Thats right, i think Bethesda never understood fallout, why?

Bethesda created their fallout games as an apocalyptic world.
I think that fallout never was about that but about a new world, Look at 1 , 2 or NV, they sell you this world as a new one that has been created by the war and thats what is about, and i think the "war, war never changes" thing makes sense like this, that even in a new world war still remains the same.

But Bethesda just didn't get that, just look at fallout 3 and 4, they dont present you the new world but more like an apocalyptic old world, in fallout 3 it looks like the bombs just dropped because it focused way to much as a Apocalyptic world and not as the new one. Fallout 4 does this at a lesser extent but still Bethesda ideology is in there, you can see from the sole survivor dialogue that they written the world as devastated, destroyed, thats how th e SS thinks and so Bethesda does, they see fallout as, " what if the world was hit by atomic bombs and people have to survive in the remains of what was left of it?" when i think fallout was more like " what if the world was hit by atomic bombs and a new world comes up leaving the old one behind and how people create their own rules in this new one?

IDK tough, if you care to prove me wrong please do so.

It's the only thing Emil knows how to do these days. Make stereotypes with limited (or no) depth while Obsidian's writers knew how to play around such stereotypes or even deconstruct them. There is a reason why KOTOR 2 is considered a deconstruction of Star Wars.

I... Wouldn't jump out with something that heavy. One one hand, Fallout 3's devastation makes sense, DC being the target of multiple nukes - They still kept Fallout's quirky sense of humor and good deal of it's unique iconography and world elements.

As for Fallout 4, of course the Sole Survivor's dialogue is going to be that way, right? They've only just left a comparatively idyllic life in pre-war america. I mean... I probably wouldn't have a glowing review of the wasteland if I'd just wandered out of a sunny 50s backdrop. Actually... The other wastelanders think pretty highly of the world, and the Sole Survivor can even agree with them - Heck Piper comments on how great the people of Diamond city think their home is - And the Survivor can agree, noting about how comforting it is to see people rebuilding and living in relative normalcy.

I don't know really, that's just my slice. >_<
Good topic!

( Afterall - By definition, Fallout is a 'Post-apocalyptic' setting. )

Yea, I wouldn't say that they never understood Fallout, they understand what Fallout is about, to some extent. Though I think the issue you're trying to point @fermindal , is more about Bethesda not knowing how to write good stuff, be it a good story, a good character arc, good factions writing and so on. Sure, there's some good ideas here and there I won't deny them that, but still, when it comes to the big picture of writing and creating a world within the Fallout universe (by world I mean like the Commonwealth world or the Capital wasteland and their own lore and stories), in my opinion they just fail at it (well, I'd say they failed at it more with Fo4 thn with Fo3 which has a better writing imo). Their writing lacks depth, and because of that makes their Fallout stories and lore less interesting than the other Fallouts. Though maybe that's not so much Bethesda's writers fault but the people making the big decisions in the end. I think Fo4 would have been an amazing game, even with some of the core RPG elements removed, if only it had an overall good writing. Anyhow, that's just my opinion on the matter.

I wouldn't say they fail at it - More they come in on par.
Not up to the high standard of Obsidian / Interplay, but not below a passing grade. Still completely serviceable just... Not too special of late.

Biggest complaint I could point out is that Fallout 3 and to some extent 4 felt rail roaded, not as open world and RPG aspects as mentioned by 1,2 and NV

I think they understand Fallout well enough, but I also think they want to extend the setting to somewhere they had control, ie a place like the Capital Wastes where they could start anew without the burden of the NCR. They wanted to establish a new world space and a renewed BoS faction, and while the BoS are cool, I feel that they are one group that your argument applies to quite well. The Enclave in the setting was also quite dubious, though I believe these were included in order to indoctrinate older fans into the new setting while also creating a new force in the wastes.

By 2287, we know that Brotherhood control the Capital Wasteland for the most part, or at least at such an extent to cause the Railroad to cease operations. We also know that there is clean water. From what we can tell, and infer, society is somewhat flourishing under the Easter BoS of the region so the Capital it stabilising in a manner similar to the West, so yes, I believe it's fair to say Bethesda wanted to establish there own alternative to the west coast society and have it develop on a game to game basis. They did much the same with the Commonwealth, allowing the player to decide it's fate via one of the 4 factions.

