and no one else was around to pick it up. Bethesda took it and saved it. Whether it is better than the originals is irrelevant, all that matters is that none of us would be discussing this, and this wiki would be dramatically less popular as would the franchise with no continuations in sight had Bethesda looked the other way. but either way, it doesn't matter. We won the war. And there isn't going to be a revolution.

"Black Isle Studios was turning it to shit,"

Somebody needs a reality check. Black Isle was Van Buren, Black Isle is New Vegas. Nitty ^Tok. 21:53, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. If anyone turned the franchise to shit, it was Interplay. Which, in turn does not attribute it back to Black Isle. Black Isle was Fallout. And here's something that caught my eye today (and really pissed me off). Why not say the same thing about Fallout 3? Why not criticise Bethesda for their poor choice of game engine? -- Ghouly89 ^(Talk) 12:45, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I meant to say Interplay was turning to shit. Black Isle's Van Buren looked pretty awesome (no sarcasm) but every game that was being developed at that time, such as Fallout Extreme and BoS2, looked shitty, which was what I wanted to point out. The spinoffs have all been shit, unless you count New Vegas. But the point stays. It was beginning a slight downward slope, which would have ended it in the end. Imagine all the Fallouts turning in PRIMARILY fpss and action games, without a hint of rpg elements. That was the future of the franchise had it kept up. Bethesda kept it on the right track, and just hit the ground hard but will get the hang of it and keep on running.

The idea that Bethesda ruined Fallout is beyond riduclus. Yes, Fallout 3 needed some work on the story line, but if you let your grumbling go and just played it, not analyze every last thing, it was a very enjoyable game. Major holes are there, we all admit that, but the style is dramticaly changed from Fallout and Fallout 2. As has been stated, it followed the vein of the Elder Scrolls, becoming more exploration then story, making parts of it a letdown. Yet transfering to a more organic combat system, removing the isometric angle and allowing a choice of 3rd or 1st person view was a welcome relief. These changes alone brought many new fans, and allowed the change to console. FNV, is the best of both worlds, great story, and the look of Fallout 3. In the end, its kinda like comparing Red and Green apples, some people like 1, and are gonna complain, others like both. Fallout 3 is the green apple. Bethesda basically took Fallout, and changed the taste and look. Sgt. Chronus 06:15, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

We don't have to like it. We have the right to criticize games and point out flaws and analyze them to death. Why? Because we care. You obviously don't care about what you play, but please, not everyone is you. _Tagaziel ^(call!) 09:43, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Just because you criticise something doesn't mean you don't like it. Agent c 01:21, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

The criticizing has become mindless and simply meant to be hostile, simply because we stand on higher ground. The story is irrelevant, the game is irrelevant, the DLCs are irrelevant, hell, this whole goddamn argument is irrelevant! The point is, Bethesda owns Fallout, Bethesda can shape it into whatever it desires, it has far more income and current financial prowess than Interplay so it isn't like Interplay can buy it back nor can Obsidian take it. And we are a new and growing generation. There are far more Bethesda fans than Interplay fans, and there is no ignoring that fact. We outnumber you, we are part of a growing basis, we are part of the dominant party, and it is impossible for Interplay to take power. Arguing against it is simply pointless. You may as well hold your tongue. Sombar1 03:24, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

Such statements constitute deliberate harrasment. First warning. _Tagaziel ^(call!) 09:53, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

Whatever man, if you want to view it as harassment then view it as harassment, but as you yourself have said the forum is a place for discussion, and you have attacked many, many people here and no one has done a thing. Abide to your own rules or leave your position of Admin because otherwise this is abuse of power and eventually people will realize it and become tired of you and your bullying, brutish, spoiled-brat ways and take you down, unless you stop now and back off, because you are being a real ass to a lot of people and once we fight back, then you mark US as the bad guys. Come on, man. Play fair, or admit that you are the bad guy. Sombar1 21:59, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

Tagaziel, not trying to be rude or anything, but not everyone is you. You have failed time and time again to be civilized with ANYONE with a different veiw then yours. Fallout 3 could have been much better, and I did say it was a let down, however you skated past that part with sheer hostility towards Fallout 3. If you don't like, ignore it rather then bash it and everybody who likes aspects about it. The linear story did suck, the sheer ignorance of industry blew, and the gaping holes of lore were never adressed. All that aside it was an enjoyable game. Now, Sombar, if you will please take your fight with Tagaziel out of your messages I think everbody would thank you for it. Sgt. Chronus 05:12, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

