I’d never seen this before, and its fun to get an inside look into the early lore. They talk about playing pen and paper Fallout to test new perks, I wish I could go back in time and join those games.
I’d never seen this before, and its fun to get an inside look into the early lore. They talk about playing pen and paper Fallout to test new perks, I wish I could go back in time and join those games.
Like I mentioned to someone else, fallout 1 and 2 sold 750k copies combined.
Fallout 3, nv and 4 sold 50 million copies combined.
I’m responding to people shitting on Bethesda’s version of fallout and wishing the show was more like the first two games, and I’m responding with “most people don’t know the first two games, Bethesda fallout is The mainstream”. Am I wrong?
Yeah.
I agree that Bethesda has done a fine job with it, but I don’t agree that we should pretend that none of the other games ever existed just so you don’t feel left out.
To give you something else to think about for Fallout 1, 2, and tactics, there were also not very many people who could afford computers at the time of their releases.
I wouldn’t attribute the games being any less good than the newer games just because they didn’t sell as much as those newer games.
Fallout 3 and New Vegas was on PC, Xbox 360, and PS3. That’s also around the time the tech became much more available to the broader audiences. More people than ever had gaming consoles, and gaming PCs.
Fallout New Vegas has a lot of the charm of the older games, especially the wackiness that many love. Fallout 3 was (in my opinion) a much more focused game, in that it focused on the main story and kept most of the wackiness to a minimum compared to the originals and New Vegas.
I see what you’re saying, but if the originals did not exist, neither would the newer games. We shouldn’t shit on the classics, because without those classics, we wouldn’t have the show to even begin with.