Fallout 1.5: Resurrection Mod Goes Back to the Series Roots

ffronw

I am a meat popsicle
Oct 24, 2013
2,804
0
0
Fallout 1.5: Resurrection Mod Goes Back to the Series Roots

//cdn.themis-media.com/media/global/images/library/deriv/1336/1336833.jpgA new Fallout 2 mod bridges the gap between the first and second games.

Most of the Fallout news we see these days centers around the more recent releases, like Fallout 4. But if you're a fan of the older game sin the series, then this new mod is right up your alley.

Described by the developers as "a new, old-school Fallout," Fallout 1.5: Resurrection is a mod for Fallout 2. It bridges the gap between the events of Fallout 1 and Fallout 2. Your character wakes up in a cave with no memory of who he is, or how he got there. Naturally, you'll spend most of the game trying to figure that out.

The mod aims to embrace a darker feel, much like the original title in the series. The official site says that "Easter eggs and jokes, with which Fallout 2 was literally overfilled, have been folded into the background."

All you need to play it is a clean install of Fallout 2. Resurrection includes the latest patch for the game, as well as the High Resolution patch and Sfall, which means the mod should run on pretty much every version of Windows.

You can check out the mod in the trailer below, and if it's your sort of thing, you can head over to the official site and download it [http://resurrection.cz/en/download/].


[gallery=6344]

Permalink
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
8,413
15
23
So...its a fanfic mod?

Or does it try to let you play through events that were established as canon between the two games?
 

Naldan

You Are Interested. Certainly.
Feb 25, 2015
488
0
0
What Saelune asked. Would be nice to know.

I would have gone with the Fallout Bible and/or Van Buren, the events are pretty well known.

Still, it's nice to see an RPG set in the Fallout universe for a change.











Fallout 4 sucks as an RPG.
 

Bindal

New member
May 14, 2012
1,320
0
0
Probably a fanfic mod.

Personally, I don't think I'll bother with it, to be honest. Lorewise, the old Fallout games were good. But in terms of gameplay, they didn't age very well with their rather userunfriendly UI and controls as well as refusal of letting players know info like their current quest.
 

Mister K

This is our story.
Apr 25, 2011
1,703
0
0
Bindal said:
Probably a fanfic mod.

Personally, I don't think I'll bother with it, to be honest. Lorewise, the old Fallout games were good. But in terms of gameplay, they didn't age very well with their rather userunfriendly UI and controls as well as refusal of letting players know info like their current quest.
I am pretty sure that if you access your Pip Boy and go to "tasks" (or however it is called) It will show you a list of cities and once you click on said city you'll see all your active quests.

OT: Nah, not going to play it. I mean, from what I understand about this mod, it basically wants to show how Vault Dweller founded Arroyo. Then why make them amnesiac? Is transfering a safe data really that hard? OK, even if it is, allowing players to recreate their level 20 Vault Dweller shouldn't be that much of a problem. Balance of the game? I am playing as a goddamn Vault Dweller, I blew up the Supermutant base and made Master kill himself, I deserve those levels.
 

ffronw

I am a meat popsicle
Oct 24, 2013
2,804
0
0
The dialogue looks really sketchy, but I'll give it a shot after my vacation.

Bindal said:
Probably a fanfic mod.

Personally, I don't think I'll bother with it, to be honest. Lorewise, the old Fallout games were good. But in terms of gameplay, they didn't age very well with their rather userunfriendly UI and controls as well as refusal of letting players know info like their current quest.
New players definitely have a hard time of going at it, yeah. As for me, I'm just fine with it.
You could look up quest info on your pipboy, even if it's somewhat sparse. There's literally a quest button in there.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,877
0
0
"I am rather going to go."

The hell did I just read?

