I say "test run" because they didnt spend nearly as much time on fallout as they did with oblivion, so to me it just showed that they were throwing together this game. but i think they did a good job of doing so. Well i agree theres no comparison but people still do anyways and you nor i can help that. The reason i reffered to it as "dead" is because of black isle studios employees getting laid off and therefor stopping production of fallout games for a while, until 2008 of course.

That's true...just wanted to point out that Bethesda didn't "save," "revive," or in any way rescue a dead series. There were other parties interested in buying the IP...Bethesda was just the highest bidder.

The lay offs had to do with Interplay being driven into the ground, if Fallout was a 'dead' franchise, no one would have bought the rights. As for your logic on 'test run', that's just ridiculous. You don't take a game with a devoted fanbase and go 'Ya kno, letz jus thro sum stuf tugetha an say 'DID OUR BES LOL' '. You take a serious approach to it. As far as I recall, the developers DID do a serious approach to their interpretation of the setting, but they focused so much on world building, they neglected a complex and well written plot, which is what drew people to Fallout to begin with. While I don't believe Fallout 3 is a bad Fallout, just a poorly written one due to poor interpretation of the developers.

Never played wasteland. But Bethesda games become less like rpg's with every new release.
I bought skyrim becuase people siad "they learned from fallout new vegas" like [censored] they did.
Im also impressed, they made handmade dungeons more boring thant the copy/paste ones in oblivion.

Wasteland 2 easy, allthough I dont really care about either.

Edit:
But fallout 3 was a bad fallout. The lore is wrong, the atmosphere is wrong (200 years later, still raiding supermarkets) and the gameplay was handled badly.
"Whats that, you hate the BoS, put the FEV in the water, saved raven rock, saved col autumn. Well your still working with them in Broken steel."
"Oh and the water, turns out its not a big deal. Just kills you. Raven rock is destroyed anyway, Autumn is gone and even after nuking the BoS the enclave still hate you. This is what you get for not doing what we want you too".

I agree with the atmosphere being wrong, in the previous Fallout the 50's vibe was there, but the Wasteland culture was more prevelant. In FO3 it feels a bit to soon after the war in a few ways. I don't think it was a bad game though.

I am sorry but i will have to go with Fallout. I grew up with this one. Plus Bethesda has a very big Studio with good tools to create better graphics for Fallout 4.

Haven't played WasteLand. .. but it sure sounds like it's going to be fun.

That reminds me. How was there a traumatised woman, beliving she lived in a pre war world. When the war was over 200 years ago ?

Fallout 3 wasnt a bad game. But it was a bad fallout.

I'll probably buy both, but Wasteland is the one that's got me excited. Both the return to an old-school style RPG with some of the best game devs around, and the fact that inXile isn't beholden to shareholders or a parent company like EA. I really hope they pull it off.

Probably the wisest comment so far..



A lot of the development time on Oblivion was spent on rebuilding the engine.. That engine was (largely, the important parts) unchanged for FO3. Cost wise the game had roughly the same budget as Oblivion. In other words this is as much (for better or worse ) a major release as Oblivion. And actually being a financially risky gamble.

If you agree that one cannot compare certain things than don't... Arguing that people do... doesn't make the argument legit or the comparison more viable.
MW2 is a FPS. FO3 is an action adventure. Wasteland 2 will be an old school RPG, FO4 will more than likely be like FO3...

A franchise isn't dead because a studio went belly up. The franchise was highly sought after as others have already stated. That it took as long as it did for a sequel to arrive.. is because of legal reasons..

Wasteland 2 is the first game I pledged $65 on and no work has yet been done on the game.

So, obviously, Wasteland 2 is my answer. And I never really played Wasteland 1. The interview videos on Kickstarter convinced me though.

The Bethesa Fallout games are alright I suppose, but they're very different from what I want (turn based, isometric etc).

Fallout 4

Love the idea of WL2.
inXile have a shot at changing game development - they had better not f#$% it up!

Right now, Wasteland 2. We already have Fallout 3 and Skyrim for first person sandbox exploration/dungeon crawling games. And there's New Vegas too. Fallout 4 would probably be 'Fallout3' 2.

Wasteland 2 will be very different from those.

