Fallout was created by Interplay with an isometric viewpoint. Then came Fallout 2 (which officially introduced the Enclave), and then the more experimental Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel RTS game. Go forward a few years later, and they come out with PS2/OG Xbox Brotherhood of Steel game. It was overall panned by both most game review sites, magazines and the general gaming public.. They ended up losing not only credibility but also qutie an amount of money and sold the franchise rights to Bethesda, who went on to make Fallout 3, which could be seen as their benchmark game in the series, then they let Obsidian make New Vegas. Not too long after the release of Fallout 4, Fallout 76 was announced, and it was touted as the prequel to all the other Fallout games. It has proven to be glitchier than both Fallout 3 and NV, even after recieving official patches here and there. Add to that a broken multiplayer combat system, and NO HUMAN NPCS, instead the only non-aggressive NPCs are some robots scattered across the West Virginia Wasteland that give quests for the player to carry out. But Beth didn't care about that nor did they care about the fact that some of the patches added newer bugs, and instead put events into the gave that last for months (such as nuclear winter). Next came the refund denial debacle, and then came the Atom Microtransacton shop. Now, there's a subsctiption service they are trying to pull known as "Fallout 1st", and that too has been abused by hackers back and forth. There's a forthcoming DLC announced late last year called "Wastelanders", which is supposed to add human NPCs to the game and a Fallout 3 type dialong system. HA! As far as I'm concerned, Wastelanders is little if anything more than damage control; they should not have rushed the game, and instead have put human NPCs in there in the FIRST PLACE! I'm vouching for Wastelanders to get negative to mixed reviews on Steam and Metacritic. After that, either they'll probably either kill off Fallout, or do what Interplay did.

Please do not put post content into your subject line. If you insist on doing so, at least repeat that content in the main body of the post.

Bethesda invested a lot of money (mostly marketing) into their own brand of Fallout, and will not abandon it easily. People will eventually forget how crappy their games are, like they usually do, and focus their complaints on the next game. People complained about 3, and forgot about their complaints when they tagged Obsidian's NV as the buggiest ever, then forgot about their complaints about that when 4 came out, forgot about 4's complaints when 76 came out, and will forget about 76's complaints when 5 comes out. There are already players today who say 76 is the best thing ever. The games are marketed towards players with low attention spans, and so many of the players do, indeed, have low attention spans.

I don't know why you bring up the pre-Bethesda games at all, given that they have almost nothing in common with Bethesda's games other than the name and selected bits of lore that amused/benefited Bethesda. All the console game proved is that Interplay didn't respect Fallout any more than Bethesda. Fallout and Interplay died long before that. Also, while Tactics had real-time combat as an option, it was not by any stretch an RTS.

Interplay's big fuckup was PS2/OG Xbox BOS, and Fallout 76 is the big fuckup in the series for Beth. Basically, the Fallout curse, some would say. I have not forgotten about 3's complaints when NV was new, and even when 4 came out I haven't forgotten that both of the previous have their share of sporadic-substantial(occasianally severe) bugs, some of which stayed even after several official patches. 4, while it has a less immerive dialouge system than 3 and NV, still has its merits here and there. And no, the Bethesda-era Fallout games are not all equally glitchy(ditto for TES series) AFAIK, Fallout 76 is the glitchest, with 3 and NV being very close to each other when counting only official patches being put in with FO4 being pretty stable for a modern Bethesda game. While its true that Bethesda's main game dev engine is currently lacking in at least several areas, That does not mean that it can't be updated. Unity, Unreal, as well as the Frostbite Engine all got revamps and updates as time went on (for example, Unreal is currently in v4, while Unity is currently somethere on v5 at the latest).
Its quite alright to hate Beth and their treatment of Fallout. Sure, they've made moderately questionable to outright greedy and/or stupid stuff over the years with both Fallout and TES (such as removing mysticism stat after Oblivion and Fallout shelter being largely casual tripe and the Fallout 1st service debacle). But seriously, if you treat the Bethesda fallout games as all being non-canon for petty reasons, you are as delusional as the people who go around saying "NOT MY PRESIDENT" and "democrat blue wave" dummies. Sod off back to NMA.

Whatever. By 2001, the company calling itself Interplay wasn't Interplay any more, anyway, so they only had that one title, "fuckup" or not. You seem to be implying that they did good on the previous 3, then suddenly failed. Tactics wasn't done by Interplay (not even in name only), either (and had issues of its own). Unlike you, I don't hate Bethesda for making a buggy game. I don't see how you can call that less petty than changing pretty much everything about the game. Also, I don't participate in NMA; never did and never will. From what little I pay attention, though, they seem to be completely on board with your views. Sod off yourself back to the Steam forums to complain about a game that isn't and never will be on gog (hint: it's multiplayer-only).

Here's another hint for you: bugs will eventually be minimized (yes, Daggerfall still has bugs, but it's more playable than when it first came out). Issues that the majority of players complain about will be fixed or worked around. This is part of why people move on to the next target. The fact that you can launch nukes from a silo to antagonize other players (i.e., blatant disrespect for nuclear bombs) and the fact that it's a pure action game will not, for starters. Some features are designed that way.

Okay, fine. Thank you for the clarification. Sorry for getting so uppity.
>2001 Interplay wasn't 1990s Interplay.
I agree to a point. MicroForte had a big part in the actual development of Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel, while Interplay was at most a puslisher for the game. I know that now. The 2004 BOS, however, was indeed bad even when you look past whatever bugs it had. FO76 is basically the BOS of 2018. Even with the patches, there was still that refund debacle not too long ago. I'd much rather play ESO, if given the choice.

No argument here. My reasons for hating it so much it was one of 2 PS2 games I ever returned to the store were kind of petty, though. Mainly I didn't like that plasma weapons were just blue lasers (every Fallout game since the first seems to feel a need to nerf the (Turbo) Plasma Rifle more) and radiation was just glowing green poison. I guess I can't argue with that. I mainly don't agree that Bethesda will give up or sell Fallout. 76 is a side game; Fallout 5 will make all the fans happy again, at least after a years' worth of patching.