The line about Fallout 2's sense of humor tells me pretty much everything I need to know about this project. It's coming out of one of the most bitter chunks of the fanbase. I still remember seeing their tantrums on NMA 15 years ago. It's kinda sad to know they still haven't gotten over that. Hell, I remember them going off on J.E. Sawyer, like he was the anti-christ, because of his comments on Van Buren.
 

Recusant

New member
Nov 4, 2014
699
0
0
Bindal said:
Probably a fanfic mod.

Personally, I don't think I'll bother with it, to be honest. Lorewise, the old Fallout games were good. But in terms of gameplay, they didn't age very well with their rather userunfriendly UI and controls as well as refusal of letting players know info like their current quest.
Click on the "PIP" icon.
Click on "STATUS".
Click on the name of the town in question.
-or-
Open your manual and read the bottom of page 58.

Blame the game for the problems it has; not the ones you wish it did. Needing to read the manual isn't "user unfriendliness".
 

Poetic Nova

Pulvis Et Umbra Sumus
Jan 24, 2012
1,974
0
0
Starke said:
"I am rather going to go."

The hell did I just read?

The line about Fallout 2's sense of humor tells me pretty much everything I need to know about this project. It's coming out of one of the most bitter chunks of the fanbase. I still remember seeing their tantrums on NMA 15 years ago. It's kinda sad to know they still haven't gotten over that. Hell, I remember them going off on J.E. Sawyer, like he was the anti-christ, because of his comments on Van Buren.
Hell, last time I checked NMA they were being vile on Tactics for having typo's. Glad I never joined that place.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,123
702
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Starke said:
I still remember seeing their tantrums on NMA 15 years ago. It's kinda sad to know they still haven't gotten over that. Hell, I remember them going off on J.E. Sawyer, like he was the anti-christ, because of his comments on Van Buren.
Can you give me the gist of those comments? If he's the anti-christ, does that make Bethesda Satan in their eyes?

I ask as someone who has a kind of morbid fascination with NMA - partly because I had a similar rotten experience with StarCraft Legacy (if you're like SC2, you're pond scum, despite me actually playing SC1 when it came out), partly because of the gratification that arseholes extend across franchises, partly because of depression from the same reason, partly because of morbid humour of seeing NMA berate anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Poetic Nova said:
Hell, last time I checked NMA they were being vile on Tactics for having typo's. Glad I never joined that place.
http://kotaku.com/the-relentless-champions-of-classic-fallout-1715984448

They certainly moved onto Fallout 3. And while I'm not fond of Fallout 3 (though it's the only Fallout game I played, and my dislike is mainly in the knowledge that it's not a type of game I enjoy in terms of style), anything NMA says about the game is tainted in my eyes because of how they treat people who DO like it, as evidenced by said article. I can only assume they've moved onto Fallout 4 by now.
 

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime

Lolita Style, The Best Style!
Jan 12, 2010
2,151
0
0
Hawki said:
NMA mostly started to hate on Tactics because it's not very story driven and is more a tactical game than an RPG. That's not to mention that Tactics was made by a different studio and played fast and loose with the lore and story. It's the same reason they also shat on Brotherhood of Steel for the PS2, but there they also had truly awful gameplay along with everything else to shit on. NMA's chunk of the fanbase tends to be somewhat split on Fallout 3, many are just "meh" about it, a few vocally hate on it, most seem to say it was "alright, but didn't feel like Fallout."... There's generally much more approval for New Vegas because of how lore friendly it is. With the lack of input into story development, paired with how blatantly lore breaking a lot of what's in Fallout 4 is... It's no surprise that the NMA community loathes the game with a passion. I'll even agree with the sentiment that Fallout 4 is a Fallout game in name only, even more so than 3 was. They basically ripped the soul out of the game to make it more casually approachable. Which is a sacrilege, because the biggest thing Fallout and Fallout 2 offered when they first came out, is how you decisions and the quests you took, along with how you completed those quests, matter to the developing story and at the end of the games.

