It's a logical fallacy to state that another isometric Fallout title would just sell the same as the old ones. The franchise has grown exponentially, and while many of those new fans enjoy the first person experience, some would also probably be willing to try something new. We're talking about a game that can bring the old isometric Fallout's to the modern day. Furthermore, I highly doubt that this would drive Obsidian to bankruptcy. A kickstarter for a new isometric Fallout would likely be one of the biggest ever.

That was definitely a weak part of the game, and I think that's a major way that a new isometric Fallout could evolve as a departure from the originals. It could still be a homage to the classics, but with additions that are almost certain to be universally loved.

obsidian didn't have a lot of time to craft the world so thats prob why its a bit emtpy when it comes to building complexes, towns etc but bethesda games have a lot of complex locations, even ES games, they have 150 dungeons of all sizes not counting the above ground locations like forts. the more complex the environment the more there is to do, its ok to have some empty areas but for a map the size of NV it was very empty, given more time i think obsidian could of made a lot more complex locations, i think it just comes down to that, time. they did very good with the short time they had but i would not say the world design was some great benchmark it wasn't, it left very little for tactical combat and sneaking around, you need nooks and crannies for interest, just having two enemies face off like gunfighters with nowhere to hide gets repetetive very fast and its not a tactical exercise. i prefer games that have more locations that give you a lot of tactical options, laying mines, suprising ememies, being stealthy and sneaking around, NV didn't have a lot of areas that was condusive for that. and thats fun stuff to do, that creates a lot of interest, you need more than story and dialogue this isn't the 80s and 90s.

i wouldn't buy it, in the 90s i would play an isometric game but not today, why look down at the world when you can be in it ? it wouldn't sell very well, probably as well as wasteland 2, i'm not sure sure that would cut it, obsidian i do think will make another fallout game but it would be first person.

Believe me when I say I'm as big a fan of first person perspective as you are. Most games I have are FPS and I find them to be the most immersive. But on the other hand, I'm sympathetic to the plight of the older fallout fans that enjoyed the game for what it used to be. The title I have in mind would not be Fallout 4. It would be a "spinoff" (which is fairly ironic) and it would be targeting a niche. Have you ever had your favorite series morphed into something that you dislike? If the answer is yes, then you know why older Fallout fans want something that's seemingly inferior. Nostalgia and a number of other reasons that more or less accompany it.

A Fallout game made in the style of the originals by a game studio that has Tim Cain on board?

What Fallout fan wouldn't want that?

This is why you give Marcus a Plasma Rifle.

But anyway, I'd buy 5 copies of it if it was Iso. Maybe more even. People, however, are correct. This isn't the 1990s, and the games would no doubt have improvements in the already mentioned AI department. I also wouldn't be surprised if the player be given the option to control the entire party, which, did exist in FO Tactics. FOT aleady made vast improvements. Better graphics, enemies used cover, you could go prone, etc.

It funny to me when people whine about FO1 and 2 combat when there was a game called FO Tactics which addressed many of those issues, and can be improved upon even further in 2015.

Maybe they could even bring Chris Taylor on board, too.

I don't see why Bethesda can't capitalize on both fan-bases. Give Obsidian a budget necessary for a turn-based isometric cRPG and reap the profits.

It's not about the highest amount of money they can earn, but rather how much budget they can put out and how much of a profit they will gain from it.

Bethesda knows Obsidian or InXile could do this.

Bethesda has the money to fund a smaller budgeted game and not worry if it is a flop (since it is a far lower budget than a triple-a title would be).

Bethesda knows that there is a split in the fan-base.

To me, it'd be logical to at the very least 'try once' and see how it turns out.

So yeah, if Obsidian is allowed to create a Fallout game I would hope that they'd (if given free reign over the development) return to isometric turn-based combat with a cRPG design. But I wouldn't want to force Obsidian to do anything. I'd rather they be allowed to do what they want to do as that'd probably give us the best product they have in mind.

Again, it is about the budget and the profit margain. A triple-A title may earn a higher number but in % how much did it profit?

