I would have to say that nothing you've stated above is very far from my own thinking. I will add one thing that I miss: Random encounters. Not really FO3 style, but more like the kind of random encounters you'd get in PnP RPGs. In other words: Really random. They could happen anywhere, at any time. There could be a subset of random city encounters, subsets of random wilderness encounters based on type of terrain, etc... One of the things I've always liked about RPGs is that in a well run game/campaign, just about anything could happen at just about anytime. So here's to a robust dymanic random encounter generation system :celebration:

-Gunny out

lol @ ppl "in b4 lock"ing & the thread is still open :spotted owl:

That's true for certain glitches, like, say, animals stuck in the scenery or companions growing deathclaw hands, but I'm less sure it's true for the crazy arms glitch and over-loud radio DJs (problems I never encountered in Fo3), and when it comes to quest bugs (of which I have encountered many) I don't think that excuse washes at all.

Anyway, let Obsidian make another Fallout by all means, but give them enough time to do it properly. These are big, complicated games, too big to bash out in eighteen months or two years or whatever NV was done in.

I would've said to not let Obsidian make another game after the disaster that was Alpha Protocol.

Hell, I'm fairly certain the only reason NV even works is because Bethesda had already done 80% of the work for them.

NV may have slightly better storytelling and some interesting characters, but Fallout 3 was still better. If we should have learned anything by now about Obsidian, its this:

They svck at making games. However, they would absolutely murder at writing books, or writing stories for other developers to use.

Then maybe publishers should stop constantly lashing deadlines on Obsidian. From what I remember, deadlines is the only thing that has hindered Obsidian from greatness.

And what's with this story nonsense I hear about Fallout 3? Dad is gone. Find dad. Kill a bunch of evil looking dudes because they look evil. That's not Fallout.

Ehh, deadlines are a part of life. No matter what industry you work in. Games have to make money too! And the market for great RPG's is a lot smaller then say - Kill Em All sequel 55. Plus they are more expensive to make. As an RPG fan you have to be a little forgiving on the bugs. Just my own take.

KOTOR2 had tons of cut content that would have been amazing had it been implemented. But coulda, woulda, shoulda does not count. Obsidian needs that home run to make their mark in the biz. FNV came really close. Still, they are making their money as the "sequel" shop. Which is probably not that profitable. That is why ZenMax needs to buy them!

But on the whole FNV vs F3. FNV wins on many, many levels. F3 has a few strong points as well.

Heck, Bethesda resurrected the series and made it profitable again. Was it perfect - no. Writing was never Beth's strong point. But still it was a great game. Just like FNV.

Fallout 3 was a great video game, but a terrible Fallout game.

Yeah New Vegas was a fine game like the others said the bugs where a little bad but the game was still playable and fun! The story is good and the player has many-many-many ways to change up the ending. I put my vote in for Obsidian to create Fallout 4, good job guys.

This game is much more of a REAL fallout.


Every game has its flaw's some are big some are small what you think is what you get, cheer up you wish may come yet!

I would say that NV is a lot better then Fallout 3 for one main reason. New Vegas didn't butcher every faction from the Super-Mutants to the BoS to The Enclave like 3 did. When playing Fo3 I wept at how much Bethesda destroyed everything

- They turned the BoS from Xenophobic Tech-Cultists into peace loving hippies.
- They turned the Enclave from Brutal badasses into weak losers ruled by frankly one of the most annoying AI robots ever.
- They turned the Super-Mutants from laughably stupid from Fallout 1 and 2 into just stupid.
- I also dislike how the BoS just magically got Liberty Prime to work in one of the biggest Deus ex Machinas I've seen in a game in a long time.
- The story was forced into making you have to be the good guy.
- Half the story was skippable if you accidentally found your dad before you were supposed to.
- Super weapons like the Fat-Man meant nothing since you could get unlimited ammo for them.

The list goes on.

Sorry, but that just does not make sense to me. I thought it was a great video game and great Fallout game. Sure, it was not isometric top down, but I thought the devs really went out of their way to make it feel like a Fallout game. In some ways I think they hit that post-apoclayse feel better then the orginial two.

Now, if you want to argue that it was not a great RPG - then I might be more inclined to agree with you. Or at least see your point. It was missing a number of RPG elements. Choices and consequences is missing completely. Still, at least Beth reversed track from Obivion and redeemed themselves with F3.

Obsidian did a good job on NV, the story, setting, characterization, everything is pretty well done. I'd love if they made another fallout.

Look op we really don t know who to blame. To me it falls to the feet of Bethesda in all reality. The engine is maxed, and the last patch made things much better for me on ps3.

Obsidian should stay on board IMO. Id like an fo game every 2 years instead of 4

Oh yeah, http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout:_Brotherhood_of_Steel. http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_Tactics. And the Outcasts, who want to stick to the Brotherhood's original ideals, certainly don't exist at all. As much as I love the first two Fallouts, I still like Elder Lyons. All the other Brotherhood Elders are isolated from the outside world, and this guy was forced to see just how hard people outside the Brotherhood really had it. Is it really any wonder he turned native?

