4 YEARS!?! :ahhh:
TOO LONG!!!

2.5 or 3 years.
4 years... Horrendously long time.

But...
2008 - FO3
2010 - NV
2012 - FO4
2014 - Arizona
2016 - FO5

This could work.
4 years apart for each studio and a game every other year.
And hell, maybe even 2013 - Tactics II. (Developed by Micro Forté)
And 2016 - Tactics III. (Developed by Micro Forté)
Then we have 2015 - Fallout: Faction Wars. (Real time strategy based game (Age of Empires, Starcraft, Warcraft et cetera.) Developed by ????? )

Developed by Westwood Studios. Obviously.

Wait, they don't exist anymore. EA consumed them and spat them out. My favorite RTS studio is dust in the wind. Excuse me while I have a cry. A manly cry. :sadvaultboy:

Westwood was my 2nd favorite RPG studio ~I never really got into C&C, but I liked Nox and Lands of Lore.

I'm mixed on this one, so I'm not going to vote.

Sure, they did a great job, but Obsidian has a history of their games being incredibly buggy on initial release. New Vegas is no exception. If they can get their house in order, I'd really like to see some future Fallout titles from them. Until then, I'll stick with BGS for now, and only buy Obsidian titles about 3 to 6 months or so after release when the prices drop and the game gets patched.

Then again, that excuse can go both ways. I mean, look at Oblivion... :confused:

Show's how little I know, I had no idea they developed RPG's. When I was playing their C&C games RPG's were a genre I wasn't really playing. So is their RPG stuff worth checking out?

As for the topic, for sure Obsidian should develop future entries in the series. I'd definitely be okay if Obsidian was given the go ahead to develop the next numbered entry even. I like me some Fallout 3 but NV has everything more that I wanted, save a couple of things that I can deal without.

FO3's story was terrible and there were no different endings. Plus, Bethesda practically copy and pasted elements from the originals into their game. FONV's story was immersive and original.

Obsidian should handle the writing, main story and character dialogue for future Fallout games. I just hope Bethesda keeps the improvements of New Vegas for FO4.

I still like the thought of them taking turns. A new game every two years is better than waiting four. Plus it would keep things fresh with a different approach and setting every two years. Keep 'em separated, I say. Try to mix 'em and they'll just compromise the game into mush.

And gameplay mechanics. Sandbox exploration should be left to Beth, its their strongest suit after all.

Well, i had just one real major issue with new vegas, SO MANY GLITCHES!!!, i know its big, but bethesda did their best to eleminate glitches but Obsidian really never played their game because they didnt catch the weapon moving around glitch. Obsidian should stay on their leash and try again with the next fallout game. and i have to say the one thing that REALLY bothered me was all the dum, idiotic, and poorly placed invisable walls. nothing grinds my gears more than invisable walls in a "go anywhere" RPG, oblivion and fo3 had a few but they were disguises as rubble piles or the edge of the map, there was nowhere in FO3 or OBliv that you couldnt go while obsidian made NV a maze of invisable walls

Don't forget Fallout: resource wars written by obsidian and developed by interplay.

@Fat Man Mk 2 - I believe it was Bethesdas bug testers that worked on new vegas

TES and Fallout games have extensive backstories, lore and history and everything else behind them, and i appreciate the effort that creating them has taken, but still i rather play a game with good gameplay and crappy story (like classic Doom for example). In best example both the story and gameplay are good, but if somethings got to give, it's should be the story.

My original point was that i don't find Fallout 3's story bad since i take it as it is, and it does it job, partially better than New Vegas by giving the PC a personal motive. I can understand why some people dislike the fact that your role is pretty predefined in the story, but Fallout 3 being my first Fallout i had no expectations of what i should expect, and thus judged the game by it's own merits, not the title.

Obsidian, easily. The atmosphere was better, the choices were grey, ending was good. Balance was better. Writing was better, everything improved on fallout 3.
Bsides, if Obsidian did all future fallouts, then ethesda could put more resources into TES, each dev dong the games they do best.

Obsidian should not be left in charge of the Fallout series. They have some really great ideas, but they're sloppy and lazy when it comes to implementing those ideas and coding the overall game. Let's face it, New Vegas is completely half-assed. I really enjoy it, but it's half-assed. They're so-called "comprehensive patch" did NOT even address half the bugs and issues with this game. Plus when you include that they spent time nerfing a weapon instead of focusing on more serious issues. Sure they fixed a some quests, and added a little bit more power to Energy Weapons. Did they fix the corrupt save issues from random and known issues? Did they fix the game crashing and freezing from random and known things? Did they the First Person glitch where your arms will go up, down, and even disappear? Did they even take time to create some memorable music. No, they didn't. There are STILL quests that are glitched out. They even just used the sound track for the original Fallout games. This game is incredibly unstable. I really do enjoy it. That's mainly cause I love Fallout so much. That being said, I simply can't recommend this game to anyone with the amount of problems it has. I personally, will not buy any other Obsidian games in the future. Yes, if they do make another Fallout game I will probably still pick it up, but that's cause it's Fallout. Luckily, Bethesda will be making Fallout 4. So Obsidian won't be making another one for quite a while.

