Obsidian Would Love Another Chance at Fallout
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
HA well if it's a matter taste then you know can't really say "you're wrong!" but he is right in saying that Fallout series was never ABSOLUTELY dark and grim. It was strange combination of the main story being serious and the world around it being filled with little whacky moments. I mean this is the game that had a Star Trek away team make a guest appearance... by crashing in them in the desert with no survivors... so yeah whacky comedy.knight steel said:
OT: Yes Obsidian should absolutely make the next game. They really did the superior job of making a fallout game of the two companies. It's especially impressive when you consider how much shit they went through to get the rights to do that game and shoving it out the gate. Even the games post release is sort of sad... 1 meta critic point stopped them from getting a bonus they desperately needed (a point they didn't get because Bethesda did terrible QA for that game). I'm really glad to see they still get so much support for their game even despite Obsidians notorious reputation of flawed gems.
Dear Bethesda, I, the poster of this here comment dare you to, no, wait... triple dog dare you, to allow Obsidian to make Fallout 4. Prove to the rest of the world that you aren't a bunchac*nts about it, and let the post-apocalyptic world rejoice.
Dear Obsidian. You go right ahead and make Fallout 4. If Bethesda doesn't like it, find someone else to publish it, and call it something else, you know, so you don't get sued about it.
Dear Obsidian. You go right ahead and make Fallout 4. If Bethesda doesn't like it, find someone else to publish it, and call it something else, you know, so you don't get sued about it.
does this mean they might use the probable success of this to make another alpha protocol? if it does, then I'm buying the shit out of this
if it doesn't, then I'll be sad
if it doesn't, then I'll be sad
No way in hell. don't get me wrong, Old World Blues was funny and fit so well with the surreal nature I expect in Fallout games, but the botched console release STILL freezes up on me every so often to the point where it kills enjoyment and prevents me from taking on certain quests.
this says nothing about the fact that the player character is forced way to early to commit to one faction or another. I would have rather played House, Caesar, and Crocker for fools right up until Kimball came to Vegas, rather then being forced into a choice around time for House Always Wins III, For the Republic II or Render Unto Caesar II.
Obsidian has a case of "want my baby back", since they were all involved in Fallout 2. I understand that, but the franchise is in good hands now, let it go. you got to make MOST of the Fallout 3 you wanted in New Vegas, time to move on.
this says nothing about the fact that the player character is forced way to early to commit to one faction or another. I would have rather played House, Caesar, and Crocker for fools right up until Kimball came to Vegas, rather then being forced into a choice around time for House Always Wins III, For the Republic II or Render Unto Caesar II.
Obsidian has a case of "want my baby back", since they were all involved in Fallout 2. I understand that, but the franchise is in good hands now, let it go. you got to make MOST of the Fallout 3 you wanted in New Vegas, time to move on.
Notice ole chris said praised by CRITICS.
The game itself was a buggy unplayable mess that you could only fix on the PC version.
To date there remain several crippling bugs that are very common on the console versions. <- the Common part is the important bit.
Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Skyrim all had bugs but Bethesda didn't leave them broken they eventually fixed the worst ones.
Not to mention NV was more of a 'new take' on a Fallout game, despite having a handful of throw-backs to the old games, it played nothing like them. It looked nothing like them. You weren't even part of a vault. You were a mailman!
The difficulty was artificially inflated by placing super high level enemies near starting areas; enforcing linearity.
The exploration was boring. The world was boring. A lot of the guns were recycles; in fact most of the textures, animations, etc. Were BETHESDA'S.
I just think they did a horrible job, and to this day I do not enjoy playing NV; but I don't claim FO3 is perfect.
I will say this in NV favor: they did a pretty decent job with the dialogue.... however, Bethesda proved they can "blow them out of the water" in that regard as well by having a massive cast of interesting characters and voice work in their latest game Skyrim.
I really see no real benefit to 'some of the old guys' working on a new Fallout; they've proven they don't know what they're doing and that they can't translate their old 2d games into the 3d game era. They even had most of the work done for them by Bethesda; The graphics, the animations, the weapon types, the skill and level up system, the VATS system, everything.
