Should Obsidian handle Fallout from now on?

Do we all agree that Fallout 4 (in order to not be a shit game) should be handled by the Fallout Vegas team?

i liked fallout 3 just fine and some aspects of it were better than vegas.

the only thing that i saw that was a huge difference was getting rid of that terrible maze of metro crossings which i am sure would have been done in vegas no matter who made it.

No obsidian are incompetent.They are only good at releasing half finished games filled with bugs..

If it's between them or Bethesda then **** yeah. Obsidian FTW!

Just like Bethesda, but at least Obsidian have competent writers and quest designers.

I personally enjoyed all of the fallout games. The reasons I love those games are because of the universe, the characters that inhabit it. I love collecting and exploring, I love the humour. So no we dont "all agree".

No, things should stay the way it is.

Obsidian and Bethesda have worked fairly well together over the years. Bethesda always makes great games, then Obsidian follows after and rolls a d20 for game greatness. Sometimes we get a fairly good expansion-grade sequel, other times we get Fallout New Vegas.

Then again I'm a PC gamer, bugs are almost irrelevant in highly modable games like NWN2 and Fallout New Vegas, since they get fixed fairly easily and quickly by mods. Heck, the same can be said for Skyrim too.

They would certainly do a better job than bethesda but I rather see them work on proper RPG´s like their upcoming Project Eternity.

@Lucianu: This. Bethesda rely on modders to make their games fun.

lol god no. i would like to actually play the next fallout game. bugsidian can't handle that.

I would love to see Obsidian do the next. New Vegas was a damn superlative modern fallout imo. They did fallout dark humor properly, bethesda just didn't do the humor justice.

How about they work together and make a really awesome game? And Fallout 3 was and is pretty buggy, although maybe not as buggy as New Vegas.

I'd rather they focused on stuff they make themselves honestly. New Vegas was great and better than Fallout 3 but I think if they had the time to make what they really wanted (like what they're doing now), they could be one of the best developers. Alpha Protocol was obviously rushed, I think if they had the correct amount of time the game could've been awesome. Instead it's an unpolished gem.

Yes.

No, Piss off with that shit. Let Obsidian focus on a game we know they can make, aka Project Eternity. Don't bog them down in a waning franchise with yet another publisher's budget and deadline that they can never make. Not with their track record.

who cares, modders will fix it

@cain006: From a certain point of view, Fallout started with them, seeing as Obsidian was started by Black Isle employees, ie the people who made the originals.

Yes. Too bad they are tied up with stupid South Park crap. Unless that's a different team, but I didn't think Obsidian was that big of a studio.

I like how people complain about Obsidian's track record of bugs, but ignore Bethesda's. Bethesda usually has a lot of time for their games to be made, so their buggy games (Oblivion/Skyrim) are only excusable due to the size and scope of their games. Obsidian, on the other hand, is almost always extremely rushed (KOTOR 2/FNV) by big-named publishers to put their games out as soon as possible so people should cut them a LITTLE slack.

Nope. Loved fallout 3 and NV. Think 4 will be fun.

Agree for the most part. I loved the metros in 3 and since Vegas doesn't have one it made sense.

the only thing that really needs fixing is the interiors being bland and recycled.

Fallout 3 was the better game... I dumped over a hundred hours into both. Fallout 3 had the better moments, memorable characters and flow to it I felt. New Vegas was a technical disaster with less memorable moments and some really drab locale... I enjoyed both games a lot, but fallout 3 was better. Fallout 4 has to have that survival mode though... I thought that was cool to play throug with.

this. although I think Vegas had better gameplay. The world just wasn't interesting to play in.

fallout 3 was better and built from the ground up new vegas was like a huge expansion dlc so I cant judge obsidian yet

I couldn't disagree more. Fallout 3 had a really good aesthetic, but New Vegas had much better writing and, most importantly, role-playing mechanics.

