How come Bethesda couldn't do what a few guys could in the 90s?

File: Cut Institute weapons.jpg (1MB, 1536x2044px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1536x2044px

>>389355541
Because they are incompetent
Do you really have to ask?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passion_(emotion)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity

Fallout 1 & 2 has to be the most overrated fucking games in existence aside from OOT and LttP

>>389356161
t. Rodd Bogart

-Laziness
-"good enough" mentality
-consoles as target audience -> limitations
-"We want Cod / Minecraft audience!"

>>389356161
Besides the typical "I did not like them!" ''''argument'''', I'd love to hear why.

>>389356161
They are good. but i think overrated. New Vegas is alot better. I mean even Fallout 3 is better.

Fallout 1 is a short unfinished game with tiny sprites

They can.
It's that they don't want to. What Beth is doing is easier and makes more money, gives them more popularity and recognition, bigger fanbase, and probably more personal satisfaction.

Interplay did not end exactly great, if you may remember. And it's quite possible that Beth genuinely believes that what they are doing is better.

>>389356161
But BoTW is more overrated than every game you listed.

>>389355541
While Bethesda are incompentent and can't actually make good games, the games they make are literally perfect for the ultra-normalfag audience. As in the audience even more casual than reddit.
They eat these shit piles up because Bethesda's very good at giving the impression of an open-world that's just open enough to be impressive but not actually having enough content to be overwhelming
Bethesda make shit games, but very, very good products

Because taste is subjective.

>>389356269
not op
but fo1 is just an old ass game. its short the, combat it terrible, the animations movement and camera are horrible. the story isnt even as great either. its not even original with the story. the only thing that makes it good is the dialogue choices and the fact that they affect the gameplay. new vegas is far superior and even fo3 is better

File: 1502479773521.png (532KB, 1597x1600px) Image search: [Google]

532KB, 1597x1600px

>>389356297
gr8 b8 m8

>>389355541
It was easier to make a substantial experience in the 90's, when studios didn't dump all their budget into making everything look photorealistic and then realized that they had a game to make too.

>>389356741
samefagging hard i see

>>389355541
Personal opinion, agree or not. Whatever.
Fallout is suffering from Warhammer40K-itis.
It can't be progressed, because it'd lose its 'feel'. By that I mean, they can't make a game about the rebuilding process ebcause it'd be inherently 'unFallout'. So they bounce around continental USA rehashing the same tropes and it's becoming really bland, like WH40K was (which now looks like it might actually cononically progress into the next millenium??? Shocking).
One of my biggest problems with Fallout 4's construction stuff was that everything you could build looked like shit. And it wasn't that you would have had shitty materials to work with - that was a given. It was more the fact that the picket fences you built were all shitty and not straight. Like they'd been kicked in and roughed up the instant you finished building it. There was no sense of pride-in-ones-work when you made things.
Back to the original point, I think the "few guys in the 90's" would have been able to pull off a chronological progression that Bethsoft probably didn't think was financially viable (even after the New Vegas thing where stuff was untouched by war and in good nick, which people liked).

>>389357498
>It can't be progressed, because it'd lose its 'feel'.

It can't be progressed because it's in the hands of Bethesda who apparently have the WORST writers in the entire industry.

>the "few guys in the 90's" would have been able to pull off a chronological progression

Without a doubt.

>>389356741
>but fo1 is just an old ass game
It's weird to see age racism in the industry where majority of the best stuff ever came out 20 years ago.

>it's short
20+ hours ain't "short" in my books, and the huge number of ways people can play and experience it add hundreds of hours extra replay value

>animations movement and camera are horrible
I'm not following you

>story isn't even as great either
It's not amazing, but it's not exactly "bad" either.
The SETTING itself is in the main role here, with the transition from a Vault into the outdoors of the changed world working as the way to introduce the fictional results of an all out nuclear world.

>the only thing that makes it good is the dialogue choices and the fact that they affect the gameplay
That's already a huge chunks of the gameplay itself. It's a proper ROLE-playing game.

>new vegas is far superior and even fo3 is better
Both are one and the same shit, and FO3 was better in almost every single way.

Both are just console-shooter trash compared to FO1-2. Even Tactics was better.