!?

*I will have to think about it a bit... No slight intended, but that caught me off guard, and I'm generally not surprised by anything.

This is irrelevant. Anyone may interpret the same thing differently, but this is not the same thing for everyone to interpret. Ask yourself what's missing from Fallout in Fallout 2; then ask what's missing in FO3.

Clearly Bethesda has their own interpreted priorities of the series... For instance their confession about the series' writing, and that not being a battle they wanted to pick... That's strike one. Then there is that the game forgets almost any offense in a number of hours; but the series always held the player to their actions... that's strike two. And then there was the complete abandonment of the Iso-perspective; http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/yep_zps1417cd1d.jpg... strike 3, and there's plenty more. They wanted to make a simulator; they didn't care what the series was about. They clearly wanted 'rule of cool', and graphics drool.

FO3 is a great experience on its own, but it doesn't deliver on the Fallout experience; it only delivers the Fallout names ~draqed on the same game Bethesda has been refining for twenty years. A game that's like no other, and yet very like 'RPG-antimatter' [IMO]. The franchise is dead in FO3... Bringing back Isometric & turn based combat wouldn't help that.

Yes.... They got everything right that they copied directly; then they embellished it. It does seem like Fallout was the last of the special sauce, doesn't it; to be liberally applied. (Bottle-caps/FEV/Enclave... and such. )
Ask yourself this... Would ANYONE in the Brotherhood of Steel, passively live in filth and debris for years ~(for days)? Like they do in the Citadel?** You don't think Lyons or other would have assigned tooth-brushes to all the initiates ~(to scrub the tile grout with)? They did a fine job on the lore yes indeedy. Nothing pre-established in the Fallout series is even close, and yet it's presented as the originals. New stuff is fine, but the old stuff is new stuff too ~in every respect. Why even bother with the name but for marketing draw... for a product that isn't what the name meant to anyone at the time.

So yes.. while it should be iso-3D, it cannot be, for the very reason it should have been in FO3.

** This is your answer gcubed. FO3 is meant as a digital resort; a theme park for customers looking for digital cosplay; and as such, its priorities are the world sim ~over everything else, because that's the point of it. Like I said before, discarded the strengths of the games, and glorified PA appearance of it all (for sake of the tour)... Even when it wouldn't make sense.

This isn't a debate on turn based vs real time, or if BGS changed FO for right or wrong.

This is supposed to be, if after FO4, Obsidian gets to make another FO game, should they be allowed to make it Iso.

Hells yes, they should be allowed to make the game they want. Why people have a problem with that is pretty hilarious, cuz ya don't have to buy it, and it shows me the people who are against it are not FO fans at all, but BGS fans.

Personally, I think variation is a good thing, and if they license out other FO titles the direction of those games should be allowed creative freedom.

Of course nobody has to buy it, but why not give the majority the best game you can? It seems the majority doesn't like isometrics, so Obsidian could make an isometric game and cater to 20% or a fps and cater to 80%.

Maybe people who don't want isometric Fallout are fans of Bethesda and Obsidian, how about that? Many people enjoyed FNV which wasn't isometric but was pretty much Obsidian and just some Bethesda flavor via engine and game assets.

Also, even if many players have started the series with Fallout 3 it's not nice to exclude them from "Fallout fandom". Maybe Fallout 3 is not Fallout to you, but it is for the rest of the world (majority, maybe?). I think anyone who loves 1 game in a series is a fan of said series. I love Morrowind so I am a fan of TES, regardless how much I like or dislike Oblivion and Skyrim.

The FPS majority has Bethesda's latest open world shooter (and a similiar TES game will surely follow to keep the pan hot for them). Why not try to broaden the appeal of the series rather than kicking those proverbial 20% right out?

Response moved to

http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1515848-what-defines-fallout/

Playing Old World Blues last night, I can see that Obsidian is perfectly capable of making a sandbox just as well as Bethesda and making a better Fallout game than Bethesda could.

I tried going to the older titles, and well, I just stopped at Shady Sands. I'm used to missing in combat as Morrowind was my first TES game - but in-game, you had advice from NPCs about how to succeed in combat as well as other things. Iso movement in the originals felt a bit awkward to me, and coming from FO3 and NV, I can't really get into them as much as I'd hoped. If there was a mod which kept the core RPG mechanics but made it in first person, I'd download that in a heartbeat.

So, if Obsidian were to make a NV 2, I wouldn't want it to be an iso title. Instead, I want them to take the Fallout 4 engine and have improved RPG mechanics compared to Fallout 4, with improved world building compared to NV and their gripping stories and characters. I want the game to build on the foundation of what has been done so far, instead of tearing it apart and building a new one.

Edit: Also, I love how Obsidian said in their "Making of NV" video, that they designed the game with both audiences in mind. I don't get that from Bethesda - it seems that they're favouring people who don't want any consequences in the games.

Yeah surely they hate consequences in Fallout games and will never make them. Espescially because FO3 was their first one so its clear that every game will be like that. The Pitt was a pure accident and actually noone at Bethesda wanted to Obsidian allow to make NV because they surley add consequences.

Such nonsense....

In the Skyrim FAQ, they said that they would do a step back from Fallout 3 and make Skyrim consequence-free. And guess what, Skyrim sold very well.

I suspect that Bethesda is going to do the same for Fallout 4, not being able to give the middle finger to anyone and going your own way, but instead being railroaded into a series of poorly executed and fridge logic-filled events.

Yeah Skyrim == Fallout they are all the same....

Fallout 4 will be terrible everyone will hate it. I am sure of it. The good old times where everything was better will never come back.

