I would buy 12.

Though, when properly modded, BGS' Murder Hobo Theme Park Adventures are quite enjoyable too

No...
*Fallout was Cavalier Oblique.
But it should be primarily ISO/3D/tactical. Fallout also had a razor-tongued text box for close-up inspection of things, but there is no reason that a modern 3D engine cannot offer the limited use of a First Person camera mode, used for close inspection; KoTOR had this.
I would rather this not be fully playable though. Similarly, in the game 'Legend of Grimrock', the player has the option of 'mouse-looking' in any direction for a detailed view at any angle, but they are not permitted to move about at the same time; it's for information, not exploration.
_____________________

I prefer series appropriate games; I would not want a turn based Elder Scrolls title; nor a first person Super Mario Bros or Iso-3D Halo and Fear titles... except perhaps as spin-offs of the core series.
____________________

How does that matter to anything? What I mean is, 'So what? Who cares if it's popular?'.
Of course they sold it hand over fist, but what they sold is a different story entirely.
To make the point, the most popular cinnamon and wasabi sold, isn't usually made of either of those.
I would argue that it is the same with Bethesda's use of the Fallout series.
____________________

An appropriate Fallout title is simple to outline:

Something I'd like to see done, is allotting the screen [polygon] budget to a fullscreen dialog UI, and presenting talking heads of like caliber with the NVidia tech demos, or at least par with La:Noire.

It's not about how much money that Fallout can earn, it's about whether or not Fallout sticks to what it started out as and follows a path that improves upon the design choices that the original developers set out for it. And Fallout 3 did not 'improve' upon 'anything'. Fallout's future as a cashcow is certain, but Fallout's future as an isometric turn-based cRPG with heavy design on moral ambiguitiy and choice and consequence is gone, at least whenever Bethesda makes a triple-a title. SPECIAL became trivial in Fallout 3. The choice and consequence of building a character is a joke in Fallout 3. The world design is cartoonish. The moral ambiguitiy is kinder-garten level for the most part. The writing is sub-par. The map node system is removed despite the fact that through DLC's they've shown that a map node system 'could work'. Turn-based combat was ripped out and haphazzardly replaced with a first person mode. Isometric view is gone.

So in what way did Fallout 3 'improve' upon Fallout? Did they improve SPECIAL? No they didn't. Did they improve upon the map node system? No they didn't. Did they improve upon the turn-based combat? No, they just swapped it out. Did they improve upon the choice and consequence? Clearly they did not. Did the writing improve? Absolutely not. Either they failed to improve upon its predecessors or they just swapped things out with game mechanics and design choices from Oblivion.

Bethesda Fallout games will sell well, that's a certainty and I would not argue against that. It's clear that Bethesda knows how to create games that will rake in a ton of cash. But to me the integrity of a franchise's roots is far more important than huge piles of cash. Fallout 3 'is' detrimental to 'Fallout's' future but it was not detrimental to Bethesda's profit margain. There's a big difference between the two.

And who says that cRPG's are 'old'? Aren't FPS' older? What about Wasteland 2? Shadowrun Returns? Underrail? Pillars Of Eternity? Dead State? Divinity: Original Sin? Torment: Tides Of Numenera? cRPG's are not "old games", they are just a "different kind of game" from the typical mainstream triple-a title kinda stuff. cRPG's are making a resurgence and it's shown that with the right budget a cRPG can be done and be profitable. Why would a new Fallout game by a third party studio designed as the old games be a "remake of an old game"? I think the difference between you and I is that I don't think of cRPG's as a "thing of a the past" but rather as just another viable genre to develop games for.

But like I said, asking for Bethesad to 180 the franchise back to its roots is insane. They aren't gonna let go of their cashcow. I get that. But I don't see what harm there'd be in allowing a third party to develop a cRPG Fallout game with a reasonable budget for its niche. 'You' and other's like you don't have to buy it. But my interested in Fallout 4 and any future titles is fading away with each year. Why shouldn't I, one of the people that made sure that Fallout 1/2/T sold well in the first place, be given a game every once in a while? It's not like we can't have both. Those of you who enjoy the first person sandbox realtime aspects still get your fix from Bethesda. But fans like me? We haven't been given anything. All we got was FNV which to me was just 'the best out of a bad situation'.

