According to the CIA World Factbook the DLC for FNV were superior to the ones for FO3. The Pitt was probably the best one for FO3 but Lonesome Road and Dead Money were still better. Point was just way to short and small and don't get me started on the spaceship one.

Could we possibly see another team up between Obsidian and Bethesda for some of the DLC? I certainly hope so.

Not going to happen, sorry.

I doubt it, and personally, as much as I prefer Fallout New Vegas and its DLC over anything in Fallout 3, I wouldn't want them to. Fallout 4 is Bethesda's game. It's their world to make. It's their story to tell. They should get to do what they want how they want to.

That said, I'm all for Bethesda letting Obsidian make another game in the style of New Vegas.

Well someone from Bethesda (can't remember if it was Pete or The Todd) has said in a recent interview they didn't like the way F3's DLC were done so they may actually be better this time. Sorry, I don't have a source but I'm sure someone else here can provide it.

Considering Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas, i have spend aswell much more time in New Vegas. But Skyrim was a game i even spend more time in and still do from time to time. So i think i will aswell go well with Fallout 4.

DLCs from Obsidian would be a nice idea, but its not likely to happen. One of the reason is, that Obsidian would have to learn how to use the engine of the game, etc. in high detail to create a good and high quality addon. Ok, some mods are aswell on such a high level. But i doubt, that a developer would want to spend so much time. Bethesda who developed the game has a high knowledge. So creating a DLC will be way easier for them.

Possible we will see another Fallout from Obsidian. But this time, hopefully not so short after the other Fallout this time. One of the reasons i didn't played Fallout 3 much was the release from Fallout New Vegas short after Fallout 3.

I doubt it, although I wouldn't mind seeing Obsidian develop another game like Fallout New Vegas some years later.

For Fallout 3, Operation Anchorage, Broken Steel, and Mothership Zeta was cool. Point Lookout and The Pitt were too depressing looking. While for New Vegas, Dead Money was too depressing looking and easy to get lost. Honest Hearts was boring except for meeting Joshua Graham and learning about what happened to Utah. Lonesome Road was interesting to learn about the Courier's past. The best DLC IMO has to be Old World Blues with the highlight being having a conversation with your Brain.

I am of a different opinion in regards to the DLC. I consider Operation Anchorage and Mothership Zeta the worst of all Fallout DLC, playing like extraordinarily linear shooters with such an enclosing level design, which could become so ridiculous to the point you can SEE the barriers blocking you off in Operation Anchorage. I thought Anchorage had some potential with the ability to create your own squad, but then it feel flat on its face after realizing how limited the DLC was. And overall how underwhelming the glorious liberation of Anchorage was portrayed, which was never going to look good with how limited they were with Fallout 3. That was just an event in Fallout's lore that was never going to work well in gameplay.

Mothership Zeta makes the same mistake like most of Fallout's DLC in thinking damage sponge enemies equal fun and challenging foes, and combining it with the linearity of Anchorage, making it absolutely unsatisfying to play. Of course, the only good thing about the DLCs being the rewarding loot, which doesn't hold up the experience in the slightest. Broken Steel just continued the already uninteresting main questline and added the three worst damage sponge enemies in the game.

However, I actually liked the Pitt and Point Lookout. Both DLCs introduced awesome new settings to the Fallout universe, along with some cool characters (primarily Ashur and Desmond Lockheart) and I enjoyed their questlines as decent as they were. The only real flaw I found in them was that they were sadly too short. I can imagine though, had Bethesda made a Shivering Isles or Dragonborn sized DLC for the Pitt, that would be great. A reason why I would look forward to Fallout 4 DLC not being like Fallout 3's.

But that is my highly subjective rant of the day.

I enjoyed Operation Anchorage well enough, although it was definitely the weakest of DLCs; but hey, the Gauss Rifle is my favorite video game weapon ever. I liked Mothership Zeta simply for having a ton of entertaining environments, characters and audio logs; the linearity and damage sponginess svcked, but Mothership Zeta made me laugh and that's worth something.

As for Obsidian doing some DLC, I don't think that would be the ideal outcome for anyone. I'd rather see them incorporate their design philosophy into a standalone game rather than have it juxtaposed against Bethesda's base Fallout 4 experience.

If Obsidian were to make any more Fallout spinoffs (no guarantee, they seem to have plenty of their own projects these days), they should be their own self-contained games.

It is just a matter of where they would do their Fallout 4 spinoff. Canada, Australia, or Southeast USA would be interesting locations. The Great War was only between the US and China so other nations could have survived and had 200 years without being influenced by the Chinese or Americans.

