Obsidian

Bethesda should fully make it. Obsidian would only bankrupt and they like to make lots of bugs.

Also bethesda storylines are more coherent. obsidian makes better choises and consequenses.

Obsidian.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v87/johnmora/Grump%20Factory/Wild%20At%20Heart/Wild19.png.

What....? wait Obsidian likes to make bugs... Where can I order those.. can I learn them tricks...
Seriously:
Obsidian is only partly to blame for the bugfest that FO:NV was at release!!. To be honest neither that engine or its illegitimate ofspring is any good at creating a rich questworld. The Gamebryo engine and the Creation engine have the exact same problems..
They both (especially on consoles) have huge memory issues.. (Framerate drops, freezes etc.. being the results) and both engines are not very well suited in assigning triggers in quests..
Both the quest issues in FO:NV (Veronica's, Ede's and Arcades quest triggers are just examples) as well as Skyrim.. (oh you picked up that one book that is actually a quest item... you fail) can be attributed to the engine as well.
The truth is even that Skyrim is I dare say, on all platforms combined buggier than FO:NV ever was.
Obsidian addressed most issues and gave extensive patch notes. Even addressing what specific issue on minor quests were effected by the patch. Obsidian also communicated more directly with its consumers, making use of twitter etc..
Bethesda's patch notes are very limited in description and some of those even don't make sense (the 1.3 Fixed the way radiant story assigns roles... note for example, nothing caused by radiant story was fixed.. visibly)

Bethesda's stories more coherent... I think you mean linear... at least Oblivion (Shivering Isles especially) did give you some branching in quests. Skyrim has has no choice whatsoever in Quests.. even if quests logically demand it.. (the werewolf option.. for example.. or ... the overuse of critical NPC's even if they don't have a role in the story anymore) etc. etc..

Don't get me wrong I think there is an unfair backlash against Bethesda.. but the truth is that they make/made inherently different RPG's than what Fallout was and what many (including me, though I can still enjoy FO3) feel it should be.
The only legit argument you are using is stating that Obsidian might go bankrupt..

Oh don't mind him. He just likes starting [censored] for no apparent reason.

Can't they both work on it? I liked the multiple options of Obsidian but hated the time limit of the original, combat and the map system, but prefer the gameplay mechanics of Bethesda, but disliked the limited storyline (I'd argue that the side quests were more free form and interesting than the main one). It may be hated, but the Bethesda map system, made me think "ooh, that's interesting, I'll go there", whereas the node system just annoyed me, completely missing places, and wasting days, trying to recall where that town was located in the last playthrough, and when you get ambushed by radscorpians or raiders, they'd be on top of you and surround you).

Maybe with the writing from one, and the developing of the other, we might have a great game.

Obsidian.


I like this idea too.

Psst.....Obsidian

What?

OBSIDIAN!

Though Beth does well on character models and such, and they would be a great help in making the world look good.

But don't let Beth touch the story with a 39 1/2 foot pole.

Obsidian 100%. Bethesda should stick with TES...

Wait, they aren't even good with that anymore....

Considering the whole, Bethesda Game Studios.

Now if Tim Cain gets to lead every FO game and bring in others like Boyarsky, then Obsidian.

Tim Cain is already at Obsidian, but I doubt Boyarsky or Anderson would leave their current jobs (Boyarsky at Blizzard working on Diablo 3, and Anderson at Turtle Rock working on an unannounced project), but Chris Taylor could probably be open for business if he's still rolling his thumbs at Interplay.

And actually, I'd want MCA to be the project lead while Cain would be the lead designer.

Obsidian doesn't do bug testing for their games, that is the publishers job, actually the only game they did bug testing for was Dungeon Siege 3 and that was their most stable game.

So blame the bugs on the right company.

Just goes to show, what the studio can do with good publisher relations. Shame the game was DS and not something of Obs's own with less twitching [censored].

