Yet, no Fallout New Vegas. This only serves as a reminder of that good old rumor that Bethesda despises New Vegas because everyone loves it so much compared to their own Fallouts, and reminds them of their own game design shortcomings.

Doesn't even Fallout 4 run on a phone these days? Why would you need a cloud gaming subscription for this?
Seriously, you can buy a used PC for $75 that meets or exceeds these specs:


EDIT:
Oh god, I Just looked at recently-sold listings on Ebay (US) and see that 3rd and 4th gen i5 Dell Optiplexes go for $30-35, then you need a low-profile 750Ti which go for $20.

Companies think consumers are dumb.

Chrispy_Doesn't even Fallout 4 run on a phone these days? Why would you need a cloud gaming subscription for this?
Seriously, you can buy a used PC for $75 that meets or exceeds these specs:

EDIT:
Oh god, I Just looked at recently-sold listings on Ebay (US) and see that 3rd and 4th gen i5 Dell Optiplexes go for $30-35, then you need a low-profile 750Ti which go for $20.

Sure, but why would you waste perfectly good hardware on that?

ojoqromCompanies think consumers are dumb.

Unfortunately a lot of them start out stupid, and some never learn.

ExilarchYet, no Fallout New Vegas. This only serves as a reminder of that good old rumor that Bethesda despises New Vegas because everyone loves it so much compared to their own Fallouts, and reminds them of their own game design shortcomings.

Bethesda despises it because they do not want to make that kind of game. Players can't be having too much fun without a payment model attached now, come on.

I totally see them killing mods one way or another, and online paid subs to game are the perfect tool. No need for denial. Everyone knows it can't be done proper when you don't own the content.

Bethesda's ranked top on my 'almost blacklisted' list now, and is likely to soon join the happy trio called EA, Actiblizz and Ubisoft. Which practically means: not a dime anymore out of my pocket. I'm already very happy I didn't pay for Starfield, and really, that pretty much sealed the deal already. Great way to save money.

'Welcome to the Wasteland' they say... very fitting indeed. Utter waste

This is just a way to get more people to watch the new Fallout series.
My first instinct is that New Vegas isn't there because they would need to pay Obsidian some money.

ExilarchYet, no Fallout New Vegas. This only serves as a reminder of that good old rumor that Bethesda despises New Vegas because everyone loves it so much compared to their own Fallouts, and reminds them of their own game design shortcomings.

Who cares when Fallout New Vegas is $2.50 and Fallout 4 is $5 on Steam right now. Well worth owning if somehow you don't already for the tiny price of entry for two awesome games.

Vayra86Sure, but why would you waste perfectly good hardware on that?


Unfortunately a lot of them start out stupid, and some never learn.


Bethesda despises it because they do not want to make that kind of game. Players can't be having too much fun without a payment model attached now, come on.

I totally see them killing mods one way or another, and online paid subs to game are the perfect tool. No need for denial. Everyone knows it can't be done proper when you don't own the content.

Bethesda's ranked top on my 'almost blacklisted' list now, and is likely to soon join the happy trio called EA, Actiblizz and Ubisoft. Which practically means: not a dime anymore out of my pocket. I'm already very happy I didn't pay for Starfield, and really, that pretty much sealed the deal already. Great way to save money.

'Welcome to the Wasteland' they say... very fitting indeed. Utter waste

I take it you don't like Fallout?

I thought Fallout 4 was okay. 87% on metacritic and 7/10 for user reviews where the score seems to be dragged down by a load of 1/10 reviews dated around the launch where Bethesda are typically hopeless. Anyone paying real money for a Bethesda game on launch day gets all the trouble they deserve for being ignorant. Bethesda haven't had a smooth launch since before they were a name people recognised.

Chrispy_I take it you don't like Fallout?

I thought Fallout 4 was okay. 87% on metacritic and 7/10 for user reviews where the score seems to be dragged down by a load of 1/10 reviews dated around the launch where Bethesda are typically hopeless. Anyone paying real money for a Bethesda game on launch day gets all the trouble they deserve for being ignorant. Bethesda haven't had a smooth launch since before they were a name people recognised.

I like Fallout. I love Fallout - that is, the world presented in 3, and earlier. And Vegas.