So, if I don't like Fallout 3, I'm supposed to shut up? Listen, the entire purpose of a forum is discussion and debate. If people can't support their opinion or expand their arguments when I confront them, maybe it's them who should revise their posting manner, not me. I am not going to coddle anyone. Life's a bitch. _Tagaziel ^(call!) 09:53, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

Life's a bitch for people who hate Bethesda. ;P Sombar1 21:59, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

No Tagaziel, I just think as a mod you might want to set an example and voice them more calmly and drop the hostility a little bit. It is kinda rude in my opinion that you seem (at least to me) to belitle anyone who does like. I know that is not your intention, but you do come across very gruff, and people like Sombar do not help. And Sombar, please remove what ever stick is logded in your rectum and act like a person and not pick a fight with some one who people actually like. Sorry if that seems like harrasment, but you're a dick. Sgt. Chronus 04:07, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

Dude, I'm not trying to come off ass a dick, but seriously, everywhere I go I see this guy attacking people, and am I supposed to just stand by and let that happen? I guess so. Whatever, man, when he starts banning people for having opinions, don't come crying to me. Sombar1 12:30, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

Look at X-com. Everything after the first one was ridiculous crap. Especially now that it's being rebooted. It seems as though game design in the 90's left a lot more room for personal passions to come through in a game and make them fucking awesome, simply due to the smaller scale development. As the industry grew and competition became more fierce, room for more personally appealing characteristics in games became smaller and has in the present basically pushed any game that isn't umbilically funded by a very large corporation into the "Indy (Poor-ass)" niche. Granted, I had a lot of fun with FO3, but it was completely different from the original(s), and not nearly as special after playing a crap load of Oblivion, just as this pathetic reboot of X-com will be. 21:56, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

To me, it seems that the people whop really have a problem with Fallout 3 are the diehard fans of Fallout and Fallout 2. Yes, I was hoping for more knowing Bethesdas games, buiut all in all I enjoyed the game more then I disliked it, it comes down to personal taste and if you want a detail oriented game, or a bit more just run a muck and sometimes do the quest line game. I had more fun just forgetting the Story and running around like a Jethead with unlimited Jet (which oddly enough, is most of my charcters) then following the story line. I do to get farther in the game, but enjoy doing Main quests to unlock things, asame as the DLC, and using those to assist my expiditions across the Wasteland. Sgt. Chronus 07:08, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

Ahem *clears throat*, before I proceed to contribute my newest opinion to this thread, I want to make one thing explicitly clear: Tagaziel has his opinions; vault users have their opinions; both want the right to voice their opinions, but with one catch: Tagaziel is often ridiculed by the mass of people with a different stance against Fallout 3 simply because he has an opinion. Many may argue that he attacks other users using his status as an administrator to gain leverage, reportedly "abusing his powers", but this has NEVER been the case.

If you look closely at many instances where Tagaziel and another user have had a dispute, he does not attack them, but rather their display(s) of ignorance and unwillingness to allow him to express his opinion. His accused "rudeness" could well be attributed to the fact that nearly every supporter of Fallout 3 has a predisposition towards him as an unreasonable asshole. Respect is a two-way street; treat him like his opinion is right-wing bullshit, and I will block you. Carry on an intelligent conversation with him without feeling the need to throw personal attacks, and we will get along very nicely. Because let's face it: you're looking at these forums to discuss what you can't take your eyes off of (Fallout). I expect people to be able to interact well together on here, regardless of their extremist views on video games and game companies.

Alright, I'm glad to have gotten that little bit of unpleasantness out of the way.

@Sgt. Chronus

That was precisely what drew me to Fallout 3 for over 120 game hours. The exploration aspect was quite fun, especially the vaults and metros. I dedicated a lot of time trying to get to the surface entrance of Vault 87 :P I just feel Bethesda should have brought on another studio or something to handle the written aspects of the game. Their idea of Fallout 3 looked more like Obliv-out 3 in my eyes. -- Ghouly89 ^(Talk) 09:50, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

@Ghouly 89 and Tagaziel

Sorry if anyhting came out as overly rude, truth be told I was just pissy after reading the entire discussion and dealing with Sombars bitch fit at Tagaziel. Yes, I do think he could be a bit more diplomatic, but at least Tagaziel has some passion on his views which is a very good thing. All in all, I do agree with you Ghouly that Tagaziel gets a bad rap for having an opinion.

@Ghouly 89 Yes I do wish as well that they had brought Obsidain on for Fallout 3, but its done and can't be changed. Yet they made exploration more fun and bridged the combat tocurrent norms making the game more open to everybody. Now that New Vegas is out, the series is getting back to normal in my eyes.Sgt. Chronus 05:53, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for apologizing, though Sombar was the user I was focusing most of my attention to. He/she should note that using "bully tactics" (i.e. you can't have an opinion because you are the minority) is deliberate harassment, and a very ignorant argument stance.

