you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 25 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Fallout was created by Tim Cain at Interplay. Herve Caen staged a hostile takeover of the company, forced out Cain and Brian Fargo, and proceeded to run the company into the ground and loot its corpse. Tim Cain was in the process of buying back IP from Interplay when Todd Howard swooped in and bought it for more than Cain could afford. Basically, Tim Cain had his baby - his magnum opus - stolen from him TWICE.

If not for Bethesda, we would have had multiple BG3 level sequels by now, instead of the looter-shooter garbage that Bethesda turned it into.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    But then, we wouldn't have VtM: Bloodlines, Pillars of Eternity or The Outer Worlds.

    Tim Cain has been hitting it out of the park since the first Fallout.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yes. Outer Wilds was good, although the combat was a bit bullet spongy at times. The writing and direction was on point. Funny to read that the "Spacer's Choice" edition introduced graphical bugginess - Tim's got jokes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    I don't get this. Sounds like Tim Cain is a shit business and you're blaming the person who had nothing to do with the company going under.

    Another thing I don't get, you think bathesda fallout is "garbage"? Really? Why is it every game is either a 10/10 or hot garbage? Why is there no in between? Why can't you admit it's just not for you? Fallout 1 and 2 weren't for me, I didn't like them. But I like bathesda fallout. It doesn't mean I can 1 and 2 "garbage". Fallout 3 and 4 gave across the board good reviews and millions of sales, clearly many people don't think it's garbage.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    Yeah, I can believe that there are some people who just don't like Bethesda's games, but I don't agree with them. I like the isometric games, New Vegas, and Bethesda's releases.

    All of them had their own warts and limitations. I didn't like the timer -- one had to complete a major portion of the game plot by a given period of time -- in Fallout 1. I didn't like the dialog system in Fallout 4, or how enemies tended to get really bullet-spongy late game. I didn't like the bugginess or limited draw distance with kinda prominent pop-in in New Vegas. Fallout 76 -- owing to its multiplayer nature -- has a kinda limited story and single-player game.

    The series as a whole has always has some balance issues with the various skills/perks.

    But there also isn't a game in the (mainline) series that I regret having purchased, either.

    And I think that the series definitely progressed in a number of ways.

    Some people didn't like the shift from the "skill percentages" system present from the first game through Fallout: New Vegas. I don't think that it was a great system. It tended to be grindy, and there were some clearly-better paths to take. I think that the series is better-off for having dropped it.

    Some people really didn't like having a voiced PC in Fallout 4, like it breaks their sense of immersion. I don't really feel strongly one way or the other, though I do think that having a voiced PC, absent good voice cloning and synth, makes it hard for mod authors to fit content in seamlessly.

    Fallout: New Vegas had a lot of complex story interactions, ways in which you could reshape the world; one choice and another interacted. Fallout 4 was simpler. I liked Fallout: New Vegas doing that...but then, I also remember sitting on a game guide so that I wouldn't make "wrong" choices, because a lot of the interactions aren't obvious.

  • source
  • parent