...a Fallout game made by Bioware?

Just think about it for a second. A Fallout game built by the people who made KoToR, the Baldur's Gates, Mass Effects 1-3(1 was epic so you know the other 2 will be), Neverwinter Nights, and soon, Dragon Age. Bioware has probably the best track record with RPGs that isn't Japanese. (:rofl:)

The only downside would be that the world wouldn't be completely open. The sure-to-be epic story would make up for it though.

What do you guys think?

I think a Fallout game by Obsidian would be pretty awesome now that I think about it.

That would be a dream come true...Bethesda should lease a spin-off them or something. That would be awesome

It would be needlessly EPIC. Everything EPIC. EPIC!!!! With lens flare. WHICH IS EPIC.

But the writing would be better. HA!

(I really wish they would stop using that word....if you hadn't noticed....)

That's a good idea, to bad it'd never happen...oh wait. lol



Don't doubt the epic.

Yeah, we're already getting a spin-off from Obsidian - I think that might be a pretty decent middle ground. Given a choice between Bethesda and Bioware, I generally lean towards Bioware, though. I like exploration and all that. But for all the talk of Oblivion and Fallout 3 being "open world" (and I'm still not entirely sure there's a unanimous agreement as to just what that means, exactly) I did feel that I had more (and more meaningful) choices to make in Mass Effect and KOTOR.

That said - there is kind of a trade-off there. I'm a big fan of Bioware's art direction, surely, but their environments do come off as rather spartan and lifeless in comparison to a Bethesda title. Few companies can breath so much life and detail into a world as Bethesda, but the characters themselves often come across as secondary in comparison - something Bioware tends to do a better job with. I tend to connect emotionally much more with the characters in Bioware's game.

Personally - think the most EPIC outcome of all would be if Bethesda and Bioware were to magically team up and create a Fallout game together.

I can't handle epic of that magnitude.

Bioware? No. Hell, no. Not Fallout.

Harold:
"Hello, Wanderer."
PC:
"Hey, Harold. Here's your thingamajig for the reactor. Free of charge, just want to help."
-
"Mornin'. Here's your thingamajig for the reactor. Where's my 2000 bucks now?"
-
"Hey, zombie. Know what? I've got this thing here, and you ain't gonna get it. Cause you'll die now, friggin monster!"


^_^

That's 100 times better then having intelligent responses be repeating what was just told to you

More EPIC too.

QFT.

But I don't think Bioware will ever make a Fallout game.

Yes, but I'd also stated that Bethesda wouldn't accomplish to develop a Fallout appropriate writing style in dialogues when F3 was announced. Darn right I was. ^_^

Indeed. Don't get me wrong, for the most part, I love their games, but their linear playstyle just ain't right for the type of game Fallout should be.

Well, I'd rather have a BioWare Fallout game than a Bethesda one.



Sure, it isn't. But I'd say the same about Bethesda's Elder Scrolls formula. If I were to choose between the two, BioWare would be the lesser evil.

Of course I just meant to say that I doubt Bioware would attempt to get the right to make a Fallout game because of the difference in design philosophy.

Well, it's not as if Bethesda's design philosophy fits FO1 and 2, and yet they did get the rights to the series. I'd say that in terms of plot structure, the original Fallouts are somewhat in the middle between Bethesda's formula and BioWare's formula.

Indeed it doesn't. Fallout is currently moving through the Foster care system. One can only hope that there's a silver lining at some point, but these things usually turn out for the worse.

Heh. Never though I'd use a foster care anology with a game franchise.

I think that all those games except Mass effect, which isn't an RPG, happened a long time ago. We have yet to see Dragon age. All were story driven games as well, with littke in teh way of freeform exploration.

Fallout was never about "freeform exploration", at least it wasn't really the main focus. It always had a much stronger plot and characters than any Bethesda game. Especially Fallout 1, while you were free to go anywhere, you still had the time limit, which made the game much more story driven. I'm not a fan of Bethesda nor of BioWare, but I'd rather have a Fallout game done by the latter than the former anyway.

