Fallout 4 ignorance during release speculation

By Updated on

There are some websites that write about an upcoming game in a way that misleads the reader, which when it comes to gamers you should never try and mislead someone in an industry that is full of tech savvy people. This includes extremely popular franchises and Fallout 4 that’s expected to see an announcement in the coming weeks and months.

We have already looked at mounting evidence towards this franchise gaining some solid news after the next big gaming event, which according to several rumors it seems that Take-Two will give E3 a miss and Bethesda won’t include Fallout 4 in their E3 lineup, but we must make it clear the latter detail is purely based on leaks and should not be considered as fact until an official statement is made.

Also See: Fallout 4 release date in 2015, the ideal revelation

Fallout 4 ignorance – today we came across an article that is really misleading, found on a website about Religion of all things, and they push the idea of a Fallout 4 release date in 2015, which in our opinion is wrong in so many ways.

Not only is this author getting confused between Bethesda Softworks and Bethesda Game Studios, they also don’t seem to understand who made what game. Their launch speculation is based upon several inaccuracies, which includes Bethesda making Fallout: New Vegas when in fact it had been Obsidian Entertainment.

The reaction from fans has been pretty negative as you can imagine and includes comments along the lines of “this has to be the most ignorant article I’ve read yet”. They look at how many months it has been since the last game and use this to workout when Fallout 4 might release, although they fail to see that it has been 5 years since the last Fallout game thanks to not knowing who developed New Vegas.

We’d love to hear from our readers in regard to the above article about Fallout 4 and the amount of websites trying to mislead gamers, which considering how passionate we are about gaming, it just won’t happen. You will find in most cases the reader/gamer knows more than the blogger or so-called news writer.

Yesterday, we noticed a few occurrences that could be signaling Fallout 4 news landing in weeks or months, which also included a trailer for the previous game being uploaded again. Fallout 4 will launch in 2014 in our opinion, which is based on a number of clues, taking into account next-generation consoles, how long it has been since the last game in this franchise developed by Bethesda and finally gamer opinion about Fallout 4 as a whole.

We are ready for Fallout 4 news, how about you Bethesda? In a nutshell: It won’t be 7 years between the two games, so expected Fallout 4 in 2014 with an announcement this year.

Fallout-4-ignorance-during-release-speculation

  • http://twitter.com/RomanEmpire74 RomanEmpire

    I have to admit as to cracking a smile over an article that’s covering ignorant Fallout 4 articles. I know why they’re doing it, just to bank advert hits. But they’re not even trying anymore to include even a half-truth anymore. As of last night, it’s completely devolved into sensationalist headlining with counterproductive substance.

    I guess I’m bored because I check it each night before I hit the sack. At first, it was just wild speculation as to why Bethesda visited MIT (which really could have been for anything, not the least of which is recruiting talent). Then came the mixups with who developed vs produced New Vegas. I saw several articles with NV screenshots under a Fallout 3 tag. Then all the assumptions regarding ThreeDog’s tweets. Then the mystery game that the Skyrim DLC/Quality devs moved off to. Then the mystery game video that Bethesda released (which was of course unrelated). Then Bethesda’s E3 or PAX lineup. Mix it all up in a bag and then just start spitting out theory as fact. I’m sure there are many “facts” yet to disseminate.

    In all my years of reading advance game reviews, I’ve never seen such reckless and obvious trite. I’ve also noticed that the authors of these articles are starting to unattach their names to them, instead referring to authoring groups or simply omitting it. Even their feedback sections are questionable. Like that one you linked. It shows responses to the article that are “a month old” even though it was published last night. My responses are properly timed, but I don’t know what to make of that yet.