Seriously, this game got it right. Leveling scaling is done perfectly; the quests and story is actually interesting, compelling and feels like the player actually has an effect on the world. I also love the choices that the faction system brings up. There could definitely be improvements though, factions could be more involved and i still feel like certain skills, like unarmed, are overpowered while others, like explosives are underpowered, and that some don't really fit their proper role but come close (energy weapons). But that isn't anything a little modding couldn't fix. Back on topic, Obsidian got fallout right; Bethesda please let them handle it from now on. Thanks for a great game.

I think you're overpraising this game. There's just as many flaws as there are positives. Honestly, I feel Bethesda and Obsidian should do team ups and dev games together.

I've gone over this before but to sum it up. No towardd you bud. But as for a team up, I agree. Bethesda is a jack of all trades western RPG studio. Issue being from Morrowind their writings started to lack.(Keep in mind dev experience and Wasteland aside the TES series is a few years older than Fallout)

Obsidians strength largely resembles Black Isles. Which is more than the games themselves is their ability to craft a tale along with dialogue. Their good writers basically.

So yes I would love for them to team up. But no to the original poster. Obsidian making Fallout games from here on out for Bethesda by themselves isn't something I think would be a good decision, or even a good thought.

I never cared about exploration, so I believe Obsidian should be the studio doing the future Fallout games.

This.
Obsidian should do the writing, and Bethesda should do everything else.

I simply do not believe Bethesda is competent enough to handle a delicate franchise like Fallout and should really just stay the hell away from it. Check my signature below to see exactly why.

Was Fallout 3 a good video game? In my opinion, yes. Was Fallout 3 a good *Fallout* game? Absolutely NOT.

In my opinion , yes, Fallout should be only handled by Obisidan from now on (if only that was possible...).

I'd prefer a team up, with Obsidian handling the storyline, towns, character creation and balancing, with Bethesda doing everything else.

The team up not being possible, I'd take Obsidian over Bethesda.

I prefer them stay on "spin-offs"

As for team up, I think Beth head hunt all the Back Ilse crew would be more realistic.

For story Bethesda, but for game play Obsidian. Compared to Fallout 3 story wise New Vegas svcks. And there is not as many bugs in Fallout 3.

Sure.
But I'd rather they bring back optional turn-based combat, map node system, complex quest/dialogue/stats and make the game darker in tone if they're going to keep making the fallout games.

If it's optional I totally agree.

The chances of that happening are small.

Team up would my preferred solution.

Yes. As for the team-up, I'd be fine with that, but I'd prefer if Bethesda only handled the worldmap, and nothing else.

Nah, the game is quite boring in the long run. But i hope Bethesda has taken some pointers on where to improve, we can handle consequences of our choices :stare: Now if only they could be convinced we can handle challenge too... :rolleyes: Or atleast i can, but i'm of the NES generation

I agree, and whoever said Obsidan should handle the writing, and let Bethesda do everything else, we'd end up with another FO3 god mode.

Obsidian did better on evrything but in Fallout 3 when you completed a quest you seen results not just at a end cutscene.

I am just not sure how TB and RT combat balance each other; from what I know the mechanics are vastly different for both to be enjoyable.

However, there is always the portable gaming device which they can make TB versions, recycling most material from current game.

I think Bethesda's learned from their mistakes and after New Vegas they'll kind of have to keep some of the Fallout returns back.

And actually, I feel peopke over praise the original Fallouts at times. Good games? Yes, I bought both on their respective launch dates. I prefer 1 to 2 but still found the second enjoyable.

The best? Far from it. They both had their mistakes and problems that apparently 13 years later can be ignored because their seemingly "classics."

Anyways. Actually, I stand by my statement but I want to see how Beth do with Skyrims gameplay which will give a general outlook. Keep in mind Bethesda was trying hard to keep in line with Fallouts(Basically copying FO1) most likely to not disappoint long time fans, which happened anyways. And their funding and name, while it was good, has become much more mainstream throughout the world. So I think in the long run from Fallout 3, to New Vegas, knowledge from cooler talk with ID and Brian Fargo's company, and experience from Skyrim they'll be able to make Fallout 4 better.