And at the end of the day, if a cRPG by Obsidian would be profitable for its budget, what'd be the harm in allowing them or other studios that knows how to develop cRPG's to develop more of them?

For me, the changes Bethesda made for Fallout 3 were detrimental to Fallout's future. Even FNV which takes a few steps back into the right direction and even adds some things the earlier games didn't have which I really like it did not feel like a true Fallout game. It'd be absurd of me to demand or even 'ask' that Bethesda themselves return Fallout to what it once was. That ain't gonna happen. They're gonna keep making their The Elder Scrolls games with a Fallout paintjob. But it is not unfeasible to ask that they cater to fans like me as well as the new ones, and it can be done.

You who like Bethesda's Fallout will still get your Bethesda Fallout games. I don't see what harm there'd be by giving the cRPG Fallout fans a game.

Better words have never been spoken.

1st/3rd for me. They can even take the VATS out I never use it.

I will not buy an XCOM with a Fallout skin..

i see your point but the old fallout fans tend to trash bethesda for "ruining the franchise" so that along with the fact that it wouldn't really appeal to enough people to make it worth the money and it would prob detract and not be helpful in any way at all, people want first person, first person is immersive, and if a new company made it they prob wouldn't make it like the older games anyway the "old fans" would still not like it and just complain more, there's no upside, bethesdas money is in the future, isometric is really an old style of gaming before first person came around, its like going back to pc's or cellphones from the 90s, i see the nostaligia but its hard to capture the past, its like trying to recapture a moment from 20 years earlier its a cool thing to think about but practically its just not viable.

you may see fallout 3 as being "detrimental" to fallouts future but i don't see why you would think that, fallout 3 was a success in every way, and so was skyrim. fallout 4 will be their best game to date, its not just gonna be a copy of fallout 3 in a new area, its gonna be innovative, it will be different in a lot of ways. remembering the old days is fun and i liked old games also, but i don't want remakes of old games, the nostalgic part says yes but practically its not viable, we already have had a lull in games the last couple years, i think things are changing, more detailed worlds, larger maps, more open world games, i think this year and next year especially is gonna be a resurge of quality games.

I think some others before me did a fine job already of explaining the economic side of making a cRPG. Yes, the game would sell less copies, but far less money would have to be spent to develop the title in the first place. It's somewhat ironic that you can't the see the point of isometric perspective, because on the flip side the older fans can't see the point of first person perspective in their Fallout titles either.

Yes, first person immerses you in the game world. The problem is that RPG mechanics won't work properly in first person, real time combat. The older fans seek a classic roleplaying experience.

Basically, this just illustrates the divide in the community. That's why it pays huge dividends to cater to both sides, regardless of how nasty you may perceive one to be. Look up "net profit". Bethesda and Obsidian can still make a sizeable net profit because their initial investment in the game wouldn't have to be large at all. At this point I feel as if you have more of a vendetta against one section of the community than against isometric games.

It seems very many; we're getting killed in the poll :0. It would probably vary dramatically depending on forum though. I love both styles of game and I just want another well written Fallout, regardless or the form it takes. Isometric would be great just as an homage to the series roots though.

well the community is divided because bethesda isn't the original fallout developer, its like that with most games that change hands, you're gonna have the fans of the originals not happy and upset at the direction of the new developer, if the franchise was bought out by another company and they made fallout a corridor type shooter or didn't make it open world or made it 3rd person only i would be upset too so i totally understand, if obsidian owned the franchise there might be more of a chance but with bethesda owning it i just don't see it, i do think obsidian will make another fallout game but its probably gonna be a sequel to NV, i wouldn't expect it to be isometric, some other company would have to do it.

You know there were games called FO1, 2, and Tactics that were Iso games right?

Seems like you don't want a Fallout game, but a TES with a Fallout skin.

