Fallout 3 was pretty damn empty in terms of content.

Well if one considers a themepark world filled with enemies to kill and dungeons to explore to be 'lots of content' then I think his perspective on how he views FO3 is right.
For us who considers content to be quests, dialogue, characters, choices and so forth to be content it was really lacking it.

All about perspective.

don't forget quality RPG and gameplay mechanics

Fallout 4 so much more. They would probably go towards a new Fallout's direction anyway because of PV13. And with the development team already working on both Skyrim and other Fallout stuff, it would make it easier and smarter business wise.

Depends on what the next Fallout game is like. At this point, I'll have to say Wasteland 2 because I don't know if the next Fallout has only ponies as a playable race with the only skill being Friendship.

Because the vast majority of RPG players didn't buy RPGs since the 80s for that exact reason.

People who care about story and the intricate details possible in RPGs are lower in numbers than people who bought Wasteland and Fallout to run around killing [censored] which is the largest reason they were bought at the times of release.

(Following isn't to you specifically but generally most people here) Going Bethesda-attack mode in every forum gets us no where. You want to vent? Go to NMA like the rest of us. Then let's get somewhere. People aren't giving examples of how Fallout 4 or Wasteland could make or break yet, which means this topic could turn into another flame thread in a matter of days.

If your trying to gauge how a studio might do it's not only looking at the negatives but positives If I wanted to point out the negatives I could suggest if W2 is successful Fargo will make another studio port a shoot em up to PS3/4 ala what we've dubbed "POS" or Fallout 4 will come with Dog Armor for $15 launch day.

As for excitement. The vast numbers speak for Fallout 4. Wasteland 2 is driven off nostalgia, hype and other factors. Much of that is in wanting that type of game again, but there's infinitely more Fallout backers than Wasteland. We can talk spiritual succesor all we want. Wasteland and Fallout are fundamentally very different RPGs. And one didn't have a Cain either.

Ultimately I have a little bit more faith in Bethesda than Fargo and Co.

Despite again, being in the same boat of frustration as the relatively small consumer base on these forums.


And by I all means I hope both turn out great and successful.

Good times my friends. Unlike the tail end 90s, WRPGs are here to stay.

Before I respond I want to say that I am not bashing MNA or intending to flame, but if people really want to get their voices heared by Bethesda. They should come here not NMA.

I could be completely wrong on this because it has been a long time since I spent anytime reading NMA, but I doubt Bethesda gives a rats ass what goes on there. They have this forum for a reason. More people from NMA should come here

I've never even played the original Wasteland, but I'll be buying Wasteland 2 and giving it a shot.
I'll be buying Fallout 4 too, but that's more of a "ok let's see if they managed to improve or not" sort of purchase, rather than an "omg I can't wait and I bet it'll be epic" sort of purchase.

Wasteland 2.

I'm more willing to play Wasteland 2 over Fallout 4, which I expect would be much and more like Fallout 3 and Skyrim.

It amazes me that a franchise which is not a franchise is getting more support than a possible part 4 of an established franchise.
Don't get me wrong I do understand the sentiments about Bethesda's dealings with FO3.. however:
Thinking Wasteland 2 will be the game to look forward to is plain silly.
One:
Its original is indicative of a different era in Computer gaming
It is planned and produced by a small company with only a small budget..
Obsidian (financial) support sort is questionable (taken its own financial situation)
Chris Avelone is not writing Wasteland 2 he is merely consulting.

Bethesda following blindly in the footsteps of either Skyrim of FO3 might be logical but we simply don't know what they are planning..

1. Fallout 1 was a spiritual successor and they plan on taking notes from games like Jagged Alliance and Tactics, so while from a different era of computer gaming it's not gonna be a copy pasta, it's gonna be a mix of the really old and the somewhat old.

2. They asked for 900.000, that was their projected sum of money they needed to get things working, and they've raised 2.340.000, and that's excluding the Paypal money, so they've raiased 250% more than what they asked for originally.

