As many of us know, recently Obsidian released their "Pillars of Eternity" isometric RPG to critical acclaim. Many saw it as a wonderful homage to the classic RPG's of the past such as Baldurs Gate. The wonderful job that Obsidian did with this title made me wonder about what their options were if they were given the chance to make another Fallout title (Bethesda pls :0).

Because of the excellent job Obsidian did with Pillars of Eternity, I believe that they could craft a brilliant isometric RPG for Fallout that would harken back to the past. It wouldn't sell as well as modern Fallout games, but I think that Bethesda should allow Obsidian to make an isometric Fallout title just to please the forgotten older fans of the series. Unfortunately it would probably replace a "New Vegas 2" which would be the major tradeoff. What do you all think?

It wouldn't sell as good? Just to please old fans? What old fans, those who trash Bethesda all over the internet for "destroying" the franchise? I hope not.

I think Obsidian should be allowed to create a text only Fallout game in homage to the classic RPG's of the past such as Adventure.

For me it's simple, if it's isometric I don't buy.

That is the beauty of text adventures, they are isometric if you want them to be, or first person if you want them to be. They can pretty much be anything you want them to be. You are only limited by your imagination.

Still no buy

The question becomes does a Isometric game add anything to the franchise?

Speaking personally, I immensely enjoy exploring the ruins of the old world and seeing the Wasteland through my own eyes. I've nothing against Isometric perspective, and Pillars of Eternity is definitely on my list of things to play, but...the more I think about it? The less interested I am in a new Isometric Fallout.

For me, isometric or first person, it doesn't matter. All I want the core to be Fallout.

New Vegas did show that Obsidian can make a real Fallout, unlike BGS.

I prefer 1st / 3rd person RPGs. I did play a few good isometric games back in the 00's but now I'm too much addicted to being close to the character and the action.

I don't think I would buy that, since in the years of trying to like games like the original Fallouts and Baldurs Gate I found that Turn Based Iso stuff when applied to a RPG just doesnt work for me. Or at the very least, none of the games have impressed me that much. Jagged Alliance 2 did impress me however, and reminds me a lot of what I like about Beth games. Huge open world with a modding community to back it up with so much new content and a whole bunch of roleplaying to be had is really great.

Pretty much this. Bethesda (the publisher) doesn't need to cater to a public that is hostile to them from the get go. Anyway I guess the "Fallout by Bethesda" fans wouldn't appreciate an isometric game and this wouldn't be good for business. Kickstarted isometric for nostalgia is a niche, Bethesda is playing in another league.

Don't you think that's a huge generalization? You allow a vocal segment of the community to distort your view of every fan of the classics. Keep in mind, this wouldn't cost a single dime for Bethesda. They would "lend" the franchise to a proven developer, and Bethesda would be viewed more positively by the fans of the originals. Why is it that more of Fallout is a bad thing? Other franchises have spinoff games as well, and as long as the execution is good they often add to the franchise rather than detract from it.

Beth has yet to prove they can't. Not saying they will, but to write them off as a complete failure at Fallout, having only one title under their belt is very premature.

I believe it could still add a great deal to the franchise. Fallout combat has never been great, but in the originals they still had a bit more strategy to them. This could be further expanded upon in a new release. Furthermore, isometric≠2D. Games like Divinity:Original Sin are very beautiful and can still capture the scenery of an area. The same could happen in a new isometric Fallout.

Of course, you don't need me to extoll the virtues of the isometric perspective. A trip to NMA could provide you with some reasoning disgruntled old fans have . My main point is that many fans of the original feel fairly detached from the series they once cherished, and it would be only fair to give them a game they desire. Personally, I think New Vegas is the best in the series and I love the first person perspective. But I do feel for the fans of the originals and it would be great to see one more classic Fallout for their sake.

That's unfortunate to hear . But I must ask, why? Don't you love the Fallout lore, the 50's architecture, the music, the wasteland itself? I must assume so; you're on this MB after all. What is it about the isometric perspective that you find so abhorrent? The game can be in 3D and still have cutting edge graphics as well. Isometric doesn't mean we're literally going to go back to the graphical levels of Fallout 1 and 2.

In the end, the only thing bonding Fallout 3 to the Fallout universe was the name, nothing else.

Obsidian did everything with New Vegas. Plot, dialogue, factions, environment, really everything.

*Marcus draws Minigun, ruthlessly guns down Vic*

Every.

Single.

Time.

