Bethesda going out of its way to ignore New Vegas

[R.Graves]

I didn't know the Mysterious Stranger files excluded New Vegas.

might just be whoever wrote that had the really dumb idea to make the mysterious stranger canon but then realized it doesn't make the most sense for him to be in the capital wasteland in 2277 then in the Mojave in 2284 and then all the way back in the commonwealth in 2287.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

might just be whoever wrote that had the really dumb idea to make the mysterious stranger canon but then realized it doesn't make the most sense for him to be in the capital wasteland in 2277 then in the Mojave in 2284 and then all the way back in the commonwealth in 2287.

Or someone who thought he was clever. Just like Genius and Madness are close to each other so are being Clever and being Dumb.

 

[KingArthur]

might just be whoever wrote that had the really dumb idea to make the mysterious stranger canon but then realized it doesn't make the most sense for him to be in the capital wasteland in 2277 then in the Mojave in 2284 and then all the way back in the commonwealth in 2287.

Who knows. Honestly Beth has fucked the canon so much that I can’t even approach it without being drenched in semen.

 

[R.Graves]

being drenched in semen.

 

[Alkuam]

View attachment 11439

This is where that "masturbate furiously" button would be perfect.

 

[Cobra Commander]

Now, I belive that Bethesda guys are totally salty the way NV is considered by many to be the best game in the franchise. nothing is going to change my mind.

That said, the references to NV that FO4 has, are enough. more would be an exaggeration.

Cola victory, quartz and sunset sarsaparilla, Mr. House, Vera Keyes, Fixer, NV sign, Mojave wasteland...

Is more then NV in relation to 3.

 

[SquidWard]

NV sign

like a road sign or a neon sign?? But fair, that's a decent amount of things from or referencing to New Vegas. I was just more speculating.

 

[Rheios]

It's in one of their stupid pip-boy games, the Atomic Command one that's a ripoff of Missle Command. It uses the "Fabulous Las Vegas" sign in it.

Honestly, there's a fair number of little New Vegas references in Fallout 4 but it always seemed to be easily written off smokescreen to me. Nothing of substance in the places that should have it. A joke here, a picture here, a name drop there - anything to say "no we acknowledge it" without actually trying to consider the way it any of the game's story should or could impact the region of the world they were trying to build in. Really though it could be completely devoid of malice. After all, one should never assume malice when incompetence will do.

Also, my favorite Avellone tweet series in the Outer Worlds thread is the one starting with: https://twitter.com/ChrisAvellone/status/1071238723906428930

 

[R.Graves]

tbh i'm okay with the current amount of referencing of NV in 4. fallout 4's writers have about as much love for NV as they did for 3. which is to say... almost none. killing sarah lyons off screen may not be nearly as bad as the implications of alien cities under the mojave but its still a pretty big insult to fallout 3. then we have the complete disregard of the capital wasteland brotherhood's ideal. honestly why were they not the brotherhood outcasts in fallout 4? what the fuck. honestly some of the references are nice little nods but if there were more then we'd risk more alien cities in the mojave.

still the overall lack of mr house in fallout 4 is really strange considering its setting...

 

[FrighteningCazadores]

I read in the RPGCodex forum (it even has a pic of the tweet) that Bethesda, at least the higher ups, resent New Vegas. Apparently they don't really like the fact New Vegas gets much more praise than Fallout 3 and 4.

Now, i don't know if it's completely true, but it would explain the near non-existant references to New Vegas. I mean, the Bethesda Fallouts have references up the ass to older games, so when games that came out after a particular one go out of their way to not reference it, something is up.

I'd definitely believe that. I think the suits over at Bethesda are absolutely that childish. It's very depressing that we'll be stuck with vain idiots milking the franchise dry.

 

[tgawt]

i really doubt Bethesda gives a shit and this is nothing more than the collective biases of people who really want to hate on Bethesda. like, Bethesda makes fucking bank on every game they make in-house. in comparison to 3 and 4, New Vegas sold 3 million copies, Fallout 3 sold 4.7 million, and Fallout 4 sold about 12 million and they had to share the profits of New Vegas with Obsidian, so Bethesda made the least amount of money on NV. Bethesda not caring about fan service to New Vegas is probably the main reason theres no references to it, but another might be that the events of New Vegas are so recent in the Fallout timeline (it takes place 6 years before Fallout 4) that theres no reason why anybody in the Commonwealth would even know about the events taking place around Vegas.

edit; New Vegas also doesn't share any of the writers that Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 do (as far as im aware) and very few people on bethesdas staff have probably played Vegas to completion AND have followed the lore of that game like many fans have

 

[Norzan]

Yeah, that's why Fallout 76 is making so much money.