Fallout 3 was enough RPG for my liking without alot of filler. What RPG mechanics did NV have that F3 didnt? and I may be asking for out of ignorance. I dumped alot of time into it but didn't walk away thinking it was all that drastically different than F3 in terms of RPG mechanics. I thought NV was appropriately upgraded in that area but not enough so to make me forget about the horrific technical issues I delt with at launch, including mission and path breaking bugs, while I found the whole, playing one faction against another story arch to be reletively flatlined in terms of narrative. I felt nothing for any group they presented and while that may have been their intent, it didn't leave me feeling overly satisfied with any desicions I made.. .the whole game was simply gray.

no

I don't care who handles it, just give me Fallout 4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bethesda had a 3 year development time with FO3.

Bethesda gave Obisidian a year and a half development deadline for FNV, and you wonder why the game was buggy as hell and certain faction questlines (Legion) weren't fully fleshed out.

If Bethesda gave Obsidian the time they needed to do things right who knows how things would've turned out. As it stands now FNV is arguably last gen's best RPG.

I have a question what would Fallout New Vegas be without Fallout 3 and copying mods that were very popular in F3?

It is an insult to Bethesda to give Obsidian all this credit since Bethesda made everything they used and just added very small improvements. The worst part is they managed to recreate the same ending everyone hated in Fallout 3 but did it even worse and IMO the main story was garbage. F3's was not amazing but it was pretty good and has some pretty awesome moments like Tranquility Lane (I will never forget that quest).

Obsidian has better dialogue writing and quest storylines, but lets look at it:

-Main quest barely made any sense for motivation

-no significant gameplay changes

-bringing back factions was really overrated

People always give Obsidian the benefit of the doubt for not having enough time to develop, and even though that's true, it's really hard to tell if Obsidian would really do anything with the full dev time regardless.

Although Bethesda can't write for their lives, i could at least count on em for massive worlds and at least some significant gameplay changes

A few things that come to mind:

There's no point in trying out different character builds in Fallout 3. You tip four points into the Intelligence stat at the start of the game. You get nineteen skill points every level. This makes it trivial to max everything up to 100, meaning there's no point in trying to specialize in anything. This is also not helped by how, unlike in New Vegas, there are no skill or strength requirements for any of the weapons. There's no real point to anything else, as the other stats aren't particularly meaningful - Charisma is notoriously useless in 3 unless you've just got your heart set on making the speech check with Butch at the beginning.

Also, New Vegas limits your perks, which makes them more meaningful for character building than in 3, where you get one every level. It means you have to think more about what your character is going to be built around.

And on a less mechanical level, in the first game, my first encounter with the raiders involved a guy asking me to save his daughter. There were several ways of going about this, including fighting them, taking out the guards and sneaking her out, challenging the leader to a fistfight, or making them think I'm the ghost of the leader's dead father. Fallout 3 gives me an early quest where I head to a supermarket that's swarming with hostile human enemies I can't talk to or do anything other than sneak or shoot at. Fallout 1 and 2 I can play largely non-violent characters. 3 I can't. And in New Vegas I kinda can again, not to the extent of Fallout 1 and 2, but a hell of a lot more than in 3.

Yea, at least Bethesda makes awesome and interesting worlds to explore. Vegas was so incredibly dull and a chore to get around in.

I loved the New Vegas setting, it made you feel like you were in a weird western type thing. I actually enjoyed walking from place to place unlike in Fallout 3. The music also fit the game perfectly. New Vegas is also probably the funniest game I've ever played, especially because of old world blues. The gameplay in both sucks.

I also had the opposite experience in regard to characters, I remember nobody from Fallout 3 except a couple characters but Yes Man, Mr. House, and Ceasar, and the 5 brains are still fresh in my mind. And Mobius is one of the funniest villains from any video game I've played.

I ran into far more bugs in Fallout 3 and Skyrim than I ever did in New Vegas (that's talking about vanilla versions, all of them. Proper mods made all of them virtually bug-free).

I didn't. Fallout 3 and Skyrim had typical Bethesda bugs but Vegas was flat out broken for me.