Bethesda included forces in each region that supposedly act to keep it decentralised and prevent the construction of a real infrastructure. In the Capital Wasteland it's the Super Mutants/Talon Company, who by Fallout 4 have been mostly wiped out, there by making the region far safer under the Brotherhood's control. In Fallout 4 it's the Institute, who use the Commonwealth as both a testing ground and dumping ground for their experiments. I think this excuse works well enough for Fallout 3, though less so for Fallout 4.

Now were I writing Fallout 4, I'd have made the minutemen a pre-existing faction to a greater degree than they were, perhaps already controlling some settlements, though in disarray after the death of their last true general, and made restoring the minutemen something more of a civil war than a series of fetch or seek and destroy quests. To this end, the gunners would form more of a significant threat, perhaps be the dissenting minutemen, who have banded together as a mercenary company, or just act as a group taking advantage of the chaos. This way the player could still take control of the Minutemen; a man out of time, come to restore order. A prophetic figure from the jet induced visions of mama Murphy that no one believed until now. I'm not a fan of Bethesda including groups like Talon and the Gunners just cause. Groups that big need a reason to exist in the wastes. It takes funding and food to support an army that big on permanent basis. I think the BoS, Institute and Railroad work fine, though I'd personally have removed all super mutants from the game entirely, unless of course they were retreating super mutants from the Vault 87 mobs, though they'd mostly be a fringe threat, like the mutants in FNV. The idea that the Institute are creating super mutants is just a way to force an already tired trope into the game. By this time, I believe there would be far less ghouls. Enough time has passed since the war that radiation levels have dropped significantly enough, and most feral populations would have been wiped out by travellers, aside maybe for abandoned subway stations and ruins. There would be more settlements, but winning them over would be harder, and possibly even take military intervention since everyone is suspicious that everyone else is a synth, which greatly hinders progression of the commonwealth's society. But I would have made it a lot more developed. Maybe city ruins remain empty, and dangerous, but outside of them, communities have been built from the ground up. I would have made Sanctuary a flourishing Junk Town from the second the player leaves the Vault. Instead of finding an abandoned town, the player finds their home a scavengers den, just to impact how the player has truly been left behind. There's no reason the wastes need to be so empty. The commonwealth doesn't need to be a land of dirt farms and wooden shacks. Humans have had more than enough time to reclaim the wastes and it's not like they face much more of a horrendous threat than the NCR did. I want to see progress dammit.

I feel Bethesda miss out on the idea of progression. Everywhere else in the wastes is moving on. California, Oregon, Baja, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, all these regions have civilisations, infrastructure and law and they're some of the most intriguing places in Fallout. The NCR and Legion present great opportunities for a new form of story telling. The Mojave is a wasteland patrolled by soldiers and it's by no means boring. Threats still persist off road, but that's part of the fun. Raiders, bandits and mutated beasts, but there's a feeling that they are being maintained by an active law force. And cross that force and you will pay. There's something more interesting about post war society and the development of it than simply bumping into angry mobs of walking mutant tropes around every corner. New Vegas and Fallout 2 to an extent feel like we're seeing a world rebuilding. While that is present in Fallout 4 to a lesser degree, it would be nice to see a region on the East coast that feels like it's really progressed, particularly since the East coast was supposedly hit less hard than the West. Even shady sands in Fallout 1, sandcrete buildings and all, was a town built anew by a group of Vault dwellers. It's not built on the back of a gas station, or out of scrap metal. And by 2241 it's a sprawling city with a population of tens of thousands, which by Fallout NV is likely over a hundred thousand. It's has roads, governing, police and real economic structure. It's a real post war civilisation with an extended republic spanning from Mexico to Oregon along the West and holding as far east as southern Arizona. That's 200 years worth of progress, and yet as much as it progresses, as so many mention, it get's stuck in all the pitfalls of the past. It's noble intentions lead it to annex land and it's size means it puts the needs of the whole high above the needs of the individual. It's pursuit of greater stability and power leads it to turn to imperialistic military men like Aaron Kimball, and spurn altruistic groups like the Follower's of the Apocalypse as trouble makers. That's what Fallout is about. A new world that cannot escape the old. About basic human nature, as Marcuas put's it when explaining the NCR and the Legion, believing both will inevitably fall due to their aggressive expansionism. That's why war never changes. Because people don't change. Because human nature doesn't change. Place like Reno, or Vegas show that whether in the wasteland or in a supposedly civilised nation, people like the Wrights, Bishops, Van Graffs, White Gloves or the Omerta's will always exist, preying on the weak from behind the guise of civility the same as the raiders in the wastes, only they do it quietly and through subtler means. The wasteland gets boring and tropey as hell, that's what made new vegas great. It formed a balance between the two. The expanse of Vegas and it's towns are bastions of civilisation. The further off the road you go, into the untamed wastes? You find that you're back in the wasteland Fallout is known for. Again, that balance is essential IMO going forward. 200 years later, people should be rebuilding, not just existing on scraps, at least, not everywhere.