With 4 and beyond they went downhill hard. 4 is too clowny overall, much harder to take seriously, like there is suddenly a leisurely world created in the post apocalypse. Nothing is special or new anymore, and it became a parody upon itself. The bobblehead sauce is too strong, if you catch my drift. One: power armor is scattered around like candy; Two: the skill tree got nuked into nonsense - Fallout 3's skill progression was great and Vegas preserved it, one would have expected FO4 to perhaps, you know, refine things a bit more, make something good, better. Then came FO4 and it went to shit. Forget deep vs shallow, its not that, FO4's tree just doesn't make sense. But at least you get a funny poster to walk through (your skill tree), oh how immersive. And that vibe kind of protrudes everything in the game. Its senseless, nonsense Fallout props plopped in a large region that says 'yeah, stuff happens here, don't ask why though'. And then there's the performance, the abysmal performance in anything cityscape. The world design is weak, too, every little location is that same ol' circle'round a locked door to exit through there again. The killer feature is building settlements, and that's really all she wrote. The story... ehh... forgettable, unbelievably annoying, with unsatisfying branching options. Fallout 4 kind of feels to me like Far Cry 5. It wants to be serious yet funny and fails on both counts. The writing is of a similar quality too: yes, they tried, they really did, but nope, nothing really hits home.

The whole settlement feature also kind of killed something that made Vegas and FO3 great: resource management. I remember running out of ammo in FO3 quite a lot, especially if I found my favorite gun and used it a lot. Oh, we can craft anything now anywhere we like. Okay. Poof goes the difficulty and thrill of exploration; and the game's economy. Instead, you're now just hoarding easy to find crafting materials, selling whatever you need to gain money. The game went from mildly casual shooter with a dark vibe to The Sims with ridiculous NPCs that shoot at you. And you're there scavenging every nook and cranny for.... rubber. Adhesive. A bunch of nails. If you want to rule the game, you hoard. You're not exploring. You're hoarding.

If I compare all those elements to what came before... yeah. Bad game; probably much like the next TES, or basically anything signed 'Todd H.' its past expiry date.

FO4 was a more accessible FO3. Having played them both, there's no need to play them both; You either want the gritty original systems of FO3 or the modern, console-audience, casual-friendly variant in FO4.

I agree that FO3 was likely the last really good Bethesda game. It's gone downhill since then with every single release worse than the last and Todd's vision for the company would appear to be a terrible one that's out of touch with gamers and out of touch with what other developers are doing. He's obviously stopped gaming because he used to be in charge of projects that have unanimous acclaim from gamers. It's hard to know what happened to him but he seems to have tunnel-vision that's steering Bethesda into a dead-end.

Vayra86I like Fallout. I love Fallout - that is, the world presented in 3, and earlier. And Vegas.

Have you given 76 a try? It went in the right direction IMO. I subscribe to 1st and then play for a few months every year. Since the Wastelanders update a couple of years back, it really became a "true Fallout", while keeping the things that make the Bethesda games enjoyable to me.

Chrispy_FO4 was a more accessible FO3. Having played them both, there's no need to play them both; You either want the gritty original systems of FO3 or the modern, console-audience, casual-friendly variant in FO4.

I agree that FO3 was likely the last really good Bethesda game. It's gone downhill since then with every single release worse than the last and Todd's vision for the company would appear to be a terrible one that's out of touch with gamers and out of touch with what other developers are doing. He's obviously stopped gaming because he used to be in charge of projects that have unanimous acclaim from gamers. It's hard to know what happened to him but he seems to have tunnel-vision that's steering Bethesda into a dead-end.

The problem with Todd Howard and Emil Pagliarulo is that their formula for writing and directing the games might be time tested, but they're also having difficulty adapting as the fanbase of Bethesda games have come to expect ever deeper, ever more complex RPG's that also go completely against corporate directive of being ESG-clean, mass marketable and accessible to casual players. That's where they fumble.

Add to the complexity of working with Creation Engine, which is extremely inflexible, you get this result - just look at Starfield. Anyone who's a Skyrim fanatic will greatly enjoy playing Starfield. I know, because I did. And I had a blast. But I can't lie chief, at launch it largely felt like an "indev stage" pre-release copy, and it did leave me wanting for more. Even though I generally align with the lawful good side that Starfield had great emphasis put into (it would suck if you didn't, I can't even hide this), I still wasn't fully satisfied. I wanted more. I hope the expansion packs and small releases for it over time improve the state of the game, but I fear that Bethesda has already put their foot off the pedal for Starfield.

Dr. DroHave you given 76 a try? It went in the right direction IMO. I subscribe to 1st and then play for a few months every year. Since the Wastelanders update a couple of years back, it really became a "true Fallout", while keeping the things that make the Bethesda games enjoyable to me.