Plus maybe they'll grow to be like Josh Sawyer who I like since he doesn't let major [censored] like those in NMA or elsewhere deter him and shoots them down immediately but does acknowledge good fans who've followed the series from the beginning.

P.S.: For those following Skyrim perks have been around the TES series for awhile. Just not exactly implemented to give you a direct pick when you level.

(Sorry for the first uncomplete post and some sentence errors that could of potentialy sparked big arguments. Typing this from a cell phone)

Fallout 3 was a horrible 'Fallout' game, New vegas was'nt the best, nor was it the worst.

Fallout was the best 'fallout' game, not the best game, but it is the best fallout, Fallout 2 also had it's shortcomings.

bethesda should do the world building and depending on how skyrim turns out the engine tweaking. obsidian should do the game mechanics and quests and stuff. overall i preferred new vegas but it had to many invisible barriers and goofy design choices compared to fallout 3. fallout 3 had barriers but they were disguised as walls or piles of debris.

Problems and mistakes?
Yeah the games aren't perfect.
But what problems did they have specifically?
Fallout 1 didn't have a take all button and PA made difficulty turned down to lolcat level.
And Fallout 2... Bugs... Oh the bugs were vast, but fixed with Killians Patch.(?)

[edit]
Read.

My post went up a bit more early. Might want to read the additions. Actually here:

I think Bethesda's learned from their mistakes and after New Vegas they'll kind of have to keep some of the Fallout returns that they ditched in 3 back.

And actually, I feel people over praise the original Fallouts at times. Good games? Yes, I bought both on their respective launch dates. I prefer 1 to 2 but still found the second enjoyable.

The best? Far from it. They both had their mistakes and problems that apparently 13 years later can be ignored because their seemingly "classics."

Anyways. Actually, I stand by my statement but I want to see how Beth do with Skyrims gameplay which will give a general outlook. Keep in mind Bethesda was trying hard to keep in line with Fallouts(Basically copying FO1) most likely to not disappoint long time fans, which happened anyways. And their funding and name, while it was good, has become much more mainstream throughout the world. So I think in the long run from Fallout 3, to New Vegas, knowledge from cooler talk with ID and Brian Fargo's company, and experience from Skyrim they'll be able to make Fallout 4 better.

Plus maybe they'll grow to be like Josh Sawyer who I like since he doesn't let major [censored] like those in NMA or elsewhere deter him and shoots them down immediately but does acknowledge good fans who've followed the series from the beginning.

P.S.: For those following Skyrim perks have been around the TES series for awhile. Just not exactly implemented to give you a direct pick when you level.

(Sorry for the first uncomplete post and some sentence errors that could of potentialy sparked big arguments. Typing this from a cell phone)

I'd preferably like a team up too, but if I had to pick it would be the same as it is with New Vegas.

I'm not sure if the all the details of of the interrelationship between Obsidian and Bethesda in the development and production of FONV have been made publicly clear. They certainly aren't clear to me. Therefor I find myself reluctant to comment on how each should do things differently next time.

That said, I (like most of you) have definite opinions on FONV and its relation to FO3 (I have not played, nor do I have any interest in playing, FO1 or 2.) I just don't know whom to blame/compliment.

Taken as a whole, and considering the hours of game time versus other games—particularly Oblivion, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, etc.—both rate favorably.

Without nit picking but aggregating scores within each game, I would give FO3 a B and FONV a B+ (Oblivion gets an A)

No way..

I for one don't see the praise everyone heaps on Obsidian for the writing, a lot of people would have you believe the writing is amazing .. it's as generic and dull as FO 3 - no better no worse. Substitute the vault dweller for a courier and change your dad to Benny and there is NV's story - instead of a GECK you look for chip.. blah blah blah.. it still has the glitches and bugs despite patches. I have quite a few issues with NV when compared to FO 3. But I won't list them - what I find annoying or for the lack of a better word.. crap - someone else might not. Hopefully Fallout 4 (whenever that is) is truely epic and truly Fallout.

Also, the original Fallout 1 & 2 fans (I'm one of them) need to move past the turn based combat - even as an option Bethesda wouldn't include it in the game. Like it or not, the Fallout franchise belongs to Bethesda. Maybe modders should take up that option