Once again, I'm not looking at the setting I'm looking at the story. Mass Effect is the same "epic story" that BioWare has been shoving down our throats for years. From someone who's played all of BioWare's RPGs, it's getting tiresome.

In that case, I guess you will skip Dragon Age?

I'll wait until it drops in price like I did with Jade Empire and Mass Effect.

Bioware wouldn't do it justice....

Neither would Bethesda.

I wouldn't really like Bioware to be involved with Fallout, I don't know, I just see their games as different from other RPGs out there(not for better or worse, just different).

I loved the original Fallouts and I loved F3, so all in all i'm happy with Obsidan getting this spin off to perhaps take a more dialogue orientated route.

Win-Win for me.

Just like Bethesda games are quite different from FO1 and FO2.

Yeah, but in a bad way.

I'm sorry, but I don't care what Fallout was. I care about what it is now, and how well it suits me. This is an illogical argument, considering that Bioware might have made a real FPS out of Fallout. Where would you be then? Probably over there arguing that ANYONE would have been better than Bioware!1!11

I don't see that as being illogical. Fallout wasn't some VR-LARPing experience or a game focused on exploration. Not many people care these days, but the thing to do in a series is keep with the trend set by the first ones, sort of like GR and how it became less Ghost and Recon and more, shoot and blow-up. Bioware making a Fallout game...might have been just as good as Bethesda handling it, I figure they'd give it a proper focus on story and dialogue - mostly within your group I guess - so it couldn't be any worse than what we were given now. And Kjarista, personal attacks are a no-no, right ?

I'm not saying that anyone would have been better than Bethesda. Just that BioWare would be better, even if I'm not very fond of their games either.

Lol I agree! I'd rather have a not-epic fallout in which you play the normal wasteland survivor which has hard times, very hard times. Especially with super mutants. And who discovers some places and finds trouble, a lot of trouble, epic trouble XD.

I disagree, you may not have been able to explore in great detail, but the first two games were definitely leaning into sandbox territory. You were able to go wherever you wanted, and do whatever you wanted. I found that Fallout 3 actually has quite a bit more direction in its narrative and side quests than TES games. From a "free form" perspective, I don't think the originals and Fallout 3 were all that different.

Well, you should take a look at the Dragon Age boards. Game isn't even out yet and everyone seems to be crying that it's an EA game. Also check out the trailer, then come back and defend your assertion further. If you thought Fallout 3 is a console game, you aint seen nothing yet.

BioWare trying to appeal to the 'lowest common denominator'?! Shock! Horror!

This is true, let's face it... every BioWare game after Neverwinter Nights has placed more emphasis on easy streamlined gameplay as well as story, than an enjoyable role playing experience. Dragon Age: Origins looks to be no exception, it initially sounded promising when it was PC exclusive, but now it sounds like just another BioWare console RPG with focus on storyline and very simplistic gameplay just so everyone can experience the same epic story that we've been seeing in their games for years now. Sorry, I'd rather have a great game with decent role playing and a good story than another "epic" story with little to no real role playing and gameplay.

Fallout 3 wasn't the greatest game ever from a role playing perspective, but it definitely had more role playing than any BioWare game after Neverwinter Nights.

I rest my case?

Well, as I said, i consider Fallout games to be somewhat in the middle in this regard between Bethesda games (focused on exploration and sandbox, weak story) and BioWare games (highly developed but linear story, railroading).



Yes, but I wasn't comparing BioWare games to Fallout 3. I was comparing Bethesda's games before Fallout 3 to BioWare's games before their hypothetical Fallout game.

And I'm not seeing how BioWare would be better considering that their developers prefer linear stories over gameplay, David Gaider came out and said this himself recently. BioWare would be one of my last choices for a Fallout game.

And Bethesda prefers freeform exploration over a coherent story. I'm not saying either approach is any good. Fallout is in the middle between the two approaches.

Just like Bethesda adjusted their approach a bit to Fallout, so probably would BioWare.

I don't honestly see Bioware as any more linear than Bethesda in any particularly meaningful ways. I mean, let's compare Fallout 3 with Mass Effect. Both had a pretty fairly straight-forward Main Quest line. But Mass Effect did have multiple outcomes for many of the stages along that MQ. None of those really changed how the overall story played out, but there were subtle differences depending on what choices you made. (ie, in Fallout 3, you finish a section of the Main Quest, and there's really only one outcome for that piece - you move from A, directly B with only one solution possible. In Mass Effect, you move from A to either B, C, D, etc - even though regardless you still move on to D.) Ostensibly many of these choices in Mass Effect 1 will have an impact on how Mass Effect 2 plays out (though exactly how that works will remain to be seen - I'll believe it when I see it.) Both are pretty linear stories, but there's actually more customization available in Mass Effect than in Fallout 3 - it's effectively at least somewhat less linear than a Bethesda game.

FO3 has a number of free-roaming quests you can encounter, to explore at your own pace. But Mass Effect has those as well. Both have a number of different outcomes available, the effects of which don't really influence much in the game beyond their effect on your character's Karma level. Sure, Bethesda places all these locations on one game map and allows you to explore all the intervening areas and find lots of interesting details and small emergently narrative moments. And they do provide a much wider variety of places to discover (Mass Effect recycling the same few buildings with different arrangements of generic crates.) But they're really not so much different, in mind - and certainly equally linear (or less linear if you prefer) as far as I can see.

Sure, it's all a matter of preference. I think it's safe to say that both Bioware and Bethesda are exceptional studios that put out consistently remarkable games. But if we're talking about linearity, I'd actually say that Bioware would be the way to go in terms of non-linear gameplay. Not only can you pick your own path through the Main Quest line, but you also get to decide in which order it plays out in, which even leads to minor differences in the way that the story is told.

That would be epic.

I like that Bioware is choosing a fallout game, if only because they're big on research, and are likely to make a game that closely follows the style of the old fallouts.
I understand that a "true sequel" is stupid to want (if only because the technology and style is to outdated for the consumer) but after playing, and replaying, Mass Effect, I think that Bioware would do a terrific job with Fallout: They're terrific at deep characters, decisions, and atmosphere, and I would tust hem to adapt the gameplay carefully to a modern standard.

Ideally I would want a new fallout game to be (more or less) identical to the old ones in mechanics, altered in AI, graphics, amount of items, and scale only.
I think that Bioware, assuming they do use th original fallouts as a model, will come close to doing just that.

BioWare is not making a Fallout game. Obsidian is. This conversation about BioWare is purely hypothetical.

The original Fallout may have been in "the middle" as you put it, but Fallout 2? Fallout 2 is as sandbox as isometric RPGs get. The storyline had little presence, I didn't really feel motivated to find the GECK and the villagers from Arroyo unlike Fallout where I was motivated to find a new Water Chip, and stop the Master. The time limit may have had something to do with this, but I think the scale is more of a factor. Fallout 2 was significantly larger than the original, and thus had more side quests and more to do in general; to top it off the storyline was pretty weak. I'd say that Fallout 2 and 3 are pretty equal in the story/sandbox department, but to each his own.

FAIL!!!!!!!!