• Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

    • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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.

      • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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.

    • SquirtleHermit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

        • SquirtleHermit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

          • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            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.