@IRORIEH thanks, i like to have you as someone to correct me, your arguments are very interesting and very well thought.

@Sol_13 NV was very "railroaded" though. I can't speak for 1 or 2 because I have yet to play them, but NV was definitely very linear. I'd say more so than 3. In NV, you were pretty much forced on a set path for a good chunk of the game. Yeah the side-quests were more in-depth than 3's, but the overall game was pretty damn linear and you were shoved into doing the same main quests no matter who your faction was. Most of the main quests were very similar. The only difference was who gave the quest.


To the main post, I'd have to say I actually prefer the apocalyptic settings rather than the already rebuilt society in the wastes. There's more character in the FO3 world than NV. In NV pretty much everyone is just a cowboy, a degenerate, or "flashy". The towns in NV were even more restrictive in that everything was just old-war western buildings. No real variety or anything. In 3, we had all kinds of characters. We had the typical wastelanders, civilized people, degenerates, mercenaries, and highly advanced enemies. This isn't cherry picking either. There was a sizable amount for each category in 3 while pretty much everyone in NV only fell into those categories. The towns in 3 I think were beautiful. Each one was unique. Megaton was the scrap metal haven of junk parts formed into a damn good fortress town, Tenpenny tower was a refurbished hotel/resort, Rivet City was a re-purposed aircraft carrier, and Canterbury Commons was a trading hub situated in a salvaged pre-war town. Pretty much every town in NV was just in salvaged pre-war buildings. No real character in it while each town in 3 had tons of character. You really felt like each one was different and interesting. So maybe the 3 apocalyptic setting isn't traditional, but I much prefer it because the world has more freedom to it. Even the DLC Pitt settlement was fascinating. The only settlement we got in the NV DLC was a few half naked tribesmen standing around a waterfall staring at rocks.

@Wertologist 
I'm gonna disagree a lot with you, NV was far from "railroaded", of course, there's a linear pattern to follow through the main storyline, but MAN, more than 3?? are you fucking kidding? there's a lot more ways to accomplish pretty much all the main quests than in 3, aside from the fact that there's times when you just can walk and find your way from point A to C or even D without being forced to do somone's errand(like in 3) but guess what, we are a Courier after all.

Not to mention the variety of factions and endings(which branches into more things)

Dude, DC was a lot more hit with nuclear power than NV(explained why by House) of course there's a lot of "salvaged pre war shit" in NV, looking it from a technicall point of view, of course the world of NV feels more "empty" or doesn't have more "personality" Obsidian had to make it in 18 months with an engine they didn't know.

@fermindal ↓ Exactly

@ElMaldito yeah man fallout 3 its way to linear, i mean , a lot of players can tell you the different things they did in the main story of new vegas ,but all of them will tell you the same in fallout 3: get out of vault, save dad, kill the enclave, activate the purifier.

@Wertologist
Gotta agree with @ELMaldito, here for the first point. I don't think there's an RPG where your character is MORE railroaded than FO3, they build your entire fucking childhood and your characters motivation. In FNV, you know 2 things about the courier: one, that they were a courier; and two, that they were carrying a platinum chip. Everything else is up to the player.

There's this idea when it come's to RPG's that claims that the PC should be tied to the MQ but not forced into it. The Neravarine is commissioned by the empire in Morrowind, but you as a player, get to decide whether or not they would take the job. The courier is much the same, they were hired to carry the platinum chip, but the reason for going after benny is up to you as a player, if you go after him at all. In FO3, Bethesda shoves you out of the vault, because that's what happened in FO1 and 2, but missed the fact that, in those games, you're character can decide HOW they want to go about the task at hand, IF they want to do it at all (they also missed the fact that they had a consistent and particular tone). In FO3, unless you ignore the path that Bethesda FORCED your character into, you have a motivation, a backstory, and an obligation. They made the same error in Skyrim and Oblivion.

