[censored] no. Don't dare to touch TES! :tes:

Bethesda make good games, not good RPG's, that is something which Obsidian is actually good at.
And actually Bethesda does horrible things for Fallout like ignore lore, bend lore, break lore, completely screwed over the atmosphere and coherency of the gameworld and failed to implement SPECIAL, skills, quest design and dialogue in a proper Fallout design.
Obsidian actually brought back several Fallout mechanics and fleshed out previous one to great lengths and in doing so turning it into a far more superior Fallout game than Fallout 3 was.

Being a better game is completely subjective.
Being a better Fallout game on the other hand is not.

Fallout 3 wasn't a bad game, not by any means, it was actually a great game which I spent over 800 hours in.
But that doesn't mean that it was any better than Fallout: Brotherhood Of Steel was when considering it's a numbered Fallout title.

On that note, Obsidian should not make a TES game cause they don't follow the same game design as TES and Bethesda does.
Bethesda on the other hand needs to learn from Obsidian and produce an actual Fallout game when Fallout 4 comes around or at the very least make it a joint project.

That you dislike New Vegas is fine, it just wasn't the right kind of game for you.
But to say that Obsidian made a worse Fallout game than Bethesda did is absurd.

[edit]

Oh and by the way, for those who think New Vegas is linear: http://gabriel77cortez.deviantart.com/art/NV-map-how-to-get-north-216758132?q=gallery%3Agabriel77cortez%2F4398145&qo=5
:goodjob:

[edit]

"Bethesda make good games, not good RPG's"
Gonna expand on this one a little:

Oblivion had very little in the choice department, you could choose a race and your skills but that's about it.
You couldn't choose dialogue to represent how your character is portrayed, if he or she is a sarcastic person or a respectful person or just a little brat.
No choice, at all, only silly 'topic dialogue' which didn't define the character at all.
And there were no quest branching, it was either "Do this evil quest or don't do it."
Oblivion had a lot of dungeons, a lot of enemies, a nice story with a bunch of crappy side stories, but apart from choosing your race, appearance and skills (which you can all max anyway, and with attributes that doesn't really do too much.) there wasn't much choice in it at all.
An RPG is about role playing, if I have to create my own dialogue in my head and avoid content cause I want to be an evil character then it's bad RPG design.

Now, onto Fallout 3, it had choices and dialogue which was a major improvement for Bethesda, what it didn't have was good Fallout design or a good amount of the stuff already there.
Fallout 3 was more of a shooter than it was an RPG, the quests you were given mostly gave you directions for new places to go shoot stuff at.
And the dialogue never had much in the consequence department, hell, NPC's were essential and couldn't be killed or if you shot a town up you could just return three days later with happy smiles on the townfolks face's.
So it on the other hand "did" have choices, just far too few of them and the ones that were there had no real impact.

So Bethesda is good at making sandbox games, be it fantasy or shooter, but they are not good at actual roleplaying mechanics.

Which actually Obsidian excel at.
They know how to handle meaningful dialogue and choices, they know how to reward the player for good choices and how to punish the player for bad choices.

Unless over the years the RPG genre has devolved into: Pick a class and murder stuff.

[edit2]

Course, there is a dispute going on about what actually constitutes as an RPG.
So your perspective of it might differ from mine.
I just don't see where the acronyms for 'dungeon crawling and killing hordes of enemies with simplified dialogue mechanics and little to no choices and little to no choices and consequences' fit into RPG. :confused:
(DCaKHoEWSDMaLTNCaLTNCaCRPG )
Or has the RP acronym changed from role-playing into something else while I was on vacation? Come on people give me the update here!

[edit4]

And the irony of it all is that RPG's originated from: Pick a class and murder stuff.
Maybe games like Fallout: New Vegas needs a new genre?

[edit5]

Still, the point is that Fallout: New Vegas was more of a Fallout game and more of an RPG than Fallout 3 was.

And if you want to argue against that allow me to remind you that there are over 70 sidequests in New Vegas, many of which has several solutions to them while Fallout 3 (vanilla, DLC's don't count) had 17, New Vegas allowed 5 ways to end the main quest, it allowed you to kill anyone you wanted to, it made you pick perks more carefully and expanded on Black Widow/Lady Killer heavily and made counter perks for them too and it had tons and tons and tons of delicious well written dialogue.
Just that alone makes Fallout 3 shrink like it's made a snowangel face down on the northpole... Naked...

:nono:

Care to elaborate?

I had a lot of fun playing New Vegas so if they are going to make a spin off then I won't have a problem with it but for the main series I would rather play a Bethesda original, still if it has a TES label in it I would probably still buy it

I've played about everything Obsidian has ever made and I'm going to have to say, no. No, no, no, no. Obsidian is just... not a good developer. Gameplay, story, it's always just on the cusp between "bad" and "mediocre." Usually more on the mediocre side than the bad.

this would be like if valve gave half life away to activision.

FLAMER WAR :flamethrower:

Please no. I do not like their choice of DRM.

