Depend on companies status, but would obsidan work with Bethesda if they have othe rgames to do?

If Obsidian was getting a cut form them letting their Devs work with another company and maybe some credit then possibly. I wish I knew more about how things like that would work. Chris Avellone and J.E. Sawyer should be consulted for the making of FO4.

I am not biased, because I enjoy and like all of the Fallout games. Also, I was not addressing everyone who dislikes FO3 as being biased or bitter, merely the 3 stated names which I see in every single thread every time I read these forums that mention FO3.

Your example isn't comparable; Fallout new and Old have guns. A better one would be Bethesda buying Command and Conquer and turning it into a shooter/RPG.

However, I won't say my opinion on if that would be good or bad. Why? Because the details are trivial and pointless. <- *laughs* Fallout reference!

What makes a game good is how fun it is to play. The only negatives I see people post about FO3 are problems with canon, story, dialogue and setting. These are trivial factors as games are mainly intended to be played, not watched, read or listened to. The latter are all extras and pluses in my opinion games like Mass Effect are great because the gameplay is good as well as the dialogue, but if the gameplay was bad... it would just be a really boring book/movie that takes 20+ hours to finish, wouldn't it?

My point stands (as well as my opinion) that the defining factor of a fun video game is gameplay. I dare anyone who enjoys NV to shoot down FO3s gameplay and be honest about it. You won't see it because they play the same. The reasons people favor NV is because of the idea of the old team being behind it (even though that's not entirely true/relative to the outcome of the game) and because of the new features (it did come out after FO3, it is bound to have upgrades), new/better (a matter of opinion really, its certainly not ME quality) voice acting, familiar setting and interesting characters/locations.

And to the poster who mentioned the NMA community, I forgot about them because I can't stand them, they will be forever stuck in the past; and it's a terrible shame.

I think that the lore, canon, story, dialogue and setting are fun factors which when wronged make the game not as fun anymore. :mellow:
FO3 was a fun game on it's own merits, I spent over 800 hours on it.
But that was on it's own merits, as a Fallout game is wasn't the least bit fun.
I'm not biased for it, Fallout 3 was a fun game, just not a fun Fallout game.
But I'm not here for "just another game" now am I?
No I'm here because the Fallout franchise intrigues me.
I care for it, it's more than "just a game" for me.
I for example can listen to Green Day, their music is good, but I don't love them like I love Kylie Minogue, Gorillaz or Beatles where I can listen to their music over and over without getting tired of it and watch their music videos and read their interviews and articles all the time.
I love the first three Indiana Jones films and can watch them over and over again, but the fourth installment was crap.
I love Star Wars IV and V but while I can watch VI, I, II and III I don't think they match up to the first two films.
It's no different for games.
I don't care to read the books and notes and stuff in Dragon Age, because I'm not as interested in it's lore.
It's more like "just a game" for me.
I'm not biased for any of this.
I'm a fan of a franchise which I care for, when a game rolls out it's more than "just another game" for me.
Not like I'm obsessed either, I'm just a fan.

Anyway, yeah, what makes a good game is how fun it is to play.
And I had fun playing all the games.
And Fallout 3 was a good game.
A good game.
Good "game".
Not a good Fallout game, but a good game.
There's the difference for me.

This. I did enjoyed FO3 (for a time) but it does not feel like a fallout game to me and I don't see myself playing it ever again. New Vegas has shown what FO3 should have been and I hope FO4 will have the many improvements of New Vegas.

Just because I am a fan of the fallout series and not so much a fan of FO3 does not mean I am biased toward Bethesda. There are other Fallout games besides FO3.

I don't see Fallout 3 as test. I love the game and I still play it despite the release of New Vegas. It seems to me that some people think the Fallout series is supposed to be based around the midwest. Not just the midwest and westcoast was nuked.

I can see why Bethesda set Fallout 3 on the eastcoast, D.C. is the United States' Capital... I'm sure that many people, my self included, wanted to see the devastation on the eastcoast. According to what I've seen/heard, the eastcoast isn't mentioned much in the original Fallout games. The eastcoast was the start of the US and has a completely different view and economy than the midwest.

The first Fallout game I played was 1. I could never get into it, it was a "true" RPG. Same with Boulder's Gate, which I'm sure was made by Interplay as well.

What I'm trying to say basically is that most, if not all of us, has played Fallout 3 and I'm sure we have all enjoyed it, for the most part anyways. It seems that once a few guys who worked on the original Fallout games releases a new Fallout game (New Vegas) that we all give Fallout 3 a bad rep. Like "It was never good because of its mechanics or bland story line". Your criticizing Fallout 3's flaws because New Vegas fixed them.

I however could see Fallout 3's DLCs (Mothership Zeta excluded) being test subjects for future Fallout games.

I don't know, I'll probably get alot of [censored] for this post. Correct me if I'm wrong about Fallout's history, for I have not played 2 or Tactics. But I have read abit of stuff on the wiki and such.

Well, I [censored]ed and whined about Fallout 3 before I even knew New Vegas was going to be released. :shrug:
But again.

Fallout 3 was a good/great/awesome/fantastic game.
It just weren't a decent "Fallout" game.

So the actual "game" was awesome and I think people would be lying if they said it wasn't awesome on it's own merits.
But as a "Fallout" game it just didn't live up to the decade of high expectations of reading the Van Buren design documents.
Nor did it live up to the former games' glory either.

But don't get me wrong, New Vegas is not exactly a great sequel to Fallout 2 either.
New Vegas is more like 15% of what a sequel was suppose to be.
Still, New Vegas is 400% more of a Fallout game than Fallout 3 was.