AS FOR CHARACTER, @Wertologist, I disagree with you, like, tenfold! In FNV you can break people down into groups: Tribal, ranger, mercenary, caravan, military, and oldworld, even in those groups, you have wild variations of people. Your argument sounds like its coming from someone who tried to play FNV like you played FO3, and if you did, then there's no wonder that you came away from it with that opinion. FO3 is a modern Bethesda game, nothing made by them could ever play similarly to a Fallout game. The fallout world was never about the world around you, it was about the people living in it. Cass is caravan, but could you really compare her to anyone in the Crimson Caravan? Would you compare Veronica to most of the Brotherhood? No! Even though they come from those groups, they defy a lot of the ideals that those group's leaders built themselves on.
Look at the brotherhood, they are built on a common belief, yet there is an inward struggle for within, because not everyone agrees! The same goes with the NCR, Vegas, the Khans, pretty much everywhere except for the legion, and that's because they're beaten into believing that Caesar is a borderline god! The wildly varying personality and character is what pushes a lot of quests in the Fallout world, in FO1, 2, and NV. It's not, "well, one person is good and the other is Satan," it's the humanity, its the characters and their ambitions and desires. In FO3, if there even is an inward struggle, it can typically be boiled down to "good and evil," when the thing that made the original Fallouts good was the moral ambiguity!
Sorry, I'm not trying to yell at you. I just really like the Fallout world and view Bethesda's version of it as an injustice.

Going by what I know about FO3 and FNV from a GECK point of view, Fallout New Vegas' main quest is a hell of a lot more complex than Fallout 3's.
Many side quests and faction quest arcs in FNV alter the outcome of the main quest too.
They could be be considered branches of the main quest. Fallout 3's is extremely linear: follow your Dad around the wasteland - no other option if you want to complete the game.

I'm going to leave a video by a YouTuber known as Ruskie here. Although it was aimed at the failings of Fallout 4, the same argument can be made for Fallout 3 and, if you watch the video, you'll see that Fallout 3 is mentioned many times alongside Fallout 4.
The video also corroborates what I've said about the complexities of the New Vegas main quest compared to Fallout 3's (and 4's for that matter).

As for Bethesda not understanding Fallout, Bethesda's vision is certainly different to the original games. I personally prefer the Western settings as opposed to the Eastern setting.

@ElMaldito You could skip whole sections of 3's main story too without doing errands. You didn't have to do Threedog's quest. I'm pretty sure you could skip going to the Memorial and go straight to the Vault where your dad was. As I pointed out with the factions in 3, it's an illusion of variety. Most of the faction main quests are the same. They all send you to go deal with the Khans and Boomers. They really only differ in who gives the quest and a quest or two differs in perspective.

>Dude, DC was a lot more hit with nuclear power than NV(explained why by House) of course there's a lot of "salvaged pre war shit" in NV, looking it from a technicall point of view, of course the world of NV feels more "empty" or doesn't have more "personality" Obsidian had to make it in 18 months with an engine they didn't know.


I'm well aware of that. Their time limit still doesn't change what we got in the end. It's just an excuse as to why it wasn't better. It's understandable why it felt more empty, but again, what we got is what matters. I know the in-game explanation about House stopping most of the bombs in the area, but that still doesn't change my point. Pretty much every settlement in NV feels the same because it's just all salvaged pre-war buildings. No real variety in it. At least in 3, we got variety in settlements.

@Screw4ff

>I don't think there's an RPG where your character is MORE railroaded than FO3, they build your entire fucking childhood and your characters motivation.

i never said FO3 doesn't railroad you, but NV still does. Sure, you can choose which faction you want, but that choice is fairly empty since most of the main faction quests are the same and you don't really have much choice in the matter. You can't go "I'll skip recruiting the boomers. Gimme a different mission". You have to do it. Just because they start you out as a child doesn't mean that your whole life and motivation is decided. They never outright tell you who you are in the sense of what you do. You can be a benevolent Lone Wanderer and have "good" choices while a child or you can be a slaver asshole and have "bad" choices as a child. All it does is say you grew up in the Vault and you fled because of your dad. You don't even have to chase him because you love him. You can hate the guy and the dialogue choices show you have that option.

>In FNV, you know 2 things about the courier: one, that they were a courier; and two, that they were carrying a platinum chip. Everything else is up to the player.

You're missing one real big thing about the Courier. That they blew up the Divide a few years back and were a known courier for years. Your backstory isn't as fluid as you make it sound. You can't just go "my courier used to be a ex-soldier raider who decided to become a courier" unless you made your character an older guy. You were a courier for years and have a big set-in-stone history involving the Divide. You really don't have as much freedom as you make it sound.

>In FNV you can break people down into groups: Tribal, ranger, mercenary, caravan, military, and oldworld, even in those groups, you have wild variations of people.