Obsidian didn't donate money. They donated Chris Avellone.

There has been no announcement on FO4 so the odds that, that is coming out in 2013 is speculation/rumor/heresy. For all we know FO4 could be several years out. Wasteland 2 is confirmed for sometime in 2013; october tentatively. So, my money is on Wasteland 2...quite literally too.

Oh, and for the record, it's WASTELAND not WastelandS.

PC, Mac, and Linux.

Since FO4 will more than likely be developed by Beth, I'm going with Wasteland 2. Already pledged my money also.

Clarify, you made a good point on venting or ideas reaching BGS having more of a chance here. But when we talk about RPGCodex or NMA venting, it's largely not a critique.

Seeing as I'm guilty of it as well, from experience it turns into a glob of illiteracy and slang demeaning all, very quickly.


Zenimax is actually in an unique position. Z Media, and Beth Softworks and in turn BGS(Who we mostly care about), are fully private. They answer to no stockholders.

Respectable, I think.

I always knew when Interplay went public, the end of the works we enjoyed from their internal studios would be gone.

Fallout 4 so long as obsidian doesn't intervene. In my opinion Fallout 3 was way better then new vegas.

Fallout 4 for the win! No, I'm just kidding. Well yea, I chose Fallout 4 but I've never played Wasteland. It's just that Fallout 3 which is the only Fallout game I have ever played was so good, so impressive, so immersive into bringing me into the wanting to get to know the Fallout universe, so detailed, so memorable that it makes me participate in this poll and say I'm more into Fallout 4 coming out than Wasteland. I'm saying this because I don't say a lot about Fallout stuff in this bethesda forums since I don't know much about Fallout stuff anyways since I didn't even play much of Fallout 3. But I played Fallout 3 enough of a ride to know facets such as adventure and stuff of it since I heavily play elder scrolls which is practically the same thing. If you feel I should not have posted...wait I could have read the other posts. Oh well, go Fallout 4 coming out into stores!

The highlighted part is sadly true about Fallout 3 and it is why I can't vote in this poll yet.

I'm one of those, I enjoyed FO3 and I played the first 2 games and enjoyed them much more, even though they were turn base(Not a big fan of it).
Great story and you had many choices and....consequences.....:0

Then played FONV and I enjoyed that quite more and it seemed it was closer to the originals. BEtter story than fO3 and altering paths on factions and game endings.

I hope it goes more down the road with choice and consequences, skills, etc, but I prefer no turn base style.

My caps are on about a 1000ish .
Ontopic it's hard to say I never played wastland but I hear good things about it so i'll get w2 when it's out but i'm very open to what it has to offer.
As for.fo4 i'm filled with excitement and ... A nagging sense of fear.
Bethesda have the power to turn this into the best or worst fallout game in the series .
And I have a bad feeling about the latter.

I'm pretty much the ambassador for fo3 on these forums , I love it in a physically abused house wife sort of way it has it's flaws but I love it but not even I can agree with your statement fonv is technically better.

Never played the original Wasteland. But I am familiar with Brian Fargo. I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm excited by Wasteland2 yet, but I am definitely interested. I like their enthusiasm and respect for an era of gaming gone by and I'm going to assume/hope that will remain/be very evident in the final product.

Fallout4 - If Beth develops it, probably not terribly interested. If they hire out development/writing to another company again, one that I'm familiar with/respect, then perhaps. While I'm not big on caring about "main plot/storyline," I've always liked Obsidian's writing and character creations and that's why I bought FNV in the first place, hoping for more of that. And I got it.
Beth doesn't tend to do those things in a manner I find compelling. I'm not even sure I could explain what the difference is, to me. It just is what it is.

At any rate...since we pretty much have no information on FO4, I'd have to say Wasteland2 has the most interest value for me right now.

I never felt FO 3 was TES, especially since I've played that series from Arena and other than Daggerfall, not largely a fan. Bethesda's consistently up there for me as far as RPG makers go.

Does the TES series and FO3 breach my Top 5 RPGs? [censored] no.

If anything I was disappointed how a lot of mechanics Oblivion had, many of them from Wasteland/FO, were even further removed from 3.

Some of them, like factions, understandably due to BGS trying to ingrain mostly 1 in 3.