FO76 yeah... I bought it a long time post launch. Right direction yeah, it had the grittier thing that FO3 had too, so in that sense it had somewhat of the right direction and probably for that reason alone, I stuck with it for 90 odd hours. I had some fun exploring that game, but the online component of it could be missed. Other than that though? There is nothing truly improved. Gunplay, AI, crafting... its still a hot mess transplanted from FO4. You're still hoarding. Mechanically, the game has absolutely NOTHING going for it. Its mechanics are a vehicle to get that exploration going, and it suffices for that, and that alone. Combat is painful.

But FO76 is really destroyed by its online, its 'raids' and the MTX model attached to it. Subscribing to 1st... for that stash space you otherwise are woefully short of... or regaining all those things that locked you into 1st to begin with. Its a commercial clusterfuck, never again. They have a purchase price... MTX... and a sub. And you really kinda do want it all, don't you, or you're ever plagued by FOMO. I have decided quite a while ago I raise my middle finger to these tactics and won't be looking back. Its just not worth it, especially for content they can freely choose to deny you at any given moment in time. 'Oops, yeah, we're doing a The Crew on this one, because MS said so'. Just wait for it.

Not a dime. Ever. Again.

Dr. DroHave you given 76 a try? It went in the right direction IMO. I subscribe to 1st and then play for a few months every year. Since the Wastelanders update a couple of years back, it really became a "true Fallout", while keeping the things that make the Bethesda games enjoyable to me.



The problem with Todd Howard and Emil Pagliarulo is that their formula for writing and directing the games might be time tested, but they're also having difficulty adapting as the fanbase of Bethesda games have come to expect ever deeper, ever more complex RPG's that also go completely against corporate directive of being ESG-clean, mass marketable and accessible to casual players. That's where they fumble.

Add to the complexity of working with Creation Engine, which is extremely inflexible, you get this result - just look at Starfield. Anyone who's a Skyrim fanatic will greatly enjoy playing Starfield. I know, because I did. And I had a blast. But I can't lie chief, at launch it largely felt like an "indev stage" pre-release copy, and it did leave me wanting for more. Even though I generally align with the lawful good side that Starfield had great emphasis put into (it would suck if you didn't, I can't even hide this), I still wasn't fully satisfied. I wanted more. I hope the expansion packs and small releases for it over time improve the state of the game, but I fear that Bethesda has already put their foot off the pedal for Starfield.

See I loved Skyrim and found Starfield soulless and empty outside of the 15-hour main questline and maybe another 5 hours for each faction quest chain. That's 30 hours of decent 7/10 quality game that gets a solid pass from me (admitedly VERY buggy, cutscene-heavy scripted content with lifeless characters that glitched in every way imaginable - facing the wrong way, falling through the floor, getting stuck, T-positioning mid-dialog, standing on top of each other and clipping through the ceiling.... - standard Bethesda BS, we've come to expect, really).

The problem is that Skyrim had a handcrafted world with tons to see and do. You'd be on a quest that would require you to traverse the map, and you'd encounter a building, a cave, a settlement, a wandering giant or something and detour to find yourself a new handcrafted side-quest with unique map section, characters, and dialog - or just a cool combat encounter in a unique, handcrafted bit of the map, along with the corresponding xp and loot drops.

Starfield missed that entirely with its procedural worlds. Barren, boring walking simulator across (mostly) featureless rocky desert with sparse copy+paste buildings thrown in that are pointless to repeat and if they give a quest they are almost always one of two options; Dumb escort quests for several km of boring walking to talk to one person who's inexplicably fine and has no reason to be "stuck" there other than to be a quest NPC you have to reach to tick the box for "escort quest", or the other type which is "go and clear out this bunch of pirates from copy+paste facility number 3 over there". I didn't find any random encounters with quest chains, for example. It was just a tedious waste of time every time that was slow, pointless, and low-effort content. It got old and tired very very quickly with zero replayability and no meaningful loot. Loot in Starfield was mostly BS all the way through my playthrough - hopefully they've fixed that now...

Dr. DroThe problem with Todd Howard and Emil Pagliarulo is that their formula for writing and directing the games might be time tested, but they're also having difficulty adapting as the fanbase of Bethesda games have come to expect ever deeper, ever more complex RPG's that also go completely against corporate directive of being ESG-clean, mass marketable and accessible to casual players. That's where they fumble.

Add to the complexity of working with Creation Engine, which is extremely inflexible, you get this result - just look at Starfield. Anyone who's a Skyrim fanatic will greatly enjoy playing Starfield. I know, because I did. And I had a blast. But I can't lie chief, at launch it largely felt like an "indev stage" pre-release copy, and it did leave me wanting for more. Even though I generally align with the lawful good side that Starfield had great emphasis put into (it would suck if you didn't, I can't even hide this), I still wasn't fully satisfied. I wanted more. I hope the expansion packs and small releases for it over time improve the state of the game, but I fear that Bethesda has already put their foot off the pedal for Starfield.