Yeah, tribal cowboys, ranger cowboys, mercenary cowboys, caravan cowboys, miltary cowboys, and old world flashy people. The thing is though that those are fluffed up numbers. There really isn't a significant amount of mercenaries in the game. Other than the Courier(if you choose to be one), Orris, a small handful of caravan guards, and that one guy at the NCR airport. You really don't come across any mercenaries so listing it as a notable set is very misleading. When I listed the FO3 ones, I only picked the ones that had significant presence int e game. I didn't list every single set just because one or two characters fit. Otherwise that list would have been much longer, but that would have been misleading because it'd be fluffed up. If you really want to count the caravans as a significant amount, then add that to FO3 as well because there were caravans in 3 and they even had actual character put into them instead of generic "travelling merchants" NV had. The Tribals in NV mostly fall into Flashy or Degenerates, which I already covered. FO3 also had military, but I chose not to mention it due to being a bit redundant. Not sure what you mean by "old world" unless you mean House and the Think Tank, but that's a very insignificant amount to really list it. If you want to list it based on such a low number, then add Old World to 3 too because it had Old World characters. Also, the rangers fall in with military because the Rangers were the military. Cutting them out as their own group is fluffing the list up.

In FNV you can break people down into groups: Tribal, ranger, mercenary, caravan, military, and oldworld, even in those groups, you have wild variations of people.

So
NV: Degenerates, flashy, caravan, military, old world
FO3: Degenerates, flashy, military, old world, high advanced bad guys, caravan, wastelanders, ghoul, and super mutant.

I added the ghoul part because there is a whole town dedicated to ghouls. NV didn't have that. It had ghouls, but they weren't really focused on much. I guess you can add them to NV though, but they really didn't have a notable population. There were SM in NV, but only in two very small chunks of the map and could be avoided entirely. In 3, they were a major factor in the game. You could not avoid them. You could probably add SM to NV's list, but it doesn't compare to how much 3's SM were part of the game.

>Even though they come from those groups, they defy a lot of the ideals that those group's leaders built themselves on.

I never said they didn't. I never said the characters and their backstories weren't more fleshed out in NV. They very much were. 3 didn't do a good job with characters in that regard, but that's not something I was saying they did. It's an irrelevant point because it wasn't disputed. All I did was say that the two games had different sets of characters and that NV was more limited int he variety. One character breaking the mold of caravan does not mean that you should bring a whole new sub-set out to the list. If you want to do that, then we're both going to end up with a long ass list.

@TheHermit

>Fallout New Vegas' main quest is a hell of a lot more complex than Fallout 3's.

More complex =/= more freedom. I never said the main quest wasn't more complex. The fact that it gives you faction choices means it's more complex, but that doesn't translate to more freedom. It's an illusion of choice. For the main quest, you faction choice really doesn't affect the main quests much. Just who gives the quest and a few have different objectives, but ultimately, you're doing the same things with each faction. Can you tell me which faction doesn't send you to recruit the Boomers and deal with the Khans? And only one faction doesn't have you deal with House.

>They could be be considered branches of the main quest.

Branches that are practically identical except the leaves are different color.

>video

I'd rather not watch a 20 minute video of someone else's opinion.

>As for Bethesda not understanding Fallout, Bethesda's vision is certainly different to the original games. I personally prefer the Western settings as opposed to the Eastern setting.

You're all not getting what I said. All I said was that 3's character typeswere more diverse and impactful, NV wasn't as "free" as people like to pretend, and that the world was more diverse due to the very much differing settlements. Obsidian obviously does a better job at individual character building(something I never disputed, but most of you decided to argue as if I did), but their variety in types of characters was very limited. Pretty much everyone in NV was a cowboy, degenerate, or flashy Strip type. That's a very limited variety. I wasn't fond of it as I like more diversity in terms of types. 3 had more. That's all I said.

@wertologist
Alright, one at a time here.
I never argued that NV doesn't railroad, the fact that you know anything about the courier is , in and of itself, railroading. I've also argued before that some railroading is necessary for an RPG to have a plot. As for the divide, there could be a couple different expanations for this, one, you could be the courier from the divides kid, two, Ulysses could be mentally unstable (that's an argument I'd like to have), or he could just be downright wrong about the couriers involvement.

>Yeah, tribal cowboys, ranger cowboys, mercenary cowboys, caravan cowboys, miltary cowboys, and old world flashy people.

That's a fair point.

>3 didn't do a good job with characters in that regard, but that's not something I was saying they did.