Why would Obsidian want to step in and try to ramp up to do some F4 DLC, when Bethesda has a whole team that has been working on it for years.

As soon as the game goes gold, they are going to be working on DLC and new features until they are ready to start working on Elder Scrolls 6.

Now once Fallout 4 has all the bugs worked out and has all the DLC done, would Obsidian like another crack at the West Coast where all they have to focus on is what they do best (the background and story) plus any new game assets?

I bet if they have the time available to put it on the schedule they would seriously think about it.

I'd like to see a Fallout in Seattle, Portland or even Chicago.

Some thing with a lot of ice and snow during winter.

I hope the Frontier team is able to complete their project.

I'd be really down for a Fallout game set in Chicago or New Orleans. One in Hawaii would be really cool, too, although that might better serve an expansion.

I think it would also be worth it to see another one in California again, done with modern technology and a focus on making the locations themselves interesting. Either a remake of the first two Fallouts or a sequel would both be great.

All of this would be right in Obsidian's wheelhouse, and it would totally justify doing another standalone game rather than an expansion on Fallout 4.

They were the two major players, but it appears that once the nukes started flying, everyone got in on the fun. According to Bethesda, Europe is in worse shape then the Capital Wasteland was at the start of Fallout 3.

And I don't want to see a Fallout game outside the US. It would require tossing out the established 1950s retrofuturism spliced with Americana that dominates the Old World aesthetics.

My personal favorite locations would be:

The Southwest (Arizona, New Mexico, the Four Corners in general, west Texas)

The Northwest (Washington, Oregon, maybe parts of Canada)

The Northern plains (Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas)

Kentucky

New Orleans

Old World Blues was a phenomenal DLC. It was a good as most AAA developers main game. While it was clearly my favorite, I loved all NV DLCs. It's like picking your favorite among four diamonds.

Personally, I would rather see Obsidian do a Fallout: Seattle over Fallout: Place we have already been before.

-Seattle

-Houston

-New Orleans

-Miami

-Nashville

Are were I would want to see Fallout games. Maybe one in Detroit or Cincinnati, with a DLC to Chicago, and NPCs talking about whats happening in The Pitt.

The only place I would like to see avoided is the American north, aka everything east of Seattle, west of Chicago, and north of Salt Lake City. People say Skyrim is a hiking simulator, that would be even worse.

But Australia is so far out of the way that they should be able to avoid most of the damage from the Great War.

Doubt it. It sounds like nuclear weapons were ubiquitous in 2077, and so whoever thought they could gain something from bombing Australia (most likely China or Japan given the proximity) probably did so. All present evidence suggests that the world went to hell in the Great War, not just a few patches of it.

Besides, assuming Australia did come out somewhat unscathed, you still have the issue that a game set there would have to lose all the aesthetics of the Old World that we currently see, and wouldn't have Ghouls or other mutations as a result of radiation and FEV, and would be so alien and foreign to the established series you might as well make Fallout: Pluto for all that it'll have in common with its counterparts.

Hey Obsidian! Let's see what's going on in the Gulf Commonwealth! Hunting down pirate raiders and drinking beers on the beach! Good times!

no

Oh no! But how will we ever see the secret Enclave base in Mt. Rushmore!

Chinese targeted it with conventional guided missiles in such a precise way that it now is one giant bust of Chairman Mao.

Lol, I could see that happening actually, and I wouldn't have a problem with it. But I doubt it will.

The American north is empty as hell IRL to begin with, it has something like 2/5s the population of the four states area(Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona), but spread over a like 30% larger area. On top of that, it has no real major cities to speak of, and no really famous national landmarks outside Yellowstone and Mount Rushmore, which are fairly far from each other.

Because of this, the number of vaults in the areas would be low, drastically reducing the surviving population even compared to the rest of the U.S. To make matters worse is that Montana, North Dakota, and the border of Wyoming, Nebraska, and Colorado, are projected to be three of the hardest this areas of America in a nuclear war scenario, due to the large number of military bases and missile silos in those regions. The American north would realistically be reduced to a giant empy triagle of nuclear death.

The fact that Obsidian made Idaho and Wyoming largely depopulated, and harsh, wastelands, yet able to support a large empre(made by the Khans in a possible ending), along with Montana having a small coal town, is far better then what that area would have gotten otherwise. But still, the lack of things in the region doesn't really make it viable for a game.

Obsidian already wrote a large chunk of the American north off in NV, I suspect a game set in Chicago would write off the rest of it.

Old World Blues was great on NV but I personally HATED Dead Money. That dlc was so nerve wracking and was more of a hassle than actual fun to me.