OT: This mod isn't particularly new, I ran into this project years ago... It's too bad it's run by Fallout purists, because they neglect most of what made Fallout 2 the stronger game. This game is fairly fan fiction bait too, as while we have little idea of what the Vault Dweller did between being banned from Vault 13 and founding Arroyo, it's pretty obvious The Vault Dweller's actions and wanderings let them gain a huge following... Comparatively speaking. Pulling the amnesia card is a pure ass pull, it's the laziest kind of writing, and the whole concept suffers for it.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,877
0
0
Hawki said:
Starke said:
I still remember seeing their tantrums on NMA 15 years ago. It's kinda sad to know they still haven't gotten over that. Hell, I remember them going off on J.E. Sawyer, like he was the anti-christ, because of his comments on Van Buren.
Can you give me the gist of those comments? If he's the anti-christ, does that make Bethesda Satan in their eyes?
Van Buren was aimed at being very similar to what we ended up getting with New Vegas. Not, exactly the same. There was a plot involving an orbital killsat, and because of the game's structure, it was aimed at covering a much larger area of the country. (Denver was slated to be included, for example.)

This bit reminded me of that brand of vitriol, because the style of humor in Fallout 2's random encounters was something that a specific subset absolutely hated. I forget what Sawyer did to rile them up, specifically. I think it was simply a discussion about worldbuilding in an interview, but they hated him. I mean, we're talking about the crowd that was already calling Van Buren "Fallout In Name Only" when Sawyer was named as lead designer (I think this was after Avelone left Black Isle, but it's been 15 years, so I could be misremembering the exact timeline.)

To be fair, we're also talking about the kind of "fans" that thought "Fallout 2 was too green," as in too much plant life, though, intentionally or not, Bethesda managed to find a wonderful way to troll them with FO3.

To be honest, I haven't spent any time there in the last decade. I had some threads dropped in front of me after the Bethesda reveal filled with a mix of the irate and Morrowind fans. No idea what's going on there now, though.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,877
0
0
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
With the lack of input into story development, paired with how blatantly lore breaking a lot of what's in Fallout 4 is... It's no surprise that the NMA community loathes the game with a passion. I'll even agree with the sentiment that Fallout 4 is a Fallout game in name only, even more so than 3 was. They basically ripped the soul out of the game to make it more casually approachable.
To be fair, I kinda thing that assessment is accurate, but not why. Todd Howard's approach to game design is really in the sandbox area.

Black Isle, and to an extent Bioware, build their games within the context of presenting the player with a story, and asking them to roleplay their responses to preset situations. That's Fallout, Alpha Protocol, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Baldur's Gate, Planescape, and the list goes on.

Bethesda, to an extent Todd Howard specifically, but it is a company wide thing, presents their RPGs as a giant toybox. The Elder Scrolls Games, Fallout 3 and 4. There are narrative strands, but letting the player wander around is far more important.

It's kind of the difference between a GM with a fixed storyline in mind, and one that's created a massive detailed world, but playing the story by ear.

Within that context, Fallout 4 makes a lot of sense. It's creating an environment where the player can wander out into the wasteland and try to rebuild civilization.

There's problems with it. It was pulling ideas like rerunning content from titles like Diablo or Borderlands, or how the dialog system was an utter mess. But, it does ultimately give you a massive sandbox world to wander around and wreck or roleplay in. But, that's on the player, the discrete opportunities to interact with a narrative moment are very limited.

I don't think its soul was ripped out, so much as... this is the sequel to Skyrim. Really. Different setting, but the same design aesthetic, evolved. Which is ironic, because Skyrim is basically the first post-apocalyptic Elder Scrolls game, event though it's not supposed to be post-apocalyptic, but Fallout 3 affected it seriously.

Bethesda's never going to be able to tell an Obsidian style story in one of their games, because that's not how their philosophy for player agency works.
 