NV is a glorified buggy as hell fan-patch that cost $59.99 new.
-_- and yet people will love their games simply from trust, because their old games were so good. But the thing to remember is you don't have the ENTIRE team from the old games having worked on NV, in fact I'd say you have none of the truly talented ones working on it... Usually, the real heroes go un-sung, and the big-wigs take all the credit, and I believe this to be the case in this situation. People give credit to the big popular names but all the little people who worked on the old games? Pft, doesn't matter... that ONE or TWO guys can produce all the content we loved from the old games... BY THEMSELVES! Because they totally made those old games by themselves, right?
The game itself was a buggy unplayable mess that you could only fix on the PC version.
To date there remain several crippling bugs that are very common on the console versions. <- the Common part is the important bit.
Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Skyrim all had bugs but Bethesda didn't leave them broken they eventually fixed the worst ones.
Not to mention NV was more of a 'new take' on a Fallout game, despite having a handful of throw-backs to the old games, it played nothing like them. It looked nothing like them. You weren't even part of a vault. You were a mailman!
The difficulty was artificially inflated by placing super high level enemies near starting areas; enforcing linearity.
The exploration was boring. The world was boring. A lot of the guns were recycles; in fact most of the textures, animations, etc. Were BETHESDA'S.
I just think they did a horrible job, and to this day I do not enjoy playing NV; but I don't claim FO3 is perfect.
I will say this in NV favor: they did a pretty decent job with the dialogue.... however, Bethesda proved they can "blow them out of the water" in that regard as well by having a massive cast of interesting characters and voice work in their latest game Skyrim.
I really see no real benefit to 'some of the old guys' working on a new Fallout; they've proven they don't know what they're doing and that they can't translate their old 2d games into the 3d game era. They even had most of the work done for them by Bethesda; The graphics, the animations, the weapon types, the skill and level up system, the VATS system, everything.
NV is a glorified buggy as hell fan-patch that cost $59.99 new.
-_- and yet people will love their games simply from trust, because their old games were so good. But the thing to remember is you don't have the ENTIRE team from the old games having worked on NV, in fact I'd say you have none of the truly talented ones working on it... Usually, the real heroes go un-sung, and the big-wigs take all the credit, and I believe this to be the case in this situation. People give credit to the big popular names but all the little people who worked on the old games? Pft, doesn't matter... that ONE or TWO guys can produce all the content we loved from the old games... BY THEMSELVES! Because they totally made those old games by themselves, right?
I would love another chance at putting dozens of hours into a fallout game and then having my save files corrupted twice and never touching it again.
No one has ever forced Obsidian to sign any of their contracts. Their leadership absolutely suck at budgeting for time and resources and this is made clear again and again, every time they release a game, in fact. I'd love for Obsidian to actually ask for enough time to complete a game one of these days, but it's silly to blame publishers for the developer's failure to come up with and stick to a fucking schedule.AntiChri5 said:
Would it be possible to ask for both Bethesda and Obsidian to get together to make it?
That would be nice, I liked both games but both had their faults.
Fallout 3 had great characters, a good story and a more apocalypse feel to it. (But as you other guys have complained that Fallout is about being goofy and not serious.) Honestly I think Fallout 3 had the right feel to it ... hard to explain.
Though Fallout 3 had a new system for the Fallout series, the setting had a bland/colourless feeling to it, not much side-quests and a few other things .
Fallout New Vegas was great because it improved the system, had a wonderful world (A bit too bland with the colour still.) and added many more things. The thing with it is that New Vegas didn't have that great of a story (Well, it didn't really get me hyped up at all, I mean I HAD a connection to the Lone Wanderer due to the beginning/prologue, but with the Courier I don't know him at all). I didn't give a shit about most of the characters, I feel like I could throw them into oblivion and I wouldn't care ... also I didn't like most of them. The immersion of it being a game based in the post-apocalypse felt kind of wiped out ... felt more like a spaghetti western.
BOTH had at least one great DLC. Point Lookout for Fallout 3 (I still liked Broken Steel) and Old World Blues for New Vegas.