3. Financial support? Obsidian is gonna provide tools and some developers, Chris Avellone for example, are gonna join the Wasteland team. They're not there to provide money or funding.

4. He is writing for Wasteland 2, he's just not writing the main story.

5. But that's the thing, that's why we are excited about Wasteland 2, because we have an idea of what Fargo is out after, what Fargo wants to design, we know it's gonna be old-school RPG with real cause and effect, we know it's gonna be turn-based and isometric, we know it's gonna have a node-based map system and we know it's gonna be party based. A lot of those things, I love, and a lot of others do too, in fact, 49.000 people loves it so much they are willing to help InXile fund the game. But Bethesda? What do we know about Fallout 4? Nothing, all we have to speculate on is how Fallout 3 was made and Skyrim. Neither of which are good for the Fallout franchise. So why wouldn't we give Wasteland more support than Fallout? Wasteland is going back to the old-school roots of RPG's, while Fallout is in the hands of a company that wants to make money.
We can choose to put blind support in a company that wants to make money, or a company that wants to care for it's fans.

InXile, while small, is at least giving us a chance to have old-school RPG's put back on the map.
What is Bethesda giving us? Another dungeon crawler? Another sight-seeing game? Been there, done that, bored to death of the concept.

Gabriel I am not trying to diminish WL2.. or old school RPG's for that matter..
I simply wanted to formulate some counter points:
Let me amplify
The budget is, even taken in account this will not be a major release, small.. and public funding means there is little room for financial hickups...
With me pointing out that wasteland is indicative of a past era.. I mean that the title, in the current day and age, will likely remain a small title..
Obsidian is not openly given financial support but their helpful nature, call me a cynic, is questionable. It feels like a marketing ploy. When a company needs to lay-off people, yet at the same time is giving support to an unrelated company.. well... fill in the blanks..
I am aware of Chris Avelones role in the WL2 project, but that role (usually) implies he is a consultant. (again me being a cynic here)
Your final argument however describes much better why I don't think we should compare both (projected) titles.
One is a mass market affair, the other will most likely be a limited success with a small fan base.

Well, im more keen for Wasteland 2 of course. The prospect of it being on my hard drive is pretty exciting! And, to be honest, if Bethesda are making Fallout 4 unless they have learnt from their plethora of mistakes in 3, then its not going to be a particularly good RPG/Fallout game. That said, im sure it will be enjoyable to some extent, it just wont be what it should be in my eyes.

If they give it over to Obsidian again, then ill be more keen than i would be for Bethesda by a ways.

The forums will probably break again

Uh... what? Why? And what do you mean by.... "franchise which is not a franchise"?


I don't understand what you're trying to say here either. How, exactly, do those "reasons" you gave make it silly to look forward to WL2? Since when did a bloated budget guarantee a quality product? How does the size of the company factor in?


It doesn't take a rocket scientist to make an educated and realistic prediction about this particular issue.

it's a tricky question. I did not play wasteland but having played several time all the fallout, I'd vote fallout 4. fallout 3 was a nice return to the fallout series but it lacked so much from the first 2 in the long run. what Bethesda did well was the technical aspect, but they failed in term of fallout spirit. I've just replayed fallout 1 and 2 and they still felt amazing. interplay dared everything there was this subtle permanent humour. the world is a mess but it's not depressing.you never knew what was going to happen. fallout 3 lacks content and good story and the tunnel like levels were awful. fallout NV was far better and far more interesting but when I compare Las Vegas to new Reno I regret fallout2. we can only hope fallout 4 will be set in more interesting places and will have the little extra spirit to give it a soul

In no way am I trying to attack WL2, I simply wanted to point out that comparing FO (as is) with a (as far as we now) smaller title aimed at a specific audience doesn't make sense... As one could conclude if one read my 2nd reply.. (and yes I could have worded it a lot better in my first post about the issue)

Now to be specific..
We are talking about a sequel to a title which apart from its predecessor has not proven itself.. Hence it can take off and become a franchise... or be a one off sequel.
In other words we are comparing a franchise to an as yet unproven concept..