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime

Lolita Style, The Best Style!
Jan 12, 2010
2,151
0
0
Starke said:
While valid, it's still rather an affront to both communities now, as Bethesda is ripping out story, rather than taking the comments they're getting. Obsidian is someone they really needed to partner with in the building of Fallout 4, because Obsidian is largely the home of old Black Isle talent, many of whom were involved with Fallout and Fallout 2. There's a sense of the either or aspect with sandboxes and story... But really they could have done both, especially leaving the sandboxing as something to be focused on post story... Rather as Bethesda does, they worked to cram everything together all at once, which left things feeling at best poorly explained and tutorialized... At worst a lot of the secondary stuff comes off as a half assed cash-in on the crafting and survival mechanics that Minecraft made a market for.

In all honesty, they had the ability to delay the game to make things more consistent and to make a game that both long time fans and new comers would like. Instead they took a game that didn't need to be a Fallout title, slapped the franchise label on it, and ignored all the advice from fans they said they'd been listening to. That's a big part of the reason a lot of the Fallout community is feeling alienated against and betrayed by Bethesda. Fallout as a franchise is a very specific thing, a very well defined method of story telling in which the player gets to shape events. Even Fallout 3 was pretty good about that, but from character development to plot agency... In which context, Fallout 4 is a massive, DLC driven, cynically money oriented slap in the face, one which the fanbase isn't soon going to forget, or forgive.

Keeping true to a franchise's roots isn't hard either. After all we have New Vegas in the Fallout franchise and games like Elite: Dangerous which are the poster children for such things.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,877
0
0
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Starke said:
While valid, it's still rather an affront to both communities now, as Bethesda is ripping out story, rather than taking the comments they're getting.
Hardly given that they've said the dialog system didn't work the way they were hoping it would, and were going back to the drawing board with it.

Also, Fallout 4 is hardly an affront to anyone except the early Fallout Diehards. The ones who want new fallout games, but it can't be Wasteland 2 because that's not Fallout enough, even though, Fallout was a serial numbers filed off "homage" Wasteland.

For anyone else, it's there. Fallout 4 might not be your thing, but it's hardly an affront.

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Obsidian is someone they really needed to partner with in the building of Fallout 4...
I'm just going to stop you there, because until you slap some qualifiers on that sentence, it's kinda comical. Fallout 4 has been hilariously successful. Fallout 4 sold twelve million within the first 24 hours of launch. So, now you're saying... what? That having the largest opening day sales for a video game is a failure, and they really needed to talk to Obsidian.

I understand that Fallout 4 may not be what you wanted. You wanted Wasteland 2... which you got. Or Pillars of Eternity but in a post apocalyptic setting... which judging by J.E. Sawyer's twitter activity, we're probably getting. It's not going to be called Fallout... and depending on how Brian Fargo's feeling it might not even be called Wasteland: New Orleans or Wasteland 3, but we will be seeing more post apocalyptic RPGs from Obsidian.

Hell, I'm actually far more excited by the prospect of Tyranny. It's the opportunity to explore new material from them, rather than simply treading the same setting one more time.

Fallout is a brand name. It's a setting that has been revisited by six different development teams now. Aside from the PS2/XBox title, they've all had something going for them. None of them are perfect games. They've all had issues. And hey, I like those games (again, except for BOS), but I'm not expecting them to all be more of the same. Saying it can't become something else, and dismissing what Bethesda has done as a cash grab shows a fundamental lack of awareness of their previous releases, and the progression that's been visible in their games up to this point. If you want to be angry with someone, then the real target is probably Interplay, for bungling their games so badly back in the early 2000s. Getting pissed with Bethesda for releasing the game they did just means you never saw what Bethesda was doing, nor played the classic RPGs that shaped their design philosophies.
 

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime

Lolita Style, The Best Style!
Jan 12, 2010
2,151
0
0
Starke said:
Hardly given that they've said the dialog system didn't work the way they were hoping it would, and were going back to the drawing board with it.