I think what's happening here is a series of miscommunications. I was responding to your claim that FNV's world lacks personality compared to FO3's and failed to communicate that the characters are what bring the personality to FNV's world just like the old Fallouts did with their characters. Plus I think thats where I was tying my post more into the topic rather than simply being just a reply to your comment. FNV's personality comes from it's well written characters and how they were affected by the world where FO3's personality comes from the world and how its effected by the people.

Again, sorry if my first post came off as overly aggressive.
Also not sure why you got negative rep for your response, I didn't see anything too harshly worded and I thought you weren't supposed to give rep for differing opinions? Like, it was against the rules?

@wertologist

the Courier and the divide aren't really as solidly linked as that. It was simply a road the Courier travelled, like a great many travellers, and that travel allowed a small town there to flourish. The reason Ulysses remains so vague when talking about the Courier's past with the divide is to purposefully avoid establishing all that. The Courier's most important interaction with the Divide was a single package you delivered on behalf of the NCR. They were a Courier yes, but the Vault Dweller of Fallout 1 was also a Vault Dweller and the Chosen One from Fallout 2 was a tribal. Would you say those games are railroaded? There also many options that allow the Courier to have travelled to numerous places in their past, such as Montana or Utah. The Courier has travelled a lot, but what they did in those places is never really reflected upon too much. Hell, the Courier didn't know that the package they delivered caused the disaster until Ulysses told them. It's vaguely established, but not set in stone, and I can't help but feel that picking it apart and over analysing it like that just feels like you're intentionally looking for a fault.

NV is in a sense railroaded, yes. There's a single narrative, and while it can be experienced in different ways, but is essentially still the same. It's somewhat of an illusion, but is still offers a full branching ending. It certainly forces the player down the path, but realistically, name me any single player RPG that doesn't? There's always a narrative thread that you're meant to follow. Now you can choose how to follow them. You could just run straight to Vegas from Goodsprings, or avoid the main quest entirely, but sooner or later you have to return to it in order to complete the game. But again, that's pretty much every narrative RPG ever. True, there is a set order of quests once you align with one of the factions, unless you go independent, in which case you can deal with each faction as you see fit, but that kind of makes sense. If you're working for Caesar, or House, they have their own plans that they need completed in an order they see fit, and you are in service to them. So you wouldn't have free reign, realistically speaking.

That said, there are no penalties to not doing this. Would Fallout 1 be railroaded because of it's waterchip or mutant invasion time limits? Yes. That's the game deliberately punishing the player for not completing it in time. New Vegas doesn't have that. While there is a need to progress through the story in order to complete the game, you aren't forced to do so, and you can even change sides up to a certain point, or become independent at any point.

I feel like illusion of choice is a word people love to throw around when talking about New Vegas' story without really taking into account that it really isn't the case. Yeah, like I said, there is somewhat of an illusion of choice because the story points are essentially the same, with exception to some quests, but the choices are vastly different. Take the Brotherhood of Steel for example. House wants them dead, no exceptions. NCR and the Brotherhood can make an alliance if McNamara is the Elder, and Caesar and the Brotherhood can make an alliance if Hardin is elder. That's not an illusion of choice. That's a whole hell of a lot of choice bouncing of one another right there, and the ending to these is vastly different depending on how you chose to resolve 2 separate quests. Not to mention, FNV has numerous vastly different ending based on all the choices you make throughout the game. Those aren't illusionary, they all result in very different outcomes. Now, the FEV option in Fallout 3's ending, that would represent illusion of choice, especially with Broken Steel, where it simply makes Aqua Pura have negative effects, and causes death if over consumed. Storywise, there is no impact to the water other than one little line of dialogue from Rothschild. That is part of the reason Fallout New Vegas is not open ended. Implementing these changes on such a large scale, for so many factions would be game breaking, and excessively tedious to set up each individual option.

It’s certainly fruitless to defend Fallout 3 and 4 on this site, among a few others. A lot of the people here have migrated from the RPG codex and NMA, both viscerally toxic fanbases who have a massive hate boner for Bethesda and their games.

In coincides with the fact many of them also romanticise the earlier games and thus will defend them and Obsidian to the death even in the face of New Vegas’s indisputable flaws. Whenever New Vegas’s empty and shallow world is brought up, or the fact the game simply wasn’t finished, it’s Bethesda’s fault. Never is it ever once considered Obsidian actually made mistakes during development or should’ve spent their time more wisely. Instead, it’s always considered a problem with Bethesda as a way to shift responsibility off of Obsidian, who are known for their mixture of great concepts executed terribly.

