You may as well add him to a certain list. This is about as far the as the conversation is ever going to get

yeah, and bethesda is a triple AAA studio that makes tons of money, while Obsidian is a company that has to get a game kickstarted just to finish it. There is a REASON for that.

You are right, niche is not obsolete, but it does mean that you are not going to be making much money from it, it means that it has to be a side project, or you are a company that kind of shrugs and deals with the fact they will never be a AAA company that makes loads of money and is a household name, which, generally, is kind of the point of most companies.

Yeah, Obsidian makes AMAZING games, but you are never going to tell me that they are as successful in any way, as Bethesda, Bioware, or Square Enix are in the RPG market, and it is not just because of the types of games either, it is also because Obsidian has some serious issues, including the fact they manage to have buggier, mroe broken games then Bethesda, and heck, even Ubisoft generally more stable games then Obsidian.

Yeah, good to know. I kind of figured by now that there's something a little special going on.

So what I'm getting out of your post is that in your worldview, being the biggest most corporate entity, is the endgame for any individual or group of individuals. Voting for Trump, I take it? Anyway, let's address things in detail:

1. There IS a reason for that. The dumber your product, the easier it is to sell. Want to guess that their South Park game outsold their RTwP game? Case in point.
2. Wow, didn't realize I was dealing with a business tycoon here! I'd guess if you're intelligent you're well aware of your market. Sometimes doing your own thing outweighs reaching the widest audience. Something tells me Chelsea Wolfe would like to be as successful as possible without simultaneously having any desire to be Taylor Swift.
3. Obsidian doesn't make games any buggier than Bethesda and you'd have to be fanboying pretty hard to keep that game up. This is also not why they are never going to be as large (jesus h, let's stop defining "success" as how rich you are, that's just gross).

Niche is not obsolete. Again. inXile studios asked for 900,000 to make Wasteland 2 and they got just about 3,000,000 without a publisher. Torment got over 4 mil. You wanna keep flappin' them finger-gums? Because something tells me those dudes are pretty [censored] happy they get to make the EXACT game they want to make without publisher interference and without having to cater to the lowest common denominator. I think success is relative to your goals. And I think your worldview is pretty shallow.

but they are NOT different endings, not realy, even then, the next game that takes place out there IS going to wipe that "choice" away, just like EVERY fallout game.

But that's not a bad thing. I will not extend myself in this post, but you see that the end you have chosen is the """""right""""" is a very agreeable thing.

You have not been on these forums much, especially the TES forums, have you? Most here seem believe that an RPG is only an RPG when you choose what happens at every opportunity, and that any setting instone of choices is a horrible ruinous thing to a game.

of course, they ARE wrong, but that logical fallacy is very prevelant on these boards.

I agree, not everything needs to have several choices. Skyrim, for example:

http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/The_House_of_Horrors

You have to kill the priest, period. The other option is not do this quest. Fair enough, after all you are working for a daedra.

yeah....there are a couple people on this forum who are under the delusion skyrim is not an RPG either....so.........yeah.

I thought T-60 was what they wore in tacktics?

Hell yes, it is. But not a good one.

The exploration is very amusing, however.

You know it's just as easy and meaningless to say Fallout isn't a real or good RPG too.

Errr, nope. Sorry. The game was first designed with GURPS in mind. Absolutely an RPG through and through. Keep tryin', lil slugger!

Yall can mindlessly nitpick all you want the games a great game,great modern RPG, and its selling hugely. Their not going to make the next one much differrent.

it's not nitpicking, it's actually knowing things when trying to claim something.

Is that a new genre?

Obviously, everyone knew it would. But buying the game=/=liking it.

Unless you're going to reply with ''it's the money that matters''. In that case, I have nothing else to say.

Sales matter more than badly written positive or negative reviews. And yes a good bit of it is nitpicking some people here willl hate on Bethesda no matter what they do.

1. I'll continue mindfully nitpicking, thanks.
2. Nope.
3. Nope.
4. So?
5. They're going to do whatever they want, it's true. But the inclusion of aspects of Obsidian's offering indicates they are paying attention and trying to learn. Cool that you scored a palantír though.

For me, "real Fallout game" has nothing to do with the engine it's on (New Vegas was as much a "real Fallout game" as the originals), or whether it uses the SPECIAL system or not, or any other gameplay-related issues people may have (I'm looking at you, Voiced Protagonist...). What makes a game a "real Fallout game" is the tone, and Fallout 3 failed miserably on that point. It was like popping in a disc labeled Death to Smoochy and getting Joe Dirt instead.

If you like Joe Dirt, that's fine. Just be aware that some of us were expecting something a little different, and aren't going to accept "But it says Death to Smoochy on the cover!", no matter how much it's repeated.

If I can just poke a small hole in your straw man for a second: the OP isn't actually saying that F4 isn't Fallout, nor does he say that Bethesda lack the right to say what Fallout is.

He's saying that in his opinion, F4 shouldn't be part of the Fallout universe because (also in his opinion) it doesn't fit especially well with prior games.

You have no idea how refreshing it is to see this point, which is more than obvious to me and my closest circles, on the Bethesda board. Misery loves company, I guess?

Strip the ''Fallout'' name brand and remove the Fallout terms and this game would be a forgettable, lackluster flop. I am quite sure of it.

Might as well be RAGE 2, but I actually found more enjoyment out of that game.

Honestly i think I'd like 4 better if it lost the Fallout branding and invented its own.

I like the Minutemen, I like the Institute, I'll probably like the Railroad. Turn the BoS into something slightly different and create your own brands.

I mean obviously the Fallout branding is working for them, and they're entitled to use it since they bought it, I'm just saying the gameplay and environment design can stand on their own without all that branding and I'd enjoy it a lot more as an "Action RPG" or "Action-RPG" or "Action, RPG" or whatever you want to call it if I weren't continually comparing it to two of the most critically acclaimed Turn Based RPGs ever released.

Holy hell. Run on sentence

They dont need to rebrand it. They bought the IP from the original company who was too incompetent to keep it and like it or not this IS real Fallout. A minority of people not liking it doesnt change reality.

I see you have failed to read my entire post. Imagine my shock.

We're aware.

bethesda owns the IP it's watever they say it is