If the next game doesn't turn a profit it's probable that there won't be any more Fallouts - either isometric or 1st person - for any of us. So it is, in part, about "how much money that Fallout can earn."

This isn't about what Bethesda does best. Nobody is suggesting Bethesda make a FO Iso game. It is if Obsidian makes one. No doubt Bethesda will do what they do best, so why not let Obsidian do what they do best, if they are given another shot.

Some of the games Bethesda Softworks publishes from other studios under the Zenimax umbrella aren't blockbusters and they are still here. The Elder Scrolls isn't going away because of ESO.

I truely believe if FO4 was announced tomorrow as a turnbased topdown view game there would be riots in the street and on the web.

This forum would freeze from all the hate mail posts.

A famous quote I read once...oh yes it was yesterday.

why look down at the world when you can be in it ?- alizarin327

i think they can go back to the roots in some ways for sure, they probably should, like you said making SPECIAL more of an impact, i agree 100% i want some of those aspects to kinda be more back to the roots, i don't want overpowered and less meaningful like in fallout 3, to me fallout 3 was still a very immersive game but i do think there is a lot of room for improvement and they would benefit by incorporating a lot of the original ideas, they just need to be done right, i hope they consulted some of the original developers in the making of flalout 4, i think both studio's should combine to make fallout games, there should be a seperate fallout team consisting of both obsidian and bethesda people just to make a new fallout game every 3 years, just focusing on the series and nothing else at least for a couple games.

West Coast isometric and East Cost first person would be pretty amazing. I came from the Elder Scrolls side of the world so that'll always be my favorite, but if they could get Obsidian to make an iso less like Wasteland 2 and more like Pillars of Eternity I'd be onboard in a heartbeat.

Aw, this feeling. I know it well, too well for my own good.

I'll say this, I will always be up for another isometric RPG Fallout game. Especially after Pillars of Eternity. After all of the amazing work that was put into that game, could you imagine what Obsidian can do for an isometric Fallout game today? Goodness, I think I will be in video game heaven if that were to happen.

But, there is a reality that I have to accept that tells me we're not going to see another isometric Fallout. Bethesda has established a "Fallout" fanbase ever since they released Fallout 3. Hell, they already have a fanbase that just likes the way Bethesda games are played. Those fanbases have expectations for what they see in what they think is a "Fallout" game. If a future Fallout game that is part of the main series would all of a sudden go back to its roots as an isometric RPG? No doubt some kiddies are going to be upset about that.

Still, despite the likelihood of it never happening, another spin-off from Obsidian would be nice. And maybe, just maybe, Bethesda would allow it to be in the isometric style of its original self. Perhaps during an event that is celebrating some sort of Fallout anniversary or some [censored], I don't know. I'm just looking for an excuse to make this happen. But if that can't happen, so be it, it's just a harsh reality that must be accepted. But none the less, ANY Fallout game developed by Obsidian would be good.

Or you know, just hand over Fallout all together to Obsidian to develop and for Bethesda to publish! Another brilliant idea that will likely never happen as well, but should!

Nobody has suggested FO4 be iso. Doesn't seem like you understand the poll. This isn't what BGS would or should make, but what Obsidian could make. Why would you care what Obsidian be allowed to do if they get to make another FO game?

I say "no".

I recently downloaded Baldur's Gate and tried playing, note "tried". One of my issues with it after playing 1st person for so many years now is the way things unfold into view. I like being able to see in the distance as I walk, or go up high and peer through a scope and see what is out in the distance. I also grow tired of having to tell my companions what to do at all times. I guess I have grown lazy and would prefer to just assign the companion to hold a position, or be able to issue command to attack this person, and then go after the next without having to check and re assign them a task.