All right, different strokes for different folks I guess. Since my first Fallout was erm... Tactics and then 2 I suppose my view might be slighty biased. :shrug:

Not really sure about the motive. A guy I barely knew for 20 minutes then rides off and leaves me and his friends there for being beaten to death by telescopic batons? And the crazy overseer?
Truth to be told, getting shot in head, then caught in a bigger scheme of things and ultimately deciding the fate of the Mojave seems like a bigger motivation to me. I like having choices and F3 railroading me into the 'happy glorious' BoS ending dissapoints me really much.

But that doesn't mean I can't enjoy Fallout 3 as a game. It's in my favourite setting, it has tons of locations, different enemies, weapons and a BIG modding community which is like +20 on my personal approval list :biggrin:.
It's just not Fallout to me, that's all. :fallout:

I would say that both companies did a good job making their latest Fallout game - and in truth Bethesda did a ton of work on New Vegas - so its not a very straight-forward comparison. Also there was a large difference in time (Bethesda took multiple years, Obsidian 18 months), and Bethesda made (or remade) their engine specifically for their game, Obsidian only tweaked it - but the engine would likely have been quite different if Obsidian had made that from scratch.

I would also not go so far as to say that FNV is better than Fo3. Certainly there were many differences and some broken things fixed in FNV over Fo3, but there are just as many New problems with FNV that really balanced my view of them both. I like the Story that Obsidian can tell, but I like the open-world design of the Bethesda games more than the story-centric worlds that Obsidian focuses on. I think future games by Obsidian would have Great story writing again, but would the world be as open and expansive as what Bethesda can produce with their huge resources? Probably not.

In summary I think both companies did GREAT jobs with their Fallout games, and I for one am not going to get picky over who should develop them in the future - I just want them Both to work on more Fallout games because there is never enough.

Miax

I understand that. It made several drastic departures from the classics, i bet that is why it is set so far, both in location and time, from the old Fallouts.

Yes but only if they use an Engine that isn't full of Bugs and Glitches and the Game is still considered an RPG.

Fallout 3 and NV both use the Gamebryo engine - bought in, and not developed by Bethesda.
Hopefully, the new engine they've developed for Skyrim will be much better, and far less buggy!

Gamebryo is just the renderer. They highly customized it.

I would agree (I do agree), but I see Bethesda's work as the foundation; a good solid foundation ~I just didn't like the building they put on it.

Obsidian used that foundation, and improved on it, then built something more to my liking ~but still not what I wanted :shrug:, It was too much the child of Fallout 3 for me. When I look at other games that used Gamebryo its very apparent that (had they not been under the thumb, and had they actually wished it ~which I think they did not), they could have crafted a Van Buren/Fallout 1, 2, Tactics series RPG using Bethesda's foundation.

I really wish Beth would give an early release screenshot to give us some kind of idea what this new engine looks like.

I have some loyalty for Obsidian for a few reasons, and I always love the characters they create. Beth's games, character/story wise, usually leave me a little cold. It's not that they're bad, they just don't evoke much emotion for me personally, or individual chr. story (vs. main plot story) hardly exists at all, as far as I'm concerned. But they are better at sandbox/environment, I think. So the notion of them being a team, where Obs does the writing/character plotting and Beth designs the world around that...could be awesome.

I truly hope Obs gets some projects that end up with not-buggy reps/they can spend more time on before release, because they do have a lot of talent within and I'd like to see them flourish as a team rather than become scattered all over the game world. :/


Nox, for its time, was quite entertaining & often humorous. I tried replaying it not that long ago...it hasn't aged terribly well I think, but it was a nice journey into nostalgia. I also loved the music in Nox. I still have the mp3's somewhere...

Agreed. Nox was a kind of Diablo clone, but with dynamic MMX shadowing. (and campy!)

Gameplay wise I preferred it to Diablo (but of course for everything else, I prefer Diablo).
(I still have the Nox MP3s as well)

Frank Klepacki did the tunes. His juke box (at the bottom of the page) lists all his game tracks including Nox.
http://www.frankklepacki.com/

Obisidan should handle things from now on in regards to Fallout. If they were to team up with Bethesda, I'd feel more comfortable with Obsidian vets having 'authority' positions.. senior developers or whatever they're called.. and toss in some extra people from either camp to make sure dumb/terrible glitches like being unable to enter The Strip or any future area of importance (or even unimportance) don't happen again if possible.

In all honesty, I'll buy the next Fallout game regardless.. but I'd definitely feel more comfortable and more anticipation with Obsidian behind the wheel.

I'd go as far as saying that unless Beth is willing to change their formulas even a bit more towards the original format, and away from the TES format - as there is a better middleground to be found - leave the exploration to Obsidian too (with a freedom to explore the possibilities and do the changes where appropriate). I'd hate to feel the urge to call the next Fallout "Skyrim with guns" - not, that Skyrim will be a bad game by default, but doing straight copy of its core systems (the same way Fallout 3 did with Oblivion) would just feel lazy, wrong and counter productive. The two seres' need to be separated from each other in more ways than just the setting - imo.