Am I the only person here who shares this opinion? I recently saw mention on gaming websites of trademarks being filed for Fallout 4, but my excitement dulled when I remembered Bethesda would be making it. Don't get me wrong, I love Fallout 3, but it doesn't have the same style of New Vegas. They're both quite different. Fallout 3 is, like Skyrim or Oblivion, weak in storyline, but great in exploration. New Vegas is the total opposite. So, am I the only person who would like to see Obsidian and Bethesda both making Fallout games? Bethesda work on the main games (Fallout 3, 4, 5, etc) and then Obsidian doing subtitled games like New Vegas based upon the engine and whatnot from the previous game (New Vegas was similar in design to Fallout 3, for example)?

In my opinion, New Vegas is the best open-world RPG game ever made in terms of storyline. Lonesome Road in particular was really interesting and it really made you question your moral decisions. The voice acting wasn't bad either, better than Skyrim, anyway.

I'd like Obsidian to establish their own series similiar to Fallout. But I wouldn't want it to be like New Vegas in gameplay and presentation terms (compressed sandbox FPS); storytelling, narrative branching, choices and consequences, absolutely.

That would work too, because New Vegas was a really good game. Everything bad about it was simply what they inherited, in my opinion, from using the Fallout 3 engine and sticking to its universe.

I mean, for an open-world game, the storyline is simply phenomenal - especially once it is complete with all the DLC. Lonesome Road was fantastic! ED-E, for a character with no real voice, was one of the most memorable characters in a long-time. And, that final scene with Ulysses, was just...wow. Dead Money was incredibly creepy and atmospheric. Old World Blues was zany and funny. Honest Heart was, arguably, the weakest, but still good. And, the main game as a whole was really good.

There were tons of memorable characters, respectable voice acting (better than Skyrim, fosho).

That's really my pet peeve with the game. The inherited technical matters (not the universe, though, that's great when handled right). If the gameplay and world layout were wholly different, designed with different gameplay experience in mind (more of an RPG, less of an action game with a branching story, in a nutshell), I'd even be willing to pay a bit of extra for a copy.

The writing and narrative structuring in NV was exceptional (in today's terms), so no problem there.

Well Obsidian did kind of already make their own series because some people from Interplay and Black Isle Studios, the makers of Fallout 1 and 2, are with Obsidian. But I think that is what is going to be happening (or at least I hope so) and that Obsidian can continue on in the West or even Midwest. The next Obsidian game should be great, and as long as they are given more than a year to make this one then it can be amazing.

Don't take Obsidian's future involvement with Fallout for granted.

My take is that Bethesda builds a strong house on a weak foundation, while Obsidian builds a weak house on a strong foundation. Beth's Fallout 3 was more suited to casual gamer's, and therefore more profitable, I would think. OB's New Vegas catered more to the serious gamer, and offers more role-play depth and modding possibilities.

I doubt that Bethesda will incorporate much of what was gained in FNV into Fallout 4, if Skyrim is any guide. Skyrim has an amazing world and great graphics comparatively, but my character always felt like an undefined blob of pixelplasm.

I wouldn't say that Fallout 3 was particularly suited to casual players, but I do understand your point. I mean, in Fallout 3, you were much, much stronger because of having perks every single level. In all honesty, Bethesda Game Studios are great at making a world, but awful at writing. Like, to use Skyrim as an example, there are no memorable characters in that game. Not one who feels truly unique or special.