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.

I guess my point is that you have no argument.

I think you are mistaking me for t0fr. While I do think you had a terrible take, and did ask how it was relevant to what t0fr said about Bethesda's Fallouts being known for having worse writing, I never argued that Bethesda's games weren't the most well known in the series. So, again I fail to see how what you are saying has any relevance to what was asked...

But, for the sake of argument, the StarWars sequel trilogy had the highest combined box office of any of the trilogy's by far. Does that mean the Sequel trilogy is the best of the three? Did it have the best writing? Does that mean that long time fans shouldn't get an opinion when stories that they loved get steamrolled over?

Dont get me wrong, I'm enjoying the Fallout show, and I like the Bethesda games. But sales numbers and ownership aren't the be all end all of what makes good fiction. And pretending like it is largely plays a roll in why we get so much high budget schlock.

Well New Vegas was amazing, and not written by Bethesda. 3 and 4 on the other hand were pretty weak regardless of how well they sold.

I don't know what you're up to, but I ain't shitting on the Bethesda games, that's on you.

Put it down to age. I'm sure not a lot of people who jumped in at Fallout 4 bothered to go all the way back to the beginning, but I gotta say, nothing says "PC gamer forum" like lumping every age group together and calling something dead just because you didn't dig it.

Oof, the further I read, the worse you sound.

PS, I'm a console gamer who was excited for 3 & 4 BECAUSE of the first two games, and I'm really enjoying the show. Which kind of throws your stereotypes and generalizations out the window. So please stop.

Joke's on you, New Vegas wasn't written by Bethesda and go figure, it's the best game in the series (alongside 1 and 2).

750,000 = 0? Or did 750,000 people experience memory loss? Lmao