- Joined
- Jan 5, 2015
Why is it the responsibility of the posters of this thread to determine this?
This, and seeing how Halo is going under Microsoft, who's to say that the situation will ever improve?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why is it the responsibility of the posters of this thread to determine this?
inXile could be a safe bet if Microsoft wanted a new isometric Fallout or remakes of 1 & 2 in the style of the new Wasteland games, a modern style Fallout would be up in the air until they get that steampunk RPG finished (could be a good experience, or a mediocre dud like The Outer Worlds was).I'm asking a serious question. Because now is the perfect time to look for a developer other than Bethesda. People pretty much universally think of them as bad for Fallout, so why not name other studios who can do better? Especially since Microsoft sometimes listens to fans, so if fans make enough of a stink about it, we might actually get a Fallout game that's *gasp* not made by Bethesda.
Maybe they can do both. Have InXile or old Black Isle/Obsidian veterans make isometric Fallout games in the West Coast, and have the Fallout 76 team make more FPS/RPG-style games on the East Coast. That way, you have two separate Fallout continuities that sometimes reference each other, but rarely ever meet. That way, you can satisfy fans of Fallout 1, 2, and New Vegas, as well as fans of Fallout 3, 4, and 76.inXile could be a safe bet if Microsoft wanted a new isometric Fallout or remakes of 1 & 2 in the style of the new Wasteland games, a modern style Fallout would be up in the air until they get that steampunk RPG finished (could be a good experience, or a mediocre dud like The Outer Worlds was).
With Fallout 76 getting some of its development shifted over to a third party studio, it's possible that Bethesda Austin could have a whack at a new game at some point (maybe they can use their online experience to integrate co-op?). I could also see Bethesda & Microsoft create a new studio to handle Fallout so that we can get games more often than 15 years.
Fallout 3 gets a bad rap, it's a solid game, but it's best treated as a soft reboot as tonally there are some inconsistencies, which I think is what bothered hardcore fans of the first 2 back in 2008.
But taken as it's own thing, it's good and better than 4 and 76 and of course leagues ahead of the absolute garbage of Brotherhood of Steel.
But it's New Vegas that is the one that is totally in continuity with the first 2, Bethesda's take on the franchise isn't worthless (problems with 4 and 76 aside), but it's also not really the real McCoy either.
Look my retarded chosen one was so hot, once she was done with Frank Horrigan he couldn’t walk.
View attachment 3521205
Frank is a sterile, self-hating mutant who decides to self-destruct the moment he’d lost his flaccid cock. The entire outro is a homage to eunuchs with rage.Frank couldnt handle the Snu-Snu it seems.
Or maybe the FEV made him biggy except...you know where. And the bigger body only makes it even smaller looking.
Frank is a sterile, self-hating mutant who decides to self-destruct the moment he’d lost his flaccid cock. The entire outro is a homage to eunuchs with rage.
Frank couldnt accept that under all that FEV he was still...
A virgin with rage
I'm unsure how much that would change anything. Fallout purists like the NMA crowd would just declare their games to be "true canon" anyway and would continue to complain how Bethesda Fallout is popular despite it being "fake canon".That way, you can satisfy fans of Fallout 1, 2, and New Vegas, as well as fans of Fallout 3, 4, and 76.
Well, you can't win them all. It is impossible to please those who, by default, revel in being angry and dissatisfied with Bethesda's Fallout. To them, it is not enough that New Vegas is more popular than Fallout 3, 4, or 76 combined, the very existence of such games are a religious insult that warrants an eternal fatwa.I'm unsure how much that would change anything. Fallout purists like the NMA crowd would just declare their games to be "true canon" anyway and would continue to complain how Bethesda Fallout is popular despite it being "fake canon".
I love Fallout 2 but pretty much entirely for the quests and reactivity. The main plot - from the Enclave down to you being a retarded tribal - was pretty bad. Even beyond the pop culture references you had dumb ideas like intelligent deathclaws (which, iirc, even Avellone regrets).
Todd Howard has a weak voice and should not be allowed to make us rebuy the same game fifty times
"Speak softy and carry a big bag filled with copies of TESV & Fallout 4 to make them buy again" - Todd "The Godd" HowardTodd Howard has a weak voice and should not be allowed to make us rebuy the same game fifty times
Jesus Christ you gigantic autist shut the fuck up.I'm still waiting for an answer to my main question. If you guys all think Bethesda is bad for Fallout, then who can do a better job?
This is pretty much how I feel about 76. It just does not appeal to me in any way. I dislike multiplayer shit as a rule but not only is 76 a multiplayer title it's a manipulative and shitty microtransaction filled one as well.I just will never touch 76 because I don't want an MMO, I want the single player with mods and me being able to fuck around at will.
I don't know, Microsoft has produced practically nothing worth playing so far despite effectively owning half the industry at this point. I think people are being optimistic when they expect Microsoft ownership is going to do anything but slow down development for new games.With Fallout 76 getting some of its development shifted over to a third party studio, it's possible that Bethesda Austin could have a whack at a new game at some point (maybe they can use their online experience to integrate co-op?). I could also see Bethesda & Microsoft create a new studio to handle Fallout so that we can get games more often than 15 years.
Fallout 3 was a really earnest attempt by Bethesda to take Fallout and translate it into a first person RPG. They got really close, it's not perfect, but compared to the later entries in the franchise before Bethesda took over it's significantly better.Fallout 3 gets a bad rep thanks to purists and people refusing to see it for what it is. It has flaws indeed but I would still consider it comfortably part of the series (76, on the other hand, tho...).
Yeah, the main plot was really underwhelming, and really not much better than 3's. If anything, it was probably a little worse. It was very obvious they rushed it like crazy and it's extremely linear. 1's main quest wasn't a masterpiece or anything, but it facilitated the rest of the game and all the side stuff a lot better.I love Fallout 2 but pretty much entirely for the quests and reactivity. The main plot - from the Enclave down to you being a retarded tribal - was pretty bad. Even beyond the pop culture references you had dumb ideas like intelligent deathclaws (which, iirc, even Avellone regrets).
Amazon's Fallout series can work or not. I really hope its do.
I'd rather have it be good just to have Fallout get some love for its anniversary, but this year has been terrible for video game shows (Halo was a failure as soon as the helmet came off, and Resident Evil was utterly abysmal), and this show's being helmed by the guys who ran Westworld into the ground.Amazon's Fallout series can work or not. I really hope its do.