I'll buy the GOTY edition in a year and a half at 66% off, fire the game up, conclude that it's boring and stupid after playing it for an hour and never fire it up again. Same thing that happened with Fallout 3 and Skyrim (although admittedly in case of F3 I didn't even wait for the GOTY edition).

Nope.

Besides, backlog

And if Fallout 4 is fun now, then it will still be fun when those three boxes get checked.

Why start Baldur's gate II at level 8 (IIRC) and not start directly at level 30 multi-classed in every possible classes, wouldn't doing the later mean having more tools ?

Because that's what some peoples actually like in a RPG, being able to build your character(s) and have it "improve/growth" over the course of the game.

It's not limiting, missing out content, or anything, it's just making choice and having to face consequence, having a characters with its strength and its weakness and see how well in fare in the game world, that's for a lot of peoples, myself include, the very essence of what cRPG are (or even RPG in general). (Disclaimer : I am talking in general, not about Fallout 3)

Maybe you prefer the "exploration" part, you prefer the sandbox experience; being to do whatever you want whenever you want without having to worry about characters growth, checking start or choosing skills, that's perfectly fine, there is nothing wrong with that, but it's just a different type of games, it's not an question of "evolution" of "older" cRPGs or peoples being afraid of change.

If tomorrow some publisher decide to revive the Chessmaster series and make it a FPS; if/when fans of the series will complain about the change it wont mean that they are "too backward" or too stuck in the past to enjoy the "evolution" but it will simply mean that they preferred the game genre the game used to be known for and are disappointed by the change.

Nope it isn't.

Here's what I don't get. You've got a franchise that has a set of traits and is oriented to certain people. Someone decideds, arbitrarily or justifiedly, that those sets of traits are no longer marketable, or that some other people will cough more cash up. So they take a game series, completely rebuild it with "a completely new set of strenghts and weakneses", and sell them as the continuation of the franchise. Then, they complain about being compared about the old ones and that the new versions should be considered on their own. Then don't fucking sell them as the next installment of an stablished franchise! Call them something else!

And this applies to both franchises I used to like and don't anymore (like Residen Evil), and to ones that I didn't like but enjoy now (Tomb raider). You can't call a game Deus Ex and then expect me not compare it to the original, no matter how long it's been since the original, because it's right there on the frigging title. This really annoys me.

Edit: forgot the "expect" verb when mentioning DX

The most notable examples of this failing utterly (for me at least) would be "C&C4", and "Lords Of The Realm 3". Both of which might have been good games (I personally doubt that), but they certainly weren't anything to do with their predecessors apart from an apparently lame plot for C&C4 (I didn't bother finishing it, just read that it wasn't worth it).

Look, this is what I think of Fallout 4: Slightly a console port, but many people love it. It's justified. It is a great game.
People like me who would rather play the Witcher 3, however probably don't like it. I don't think the developers
exactly pushed themselves to make it.

Oh, by the way, Fallout 4 just shipped 12 Million copies. Wow.

I wonder how many copies have been returned and how many people asked for a refund .

That'll be a very long wait then. Heh.
Nope, but it should run pretty well via Wine.

You're missing my point.

Yeah, in a perfect world Fallout 3 shouldn't be called Fallout. But what I'm saying is, accepting the fact that Bethesda is making Fallout games now, isn't it better that they just completely change things and do what they're good at, rather than pretending to be Black Isle and failing? Either way, you get bad Fallout games. But the one way you at least get a good game.

Yeah, that was my point :P


Same here. I have a ton of respect for what the original Fallouts did, and I think overall they had the clearer artistic vision and better execution... but the new games are good in their own right, too, and I've gotten a lot of enjoyment out of them.

I'm not missing your point, I'm agreeing with that point and disagreeing with another one. Yes, it's better that Bethesda plays to its strengths, and it might be a great game for what is for all I care. But titling a game in such a way that screams "remember that game you loved? Well here's something totally unlike it!" does not spark my interest all that well, and despite a friend of mine having bought it on steam and me having access to it through the family sharing service, I don't feel like playing it. Even if that makes me a "joyless cynic".

That post was supposed to be a joke :P

Yes, I completely understand that. I'd probably feel the same way if they were parading Fallout 3/4 around as STALKER games. Sadly, the reality of the AAA industry is that artistic integrity < money, and an established IP = more guaranteed money, at least in publisher's eyes.

Probably allot.

Nope, my rig went to hell and I'm focused on RL stuff at the moment, but I'm sure by the time I rebuild my machine or get a gaming laptop there'll be a GOTY version for it and enough mods to MOD IT TILL IT CRASHES!

Naturally my favourite part of playing Bethesda games. :)

Oh I know, it's just that this particular matter really irks me to no end.