I’ll say this, Fallout 3 and 4 are different Fallout games. They are Bethesda’s spin on Interplay’s former franchise and therefore are intentionally distinct from what Obsidian created with New Vegas. Bethesda understand Fallout perfectly, yet they want to be stylistically different. It’s not a flaw, it’s a preference.

New Vegas’s story would have had a lot more impact on the player’s choices had they actually allowed the player to play after the ending. Instead, the player just gets a slideshow. It’s dissatisfying since the player cannot see the consequences of their actions on the world, rather than just on a dialogue and slideshow. It’s literally the same thing NV fans accuse the Beth games of doing.

@Corvo, Now hold on a minute, my hate boner for FO3 is my business and mine alone! That being said, I don't hate bethesda, I love bethesda, I love skyrim and oblivion, I even love Fallout 4. Is it, at all possible, that it just comes off as people like me thinking that FNV is perfect and that any new game is trash simply because we criticize what they did wrong and show off what FNV did right?
As for your statement, I don't think that you are wrong. Bethesda may understand Fallout, but they don't seem to grasp what mad it popular and good. FO3 and FO4 are stylistically different, but they're also thematically different. As has been mentioned in this thread, Bethesda's fallout is more post apocalyptic, while obsidian and interplay's fallout was more focused on how quickly humanity rebuilt and moved on from the old world. This is something I could talk about a lot but I think this post would get away from me if I did, Its a nasty habit of mine.
Your statement about fans claiming that "everything wrong with FNV is bethesda's fault" is weird as well. It's pretty well known that Bethesda rushed FNV's release, and the game still wouldn't have been perfect but it would have been better if Obsidian had the time to follow through with some of their bigger ideas, or, perhaps, fill in the world space. Fo3 took BSW three years to make, They gave obsidian one year to make FNV. Even using the same engine, even using the same assets, writing a story that big alone, with that many options, with that many endings, with that much dialogue, side quests, characters, and minor ties to the world around the player could take months. Even then, they had to build new assets, had to hire new voice actors, had to fill in this big world with things that were first crucial to the MQ and more in one year. FNV isn't perfect, even if obsidian had been able to finish it, it still would have been buggy, clunky, and awkward, but a lot of people's complaints about the game wouldn't exist if they only had more time. I don't see how that can be attributed to anyone else but bethesda, who set the time limit.
The ending slideshow thing probably still would have been the same, though, and it still would have been bad HOLY SHIT WHAT WERE THEY THINKING!

Corvo wrote:

It’s certainly fruitless to defend Fallout 3 and 4 on this site, among a few others. A lot of the people here have migrated from the RPG codex and NMA, both viscerally toxic fanbases who have a massive hate boner for Bethesda and their games.

In coincides with the fact many of them also romanticise the earlier games and thus will defend them and Obsidian to the death even in the face of New Vegas’s indisputable flaws. Whenever New Vegas’s empty and shallow world is brought up, or the fact the game simply wasn’t finished, it’s Bethesda’s fault. Never is it ever once considered Obsidian actually made mistakes during development or should’ve spent their time more wisely. Instead, it’s always considered a problem with Bethesda as a way to shift responsibility off of Obsidian, who are known for their mixture of great concepts executed terribly.

I’ll say this, Fallout 3 and 4 are different Fallout games. They are Bethesda’s spin on Interplay’s former franchise and therefore are intentionally distinct from what Obsidian created with New Vegas. Bethesda understand Fallout perfectly, yet they want to be stylistically different. It’s not a flaw, it’s a preference.

New Vegas’s story would have had a lot more impact on the player’s choices had they actually allowed the player to play after the ending. Instead, the player just gets a slideshow. It’s dissatisfying since the player cannot see the consequences of their actions on the world, rather than just on a dialogue and slideshow. It’s literally the same thing NV fans accuse the Beth games of doing.

I don't think it's fruitless. There are more than enough people willing to look at the games objectively. All of the games have flaws and limitations, just as every game. There is no perfect game, and there's always room for improvement. You're right, FNV is full of long lasting bugs and glitches that were never patched, just as Fallout 3, or 4, and it's hypocritical to bash Bethesda while given Obsidian a pass for the same thing.