Only reason Fallout 3 even sold well was because the hype generated by Oblivion. Same thing with Skyrim to Fallout 4, nothing but hyped generated by the previous game, because that's all Todd Howard does. Anything after Skyrim would have sold well unless it was a complete, utter disaster and even then it would have probably made more money than some other AAA games in the same year.

That's all Bethesda is, an hype generating machine, but it seems this machine is starting to fall apart.

 

[tgawt]

Yeah, that's why Fallout 76 is making so much money.

oh yea,i forgot about 76, but everything before then has sold pretty well + there was a shitton of backlash towards 76 before it even came out so the likelihood of the game selling well in the first place was unlikely (they shouldve known this but someone up the ladder is an incompetent retard)

 

[Risewild]

Fallout 3 sold well for two reasons. Oblivion fans and old Fallout fans.
Just because a game sells well, doesn't mean the players actually liked it. Many complained Fallout 3 wasn't what they were expecting, and that they didn't really liked it much. Others liked it until they played FNV and saw the flaws (for them) of FO3.

Yesterday I was reading an old thread on Steam from 2016 about how Fallout New Vegas is overrated, the majority of people in that thread expressed the opposite opinion, that FNV was actually underrated and what I thought was interesting, was that many said they only bought Fallout 4 because they thought Bethesda would learn from FNV when making FO4. And how disappointed they were after playing the game.

Which once again shows that just because people bought the game, doesn't mean they liked it, many buy Bethesda games thinking they will be improved, compared with previous games in that IP. It happened with Fallout 3 and Fallout 4.

Also the numbers of Fallout games sold are wrong. Fallout New Vegas sold 8.53 million copies, Fallout 3 sold 9.93 million copies and Fallout 4 sold 13.89 million copies as per February 2018.

Now let's say 1/3 of all of Fallout New Vegas players hate the game, that is still 5.68 million that somehow enjoy the game, lets say also 1/3 of FO3 players hate the game, that is still 6.62 million players that somehow enjoy the game, lets assume that those 6.62 million that liked FO3 and those 5.68 million that liked FNV would buy FO4 because they thought it would improve on FO3 or FNV and you get 12.3 million sales from those two groups. Which is very close to the 13.89 (around 1.5 million difference from the total sales, which could easily be achieved from people who just got on the huge "marketing hype train" of Fallout 4).

Now lets say that those that enjoyed FNV and thought FO4 would be improved FNV, at least (probably) 2/3 would not like FO4 and be disappointed with their purchase, and for people who wanted an improved FO3, let's say 2/3 of them didn't enjoy or was disappointed with FO4, in total that means 8.2 million players that bought the game because of the previous ones, didn't like or enjoyed FO4 as much as they wanted/expected to or at all.

So the majority of FO4 sales might be people who wanted an improved game based on the previous, but got disappointed with FO4. It still sold more than FNV and FO3, but mostly because of people's expectations and not because it was a better game. There is a reason why FO4 is usually the least ranked PC Fallout game, and why Fallout 3 is usually the second least ranked PC Fallout game too (not counting Fallout 76).

 

[tgawt]

Fallout 3 sold well for two reasons. Oblivion fans and old Fallout fans.
Just because a game sells well, doesn't mean the players actually liked it. Many complained Fallout 3 wasn't what they were expecting, and that they didn't really liked it much. Others liked it until they player FNV and saw the flaws (for them) of FO3.

Yesterday I was reading an old thread on Steam from 2016 about how Fallout New Vegas is overrated, the majority of people in that thread expressed the opposite opinion, that FNV was actually underrated and what I thought was interesting, was that many said they only bought Fallout 4 because they thought Bethesda would learn from FNV when making FO4. And how disappointed they were after playing the game.