I also say "no" for another reason: Obsidian should NOT make another Fallout title, IOS or otherwise, unless and until FO4 establishes the direction of the series. FO4 will likely follow up on the storyline and lore of FO3, and hopefully find a plausible way to tie ALL the lore together, even if it is only half plausible. The Obsidian Fallout would then need to follow the lead of whatever FO4 does when making their sequel. Even if the Obsidian game is FO:NV 2, it should flow with the lore BGS sets forth. Perhaps THAT game could then establish a solid link of the conflicting lore.

I think it would be ok as a game for mobile phones, or maybe calculators since phones are pretty advanced these days

Why do people always use 20 year old iso games to compare what a modern iso game would be? If you're going to compare, compare say Wasteland 2, Pillars of Eternity, Divinity OS, XCom, etc. As I already pointed out, even FOT made vast improvements to combat AI.

As far as the second part of your post, I don't think anyone is going to debate that Obsidian wouldn't make another FO until after FO4.

On the contrary, I find these games https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yD_KI8mlf5k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKcBWGw93L0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAw4v6JbCBI on a PC. Unless someone is actually foolish enough to think these games aren't successful and can't be developed in this day and age in gaming, ha! Such a laughably silly mindset, huh? Good thing no one has fallen to those levels of fallacious judgment! Right? Right? Guys?

And why acquire a series that never intended to offer this; then offer something else with it, and throw away all it did intend?
Why look to a such series in the first place, for an experience it's not intending to give?

It's like ordering sushi at a pizza parlor (or vice versa), and getting a plate of anchovies and hot peppers; or getting tomato paste dumplings with fish bits.
Nobody wins in that situation, and no one gets to show off their talent and strengths for the customer... who came looking for something else.

The Fallout and Elder Scroll series should not be flip-sides of the same coin; they had nothing at all in common; now they are joined at the hip.

I'd love to see an Obsidian Fallout made using the Pillars engine (Turn based or not; but preferably turn based of course. Or... they could even copy Tactics and VB's hacked hybrid system.) Obsidian's design for situations would shine through, regardless of engine; but they have guys there that know how to make a good turn based game.

(Though there is no guarantee that they would, sad to say. Market pressures being what they are, and demanding compromised work.)

No, it's not even remotely like that at all. It's actually like asking for a Fallout game, and actually getting one. Maybe not the one you expected, but it's nobody's fault but your own for coming away with zero enjoyment out of an otherwise fine game.

Make no mistake, I have real issues with Fallout 3 as well, but those issues never stopped me from playing (and completing), as well as enjoying the game. I want Fallout to stay a little more true to the lore. I want it to have real choices and consequences for my actions (or lack thereof). I also want better writing,quests and companions. But what I want most is to be able to enjoy the game despite all of it's obvious flaws. It's a shame you are unable to do this, it's your loss, really.

Of course it's like that or I wouldn't have said it. There is nothing to point at of the Fallout series in FO3. None of the strengths of either are visible in the other.
Can you point to anything left that isn't cosmetic? That isn't the Vault-boy and a couple of names?

FO3 is a re-skinned TES in all the areas that count; everything else is PA paint.

They could have left out ALL lore ~it was all local to the West coast. They could have created an entirely original environment, with only scant references to NCR's presence in the west.
All that was needed was a firm RPG ~not a WestWorld style PA simulator that focuses on acting out whimsy. No need for Enclave [dead], no need for FEV [rare in its liquid state; and it's local to the west coast]. No need for ghouls [unique to their Necropolis origins].

I voted iso, although I personally prefer fp/tp.

I don't really see why folks love 'Bethesda' styled games so much ("they should do what they do best").