In my earlier post, as I said, Bethesda have their own perspective. They've opted for a smaller scale, single region based Fallout, rather than the larger territory of the earlier games, or even FNV's large scale influence (expanding to the West Coast and South West). They're building their own narrative at a far slower pace, a single game at a time. But I also feel that there has to be fair criticism, and that has to extend to limitations of the game itself. FNV couldn't support a post game open world. Too much changes. No game has ever handled widespread, radical change within the game world well. Any outcome changes the mojave wasteland to such a degree that it would be game breaking to implement, and there would be nothing to do post game but free roam, unless of course Obsidian were to make an entirely new set of post game quests, at which point they'd basically be making 4 new worldspaces, with space for minor world changes, like Primm, Khans or the Brotherhood to match the intended outcomes. It just wouldn't work on a gameplay level.

Fallout 3 had an open ending, and it just felt kind of hallow. You defeat the Enclave, but they still appear everywhere. The Brotherhood win the struggle for the wastes but they don't appear to recognise this. There's no presence of the Brotherhood anywhere to justify or show this victory in game. 4 handled it far better IMO, particularly if the player sides with the Minutemen or Brotherhood. Guards and patrols around the wasteland, picking off raider camps and mutant hordes, reclaiming the wasteland. It's one of the few games I've played that actually pulled off and implemented an open ended story well. Enough changes to resolve the main story, but the world is not changed in the way the Mojave is, or to a degree that it's impossible to implement in game.

I think criticisms that just hinge on people throwing out "the writing is trash" or "there's no real choice" without explaining or exampling what they mean aren't arguments. They verge on blind hatred that's entirely unjustified.

This arbitrary restriction placed on game mechanics means that until I'm at the right level, or have the right SPECIAL stat, I'm hamstrung in how I can build my character. Moreover, this proves how little Bethesda understood about what made SPECIAL, Perks and Skills separate yet versatile things for character building when they took the approach they did for this game.

(Take note of the various stats on offer, as well as the choices of Skills. This is what Bethesda sacrificed on the ARPG altar. https://i.ytimg.com/vi/gFerNt8_OCg/maxresdefault.jpg )


Things that are Skills like Lockpicking and Hacking should not be restricted to Perks, because they are not unique bonuses, just as Sneak, Unarmed, Barter and the like should not be dependent on SPECIAL stats with no way to improve them outside of SPECIAL increases and Perks, because these are not inherent abilities.

By restricting Skills to Perks, Bethesda bloated the Perks system and subsequently took away some of its appeal. Gaining levels no longer feels special because all you’re given is a single Perk point versus a pool of Skill points, and in fact, you can let your points pile up before using them, just as you could in Skyrim. It’s the kind of progression system I expect from Action-RPGs, not Fallout.

And then there's a lot of Skyrim Syndrome on display with this system. By this I mean there are a lot of parallels to the inefficient design of Skyrim's "Perk Trees", and the style of benefits a player gets for their point investments.

If you go back to Skyrim right now and look at the first Perks available for any of the 18 trees, what do you find? 12 that are percentage increases to effectiveness, 5 that reduce Magicka costs for certain spells, and one that allows new Armor creation. All of these are bog-standard upgrades for an ARPG, with the Armor one being little more than a key to unlock something that could work independent of the avatar you choose. And then you climb the trees and notice something else: You're forced to drop points into things you may not want to reach things you likely will.

In terms of enemy AI, it’s a step up, but not far enough of one. While enemies have new moves and attacks -- Deathclaws will bob and weave, as well as throw environment clutter, mole rats and radscorpions dig underground then pop up when at low health, and humans will now use cover and throw grenades to flush players out of hiding -- in practice, it only works half the time. Enemies can still get stuck thanks to pathfinding or other issues with the navmesh, and melee enemies will always charge your position, even if you're riddling them with bullets/energy as they do so, as though they know it’s their destiny to get left-clicked to death.

The same applies to Super Mutants and Synths, the former of which have a new type: Kamikaze Mutants. Just like melee enemies, they’ll charge right at you, completely self-aware of their destiny, hoping they take you down with them. I’d like to know who thought this was a good idea, even if it works in the player’s favor when a successful hit on the bomb they carry is made. Lore-wise, it’s a contradiction.

And then there are the flying enemies. They’re smarter than the ones in New Vegas, sure, but if you get any sort of lag while fighting them, the stronger types will deplete your health in seconds. In turn, VATS becomes the best way to counter their speed and hit them.

In Fallout 4, the one to three word descriptions are often too vague, and sometimes can make the character say something completely different than what you think. Not only is this bad design, but Deus Ex: Human Revolution, a 2011 game, showed how to make this work. Put the descriptions on the left, and the textbox on the right, with your dialogue listed in full in the latter.

(Take it away, Adam Jensen. https://tsupp.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/maxresdefault.jpg )