Which once again shows that just because people bought the game, doesn't mean they liked it, many buy Bethesda games thinking they will be improved, compared with previous games in that IP. It happened with Fallout 3 and Fallout 4.

you're right, some people do dislike these games, especially nowadays, but people still like them. every fallout game has favorable reviews on steam and metacritic, and fallout 3 and 4 were nominated for more bafta awards than new vegas was. there are more people who like 3 and 4 than people dont, and both of those games made more money and are more culturally relevant than fallout: new vegas. 'some people on a steam forum' doesn't change the fact that people enjoy these games to this day, even if new vegas is better.

Also the numbers of Fallout games sold are wrong. Fallout New Vegas sold 8.53 million copies, Fallout 3 sold 9.93 million copies and Fallout 4 sold 13.89 million copies as per February 2018.

youre right, sorry. i was looking at old sales figures i just pulled off google, im not the best at research

Fallout 3 sold well for two reasons. Oblivion fans and old Fallout fans.
So the majority of FO4 sales might be people who wanted an improved game based on the previous, but got disappointed with FO4. It still sold more than FNV and FO3, but mostly because of people's expectations and not because it was a better game. There is a reason why FO4 is usually the least ranked PC Fallout game, and why Fallout 3 is usually the second least ranked PC Fallout game too (not counting Fallout 76).

by 'least ranked' do you mean lowest, or amount of reviews? if you mean least amount of reviews, your dead wrong, fallout 4 has more reviews than new vegas and 3 combined on steam, though im pretty sure thats not what you meant. if you meant lowest, you'd be right, according to metacritic, but the pool of people who have reviewed 4 is way larger than 3 and new vegas.

in the end, people will still buy TES:6, and starfield, and fallout 5, even the people on this forum, and they'll make bank, like they always do. they got unlucky with 76, but its not a pattern, and, if it is, you can shit on me all you want. bethesda will continue to succeed, and they'll continue to not care about new vegas. they have no reason to care about it.


EDIT (very important): for whatever reason an entire paragraph of mine went missing and it was literally my most important one. your math about 1/3 of fans like new vegas and 3 is arbitrary and pointless; fallout 4 didn't sell because of 3 and new vegas, it sold because bethesda has a favorable rep with most people who buy their games, and because of the mass marketing. also; 1/3 is a lot of people, its the same amount as the amount of teenage fatalities due to car accidents.

 

[R.Graves]

you're right, people do dislike these games, especially nowadays, but people still like them. every fallout game has favorable reviews on steam and metacritic and 3 and 4 were nominated for more bafta awards than new vegas was. there are more people who like 3 and 4 than dont, and both of those games made more money and are more culturally relevant than fallout: new vegas. some people on a steam forum doesn't change the fact that people enjoy these games to this day, even with the existence of new vegas

and none of that, of course, changes the fact that anyone who believes that fallout 3 and 4 are objectively well designed, well written, or even graphically decent are flatout wrong.

generally speaking when people review a Bethesda game they're reviewing the experience rather than the game itself. which is a dumbass way to review a game to someone because experience is entirely subjective whereas the quality of the game is not.

just because someone somewhere enjoyed something doesn't make it good. fucks sakes there are avid fans of the star wars prequel trilogy.

also the fact that fallout 3 won a BAFTA award for writing immdeitaly tarnishes the credibility of that organization because it objectively poorly written at all times. plus GTA IV came out the same year so... yeah Bafta isnt exactly a solid measure of quality.

bethesda will continue to succeed, and they'll continue to not care about new vegas. they have no reason to care about it.

a sad fact of life, sometimes the bad guy wins.

 

[Risewild]

by 'least ranked' do you mean lowest, or amount of reviews? if you mean least amount of reviews, your dead wrong, fallout 4 has more reviews than new vegas and 3 combined on steam, though im pretty sure thats not what you meant. if you meant lowest, you'd be right, according to metacritic, but the pool of people who have reviewed 4 is way larger than 3 and new vegas.

I mean values.
I researched a lot last year and I managed to make these posts:

Spoiler: PC Fallout rankings:

This thread made me curious about how PC players (since console doesn't have Fallout, Fallout 2 and Fallout Tactics) rank the Fallout games. So I went digging around and collected information from the largest PC gaming places I could think.

Green will represent the game(s) with the highest rank and orange will be the game(s) with the lowest rank.