Well as I explained in my reaction to Gabriel.. I might have used the wrong wording.
What I meant was two fold..:
1. As I said... I am cynical toward the entire endeavor.. Much as I would like it to see being established as a great game I need proof and gameplay. I don't or will not base my opinion on reputation and plans alone. Which is basically what everyone is doing. (and which is what I am critical about)
2. A second reason: Which I didn't mention in my first reply: As I already mentioned we're comparing a triple A mass market action adventure with RPG elements with a modest old skool RPG which caters to a much more limited consumer base.

They can take two routes:
1. FO3/Skyrim
2. FO:NV and expand on that.
While I agree option 1. has a bigger chance... I would certainly not rule out path 2.

Summarizing:
I do not feel myself to be in a position to comment on a product which so far is only a concept... and it is my opinion (!) that comparing it with a inherently and probably vastly different game is silly.

It makes all the sense on an individual level. That's why people have posted their preferences. Whether or not the other game is a massmarket product has no bearing on it. These games are related by their very origin so why would it be silly to try and compare them on a thematic level? Why would preferring this over that make no sense?


And yet you say it amazes you that someone might look forward to WL2 over Fallout 4. Isn't that a bit contradictory on your part? Or do you mean that neither should be looked forward to over the other (or at all)?


Path 2 doesn't make too much of a difference on a basic level. It only adds better structured and written narrative. Other than that... it's the same thing basically

I'm not going to get Wasteland 2, don't like that type of gameplay it's gonna have.

The latter...

No it's not.. you are correct. it will remain an action adventure with either basic or more expanded RPG options.
The first option is shallow, the second option will offer more depth.
There... Happy..??

I'm jumping up and down out of sheer exhilaration as we speak.

I dont understand why a smaller niche game cant be compared to a larger mass marketed game, when they are in spirit trying to accomplish the same goal. Putting you on a post-apocalyptic adventure through the wasteland of america. looks like comparing apples to apples to me.

Most people here are more fond of original fallout's style rather than the newer ones and many hope that wasteland 2 will be a true return to form of a niche but beloved type of game.

I for one am more excited about Wasteland 2 because they have barely started work on it and we already know a ton of information about it, and fan input is one of their biggest design tools. We know nothing about Fallout 4.

Difficult choice, I am looking forward to Fo4. But Mark Morgan is doing the score for W2...

Not really. Companies like Zenimax/Bethesda have shareholder to worry about. Tens of millions on the line for their games.

The Wasteland 2 guys are getting money to produce the game from directly the fans. So if the game is a flop it is no skin off their ass. No angry shareholders breathing down their neck. Just alot of fans that lost a couple bucks. But if the fans have already raised millions for the production of the game, it is safe to say those fans will go out an buy the game.

Wasteland 2 will make alot of money. It will show old school RPGs can make money and there is a dedicated fan base out there that want old school RPGs. InXile is reaching out to those fans. While Bethesda is svcking up to shareholders.

But to be fair to Bethesda, they did take a risk (In their minds I am sure) of letting Obsidian produce a Fallout Game. That Fallout Game (New Vegas) was a smash hit so I am hoping that Bethesda will learn from New Vegas. I am hoping they will take a look at Wasteland 2 was well.

I loved fallout 3. The story was just so great, and also the first person element was (what i thought) a good change from the original 2 fallout games. I thought new vegas lacked a great story but i did like the content such as people, places, quests, amount of weapons. If only they combined the two it would just simply be a godly game. I never honestly played wasteland so i cant really say if i'd like it, but im not much for the whole above camera view thing

You realize that FO3's story, was just a rehash of FO1 & 2's story come together, right? There was nothing original about it, unlike New Vegas which had a far more unique and original storyline. The amount of what you could do to change things in the Mojave through the MQ, was far more than FO3's which was nothing but a linear tagline already done before.