Actually, NVM.

Any response I made to Gizmo's post would likely be seen as trolling, if he really want's to know why he is treated like that(as it isn't for the reasons he lists for anything he states) he can PM me.

I have to give some "props" to Gizmo. Because of his posts I went and looked up some things to try and understand his side of the debate and why he is so passionate about FO1 & 2, and the things in FO3. I hate to admit I had no clue what GURPS was/is, or who Tim Caine is. Now I do and it has given me a slightly different perspective, and I think I understand his rationale as well as that of others who have debated the same points.

We can't change what is in 3, nor should we just forget what they established as part of the lore (however egregious it may be), but I hope going forward that FO4 will establish some well thought out new lore to move the story forward.

Gizmo's knows his [censored], that's for sure lol.

We definitely can't change what is in Fallout 3, but I have full faith in the devs to completely revamp it, maybe take some ideas from New Vegas, and improve already more the Fallout series.

I think one thing that bothers me about Fallout 3 in particular is that it looks like an Oblivion mod lol. We've all heard it called "Oblivion with guns" as something derogatory toward the game, but the more I play it, the more I see it, at least aesthetically. I remember it came out not too long after Oblivion if I recall and they used the same game engine as Oblivion. I'm not sure that was such a good idea. For one, I'm not a huge fan of the engine anyway, but for a completely different IP maybe they could have at least changed it up in someway.

I have only a faint hope of a full revamp. For speculation, I expect the next game to resemble a mixup of Skyrim and Farcry --- simplified systems design, more shootery gameplay, and even further from what Fallout was made to be.

It in all practical ways is that (Oblivion with guns). I remember a magazing praising the game as "This truly is Oblivion 2" (paraphrase), and the devs themselves saying they take the Oblivion with guns moniker as a compliment and are proud of it. It certainly wasn't a bad idea financially, but for the series... yeah. We can never tell anymore if it would've or would've not been had they done things differently - even if not completely adhering to the original design, but just enough to keep the core as recognizable for the design ideals and goals of the originals (instead of said Oblivion with guns).

The first moniker Fallout 3 got was "Morrowind with guns" and had it been made to that image (with some obvious tweaks - eg. the "airswords"), for the mechanics of it, I'm pretty sure it would've gotten far less flak than it did the way it was made as through its gameplay Morrowind was way closer to Fallout than Oblivion was (still pretty far, but acceptably close mechanics wise; narrative design and writing are another matter).

They should've. And they still can. But will they?

Well, we can only hope right? I mean, New Vegas, is pretty good, maybe they'll take some cues from that.

They still had a long way to go though. I think most of the issues stem from the inadequate amount of time they were given to make the game. Edit: I often see people complaining New Vegas was empty or smaller than Fallout 3.. They often forget or are unaware that Obsidian was only given a single year to make New Vegas and was rushed while doing it. Even if they were given the resources from Fallout 3, that isn't much time to work with for a game of its scale.

Suggestion: If Obsidian is allowed to make another Fallout game in the future, then give them a fair amount of dev time instead of rushing out the game like New Vegas. I think Fallout New Vegas could have been a lot better and possibly a masterpiece if they were given the same luxuries of a 3-5 year dev cycle.

I didn't know they rushed it, but if the game is this good, I can't imagine how it would be if they were given a decent amount of time to finish it. That definitely shows off the skill and creativity of the developers at Obsidian that they were able to make a game, that I think surpasses Fallout 3, in such a short time.

That's all there is; hoping. They should take cues from New Vegas, indeed, and they should also push certain other matters further towards and beyond New Vegas' direction. It was a good game with good intentions, but it wasn't quite there yet (gameplay....).

Both statements in this comment are objectively false
A. Obsidian was given 18 months to make the game, not 12.
B. They were not rushed, as their time frame was never shortened or pushed up to get the game out quicker. They knew exactly how long they had to make the game when the signed on, and got that full amount of time to make it.

I think what De.Blade was meaning was that Obsidian did not have the luxury of time BGS afforded itself when making FO3. My recollection was that Obsidian had grander plans for FO-NV and hoped that the quality of their work might grant them an extension. It may have had an opposite effect, with BGS getting corporately self conscious. While I believe the game world in FO-3 was superior, almost all the other aspects were improved in NV.

Looking forward, I'd be really disappointed if BGS didn't take some cues from NV regarding the integrated storylines, and stronger character development for the next Fall Out title.