You heard the man, Bioware FTW.

At least then I could romance Fawkes.

Hey, keep your fetishphobia to yourself!!! (kidding )

. . . Oh this is the night, and the heavens are right! On this lovely bella notte!


I have mixed feelings about Bioware. Some of what they do is great: characters, particularly companions; and their gameplay tends to be well balanced and accessible without being too simplistic. However for supposedly "story driven" games I've yet to find one with a story that does much for me. Bioware also has a knack for choosing settings I dislike (Forgotten Realms) or don't really care about (Star Wars).

It has been a while since I've played a Bioware game. I never tried NWN's expansions (which I've been told improve upon many of the original game's faults without messing up what they did well) and between Mass Effect's initial DRM and apparently pseudo-Star Wars setting I never got around to it. I generally avoid looking up games in developement until they're quite close to release so I can't say much about Dragon Age. What I have seen looks cool.

If Bethesda had announced that Bioware was doing New Vegas I would certainly be interested, but I'm happier with Obsidian doing a Fallout game than Bioware.


I'd expect a story-driven game to have more meaningful choices, there's a lot more developement control on where the player/story goes. Of course the advantage of an open world is you can have the story go in very different directions depending on your choices, so so far Bethesda has kept their main quests comparatively linear.

In my opinion an open world is one that allows two things. First, the main story line is optional. Second, you can access the majority of the game world for most of the game.

Let's use Morrowind as an example: once you leave the census office you can go pretty much anywhere. Some places are locked out, but if you want to go to Vivec, or the Ashlands, or Sadrith Mora, etc. it's up to you and they're all available. You can start and stop the main quest largely at your leisure (and in fact Caius prompts you to do adventuring outside of the main quest several times), or you can skip it entirely.

Alternatively in NWN while individual areas may allow some choice in exploration you are restricted to each area, and access/leave each area along a set path. If you're in the city of Luskan, or in the Forest, or in the time-traveling lizard fortress, you can't choose to jump to one of the other areas - unless the story takes you there.

Fallout 3 is smaller and a bit less open than Morrowind, but you still 99% of the capital wasteland at your disposal when you leave Vault 101. Your actions also have a greater effect on the gameworld. I know many people feel that FO3 doesn't go far enough, but it goes further than TES III or IV.

Why should I compare it to TES games and not to Fallout games?

Let's not get into yet another debate about what constitutes an RPG here...

Though that is true about the exploration bit. Mass Effect was a bit of a start down that path, I think. In practice, I don't see much difference, really, between travelling to different planets and driving around collecting artifacts and then doing a quick dungeon crawl with a small story attached - than wandering the Wastes finding salvage and doing a quick dungeon crawl with a small story attached.

Bethesda, I think, does a better job of that (and especially in making each dungeon look unique and interesting and not just the same two buildings with a different arrangement of crates and enemies,) but I do find the concepts remarkably similiar.

That makes sense. I guess my first thought when hearing the word "open world" would be a game that allows you to make different choices throughout the Main Quest, as well - with that having branching paths that could lead to entirely different outcomes depending on your choices.

Of course, that game hasn't been made yet.

But, that said - it's likely because as a player I'm generally more interested in the Main Quest to begin with. I feel that anything that takes place outside of that is secondary to anything else. That's just personal preference though (different strokes for different folks and all that) and not meant as any sort of inherent value judgement. That is probably why I'm drawn more towards Bioware's game design philosophy than Bethesda's to some degree, though.

Still, if someone could make a game that creatively combined Bethesda's free-roaming nature with Bioware's story-driven Main Quest (along with a branching Main Quest) - that would be the definitive RPG, in my mind.

I haven't really liked a Bioware game since BG2; I wanted to, I really wanted to, but IMO NWN was lard (granted it was the toolset that was the sell).

But given the choice... I'd pick them. A large freeform explorable world is just not tops on my list of what's important, and certainly not when used as a crutch.