Assuming you're talking about New Vegas, compared to FO3..... um..... what? There were huge gameplay changes. At least, as huge as they could have been while keeping the game in the realm of expansion/side-game/pseudo-sequel, rather than a full-blown sequel, completely rebuilt and re-imagined. And every single one of those changes were fantastic, and should have been present in FO3 to begin with. In fact, some of the best and most popular mods for FO3 are specifically made to bring the gameplay changes of NV into FO3.

The only things I liked better in New Vegas compared to FO3 were the iron sights on guns and the ability to customize weapons.

Otherwise, I vastly preferred FO3 to New Vegas.

One of the biggest enjoyments of Bethesda games IMO is the exploration factor. And to me, New Vegas was basically a bore. In FO3 I was able to explore the post-apocalyptic DC wilderness in addition to monuments like the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Memorial, the White House, etc.

I also liked the random events like walking over a random hill and watching bands of Super Mutants and Raiders kicking the shit out of each other.

In New Vegas, it was basically a stripped down Vegas Strip and little else besides the occasional rinky dink settlement here and there.

Damn. That's too bad. What platform did you play them on? For me, Skyrim was actually the only one of those three that had any straight up game-breaking bugs. I ended up needing to use console commands to forcibly finish over half of the College of Winterhold questline. Several progression events just refused to trigger, one after another. Twas some bullshit.

I played all 3 on initially on 360. I got Vegas super cheap with all the dlc a while ago so Im gonna go back and play it again with mods eventually. Hopefully I have a better experience. Playing Skyrim on PC compared to 360 was like playing a completely different game.

you've told me that it's way better, but didnt mention what exactly those gameplay changes are

Like Zelda187 mentioned, other than iron sights and modding weapons there's not much there, and even THAT is nothing to write home about

Iron sights, weapon modding, crafting/survival, changes to the perk and attribute systems, so that they actually matter.. FO3 was hardly even an RPG. New Vegas very much was.

new vegas >>>>>>>>>>>> fo3 and skyrim

Given survival mode, i'll give you that, but you can't look at FO3 and NV and tell me that the changes are not basically similar to the small incremental changes that come with each new CoD game.

You are literally playing the exact same game in a different setting.

Iron sights and weapon modding add -- honestly -- almost nothing to core gameplay, you could craft in FO3 and the only real difference in perks and attributes between the two is that NV locks you out from doing higher level difficulty hacking/ lock picking etc.

I won't deny it's more refined, but the praise for gameplay changes Obsidian made are one of the most embellished things when it comes to their reputation as a dev in comparison to Bethesda

I agree my friend. Bethesda are great for shitty monotonous dungeons though.

Right. Except for the aforementioned changes, which make it not "literally the exact same game". And yeah, they're relatively small changes, but as I mentioned, they weren't trying to make a full-blown, totally upgraded, the-next-big-change kind of sequel. They were making essentially a companion game, that was always intended to be more of a step sideways than a step forward. Part of why New Vegas was called New Vegas, rather than Fallout 4. And the big thing, for me at least, was that the changes, while small and not deviating from the core mechanics, improved the mechanics so much, added so much more depth, and were all things that should have been in FO3 to begin with. The fact that Bethesda didn't put those mechanics into FO3, but then Obsidian put them into NV, is a plus for Obsidian, and a big minus for Bethesda, as far as I'm concerned. Combined with Obsidian's infinitely better writing, that made NV a much more enjoyable game for me.

My friend, it isn't worth the effort of all that post. The young people don't understand game design.

Hell no. I can't remember a good game they did.

Call me crazy but I liked Fallout 3 more than New Vegas. Just something about the setting and atmosphere nailed it for me on how a post-apocalyptic game should be like. New Vegas was still badass don't get me wrong but I prefer the original. At the end of the day though I don't care who handles Fallout 4 just hurry up and confirm it already, I need my Fallout fix.

PS: The Survivor 2299 better not be a hoax.