Rating from the players on GOG.com (goes from 0.5 ★ to 5.0 ★):

• Fallout
  • 4.5 ★
• Fallout 2
  • 5.0 ★
• Fallout Tactics
  • 4.0 ★
• Fallout 3
  • 4.0 ★
• Fallout New Vegas
  • 5.0 ★
• Fallout 4
  • (It is not available on GOG.com)

Rating from the players on Steam (goes from 0% to 100%):

• Fallout
  • 93%
• Fallout 2
  • 94%
• Fallout Tactics
  • 82%
• Fallout 3
  • 79%
    
  • 80% in the GOTY
• Fallout New Vegas
  • 95%
• Fallout 4
  • 68%

Rating from the players on Metacritic (goes from 0.0 to 10):

• Fallout
  • 8.8
• Fallout 2
  • 9.1
• Fallout Tactics
  • 7.7
• Fallout 3
  • 7.9
  • 8.6 in the GOTY
• Fallout New Vegas
  • 8.6
  • 8.7 in the Ultimate Edition
• Fallout 4
  • 5.4

Rating from the players on GRY-online.pl (goes from 0.0 to 10):

• Fallout
  • 9.0
• Fallout 2
  • 8.9
• Fallout Tactics
  • 8.5
• Fallout 3
  • 8.2
• Fallout New Vegas
  • 9.0
• Fallout 4
  • 5.7

Polish players prefer Fallout 1 and Fallout New Vegas, but only by 0.1. Fallout and Fallout New Vegas: 9.0 and Fallout 2: 8.9.
Once again the lowest rated are Fallout 4 and Fallout 3.

Anyone knows any other sites or communities where people can review and rank PC games like Metacritic or this polish one? This thread would be perfect to keep the ratings on these games from many sources to compare later (even years from now).

EDIT:
I found GameRankings.com, but that one doesn't have player's rankings, but I did remember GameSpot, which has player ratings, so here is another source:

Rating from the players on Gamespot (goes from 0.0 to 10):

• Fallout
  • 9.1
• Fallout 2
  • 9.2
• Fallout Tactics
  • 8.4
• Fallout 3
  • 8.5 (8.8 average user rating, but that is counting the PS3 and XBox 360 users too)
• Fallout New Vegas
  • 8.0 (8.3 average user rating, but that is counting the PS3 and XBox 360 users too)
• Fallout 4
  • 6.6 (8.2 average user rating, but that is counting the PS4 and XBox One users too)

On Gamespot Fallout 2 is still the Fallout game with highest user ratings (even when we include console players for FO3, FNV and FO4 into the mix). One little surprise though, is that Fallout 3 is ranked higher than Fallout New Vegas.
But the highest and lowest games are still Fallout 2 and Fallout 4, respectively.

A note: We are looking at the PC players only as I explained before. Gamespot doesn't seem to have a way for us to see the average user rate by platform (at least I couldn't find it), so I had to go to the PC user reviews and add all of the rates from there together and then divide it by the number of reviews/users... This took a while... The values between parenthesis are the values you can find in the site (contains the average of the game in all platforms), although even with those the order of the best to worst game wouldn't change.

your math about 1/3 of fans like new vegas and 3 is arbitrary and pointless; fallout 4 didn't sell because of 3 and new vegas, it sold because bethesda has a favorable rep with most people who buy their games, and because of the mass marketing. also; 1/3 is a lot of people, its the same amount as the amount of teenage fatalities due to car accidents.

Bethesda doesn't have that good of a rep, each new game they release has a lower rate than the previous games they released. This is players opinion, and it's there to be seen on Steam for example
Even Skyrim has lower ratings than the previous The Elder Scrolls games:

But they still give Morrowind and Oblivion a higher rank than that too :

• Morrowind
  • 94%
• Oblivion
  • 94%
• Skyrim
  • 93%
• Skyrim SE
  • 78%

Which shows that players think Bethesda products are losing quality compared with the previous ones.

I base my assumptions on what the players say, not pull them out of my imagination. And players say "This game is not as good as the previous game" for all recent Fallout and The Elder Scrolls games .

I just thought of checking Metacritic about Skyrim to see if players there also think it is worst than Morrowind and Oblivion.
The rating is:

• Skyrim
  • 8.2
• Oblivion
  • 8.1
• Morrowind
  • 8.9
• Skyrim SE
  • 5.8

So people on Metacritic think that Skyrim is just 0.1 better than Oblivion, but that Morrowind is still better than both. And the most recent The Elder Scrolls released by Bethesda is Skyrim SE which players consider so bad it only got 5.8 out of 10...
Players seem to really say what I mentioned, Bethesda is releasing worse games over time .