Also, Fallout 4 is hardly an affront to anyone except the early Fallout Diehards. The ones who want new fallout games, but it can't be Wasteland 2 because that's not Fallout enough, even though, Fallout was a serial numbers filed off "homage" Wasteland.

For anyone else, it's there. Fallout 4 might not be your thing, but it's hardly an affront.
After New Vegas and Fallout 3 saying that there's no middle ground is rather absurd on the face of it. Fallout 3 and New Vegas both did quite well in establishing the setting and feeling in a new format. They had some hiccups, but they were very competent at what they did. So it bears on mentioning, that when you take out the flexible story of the originals, the end product seems like a hollowing husk that only bears passing resemblance to the source. Ala Fallout 4

Also since you're pulling the card of "Like Wasteland but..." While Fallout did take a lot of inspiration from Wasteland, they also took huge amounts of inspiration from things like A Boy and His Dog, and in gameplay, from Dungeons and Dragons. So no, Fallout is more than Wasteland "with the serial numbers filed off", it might not have started that way, but it sure didn't stay that.

Starke said:
I'm just going to stop you there,
This line always seems to me like "I'm going to disregard your opinion and say a bunch of unrelated stuff to back up my point.

Starke said:
because until you slap some qualifiers on that sentence, it's kinda comical. Fallout 4 has been hilariously successful. Fallout 4 sold twelve million within the first 24 hours of launch. So, now you're saying... what? That having the largest opening day sales for a video game is a failure, and they really needed to talk to Obsidian.
First off, initial sale numbers don't actually mean all that much. Especially not when you're looking at one of the most anticipated sequels in a popular franchise in recent history. A lot of people bought Fallout 4 before there were even decent reviews of the game, just on the experiences of the previous franchise, especially considering Fallout 3 and New Vegas, both of which were really good in their own right.

Also mind you I never said that Fallout 4 was a failure, all I said was basically it felt like another game with a Fallout skin. There's a pretty big difference, most of it relying on the story, which was linear, unlike any main line Fallout game and New Vegas to that date.

Starke said:
I understand that Fallout 4 may not be what you wanted. You wanted Wasteland 2... which you got. Or Pillars of Eternity but in a post apocalyptic setting... which judging by J.E. Sawyer's twitter activity, we're probably getting. It's not going to be called Fallout... and depending on how Brian Fargo's feeling it might not even be called Wasteland: New Orleans or Wasteland 3, but we will be seeing more post apocalyptic RPGs from Obsidian.
A projection more than anything else on your part. I wanted a new Fallout that felt like a main line Fallout game like # and New Vegas did. Instead what was dropped in our laps was full 3D Fallout: Tactics with survival/crafting tacked on in a way that made it feel like a last minute addition. Remember that the biggest thing about Fallout aside from the setting was it's non-linear story. I never said I wanted Wasteland 2, because after seeing it, it's not the same thing as Fallout, or really the original Wasteland... It's more like Fallout: Tactics 2, in the Wasteland setting. Not that such is a bad thing, it's just not what I want in a Falloutgame, same goes for Fallout 4

Starke said:
Hell, I'm actually far more excited by the prospect of Tyranny. It's the opportunity to explore new material from them, rather than simply treading the same setting one more time.
That's great for you, I too like new settings and intellectual properties, but I still also like familiar ones getting sequels. It's not one, or the other in my mind, why can't we simply have both? There's plenty of new talent hitting the field of game development, which is starting to change to accommodate more creative ventures. Rather than just funding the same game with a new number every year, or so, even big developers and publishers are seeing this.