I mostly agree with you. DLC were test or atleast it seems to be because each DLC has something good but completely abandons other aspects.
Fallout 3 was in some way a test as a whole. I enjoyed it and it brought me back into Fallout universe. But Bethesda seriously might have included old factions to see fans reaction towards them. Not brotherhood or enclave as a whole but to see will fans react better to new faction or old ones.

How so? I'm curious. Is it because of the location the games were in? That's just what it seems to me. Again, if you guys know something about Fallout's history feel free to explain it to me.

I am also interested....

Fallout 3 was certainly a "test" in various ways. Such as graphics and location. I can see how Bethesda was trying to get a public reaction on how Fallout 3 would play out in relation to the old Fallout games. By the looks of it people aren't too happy about it. I mean, they have what is it, five Fallout games now that take place in the same general area? Fallout 1, 2, Tactics, BoS, and New Vegas.

It might just be me but if I had played all those games alot, I'd be itching for a new Fallout where it is in a different location in relation to the originals.

Fallout 3 I think is the step forward we need, proposed to expanding the Fallout universe game-wise, it just came at a bad time. :shrug:

No, it does "not" have anything to do with the location.
It has to do about a realistic game world, previous RPG complexity and lore.

Fallout 3 looked like the bombs were dropped yesterday.
By lvl 30 it seemed like vicious dogs had all died out and Yao Guai population had increased by 500%
Raiders in Fallout 3 not making a lick of sense, they didn't raid anything and they were all psychopaths with no agenda or history.
Settlements were not explained how they could stay alive. (Two words: Tenpenny Tower.)
Factions were black and white and so were most of the "choices" one could make.
SPECIAL was a joke in Fallout 3, it's still pretty pathetic in New Vegas but Obsidian at least took it a step in the right direction.
Companions all felt like mercs for hire. (I think half of them "are" mercs for hire..)
It's ending sliders did not explain crap.

And tons of other things.
It has nothing to do with the game being on the east coast.

[edit]
And by the way, no.
No no no...
I'm NOT going through this discussion again.
If you want me to go more in detail or explain it more then search for some of the previous FO3 VS NV debates.
I'm so sick and tired of going through this every time.
So no.
I'm out.
/Leaves.

I never meant for it to end up into a Fallout 3 Vs New Vegas debate. Nor did I mean to make you angry, I was just expressing my opinion and what I saw other people post and what it meant to me. I never meant to make Fallout 3 seem like "the god of Fallout games, that it was perfect in every way possible and everything else svcks".

I'm sorry, I guess.

Not angry.
Just tired.
The FO3 vs NV debate is an ongoing debate which uses the same arguments over and over to no end.

But Fallout 3 is an awesome game.
I spent 800+ hours on it and bought all DLC's.
Can't say I hate the game.

But as a Fallout elitist it's easier for me to point out it's faults than it is to compliment it.

Well, that still doesn't mean people should not rebuild. The agriculture is crap, people are eating 200 years food only(as opposed to the farming West Coast population in F1, which took place MUCH closer to the Great War and all. Now add the Master's Mutant Invasion threat and raiders like the Khans going ape[censored]). :ahhh:


SPECIAL has more of a impact on your character now. In F3, I could take a low-intelligent grunt and he would still keep talking like a PhD in some conversations. NV on the other hand, even offers a 'dumb' dialogue(alas, it's implemented half-assedly, thanks to the short development time) when your INT is below 3, which makes much more sense.
Also, Strength now affects your weapon handling etc. :gun:


Really? F3 had virtually no 'different' endings at all, apart from some pictures changing and Ron Pearlman's final verdict about your karma.
NV shows epilogues of the towns, places, main factions, and even the minor ones like the Misfits, Fiends, Powder Gangers etc. etc.
All with possible different outcomes. Also narrated.

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_3_endings a http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout%3A_New_Vegas_endings for yourself at the wiki. Spoilers alert.

Hell I think this is pretty much the only current RPG where you can impact so many thing during one playthrough. God I love this game. :fallout:

Thanks micheal for saying my name in the haters of FO3.
I am bitter? Wow, I am biased because they did indeed rip-off the story? Wow!

So i'm a bit like how you almost always defend FO3?

Yeah, I've easily played 800+ hours as well, I recently got a new computer that allows me to play FO3 on Ultra settings and I have been using mods to fix FO3 flaws

My favorite is Mothership Zeta crew, easily the best

Sorry for off topic.

I might be a bit too late for posting this but i just want a say something about your first post on this page. I didnt mean that the location was a test. It was cool to have new areas and i always wanted to see more of America but i meant the graffics, lore and gameplay. Nothing to do with location.

That's kinda what I figured.

There may not have been a lot of quests in Fallout 3, but they were fun and intricate and challenging. If Fallout 3 was a test I really really hope Bethesda does Fallout 4. I would love to see a mixture of Fallout 3 and New Vegas. New Vegas for the writing and Companions and crafting and Fallout 3 for the exploring and random encounters and adding some challenge and intricacy to the quests. Just imagine quests that are intricate and challenging and have good writing. Would be nice.

Rough if DC was hit so hard, why are all the Capital buildings and monuments still pretty much intact along with all the buildings? Mr.House used his techno-magic to redirect or intercept the bombs targeting Vegas how does that not make sense? As for the SPECIAL system of FO3 just look at how they where in the originals all the stuff they effected. Look at what they became. Perception heavily effecting all ranged combat getting reduced to "when enemies get put on on your magic radar compass! FO3 inherited too much Oblivion mechanics, instead of you know using the great system they already had in FO!

If there can be mutants and ghouls then I guess a few buildings can still be standing. :shrug:

Wait.... What?
How does intact buildings connect to mutants?

Its just a game. made for a game. Even two nukes would have destroyed everything leaving nearly no city behind. 77 would have turned the entire DC into wasteland, but because it is a game in a unreal universe having different laws of physics and so on. So the builidng would have continued to exist.