How? A Master-less mutant army who overthrew the smart mutants and dip nothing but contaminated wastelanders instead of Vault dwellers is a bad idea? Makes a hell of a lot more sense than the constant attempts to restart The Unity http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Attis and http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Gammorin%27s_Army. And people say re-using the Enclave in one game was bad!

Because, y'know... you certainly couldn't just skip every quest in Fallout 1 altogether and talk The Master into committing suicide.

Puh-leaze.

I'm not sure that that's true ~I'm not sure that its not either, but I do believe (unless I'm remembering it wrong), that you have to have done the Glow quest before you can talk the Master into suicide.

Actually, I may have goofed there. I'm pretty sure what happens (it's been a while since I've played Fallout 1), is that you do the quests up until you get the Water Chip, and from there can skip the latter half of the game and nuke the Cathedral. Or something.

How about no?

That could be. My thinking was that if you don't do the Glow quest, you don't get inside the Lost Hills Bunker ~and you don't get to talk to Vree; so, you don't learn that the mutants are sterile.

I never checked... but I had the strong impression that without the proof, you don't succeed. I may be wrong; I never played all the way to the master without talking to Vree. :shrug:

---

@topic... I'd not want another Fallout where Obsidian was not involved in the design document. IMO Bethesda is a lot better at landscaping and asset creation, but seems clueless about how to write story and mechanics for for this series. Fallout 3 has fantastic models and textures ~and NV doesn't IMO; its still good enough, but not their match [IMO].

considering Fallout: BoS is non-canon 100% and Fallout: Tactics is non-canon except its pivotal events, No interplay DIDN'T ever change the BoS.





I meant they were just stupid in the way their personalities were not in their overall plans. Fo1 and Fo2 super mutants could be reasoned with and tricked quite easily, they had some personality, though their personality that was like the three stooges. It made them funny and fun to interact with. Fo3 super mutants were just stupid, they were hostile to everyone and everything that's not them, there was no reasoning with them, they had no leader and no real plan, they were just mindless stupid killing machines AND they got even more mindless and stupid as they got older and turned into behemoths. They were the epitome of lazy game design.
The exceptions being Fawkes and Leo who are the only two super mutants in Fo3 I can respect becuase they actually have some personality beyond DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.




Considering skipping the main quest in F1 took WORK and SKILL and required you to be able to PLAY THE GAME DAM WELL. where as in Fo3 any half assed noob who spent any amount of time exploring the open world setting could and would easily find their dad and end up missing half the main quest, there is a VERY large difference in doing it in Fo1 and Fo3 making it near impossible to compair the two.

Bethesda makes better TES games. Obsidian makes better Fallout games.

Fallout NV was a Fallout game. Fallout 3 was a comprehensive TES mod at heart.


If I want to play TES I'll play Skyrim (and I will, I will play it a lot) but hands down Obsidian makes a better, and truer Fallout game. Really the only thing they did wrong was the bugs, but I resolved the serious ones about 3 minutes into the game, and I didn't really have any quest bugs.



Oh my god, reading this was insta-rage for me. Fallout 1 & 2 were heavily settlement oriented. There were lots of people and fewer raiders and super-mutants. Settlements were fairly grungy but it's clear that people ar eliving in them.

It's been 200 damn years after the nuclear apocalypse, you'd think most of the radiation would have subsided and those lazy bastards would have considered cleaning up the streets a little; I mean in Fallout 3 it looks like the bombs just hit yesterday, it's absolutely absurd.

I'm guessing when Bethesda said "200 years ago" they meant "20 years ago", but put that extra 0 everywhere and were too embarassed to fix it afterwards

My views are the same as ever, NV improved most areas, exception being the world design. Let Bethesda do their open world thing and Obsidian do their writing and game mechanics thing and you'd get one heck of a Fallout.

As a side comment on the world desing part, i went to Black Rock Cave for the first time yesterday:

Obsidian have allways had buggy games, There company really needs to let some dynamite off with there quality assurance team.

Both games crashed a couple of times, and i experianced minimul bugs.. Most of the games i play have bugs, but i love them, (More so Fallout 3 than New Vegas)

Somehow, this thread became "Never let Bethesda make another Fallout." But then again, you could post something about tin cans and it would devolve to Bethesda-bashing.

Anyways...

I think Obsidian should be involved in the next game, along with Bethesda. Let each respective company do what they do best, merge them, and we will have a stellar game.

I know right?

We should also never let Bethesda make another Fallout either because Fallout 3 was glitchy and froze on me several times!

Hell we should never let them make another Elder Scrolls game either because those are likely to be glitchy too! In fact we should have them just quit making Skyrim because it's just going to be one huge bug fest that's going to freeze all the time just like Oblivion!

And one more thing:





Nah they just have a fetish for the number 200

Skyrim is taking place 200 years after the events of Oblivion so that pretty much confirmed their love for 200

This threads never ends