The only thing I respect and adore in Bethesda games is the level design. Bethesda games do a good job at converting narrative elements into visuals. Yeah, they can create atmosphere through noninteractive design, like a picture can or a movie. But everything gameplay-related, everything that requires action and reaction - combat, dialogue, character development, quest design, even other kinds of discovery apart from their boring "you get a camera and may move it through our sandbox world! I bet you can find much stuff! Don't worry, nothing you do matters, our world is as static and noninteractive as it gets!" kind of 'exploration' - is subpar at best.

All that makes a game a game - the interaction, player choice - is done badly and inconsequential in Bethesda games. And I think this is because they lack competence. Freedom is nothing if it can't get you anything.

Something else: Their games sell not because of content in whatever shape or form but DESPITE the content. It doesn't matter what Bethesda creates, it will always sell well. They could just as well make something of great interactive value next time.

The name 'Bethesda' is what sells. And that's a good thing, I'm all for developer brands instead of IPs becoming the number one marketing gag - sequels should be eradicated almost entirely. The setting can be reused but the concept of a subsequent title that somehow dubiously continues the first one (why?) is inherently flawed imo.

@BarrettsFloyd: Yeah, every game in the world is enjoyable for everyone, every single one. It's your fault if you prefer a certain style over another, you rob yourself of all the fun. Everything that claims it's entertainment is fun.

Yeah, it's pretty much a Fallout-themed TES total conversion mod; Murder Hobo Adventures: Post-Apocalyptic

Not that i mind a sci-fi themed MHA, but it was pretty pointless to get the Fallout license for that, they could have made their own setting

I've never really played the classic Fallouts, but from what little i have, i agree with people who say Wasteland 2 is more Fallout 3 than Murder Hobo Adventures Post-Apocalyptic 1: Kill All the Future Nazis

Anyway, on topic, which i think i already posted, i'm all for more Fallout "spin-offs" (as in, the real sequels ) by Obsidian.

As mentioned previously, I would try playing some modern cRPGs to get a feel for what this hypothetical Fallout title would be. Perhaps the aforementioned Pillars of Eternity is your best bet since it's from Obsidian themselves.

On another note, this is the strangest bunch of "Fallout fans" I've ever heard from . Why wouldn't you want Obsidian to make another Fallout? Your original reasoning was poor since the west and east coast lore didn't interact that much in Fallout New Vegas...... Obsidian pretty much did their own thing. I just find it incredible that you're in favor of actually limiting how much Fallout we could receive as a whole.

No I understand the poll completely. What I am saying is the 1000s upon 1000s of us, which includes me, that bought love and play FO3/NV and Skyrim for their gameplay style would raise hell if any time was wasted on a iso/topdown view FO game.

The suits at Zeni would never allow all that $$$ and DEV time to be wasted at Obsidian for an audience about 1/1000th the size of the following they have now do to the 1st/3rd person RPGFPS they developed. Obsidian did such a wonderful job with

FONV I can see Zeni green lighting a FO game but IMO it won't be ISO.

Don't you think that's flawed reasoning? This is not Fallout 4, so the game would have a negligible impact on Bethesda's bottom line. If Obsidian so desired they could probably have a very successful kickstarter for a new iso Fallout title. Even if Bethesda funded the game itself it would pretty much be pocket change in comparison to what they're used to. Skyrim's budget likely ran into the hundreds of millions, while an iso game would cost just a fraction of that. The game is a fairly safe investment from the financial standpoint, and it would bring the older fans the game they've wanted for ages now.

That makes very little sense. Firstly, Fallout 4 would have already been made in classic Bethesda fashion, and it will likely be a blockbuster, selling tens of millions of copies.
At this point you would already have a game that you'll love and enjoy. So why is it that you don't want Obsidian to "waste" their time making a niche Fallout title? Why would you be so upset that a spinoff title didn't follow the exact same formula as the main game in the series? Are you afraid of change ruining what YOU love in Fallout? Because that is a very interesting paradox, and hopefully you can see why there is so much desire for a return to what people once loved.

You're absolutely right, it is my problem. It's a problem that I'm able to admit to, rather than blaming it on somebody else for not designing the game to suit my tastes.