What the hell does that have to do with the Beth not making a "real fallout?" That was one game, ONE. One game does not constitute to a pattern of inability to deliver a capable product. If, after Fallout 4 they fail miserably at producing a quality product, I might join you in your pessimism...although I have a sneaking suspicion that many of you have already made up your minds about Fallout in Beth's hands.

And before anyone gets any bright ideas about bringing TES into the discussion...http://www.gamesas.com/forum/13-the-elder-scrolls/

Well the chance of accidentally attacking a party member was a game mechanism to pretty much mirror real life. That doesn't take away depth from combat, it adds to it.

i agree

it would probably sell as a well as fallout 2 if it was isometric and that only sold like 200,000 units , you want obsidian to go bankrupt?

I can respect that idea, but I personally hated it. Especially in a Isometric game, where the inability to control your party made absolutely no sense what-so-ever. I hated having to babysit the packmule, and never make the mistake of giving anyone a grenade or heavy weapon.

I know the new games have mods available to remove the companion limit, but personally I feel that was something the FPP Fallouts got right. A limit of two companions reduces the amount of utter nonsense that can happen in regards to the AI (And it still universally disappoints. Which is why I generally tend to stick with Dogmeat or his equivalent and ignore the rest).

The combat in Fallout 1 and 2 is one of the main things that turned me off of the game, and I think it would need a lot of improvements to even survive, nontheless potentially dooming the franchise by causing all sorts of lost sales from people who don't do research and just assume that the next game with Fallout in the title would be a niche thing.

In Fallout 1/2 the AI is just simply too stupid to be trusted with automatics. When you load into a encounter zone the majority of the time it will place them right behind you, and they will unload directly into your back, both wasting all their ammo and causing a whole mess of problems for actually trying to fight the enemy. How did Ian survive as a caravan guard when half the time he sees a raider he shreds his buddy infront of him? Every NPC is like this, and for anyone who wants to have companions with minimal headache its down to semi-automatic weapons, but then there's a whole mess of confusion there.

There's limtied animation frames for each character, which theoretically would limit the weapons they can use to what they told you they were good at. The assignments for these weapons have some real headscratchers. Sulik says he's good with "Fist, spear, submachinegun", and indeed he has the frames for all of those, but as previously established he can't be trusted with something like a 10mm SMG, so you'd give him a 10mm pistol to start off with, right? Well he doesnt have the frames for a one handed semi-automatic unlike a one handed automatic, but he does have the frames for those one handed semi's that have the same frames as the SMGs. You can give him a .223 pistol, and really he does fantastic with it, but how did he manage to use that when he refused to use the 10mm pistol I handed him back in Klamath?

Im not sure if this is just something cRPGs suffer from, since ive not played Baldurs Gate anywhere near as long and deeply to get experiences like that, but the one thing I thought I would really enjoy about my modded up copy of Fallout 2: Getting a team of companions and travelling as a party, with the mods providing the sprites for having their armour show up, (Personalized too, Sulik had a cool tribal pattern on his combat armour, spiffy!) was really cut short by the amount of frustrating and nonsensical things you have to deal with.

Its not all bad, though. Tycho and Cassidy formed the blueprint of what has become my "forever" Fallout character, Alexander, and if any Fallout game could bring back a companion like them, I would be extremely happy. Tycho always had my back with his shotgun, and I gave Cassidy a sniper rifle and he dropped any raider looking to mess with us before he ever gave us trouble. Those two had your back in the wastes, and since I never gave them any automatics, they never blew me apart before I got a chance to get my rifle out of its sling. Good men, the both of them.

the setting and world design wasn't very good, i can think of tons of games with better world designs and far more detail, i agree they did decent with factions, dialogue, weapons, the world design fit the story fine but it was a pretty empty place, most of the locations didn't even have a building, just a shack or a few tents. it didn't have complex locations, no big dungeons/building complexes like in FO3, and nothing like the outdoor areas in FO3, la enfant plaza, dupont circle, both sides of the capitol building, takoma industrial, georgetown, vermont plaza, those were all good locations and well designed for tactical combat, sneaking around and exploring. so they didn't come close to bethesda for world design, NV had 3 large dry lake beds and that took up 1/3 of the map and they were empty so leaving 1/3 map void of anything except a couple ants doesn't count as good world design to me.

But it was very in keeping with the first two games, which were basically a empty game world surrounded by settlements.

I remember an early game that had me try to explore the tiles around the Boneyard for anything cool. It took me awhile to realize there was nothing to see outside the "points of interest" green circles on the map. Even Baldur's Gate's wilderness areas had their own charm and quests to discover.

Fallout and Fallout 2's overworld is just...empty.