Isn't that the likeliest scenario to look forward for based on Beth's track record?

I suspect, and a lot of people do suspect as well, that Fallout 4 will just be Skyrim with guns. I will be amazed by the world at first but then I would realise that the whole world is shallow and that my character will be a lone wolf and a social recluse.

I mean I would love NV's improvements to make their way to Fallout 4, but I think Bethesda is going to streamline it further.

Insidious IMO.
Best judged by what criteria? Certainly not by the Fallout criteria.
Best as in what the majority of players might want? (When has that ever best the best of anything?)
If I take your meaning correctly, it assumes that to forcibly redesign an established franchise to match a majority preference is somehow a good thing?
As in... 'For the greater good' perchance?

*Just imagine that happening with food. Imagine if the available food was conformed to what the majority liked... What if the majority demanded only artificial sweeteners, and one could no longer buy their favorite anything but that it was sugar free?... and lactose free/ gluten free/ and... ~and no [unpopular] options. Tough or go make your own. That seems [to me] to be similar to what you are suggesting with games when you posit that the %80 are some how above the rest. As though they could demand [or should demand] that they too MUST be able to enjoy... say... Vegemite, only it's way too salty; best add & remove whatever it takes to make it taste like Nutella... That way it will look the same, but more people will like it.
(Except those that liked it for its original qualities. )

I prefer games designed to be 'best in class', not "best according to the opinion of the most popular class"; irrespective of their established norms.


Alas, the Pit is DLC; optional, and you've already bought the game. I wouldn't expect that in the base game... DLC behavior you can remove, but you can't omit that from the base PC & Console game.
Fiendish no?

I don't mind if the Fallout's are FPP from here on out. Obsidian did a great job making a great FPP Fallout game. Wasteland can be our premiere isometric wasteland rpgs.

Yeah evil Bethesda making The Pitt optional and it can be taken away. But Zeta you dont get ever from your mind amd Broken Steel destroyed the whole game and Fallout World, Evil Bethesda Evil

So, if FO4 comes and is poorly written, hardly any consequences Skyrim++, you gonna apologize every time you jump down people's throats when they, logically fear, that is what FO4 will be? Why should we give BGS benefit of the doubt after Skyrim?

Atleast this poll proves that people do not want massive changes to New Vegas and Skyrim.

64 to 18 right now is pretty damning. Bethesda listens to their fans, and their fans want them to keep making games that win hundreds of GOTY awards.

Wasteland isn't like Fallout though.

That's a saddening statistic, anything that was once fallout will be expunged for what is now tes.
Also can someone give sesom some ritalin? There's only so many jumping bananas and hyperbolic statements one can take.

Games like New Vegas are here to stay. The fans want it, the devs want to make it, and with massive critical acclaim with every release the open world RPG doesn't need to fear anything in the near future.

I don't know of a single person here that claims to dislikes open world games, or would suggest they not be made.

For myself, I love them... Shooters too. My only qualm with the Bethesda games is that they acquired one of those many titles whose core design is not suitable to be grafted to TES mechanics while retaining it's identity and planned experience in any appreciable form.
IE... is it a really a strawberry if it's actually a pear, just called a strawberry for marketing purposes? Does its pleasant taste justify renaming the pear as the strawberry from then on? (if the majority demanded it?) A sad day indeed [IMO] when that becomes the common logic.

FO3 is a good game, but I wish the they had not chosen to call it 'Fallout 3'; that name have been should be reserved, along with every other number after the "Fallout" title; as it's indicating a matched set.

I think the poll just proves most people on the FO forum are BGS fans and not FO fans. Not only do they want BGS to make BGS games, which is fully reasonable, but they want OTHER developers to make BGS styled games. That, is ridiculous.

The other funny part about it, is while Obsidian can't make BGS styled games as good as BGS(go figure), they CAN make better FO games. God forbid a FO game that could include 4-5 states over a massive game area, and instead we will constantly be stuck around one ruined pre-war city for all time. At that rate in about 50 years we may actually get some decent FO lore.

Nope I simply don't assume anything about FO4 until I played it fully through. Prejudgement isn't my cup of coffee as it is like for so many people here.

Looking at the thousends of postings in the FO4 speculation thread there is already so much negativism and prejudgement that actually FO4 doesn't have any chance for these people.

No matter what Bethesda will do.

I disagree with this in part. Looking at the NV DLCs, Obsidian is perfectly capable of making a BGS styled game as well as Bethesda, actually even better than Bethesda. It's just in the base game, they didn't have enough time to make the Mojave be as detailed as the CW.

Still surprised that there's no Unique Landscapes mod equivalent for NV. So much empty space.

And I would like to see Obsidian attempt (and finish) another sandbox game. I know they had plans for one, using the Skyrim engine, but it seems they couldn't work out a deal with Bethesda or something.

In my mind fallout 3 was a sequel to oblivion, and skyrim a sequel to fallout 3 and fallout 4 will hopefully be a sequel to skyrim in that it will build on and improve upon everything achieved with skyrim and this is my favourite "series" and I don't care about your beloved old fallout games and how my favourite series absorbed your favourite series and in fact I wish my series would absorb more of your beloved franchises and grow ever more powerful. This is my obnoxious perspective, and unfortunately for you guys the statistical data of sales figures suggests this obnoxious perspective is shared by the majority and this is where we're headed. Your isometric games will remain a quirky niche market and one that has no rights to the fallout franchise anymore.

Unfortunately indeed. Goes a long way to show what a sorry state things are in from a creative standpoint when everything needs to be one and the same. And judging from your post this goes for the fanbase as well.