But honestly, my biggest annoyance with Fallout 3 (other than the linear story) is that Bethesda took the series a completely different direction. They tried focusing too much of the gameplay mechanics around the combat aspect, whereas in Fallout / Fallout 2, there are many more opportunities to exercise your character's diplomatic/ thief / science sides.

And yes, I do agree with you. After experiencing New Vegas, I am much more calmed by the future of the series. Who knows? Maybe -- if my wildest dreams come true -- Bethesda will let Obsidian develop the next title in the series ;) Have you played either of the originals? -- Ghouly89 ^(Talk) 07:33, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Those and tatics, love the open story, just like the first person veiw of Fallout 3 more. Fallout 2 was a bit grating after a while dealing with the enclave so much, horrigan wa a pain in the ass, but loved the bigger world. Perfered the Fallout 3 Enclave, just look scarier. That and its a lot more fun to decapitate a super mutant in first person.. Sgt. Chronus 09:35, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe Beth ruined Fallout, I think they brought it back. Fallout 3 wasn't an actual Fallout 1 and 2 game, it's kinda a new branch in the series. It's kinda like Doom 3 to Doom 1 and 2. It kinda keeps the history but places it elsewhere not relating to the previous games.--Mastererium 22:43, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, people can sure become passionate about the video games they buy :D On the real, I don't think Bethesda ruined the Fallout series. It just took it in a new direction. Just like people are now arguing about the changes New Vegas made and their validity, people will argue about Fallout 3 and the changes it made. The game is out, no amount of furious and, lets face it, venomous arguments will change it. I'm all for discussion and passionate opinions, but not at the point of civility.

And I would hope that Obsidian can develop the next game, on the absolute grounds that they overhaul their piece-of-sh!t game engine. Crashes and freezes are definitely not cute--Black Artist 00:08, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts on this: As said in my profile page, My first taste of Fallout was Fallout 3. I enjoyed it. I didn't know how deep the story was through my playthrough (only played it once. Dunno why, Im already on my second playthrough of New Vegas), but I found it immersive. then I had the Idea to try out the first 2 fallouts after researching a bit into the story on this wiki. So I found a copy of Fallout 1 and 2 and tried them out. The gameplay was different, and hard to get into, but the story and the entire lore amazed me. Even later, reading the fallout bible and going through pages and pages of fallout locations/characters/factions on this wiki in my spare time I found a world that was deeper than fallout 3. My current opinion is that Fallout 3 was a very good game in its own right, but its story was average, and not "Fallout", it was more of a spinoff, but I owe it a lot because without it, I wouldnt have a close to favourite franchies. 5t3v0 11:59, February 8, 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand all the hostility over FO3, I mean, I know that people coming from Interplay's Fallout 1 and 2 will have experienced a different style first and have a sort of loyalty to that style but I don't understand what most think is so bad about FO3. I loved it and although they may have come up with a more interesting story I still think bringing fresh water to the wastes is a justifiable plot. I mean while water is still irradiated mankind will only get so far and turning on that purifier is a huge leap forward for the wasteland. I found it immersive and fun to play, and maybe the companions are a little dull but that just seems to be Bethesda's habit, of making a lot of stuff but not giving them much depth. Kinda like spreading butter over too much bread. I still have to play Fallout 1 and 2 but I think Bethesda did a damn fine job with Fallout 3. Of course everyone has thier own opinion and I'm not here to change your mind. Also I have to add that even though I haven't played it yet I don't like the idea of The Master/Richard Grey from Fallout 1, there isn't really anything wrong with him but I'm just not that into the idea of a telepathic mutant that reminds me of the flood from the Halo series. SupremeCommanderGrief (talk) 10:07, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

From my point of view, they did ruin Fallout.

It's important to seperate two things here, how the games play and how the story is.

Storywise:

Bethesda's sense of dark humor isn't like Interplay's was. The tone of the Bethesda games is differently. I can't really give any clear examples but some of the style of the originals is gone. I guess they took the greater narrative in the right direction but I still feel somewhat lacking.

Gameplaywise:

Also I hate that they build on the Elder Scrolls IV engine. The games have weird kind of interactions and machanics. In some ways it really feels like "Oblivion with guns". The games are riddled with bugs. But you know, I've since then coped with it. We are never going to see a proper fallout again.