Starke said:
Fallout is a brand name. It's a setting that has been revisited by six different development teams now. Aside from the PS2/XBox title, they've all had something going for them. None of them are perfect games. They've all had issues. And hey, I like those games (again, except for BOS), but I'm not expecting them to all be more of the same. Saying it can't become something else, and dismissing what Bethesda has done as a cash grab shows a fundamental lack of awareness of their previous releases, and the progression that's been visible in their games up to this point. If you want to be angry with someone, then the real target is probably Interplay, for bungling their games so badly back in the early 2000s. Getting pissed with Bethesda for releasing the game they did just means you never saw what Bethesda was doing, nor played the classic RPGs that shaped their design philosophies.
First off, Fallout, 2, and New Vegas had much the same teams, as a lot of Black Isle talent is now at Obsidian, a studio that regularly gets criminally short changed in development schedules. Incidentally the same thing happened to the team that did Tactics, but that's another story, still imagine what Tactics could have been had their release date not been moved up... Several times and against the developers will I might add. Also Fallout is more than just a "brand name", it's an established franchise with a specific formula for it's success, that formula was largely ignored this time around.

Brotherhood of Steel was a train wreck, we can both agree.

I also never said I hated Bethesda, nor did I say that I personally saw what they did as a cynical cash grab. Fact of the matter is I appreciate them putting their mark on the franchise, in so much as they're trying new things, seeing what works and what doesn't. I fully expect that from a developer who previously had essentially no connection to the franchise. Now Fallout 4 looks like Fallout, it sounds like Fallout, but it lacks the personality and spirit of Fallout and that's the problem. This is the place I'll say that Bethesda screwed up, where they could have used the help from the Obsidian team who did Fallout: New Vegas. Fallout has a very specific feel and structure, which Fallout 4 lacks, it just doesn't feel right and it's linear story hampers the feeling of agency. In fact that's also the major complaint against Tactics too, the Linear story that strips the player of the ability to have a major influence on the game world... At least by the end of the game...

I'm not pissed at Bethesda, just very, very disappointed in them abandoning such a huge and important part of the franchise they're continuing. Hopefully they take the criticism to heart and make the next Fallout title behave like one, instead of a different franchise that just seems like Fallout. They had some really, really good ideas, some have had crap implementation, others just conflict with the setting, while others are very much against the basic concept that made the franchise great.

I also can't blame too much on Interplay, or Black Isle studios, because the publisher was busy going down the drain in the early 2000's. Still we can't use a developer as an excuse for dropping the ball on a concept that was well established and known to be successful. Games have survived developer transitions intact in the past, there's no reasons Bethesda couldn't adapt with Fallout. I don't particularly blame them for trying to move Fallout into their comfort zone, at the same time they've done other non-linear stories... Ones where the player had a huge amount of agency in shaping the plot... With Fallout 4 they tried an entirely new dialogue system, they had to implement it fast with limited time for scripting and voice acting... Which made the player's actions in the game feel futile, which is probably the most major criticism of the game in general, that really soured fans new and old on the game. We can hope they do better in the future...

Also consider how they tried to nickle and dime for mods in the recent past and how they haven't given that idea up... That's part of where people's thoughts they're making cynical cash grabs comes from, not to mention the introduction of paid DLC adding to that feeling. I don't see it, but plenty of other fans see it that way, and they're not totally wrong either. Still game devs and publishers have to make money to keep making the games we love and far too few people ever consider that.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,877
0
0
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Starke said:
I'm just going to stop you there,
This line always seems to me like "I'm going to disregard your opinion and say a bunch of unrelated stuff to back up my point.
Actually, what it means is nothing else you wrote after that point was worth reading.

Your entire post could have been summarized as, "but this isn't the Fallout game I wanted."
 

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime

Lolita Style, The Best Style!
Jan 12, 2010
2,151
0
0
Starke said:
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Starke said:
I'm just going to stop you there,
This line always seems to me like "I'm going to disregard your opinion and say a bunch of unrelated stuff to back up my point.
Actually, what it means is nothing else you wrote after that point was worth reading.