In my view, the problem has always been the same: Bethesda stuck to an archaic method of building games. In every single thing they do, they're still building a Daggerfall or Morrowind. Except now its big business, and its a business case more than a game. Every single Creation Engine title that they poop out is highly aimed at profit maximization before being a good game. They get released in a bad state, work on the engine is postponed far too long (look at the numerous Skyrim versions before the true overhaul), and 'more' is given through procedural content and rehashed but old ideas. We've seen everything a TES, Starfield, or Fallout has to offer because quite simply Bethesda does not innovate, instead they're actively looking for ways to deliver the same thing more efficiently. Its minimum input, maximum output and the twisted idea that they think we won't notice.

This trend started to show post-Oblivion. Unique game elements got removed and replaced with more repetitive marker bullshit. Skyrim still had some hand crafted stuff sure, but the quests themselves are already becoming that very clear 'run around to your exit' dungeon work with a repetitive character. Also, a lot of world events are simply not present even though the game is talking about it all the time, like the supposed war going on. Skyrim already feels heavily neutered that way. There's actually a lot less to do besides the actual quest lines. No spell crafting and crafting itself turned into a boring affair. Spellcasting is worse overall. Balancing and skill tree is worse. Etc.

Todd wants to reinvent things without truly reinventing them, he's just throwing shit at the wall so modders can proceed to make something out of it. There's no direction, poor game design and effects of game design (the settlements in FO4 killing exploration and suspense is a good example). Todd's fighting his own formula really, he's done and should've stopped at Oblivion.

Oh and by the by, they know this is their pitch and how silly it is. They're just floating on sales numbers. There's no real plan there except repetition and hoping it lasts. Todd knows it too. That's how you get the PR at an FO76 launch saying 'There will be bugs'... and even with that disclaimer you're still amazed at how bad they are.

Dr. DroHave you given 76 a try? It went in the right direction IMO.

Nope, but just saw you get it for free (to keep) at the moment if you have Amazon Prime.

gaming.amazon.com/fallout-76-xbox-fgwp/dp/amzn1.pg.item.9fe17d7b-b6c2-4f58-b494-cc4e79528d0b?ingress=amzn&ref_=SM_Fallout76XBOX_S01_FGWP_CRWN

So yeah, might as well download it now....

Chrispy_Nope, but just saw you get it for free (to keep) at the moment if you have Amazon Prime.

gaming.amazon.com/fallout-76-xbox-fgwp/dp/amzn1.pg.item.9fe17d7b-b6c2-4f58-b494-cc4e79528d0b?ingress=amzn&ref_=SM_Fallout76XBOX_S01_FGWP_CRWN

So yeah, might as well download it now....

Whoa free to keep 76? Nice!

"Free" as a perk I guess, Amazon Prime ain't free :p
If I like it' I'll probably pay the £6.99 to get it on Steam, for the convenience and being able to continue a saved game on my Steam Deck....

Chrispy_"Free" as a perk I guess, Amazon Prime ain't free :p
If I like it' I'll probably pay the £6.99 to get it on Steam, for the convenience and being able to continue a saved game on my Steam Deck....

That's one of the must-have subs, though. Yearly fee pays for itself on like 2 orders from Amazon or so, never mind the rest of the goodies.

Anyway, my advice as someone beginning to play right now, try to carry on with the original questline before engaging with Wastelanders and Steel Dawn. Once you've advanced reasonably enough and you think you'll keep playing, then get 1 mo of 1st. It's really a convenience package, game is playable without it, but late-game (once you're level 200+ that is) it just becomes a lot about micromanaging and you won't wanna deal with that.

The entire TES/Fallout fame lies on shoulders of modders. The F3/F4 games themselves are crappy cut down mods of Elder's Scrolls.

The F4 is such a buggy mess, that it has set a new milestone for being the crappiest game after F3. People even have to pay attantion to not accidentally touch the tilda/console key, or the achievements will render moot. There's even no hope left for the upcomming patch, which mostly will add the skins/visuals, that can be otherwise modded for free.

Chrispy_Nope, but just saw you get it for free (to keep) at the moment if you have Amazon Prime.

gaming.amazon.com/fallout-76-xbox-fgwp/dp/amzn1.pg.item.9fe17d7b-b6c2-4f58-b494-cc4e79528d0b?ingress=amzn&ref_=SM_Fallout76XBOX_S01_FGWP_CRWN

So yeah, might as well download it now....

They have the PC version available too just as a heads up