It's not the openness of the world, but the focus on random dungeon crawling which, IMO, makes them a poor match for the series. Dungeon crawls with a lot of combat have been the core of the Elder Scrolls since the beginning, but Fallout was about questing. Fallout 3 is a game designed largely to appeal to people who like to ignore quests and just go wandering, randomly raiding dungeons purely for the sake of collecting loot. This is a pretty big shift in the focus of the franchise, all because Bethesda felt more comfortable reusing their Elder Scrolls formula.

However, I recognize that the series has now been thoroughly TESified, and the new fans will expect that dungeon crawler element (hence, a lot of players complaining about the lack of non-quest related dungeons in New Vegas). I can only hope that Bethesda will learn a few things about quest design and character development from Obsidian. New Vegas was far from perfect, but it was a huge step in the right direction for the franchise, in my opinion. It had a bit less Elder Scrolls, and a bit more Fallout.

One should also blame Beth for unrealistic time constraints and like I argued in my reply to Super Nallepuh blame it on the engine.
Fact Gamebryo and Creation have the exact same problems (in order Texture issues, memory leaks and Scripting issues)..

btw:

Who are you aiming this at..? I hope me so I can ignore him in future replies otherwise confused is..

People have done that -- and should continue to do so.

(I didn't deny that now did I... I was replying to your remark.. and...)
Actually I haven't (mind you) in recent threads actually see somebody blame the engine..
The Creation engine seems even less stable than the gamebryo..and is even less suitable for an RPG like FO. Branching quests and freedom in choice are imho key in any FO game. Skyrim actually shows (by common bugs) that the new engine has severe problems with scripted triggers.

I didn't mean to dispute you. Just to state what is/has been.

So what dungeon crawling was in tes play to your strenghts.
A backstory of a location is just as intriguing as a story in a quest.
And tesified let me guess you have next to no tes experience?
Because fallout 3 outshines recent tes games in every way and has a much larger focus on characters and writing(which people unrightly slqte it for) and has a fraction of the quests but there much more fleshed out.
I'm not moaning but I feel the whole tesified thing is a joke beth played to there strenghts when you play both a lot you notice the deifference.
So is read dead redemption just GTA?

Well, first of all, Fallout used to be about quests and choices (among other things).
And TES is about combat and exploration (including dungeons).

What bethesda did with fallout 3 was make it more like TES by putting in a bunch of caves/dungeons and lots of enemies to attack you while exporing ( not to mention that fallout 3 was KIND OF like oblivon with a different skin, it had almost the exact same control scheme, an emphasis on exporation, and most important of all, they traded large settlements/townhubs and quests for a large game world to roam which wasn't what the original fallout were about) hence, the term "tesified", and tell me, if bethesda didn't create TES games, but were still interested in making a fallout game, do you think it would be like it is now, or more what the originals were like?

And to your question about RDR and GTA I say yes and no, because once again if rockstar didn't make GTA, RDR wouldn't be what it is now.

Bethesda. Many of you guys say FONV was better. That's because they just added a bunch of new features to Fallout 3! It uses the same engine. They fixed what people complained about in Fallout 3. And I HATE the fact that you can't play after the main quest. I like to finish the story of them game then wander around and help other people.

You overlooked that NV had superior writing. And playing after MQ would just be too hard to do after all those changes in Mojave.

Ah, yeah, because playing after an ending that stated something like "The Great Khans went north" or "The Enclave Remnants cut a hole through the legion going West" or something like that and then see that the Khans and the Remnants are still right there where you left them, and won't move anywhere nor give any hints to the ending whatsoever... That'd be awesome! Just like what Bethesda did with Broken Steel, making the ending speech totally unnecessary and untrue! Lovely!

/sarcasm

And fallout 3 is still about writing and quest theres a fraction of the quests in fallout 3 but they are much more complex and fleshed out and have you even played the originals?

Yes they added dungeon but I have been killed by random things in the oruginals in the middle of the wasteland so thats a mute point
When I look at fallout 3 all I see is they added some things that they are good at at.
And same control scheme as in tes who cares? So they should't use it because it's in tes?
Another gross exaggeration so what if bioware won the bid fo fallout ajd played to there strenghts making it a linear 3rd person shooter would it be mass effectified?