Your entire post could have been summarized as, "but this isn't the Fallout game I wanted."
That's fair enough, but the underlying point is actually important. I'm not just speaking for what I personally think, my attitude is common to a majority of the Fallout community. From those who started way at the beginning, going back even to Wasteland, to those who hopped on board as late as Fallout 3 and New Vegas. Fallout games tend to flow in a specific way, where a segment of the main quest leads you to a string of side quests, which you can complete, or ignore... Still it's the options that let you do various tasks that have some impact, both on how you're viewed by various settlements and the end of the game. It might not be a real impact, but it feels like a tangible impact.

Many games have tried the same thing, but... Well looking at Deus Ex, Mass Effect, and many in the same spirit, they have the elements, but they don't work in the end. Where you have this end-o-tron 3000 that has several levers to pull/buttons to push that picks an ending... That's one thing Fallout managed to evade for so long. Where you can make an evolving series of choices that determines the state of the ending you get. Which can range from laying waste to the game locations, up to fixing everyone's problems and making everything all peachy keen... Where you can be the devil, or messiah of the wastes. The way Fallout has done that has always been deeply satisfying.

Edit: I'm not saying in that that "Fallout 4 isn't my thing", or that you're entirely wrong, or even that Fallout 4 was bad. Just the short version, not just from my point of view, but from the view of a lot of gamers... Fallout 4 just doesn't feel like it's really Fallout.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,877
0
0
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
That's fair enough, but the underlying point is actually important. I'm not just speaking for what I personally think, my attitude is common to a majority of the Fallout community.
It's fundamentally impossible for you to speak for a majority of the Fallout community and hold the position you do. The reason is simple: Fallout 4 is the most successful game in the franchise. It was an introduction point to the games for more people than any prior Fallout release.

While Fallout 4 has serious flaws, the ones you are citing would not be apparent to someone with no prior exposure to the franchise. Sadly or not, the majority of the Fallout community today views the franchise as Far Cry: Post Apocalypse Edition, because that is what they know.
 

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime

Lolita Style, The Best Style!
Jan 12, 2010
2,151
0
0
Starke said:
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
That's fair enough, but the underlying point is actually important. I'm not just speaking for what I personally think, my attitude is common to a majority of the Fallout community.
It's fundamentally impossible for you to speak for a majority of the Fallout community and hold the position you do. The reason is simple: Fallout 4 is the most successful game in the franchise. It was an introduction point to the games for more people than any prior Fallout release.

While Fallout 4 has serious flaws, the ones you are citing would not be apparent to someone with no prior exposure to the franchise. Sadly or not, the majority of the Fallout community today views the franchise as Far Cry: Post Apocalypse Edition, because that is what they know.
Older games didn't cease to exist remember, and a lot of what sold Fallout 4 was the endurance of Fallout 3 and New Vegas. It's the best selling in initial sales, but remember that Fallout: New Vegas had 5 years to spread on rave reviews, word of mouth, used sales, and so on... Fallout 3 had another 2 years of similar reception above and beyond that before it's next numerical successor. Fallout was 11 years before even Fallout 3 and Fallout 2 only a year after the first, both games have performed well in secondary sales and later re-releases. Don't underestimate how many people have been exposed to the series over it's frankly legendary legacy of the past 19 years.

Seriously saying that the majority of people's experience with Fallout starts with Fallout 4... In the past that might have held weight, but anymore, especially with two in the series came out after the advent of easy digital distribution. Also mind you that in individual for Fallout 3 in retail alone are estimated at 12.4 million world wide as of November 10th 2015. It's really hard to say that a game series on it's fourth installment would have more fresh players, compared to the fan base who bought it, especially with a nearly 20 year old franchise... Especially with the driving force behind initial and continued sales being existing fans. None of that factors in games being handed down, being played by multiple people with only one copy to share, nor piracy either...

Saying that the vast majority of Fallout 4's players are new, when the game owes it's very existence to a fanatical and loyal fanbase, who despite their moaning bought the game... It's a pretty laughable idea.