If EA made Fallout 4...THE BEST GAME EVA!

Yeah, because the "best" games of 2011 *cough* Skyrim *cough* had multiplayer.

OT: Fallout + EA = CoD with ZoMBiEz

Of course if EA owned the brand *but* Bethesda still is the devs it would remain the same for the most part *mabye*

Bethesda is doing a better job than ea or freakin rockstar could ever do! Fallout RDR style, no thanks.

In the World of Perfect and in the Valley of Awesome there is a House made out of pure epic. Inside that house is a man, when not watching the 2nd season of Firefly, that man is playing a Fallout game made by a collaboration of Obsidian, inXile, Rockstar and Valve.

I'd actually be very interested in seeing how Rockstar would do a post-apocalyptic game(not Fallout).
I choked up a bit when I saw this. It is my dream that Avenger's becomes the best selling movie ever made so Joss Whedon can tell Fox that the second season of Firefly and the third season of Dollhouse are both green lit.

Rockstar does everything good. I'm not sure it's possible for them to make a bad game.

We can only hope. And pray.

Screw EA. Beth really know what they are doing with fallout, EA would just screw it up.

I would like it to stay with Bethesda but frostbite 2 powered

1 game and compared to previous the worst in the series. This does not invalidate my claim.

EA is a direct result of gamers. Shame on EA? I say shame on gamers.

Rockstar... you want... Rockstar... to make an RPG?
I don't even. I seriously don't even.

Bethesda was able to keep the Fallout games somewhat faithful. Despite the few inconsistencies and taking the game to a new direction, they did their best to keep it intact. Hell, they even hired a company who had many former employees who worked on the first two. If Bethesda could try, so could any other company such as Rockstar. I'd never trust EA to touch it, their hands are dripping with wet, sticky greed and it corrupts everything it touches.

There's your answer.

Rockstar is overrated as hell these days. I loved the old GTAs, and I liked the more serious tone of IV but I still hated it, finishing it was like a chore. Red Dead Redemption is immersive, with awesome atmosphere and cities/ranches, and nice gameplay mechanics, but all of that doesn't mean jack if the game is not even fun to play, again, it felt like a chore. Dunno about GTA V but I'm probably not gonna buy it and I don't want them to touch Fallout. If Bethesda took 3 years instead of 2 for Fallout 4, the content can match NV's with the same graphic leaps that they usually do between ther games.

"Congratulations! The Vault dweller just became the father of a beautiful mutant baby boy"

I don't think they'd do any worse than Bethesda, actually I think they'd do better in some ways, but I don't think they're right for the series. If BioWare developed Fallout titles (and if EA got their hands on the franchise this is who would develop the games) they would more than likely fall into the same trap as every BioWare game released after Neverwinter Nights, linear interactive movies with lackluster gameplay that you have to slog through to get to the next scene, story is the main attraction of BioWare games after all. Now there's nothing wrong with placing an emphasis on narrative, but when it starts to come at the expense of gameplay I believe that it becomes a problem.

Fallout and Fallout 2 were really good at balancing between gameplay and narrative, so was New Vegas, those games had good writing and told solid stories without restricting the player a great deal. With a BioWare developed Fallout game though; well we might get an isometric camera and real time with pause combat that favors character stats over the player's ability to aim, but a lot of Fallout's freedom and choices and consequences would be ripped out for the sake of a well told, but cliche sci-fi epic.