Well the point of this thread isn't to guess what will happen, but to speculate on a possible design choice they could make. The thing is that even though the series has, on the surface, not changed from its roots, in reality it has deviated dramatically. The only way to really see the change is to play some Fallout 1, then hop into Fallout 3. It's a massive difference even if you ignore perspective. Obsidian is practically made up of all the original devs of Fallout, and so why shouldn't Bethesda make amends for what they've done with the franchise? Unlike others that have taken over franchises and changed the direction, they have a real chance to please both fanbases and to make a good profit while doing so. Is this a bad thing?

I don't think they should do it to make ammends. I have already suggested that IF Obsidian is given another shot at a FO game, that they be allowed to make it however they feel. If it is turn based Iso or RT ISO with a tactical mode, or if it was first person, whatever they feel comfortable with.

If they wanted to make an Iso FO, then I think they should be allowed to. If some people wouldn't buy it because of that, fine by me, as I don't have POV dictate what games I buy. A person who says they wouldn't buy it, is clearly NOT a FO fan. As a fan of FO, I'd buy a FO Card Game, board game, bumper sticker, pinball game, and most definitely a true CRpg.

Truer words have never been spoken . Obsidian would have a vision for a Fallout game if Bethesda gives them permission to make one, and it would probably inhibit their creative ability if someone imposed a certain idea on them. As for the thing about true Fallout fans, I can't agree more. Earlier I asked if the lore, atmosphere, and architecture of the Fallout universe would suddenly not matter if it were isometric, but I guess some of the newer "fans" do. It seems they are truely just fans of Fallout 3, and not the series as a whole.

I prefer turn-based game, but I wouldn't be against real time FPP... if done well. As I've written on another thread, I don't believe that combat mechanics and AI were that good in the first place in originals, but it's still better than F3/NV mechanics and AI. The main advantage of turn-based iso is that stats and character creation are way more meaningful than in twitch based combat of newer games.

Yeah, and the opportunities for them to use SPECIAL as they did in the past is also alluring. The joys of playing a low intelligence character is a small example of the kind of depth accomplishable when the game is mostly text based and the dev can really do what they want in terms of creating options for different situations through text. If they could implement the advances in Fallout Tactics then build on it, we would have a winning formula that I believe many fans don't know they would want till they try it.

yeah thats basicaly what bethesda fans want including me, i don't really care what the franchise they own is, its the style and framework of how they make games that counts, why would they deviate from what they do best ? they find ways to make improvements from previous games and be innovative but if you listen to todd howard he talks about their game philosophy a lot, he's all for new ways to do stuff but he also likes to keep some things people are familiar with so its basically the same overall feel of a bethesda game while keeping their games new. they've steadily increased the size of their develpment team since morrowind when they only had a handful of people developing morrowind, todd howard said they almost went under, but they stuck to their formula with morrowind and it worked and ever since they've got bigger and way more succesful in every way, so i wouldn't want them to make an drastic change in their style of game developing, that makes no sense.

Then what's the point of having different franchises? I don't think that anyone here has a problem with the same general open world framework, but sperate franchises need to retain their unique aspects. The fact that you don't care if Fallout becomes TES is fairly alarming. Furthermore, you're ignoring the fact that in this hypothetical situation we're assuming Fallout 4 is already released. If you have Fallout 4 in the Bethesda mold, why can't other fans have cRPG Fallout? It's not like Bethesda has to stop doing what they do best, because Obsidian would be the ones making it. You can't seem to process the idea that this would be a spinoff that wouldn't cost Bethesda much money and wouldn't cost them any time at all. They would profit, the older community would be ecastic, and ALL Fallout fans would get the opportunity to see how the older games would function if they were imbued with modern mechanics. So far you haven't had a proper argument for why this is a bad thing.

i'm not against the idea of an isometric fallout game, its always possible i suppose, wasteland 2 is isometric and from what i've seen of it, it seems ok, i'm prob gonna give it a try so thats about as close to this idea we have at the moment.

The community is divided not because of some sort of irrational bias against a particular developer but because there are two very different styles of game being discussed now when you say Fallout and enjoying one type of game says absolutely nothing about whether or not you will enjoy the other type as this poll is so skillfully demonstrating.