this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2024
226 points (96.3% liked)
Games
16729 readers
542 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Bethesda can't do it. They don't have the skill to make a decent story anymore.
Isn't that what resurrection is about? Rework graphics, keep the game (including story)?
Nah I’m with the guy above, I’m sure they’ll find a way to fuck this up
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.
Tod Howard said the nuke fell after F:NV: https://www.ign.com/articles/the-big-fallout-interview-todd-howard-and-jonathan-nolan-answer-our-burning-questions-about-season-1
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 given in the show says otherwise.
He can't fucking Jeremy Crawford (or JK Rowling if you prefer) that.
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.
To claim they deleted the lore of New Vegas is so dumb.
Did they watch till the end?
Season 2 is going to be about New Vegas...
You play it up like some grand conspiracy.
He's simply incompetent.
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: https://www.pcgamer.com/movies-tv/in-which-i-mostly-debunk-the-latest-fallout-controversy-that-claims-todd-howard-used-the-fallout-show-to-retcon-non-bethesda-fallout-games/#article-comments
It's tiresome to see the wrong interpretation repeated, even after they set the story straight.
This, there's no malice, they simply don't care about the lore as evidenced in Fallout 3, their thing is TES.
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.
Probably. Though when using the phrase "fall" I think of a civilisation collapse which takes time. A slow implosion; The Fall of Rome.
I've never heard of Hiroshima or Nagasaki referred to as "fallen".
It was a good story, canon be damned. But yes, it cheapens the franchise if there is no consistency at all between universes.
I mean, they might if they just fucking fired Todd Howard. He's rapidly turning into Peter Molyneux and he needs to just go away.
Him and the lead writer, the Bethesda old guard have gotten really complacent.
I wonder if you guys even mean these things or just parroting the same anti bathesda threads over and over
Did you play Fallout 4 and Starfield?
I have played both, and I enjoyed both.
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.
To say nv isn't a bathesda game, is like saying the Empire strikes back isn't star wars, cause it wasn't written or directed by Lucas.
And Elden ring isn't revolutionary at all, it just did everything dark souls did but worse. God what a hollow, ugly, boring game Elden ring was.
New Vegas isn't a Bethesda game because Bethesda didn't make the game.
Funny, their logo pops up when you turn the game on
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
Are you this incredibly stupid, or is it intentional? You can't be serious.
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.)
Grouping NV with Fallout 4 is a crime against humanity.
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.