Deary me...
OK my last reply to this thread.. (happy faces all around..)

No it's not:
To make things clear..: I love to see Wasteland 2, I think the approach to their funding is fresh and it is great that a company wants to make a hardcoe old school isometric RPG.. My wording in my first reply was somewhat unlucky.. (read stupid)
Let me clarify and repeat..
We are comparing, no offence, one planned and one likely planned project.
One will have a multi million dollar budget.. will be produced for a mass market, has RPG elements (we don't know how much) and is a action adventure/sandbox FPS with RPG elements.
The other is a modestly produced hardcoe RPG which is a sequel to an eighties RPG.
The only thing they have in common is a shared origin and the setting.. So it is comparing apples to pears.. (is this a legit proverb??)
My gripe being there is no choice to be made.. If you like Beths games, you will chose FO4 and if you loved FO1 and FO2.. you will pick WL 2.

And about the financial risks..

Styles... I respect you .. but I don't think we should pollute this thread with discussions about the risks of open public investments vs. shareholders and institutional investments..

Given its limited budget.. it will probably make a profit... Whether it will make a lot of money remains to be seen. (as well what a lot of money is.. )
Old skool RPG's are still popular but its base audience is relatively small. Plus a company like inXile does not have a large promotion budget to make the game known..
Not to rain on anyone's parade ... but FO:NV was a smash hit because the masses wanted more FO(3). The HC adition as well as the companion wheel and iron sights are embraced by the majority. However what we (yes me included) love about NV is not the overall consensus.. My fear is that Beth... will chose the safe ...
Skyrim route..

I have a feeling Fallout 4 will out sell Wasteland 2 but as long as wasteland 2 makes a profit then that is good. It will do a great.

As for this argument that Fallout New Vegas was only a hit because the masses wanted more Fallout 3. I doubt that. Given my time on here alot of people like New Vegas more than Fallout 3 or at least like both games equally. There are still alot of orginal Fallout fans out there and the number is growing. Just have to look at this forum. So many people on here started with Fallout 3, then they played the originals and they came to see the flaws in Fallout 3.

I am not bashing Fallout 3 I am just saying that New Vegas did well on its own merits, not because people wanted another Fallout 3 TES clone. New Vegas is still selling well and so are the orginals. So if the masses just wanted another Fallout 3 clone, than that wouldn't be the case. The word would have gotten out by now that New Vegas isn't another Fallout 3 TES clone. They also wouldn't be going out and buying the orginals.

Yeah but i liked the setting of the DC area instead of California. I also liked the first person point of view. I guess i just liked Bethesda's way of doing it better, dont get me wrong fallout 1 and 2 were great. It's just my personal preference of the 4 and perhaps its because its more modern but i dont know, i do prefer fallout 3 overall. New vegas broke the whole "clean water" thing and i give respect for that, but it was such a great game with (in my opinion) a disappointing ending. And i think i might prefer it over fallout 3 if they just made the ending better. Also i was really into the idea of Pretty much playing with your character from birth until the completion of the game which results in your death if you dont have broken steel

Must..... resist....... OK ....... one more final final reply....

FO:NV: Total units 5,93
FO3: Units until today 7,19 (excl. DLC)

Starting sales.. and vanilla releases..
FO:NV vs. FO:3: FO:NV outsold FO3 by nearly 20% in its first year
Drop off:
FO3 had a drop off in its first two years of around 50%
FO:NV had a drop off of 70% after its first year of release.. (or in Units FO3 outsold FO:NV with around 200.000 units in its second year)

I'd rather Bethesda move on from the Fallout series.

Both because I can....
DLCs for Fallout were not too great.
Never played the first Wasteland

Fallout 4. Because, honestly, I enjoyed FO3 more than FO:NV. Mostly because I do look for that nifty "theme park" to explore when I play a Bethesda game. FO:NV, between the linearity and the boring world (nothing that wasn't the focus of a quest had much detail in it; the world was empty) just wasn't as fun. Yeah, it had "better" quest structure, but it lacked the exploration.

Also, I'm not familiar with IneXile or Wasteland. So I can't really say I'd look forward to Wasteland 2, since I've no idea what it's about or would be like. And I'm not on the knee-jerk "hate all things Beth" hipster wagon.

They could have kept the setting in DC, there's nothing wrong with that, I have no problem with it, but the story was simply just FO 1 & 2 rehashed. It showed a lack of creativity and understanding on Beth's part, because they couldn't come up with something original and fresh. New Vegas was original and fresh, even though it had factions from the previous games, it made sense. FO3's story did not. The whole "clean water" -line, couldn't go on forever, radiation does disappear after awhile, and 200 years in, it would have been as it is in New Vegas. Like I said, FO3's story was just a rehash, and lack of Bethesda's ability to create something original to the Fallout series.

I liked played FO3, it was fun and I spent a lot of hours playing, but it was definitely a black sheep for the Fallout series.

Not sure until I see gameplay from both. Fallout 4 will probably have better gameplay (action rpg) and Wasteland 2 will have a better story and decision making (pure rpg). I'd rather they join forces and make a awesome action rpg with a really good story and decisions.

They've made one Fallout game... I think they still have awhile to go before they are ending the series.