That was my small addition, I would have liked to write something larger but I have to go. 94.210.211.143 18:32, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

You have to understand what was taking place when Bethesda contracted with Interplay in 2004, obtaining the rights to make/publish 3 Fallout games. The reason FO3 is in DC is because they knew they weren't going to make NV. Bethesda was going to make 3 and let obsidian make NV because they would be working on Skyrim. They wanted somewhere different(DC) because they didn't want the games to conflict. You go to NMA and read all the supposed canon rape FO3 is accused of, which is totally wrong. You read things like Vault 87(you can read my post at Vault 87), radiation in DC(Nellis was heavily radiated up until 50 yrs prior to the events of NV and was hit by only 2 bombs) and the Enclave being in DC(the enclave was a wide spread organization, even in 2 Dr Shoener threats Dr Henry with a transfer to another Enclave facility) Then there are the nitpicking crap you will hear like the Vault doors are different, Vault suits are different, jet on the east coast. Seriously? What a waste of time. What about the Great Khans in NV? It's canon the were killed off in 1, Darian returns 100 yrs old in 2, you kill him, so why are they in NV? What about the Enclave refueling station in NV? If all the Enclave were on the west coast only why would they need it? There is other things I question in NV but I'm not going to here.The truth be told, Obsidian is known for buggy games, other publishers not wanting to work with them, and game after game failure in the market. The only problem I have with FO3 is Little Lamplight. I think 3's main story could have been a little better, but isn't any worse than FO1's main story, or even 2 for that matter.I recently read an article by Eurogamer stating how miserable FO1 and 2 did in Britian, only selling 50,000 copies between both. Then you have Fallout BOS, this is what Interplay gave you and for people to trash Bethesda is just wrong.--Wert1978 (talk) 21:32, December 9, 2012 (UTC)

• "You go to NMA and read all the supposed canon rape FO3 is accused of" - No rape jokes please.
• Vault 87 is canon breaking, and was just a shoddy attempt to get FEV back in the Captial wasteland with little to no good reason.
• The Enclave was a wide spread organisation - Little to no evidence of this.
• Jet on the east coast is a big problem. How can something invented 200 years after the war be in a location where no man has walked since the bombs?
• Refuling Depot - you presume that it wasnt there as a part of the plan to evacuate to the rig, rather than simething needed afterwards.
• Obsidian known for buggy games - name one developer who isnt? I'll give you a hint, the Big B is also known for its fair share of termite mound games. As for not working with publishers, given that they're working on stick of truth, I think that answers that claim.
• Fallout was a critical success, not a blockbuster. It was intended to be a B game, not an AAA title, and in this regard it blew all expectations... However to addres your point of 50k being "miserable", I've just checked the Europe wide sales chart. Super Mario Wii U has 90k sales contient wide. and is number 10. When you bear in mind that the UK is just one country in that chart, and the market has grown in the past 15 years, it doesnt actually look as miserable as you purport. Yes POS was crap, but funnily enough we knew and said that before release. It was also done under different management to 1 and 2. Next time you make a game thats still in top 10 of all time lists 10 years after release, we'll talk about game quality.
• Please no more blind fanboyism. Making points is fine, but fanboyism is just plain wrong.

Agent c (talk) 21:51, December 9, 2012 (UTC)

Iv'e been a Fallout fan for a very long time. You don't have to argue canon with me, so please don't. Even FONV supports many things that you find in FO3 you want to call canon rape.I guess that's why they didn't make Van Buren and made BOS, since they just wanted a "B" game. But again, FO3 doesn't hurt Fallout canon. And I again will refer you to my previous post to support my opinion, which is not blind fanboyism.--Wert1978 (talk) 02:50, December 10, 2012 (UTC)

I've asked you nicely before. You make light of rape again and you're facing a block. The B game wasnt POS, it was Fallout 1. This isn't NMA, nor am I a regular there, that you've brought it up at all shows you've lost focus here. Agent c (talk) 03:01, December 10, 2012 (UTC)

I was just quoting the article "Fallout Retrospective" by Eurogamer. They called it "miserable". I guess we all know what your opinion is on the subject.--Wert1978 (talk) 09:30, December 10, 2012 (UTC)

I wish I could go back in time with all the money and skill it would take to fund and train the original Fallout designers to make the true blend of Fallout 3 / New Vegas and the relatively ancient technology that started it all.

• Then we would not feel the need to defend the games we love.

I am a fallout UNIVERSE FAN ~ I except it's hiccups and embrace it as much as I can. Most of all I try not to judge other fans for liking what I personally find lame and poorly executed ~ But Hay ~ I am a saint...

SaintPain→ That was broke afore I got here." 09:53, December 10, 2012 (UTC)