I like call of duty games the multiplayer is very intertaining and fun.you said fallout 3 is better then oblivion thats just your opinian while it was a fun game I just like oblivion better.my opinion

This is just what I was thinking. Bethesda's writing staff are, to be brutally honest, just bad. Even the whole thing in Morrowind was ruined for me when you were told repeatedly beforehand exactly what you'd be spending the next several hours doing.

It is a mesh of two different ideals, but I think that a compromise can totally be reached. Honestly, I'm not sure why Obsidian haven't put themselves up for sale after Alpha Protocol and DS3 were such failures. Them being acquired by Zenimax would be the best thing they could do in terms of a creative and financial decision, and they'd most likely have free reign to do a lot more projects with deadline security.

The differences between the two this-gen Fallout games may be numerous, but they're both the same at the core. Letting Bethesda and Obsidian team-up to do what each does best would be a great idea.

I absolutely would not want the series to be shuffled off to Obsidian.... There is a zero-percent chance of people taking kindly to that sort of thing 'round here....

I wouldn't mind, as long as its a spinoff like Redguard/Battlespire but not take total control of TES VI or so on...

Even if obsidian did it, it would be interesting on how they would get the game to be more up to speed on the lore, look what they did with NV.

New Vegas wasn't the "True" Fallout story. No one said Fallout was limited to the West Coast. The issue was Bethesda's East Cost romp being too simple to reintroduce the series to their own Bethfans and to new players.

On the topic of Obsidian Entertainment, it's a hell no and yes. I dislike Chris Avellone's work, he has a habit of messing up lore. However I'm a large fan of J.E. Sawyer. I wish Bethesda stole him away from Obsidian. I like Feargus too no doubt.

The issue being Obsidian's terrible track record of coding games along with the minimal time they get to make these games. Unless they hired new programmers.

Which is why I don't want another Fallout solely from them. I'd rather they joint-consulted and worked with Bethesda for the writing and Bethesda made the game.

As to the possibility of a Obsi made TES game. That's to Elder Scrolls fans opinion. In that regard I don't have much to say.

I do not understand this negativity.

FONV was not as good as FO3, but id did sell well and added some cash to Bethesda Softworks's treasury.

It would not prevent BGS from making more and better Fallout games, and would only help them with more cash.

Giving side branches of TES games to other companies, to make, would not also prevent them from making better TES games later on, so...

I agree that I doubt it would work out well as Howard said. Obsidian doesn't have experience with TES's lore, even if some play the series or have looked at it.

While Behesda's team has known the lore for over a decade and built it.

No doubt they'd attempt to stay true to lore however it's probably not a great idea.

As to Oblivion, we all know the faults of it. Enough, Morrowind was a sub-par game aswell in every aspect other than the lore and world. Plus we speak of it in every topic practically.

Make no mistake people Fallout 4 will be made by Beth. Hell, I'm a fan of the first two games and I loved Fallout 3. New Vegas was good, but not as good as FO3.

Consensus by who? A bunch of nostalgia goggled people who would rather see rehashes than a new interpretation? I feel the first Fallouts were hindered by the isometric style and clunky combat, Fallout 3 was much more engaging due to the style. New Vegas was better in many regards due to higher volume of quests, more weapon customization, and slightly better story. I HIGHLY doubt that BGS would release their flagship IP to other studios regardless if they were a partner or not

i wouldnt mind it since i preferred NV over fallout 3 (except for fallout 3 having better enemies and better world design) but they had better seriously get their act together on bug hunting. fallout NV was ridiculously bug ridden and i still get random crashes to this day even though im using a minimal amount of mods and i wasnt getting crashes from fallout 3 or oblivion anymore.

I prefer obsidian stay away from the franchises i like... obsidian is just not that good of a game dev company, theyve never made a complete game that isnt full of bugs or just not finished. Dont get me wrong they have some great writing and some great game ideas and features, its just they go for something on too big of a scale for them to acheive every time they make a game.

and sure you can make the arguement that bethesda releases buggy games too but atleast bethesda actually fixes the bugs unlike obsidian.

I'd totally go for a more narrative driven action-adventure spin off game from Obsidian just so long as the lore buffs at BGS had a tight rein over things.

I really like Obsidian, they're one of my favorite devs. They get a bad rap, but they always get screwed over by the publisher. LucasArts specifically cut development time by a whole bunch for KOTOR 2. Betheseda actually gave them a good time frame to make a game, and wala, they make a masterpiece. The bugs were annoying, but I'm sure Beth would be on it for the next game.

As long as Obsidian developes a spin-off of TES, similar to New Vegas, then I'm all for it.

I loved New Vegas. Great game. Saying that though, i'd never want an Obsidian developed TES. That's not a knock on them because I wouldn't want any other developer put out an Elder Scrolls either. This is BGS's baby, and it just wouldn't be the same without them.

I don't think Todd is actually considering, he was just trying to put the question of too the side with out saying "HELL NO"

Isn't there an "Unofficial" patch for Oblivion because Bethesda WOULDN'T fix it?