 

[tgawt]

and none of that, of course, changes the fact that anyone who believes that fallout 3 and 4 are objectively well designed, well written, or even graphically decent are flatout wrong.

sure but thats not my point; my point is that people like these games, and they sold well.

generally speaking when people review a Bethesda game they're reviewing the experience rather than the game itself. which is a dumbass way to review a game to someone because experience is entirely subjective whereas the quality of the game is not.

by experience do you mean like, how good the game was subjectively? i dont get what you mean.

also the fact that fallout 3 won a BAFTA award for writing immdeitaly tarnishes the credibility of that organization because it objectively poorly written at all times. plus GTA IV came out the same year so... yeah Bafta isnt exactly a solid measure of quality.

according to IMDb it was just nominated, didn't win anything.

a sad fact of life, sometimes the bad guy wins.

another sad fact is that there are no real good guys in this situation. interplay and bethesda both fucked with fallout, and the people at obsidian aren't exactly the best at making RPGs, even new vegas has its faults. getting shit on as a player is a part of being a fallout fan

 

[tgawt]

I mean values.
I researched a lot last year and I managed to make these posts:

your being unfair in your post; you only counted PC reviews, and while i don't know what percentage PC sales count for the fallout games, they don't count for all of them and they aren't the average of all reviews. in your gamespot example you count the console reviews, which are more favorable towards all of the games, but especially towards fallout 4. console gamer's make up a fair amount of sales for fallout 4, and to exclude them from the total reviews isn't fair. not that it really matters in the end, what matters is amount of sales. the only reason a developer like bethesda would care about reviews is if it impacted sales; which it clearly didn't.

Bethesda doesn't have that good of a rep, each new game they release has a lower rate than the previous games they released. This is players opinion, and it's there to be seen

they did, especially around the time of fallout 4's release.

So people on Metacritic think that Skyrim is just 0.1 better than Oblivion, but that Morrowind is still better than both. And the most recent The Elder Scrolls released by Bethesda is Skyrim SE which players consider so bad it only got 5.8 out of 10...
Players seem to really say what I mentioned, Bethesda is releasing worse games over time .

this is a new development, if you asked people two years ago what elder scrolls game was the best, they probably wouldn't say morrowind. this recent surge of liking old bethesda games is a result of the culture of resentment thats come about because of fallout 4 and skyrim. the voice of the old-schooler has become louder, and the amount of old-schoolers has grown, not a bad thing at all, but its effecting how people are viewing newer titles by bethesda. even with the surge of old-school nostalgia, bethesda's new projects will continue to sell, and bethesda will continue to not care about new vegas. you can show me more and more statistics but its not going to change the fact that TES:6 and starfield are gonna generate plenty of money for bethesda, and fallout 5 will when its released too.

 

[R.Graves]

and the people at obsidian aren't exactly the best at making RPGs

lol ok

by experience do you mean like, how good the game was subjectively? i dont get what you mean.

no there will always be a degree of subjectivity because you have to account for things like taste and preference

but when people review a bethesda game they don't look at things like... character arcs, ui, or how well mechanics blend together, or the quest design or world design or anything related to how the game is put together.

they talk about little moments. about the cave with the dead man and the troll. the cave with the big tree. the blind man with the blank book. people don't talk about the way the game is or why its that way they talk about how the game made them feel. they talk about the sense of discovery and freedom they get from Bethesda games.i don't get that sense from their games. the sense i get is dead and empty. kinda like purgatory. its genuinely offputting. i feel arbitrarily restricted and trapped.

when two people can look at the same game and come away with totally different *experiences* its obviously not the most reliable way to ascertain quality. reviewing the experience is a great way to give context to your thoughts and opinions but that's not all a review should be. a review should also look at the product itself and when you do that with a bethesda game you will find it cracked and broken.

according to IMDb it was just nominated, didn't win anything.

still even being nominated is ridiculous. fallout 3 isn't even as well written as THUG2. because at least that game has a plot the doesn't contradict itself every 10 minutes and features consistent characterizations.