If Bethesda can just add more dialogue choices and give your actions a purpose i.e they actually have an effect on the world then it would be perfect. That was the main thing missing from Skyrim, everything else was there pretty much

Well i mean, i completely respect how you feel. But i think in the end it boils down to opinion, your obviously a die hard fo1 and fo2 fan, whereas i was very open to the producers of my second favorite series (the elder scrolls) to bring back a dead series. I think that fo3 was just a "test run" more than anything for bethesda, because it has minimal content such as quests in it. And when it comes to content i felt that new vegas did a great job with that, and once again i like that they broke away from the reoccurring story of water. Im grateful that bethesda brought it back instead of there never being another fallout game. Once again i understand where your coming from about not thinking fo3 is the greatest but in the end its all by opinion really, MW2 sold more copies than fallout 3 and 75% of the kids at my school would tell you its better, i wouldnt agree at all but once again its all opinion, and theres little debating that could happen when opinion is the center

To be honest I'm looking forward for both games, but I'm a little more excited to hear about Wasteland 2.

I'm very worried about Fallout 4 after what I've seen happen to Skyrim. I haven't played the original Wasteland although that game was the inspiriation that lead to Fallout.

I'll go with Fallout 4 but I'm very worried about it. Both games will be good though, Beth will still have an awesome open world (Hopefully with Depth and the good things that New Vegas did right), Wasteland 2 will have Avellone who is probably one of the better if not best writers in the industry.

Wasteland 2, because if it is a success, which I hope it is, it could set an example an get more games made.

I can't choose. I say both!

Anyone that has played Wasteland probably knows that both my long-time forum avatar and forum "location" field are from...Wasteland. It's one of my favorite gaming experiences of all time, so I'm inclined to be more excited about it than Fallout 4. I was also a huge fan of the original Fallout games, although when I played Fallout 1 I did complain a bit that there was a lot of Wasteland re-hash in there (for those that don't know, Brian Fargo was the founder of Interplay Productions and the producer of Fallout 1). A lot of Fallout 1's story is content that was adapted from Wasteland. Fargo was one of the people that helped to define Western RPGs back in the days before most video game players knew what an "RPG" even was.

Don't get me wrong, I thought Fallout 3 was a beautiful game taken for what it is. My complaints were mainly with their interpretation of the series...I just wasn't impressed with the characters (although the character of Pres. Eden was brilliant and spectacularly cast), the ridiculously unbelievable setting, and the writing in general. Bethesda's interpretation of the setting was so over-the-top and clumsy that it came out feeling like an exaggerated caricature of the Fallout setting that lacked the dry wit and subtlety of Wasteland and FO1. Again, it's a beautiful game. It's not without flaws, but by any other name I would have had little but praise for it.

So, given my experiences with post-Morrowind BGS I'm assuming that Fallout 4 will be another RPG-lite shooter with a theme park environment full of plenty of nonsensical locations, quests, and things to shoot at. Oh, I'll buy it anyway, and I'll probably enjoy it. I'm just ready for something different. A return to Wasteland with tactical party-based combat sounds like a really nice change of pace, and I really want to see Fargo succeed. He's one of the unsung founders of the Western RPG genre as we know it, and (by all accounts I'm familiar with) a really good guy.

Awards are all well and good until you actually play the game. After that the only thing that matters is what you like. If you don't like the game all the awards in the world won't (shouldn't) make you like it better. Don't let other people tell you what to like.

Edit:
Wow, that post really got away from me.

The series was NOT dead. The company that owned the IP still owned it until Bethesda bought it. They just ran out of money before the third installment was completed and held onto the IP until they finally decided to sell it. If Bethesda hadn't bought it then someone else would have.

You are basically doing what happens vise versa..
Calling FO3 a test run...really.. This was a game with a projected budget of around $20-25 million dollars.. It was not a test run. Secondly FO3 is a different game than FO1 and 2. It wasn't dead... it was a franchise which was up for grabs.. Bethesda having only one viable franchise needed an easy conversion.. with their experience... FO was an easy choice.
FO:NV built on history set in motion in FO and FO2, FO3 simply neglects this... The water theme (?) is simply a mcguffin in FO3... and has nothing to do with Fo1,Fo2 or NV.
Like I said in this thread before it got moved.. Comparing two different types of games is imho unfair.. Comparing MW2 to FO3 is not a matter of opinion.
It is if you ask what kind of game people like and they would make this judgement... it would be a comparison.
Comparing an action adventure with a straight forward FPS on rails is no ground for comparison.

Im exited for both but fo4 wins cause

I'd LIKE to hope Fallout 4 is going to be as good as New Vegas, but unless Obsidian does Fallout 4, I'm going to doubt that. After what I've seen of Skyrim from a technical PoV, I'm very leary of trusting Beth compared to Fallout 3 and NV. 3 svcked at story, but great exploration. I HOPE Beth learns from New Vegas and takes a good study of its plot depth. But I heard Skyrims story was terrible, so I'm worried there too.

As for Wasteland 2? I don't expect it to be a carbon copy of Fallout rebranded. So I'm curious to see what it'd be like.

Will Wasteland 2 be for console or is it just PC?

I don't care for the turn base style, but if its got a decent back ground, story, and game altering choices, well then sign me up.

I like the sound of that


Zenimax doesn't have shareholders, it's a privately owned company. Owned by the people who work there i hear. So they make their games as they want to.

...

Anwyay, Skyrim has again proven to be a steal as far as money/playtime is considered, so i doubt i'll have any reason to not buy Skyrim with Guns (and really, if you are expecting something else, you're doing it wrong). But i'll definetly be keeping my eyes on this project too.

After playing the originals, Fallout 3, Fallout NV and then the crap that was Skyrim, I'll just say that I'm much more excited to play Wasteland 2. CHRIS AVELLONE IS WORKING ON IT! HOW CAN I NOT BE EXCITED? I just hope that the game fits on my craptop (get it? I mixed crap with laptop!)

Nothing is yet known about who will develop Fallout 4 so I can't vote at this time.

EA and Bioware.