It would be odd if they were given that isn't what they were hired for. Just like KOTOR 2, NWN2, and DS3, NV was supposed to be quick turn around sequel to another person's, in this case Bethesda's, project.

Not to mention that they shouldn't have needed as much time as Fallout 3, given that a good portion of Fallout 3's development was spent on making things like VATS, and tweaking the Oblivion engine to have actual gun support, which Obsidian obviously wouldn't have had to do, since Bethesda made it already. There's also the fact that a good chunk of both the textures and scripts in the game were already made in Fallout 3, resulting in even less necessary time.

I've never heard of anything suggesting Obsidian thought they would get an extension based on their work.

There is an entire novels worth of cut content for NV.
http://jul.rustedlogic.net/thread.php?id=15410

Wow..is it normal for a game to have this much cut content?

With all the content in the game as it is, I can only imagine how much more would have went into it had they been given more time.

For a normal game? No. For an Obsidian game? It's still high, but not totally uncommon.

KOTOR 2, and NWN2, are well know for how much was cut due to time mismanagement, a problem Obsidian had admitted they have. Along with not being able to bug test.

That is an argument that could be used for any game, even a hypothetical one that gets a 10+ year development cycle. There's always more that could be added, always. However, you do have to eventually pick a point and just stop, or else the game will never come out.

I would actually prefer Obsidian have less in their games, because they have a bad habit of adding so much, that basically nothing works well. I feel like I am playing all the bad parts of Morrowind again. A game full of stuff, none of which really works at all, or doesn't work well. See

-Faction armor

-Faction reputation

-NV's crafting list

-DT armor system

-Alternate ammo types(though this is mostly a problem of the DT armor system, and not one of alt ammo types themselves)

-The general "dungeon" design

amongst others of NV for examples.

Well, let's say they had less than 48 months and more than 18 months, seems like a solid time-frame.

A. I would hope you understood the point and are just kidding... you are kidding right?

B. A year to make a game the size of New Vegas (even with the assets of F3) is ridiculous. Obsidian agreed to the contract sure, but do you honestly think they were given the option of more time? Do you think they were treated the same way Bethesda's devs are? You said it yourself "quick turnaround sequel". Bethesda did the QA (at least last I heard), which was obviously a flop given the bugs, and I highly doubt Obsidian would have been given the opportunity to address any issues.

You also acknowledge the list of cut content from New Vegas and the goal for the game that Obsidian had in mind. Do you honestly think they would have released the game as is if given the opportunity and not rushed? Was QA not obviously rushed? I would think that's pretty obvious.

Don't even get me started on how Todd Howard has talked about all the freedom he gets as a developer, how when he said he wanted Fallout they bought it for him, or even Pete Hines saying he essentially gets to do whatever he wants.

Well, in any case, they may get whatever they want, but the developers at Obsidian, the one's who've worked on epic, timeless classics, showed them properly how it's done.

Given how poorly Alpha Protocol released out, even after Sega had given them all the time and money they wanted... Yes, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they would willingly release a game as broken as NV, because they have done it already.

Obsidian aren't particularly good at actually making games, something even they themselves have admitted to on several occasions. They write decent stories, but in all of the actual GAME parts of the game, not really.

When have they said that? I think they're some of the finest developers out there.

this little development time (yes, it is little) always made me estimate the Obi further. The guys delivered a true masterpiece (IMHO, the best game of last generation) even having to race against time.

I will be very sad if they not make a Fallout, after the 4.

Agreed, and let's not forget their new soon to be classic, Pillars of Eternity. I wonder if Bethesda is collaborating with these guys, they should.

Some interviews across the years, as well as some videos for the PoE kickstarter.

They have admitted several times that they aren't particularly good at releasing finished products, or ones that aren't buggy as all [censored].

I do respect them a lot however for willing to svck it up and admit is it their fault their games are that way. Though I do find it somewhat disconcerting that even after admitting it, PoE suffered all the same basic mechanical problems and bugs that all their other games did.

Yeah, there games do tend to contain a lot of bugs at launch, although POE seems to be an exception so far. I've had no issues yet. Bethesda on the other hand, well they've gotten better lol

http://www.pcgamer.com/pillars-of-eternity-105-patch-makes-hundreds-of-fixes-and-changes/

Yeah, those literally hundreds of bugs fixed by one patch alone sure shows major improvement in not releasing buggy games.