So it would be great if we could make Fallout 4's DLC like that.
And both games had horrible bug issues. (Which I didn't experience much, but I'm going off the internet's experience)
Also, YES I didn't prefer Fallout 3. My whole Fallout experience comes from it, and I enjoyed it to it's fullest.
And no ... I haven't played the previous games. I really hate that top-down look ... also plus I didn't hear of the series until Fallout 3.
Basically, both are great and both are horrible in their own senses.
If one, both or neither of the teams can combine these good aspects and kill the bad points ... I would be a very happy Lone Wanderer in Fallout 4.
That would be nice, I liked both games but both had their faults.
Fallout 3 had great characters, a good story and a more apocalypse feel to it. (But as you other guys have complained that Fallout is about being goofy and not serious.) Honestly I think Fallout 3 had the right feel to it ... hard to explain.
Though Fallout 3 had a new system for the Fallout series, the setting had a bland/colourless feeling to it, not much side-quests and a few other things .
Fallout New Vegas was great because it improved the system, had a wonderful world (A bit too bland with the colour still.) and added many more things. The thing with it is that New Vegas didn't have that great of a story (Well, it didn't really get me hyped up at all, I mean I HAD a connection to the Lone Wanderer due to the beginning/prologue, but with the Courier I don't know him at all). I didn't give a shit about most of the characters, I feel like I could throw them into oblivion and I wouldn't care ... also I didn't like most of them. The immersion of it being a game based in the post-apocalypse felt kind of wiped out ... felt more like a spaghetti western.
BOTH had at least one great DLC. Point Lookout for Fallout 3 (I still liked Broken Steel) and Old World Blues for New Vegas.
So it would be great if we could make Fallout 4's DLC like that.
And both games had horrible bug issues. (Which I didn't experience much, but I'm going off the internet's experience)
Also, YES I didn't prefer Fallout 3. My whole Fallout experience comes from it, and I enjoyed it to it's fullest.
And no ... I haven't played the previous games. I really hate that top-down look ... also plus I didn't hear of the series until Fallout 3.
Basically, both are great and both are horrible in their own senses.
If one, both or neither of the teams can combine these good aspects and kill the bad points ... I would be a very happy Lone Wanderer in Fallout 4.
As opposed to Bethesda doing it for them? Bethesda are on of the most incompetent companies around when it comes to technical proficiency, to the point where they expect their customers to QA test their games for them.mad825 said:
Funny people are still blaming Obsidian for the broken nature of the console releases, despite the quality assurance being handled by Bethesda. And they did such a bad job that Obsidian was screwed out of their royalty bonus for getting an 85% rating on Metacritic. Bethesda, the people responsible for fixing the game's problems as per their deal with Obsidian, did a shitty enough job that they didn't need to pay Obsidian their bonus. Whether they were intentionally shit or just incompetent, they fucked Obsidian over.
Really? Fallout 3 isn't the goofy game? With the giant robot? And the aliens? And the part where you're a baby? Or summoning the Chinese via lamp to mercifully kill a bunch of suburbanites to end a vr simulation? And the cowboys that hunt evil people?knight steel said:
Of course I would want to see Obsidian make another Fallout. Fallout: New Vegas is one of my favourite games of all time. Hell Tim Cain works at Obsidian now. The man made Fallout. Who wouldn't want to see Cain, Avellone and Saywer working on a Fallout game?
Like most here, I would love another Obsidian Fallout game. Yes I know NV was, and still is, buggy as hell on consoles. This is just one situation where I don my pc-gamer hat and say I don't care. NV just had way more depth and nuance than FO3, to the point where 3 looks like a dumbed down version of NV.
Plus FO3 missed a whole lot of things about Fallout. Yes it feels more post-apocalypse, but it's been over 200 years since the bombs fell, people have been rebuilding for decades on the west coast. The series is actually post-post-apocalypse if that makes any sense. Hell, by the time the game starts the NCR had already been around for almost 100 years. Yet there are only two decent size settlements and virtually no economy or organized leadership.
Fallout was never supposed to be that grim and desolate. There are a thousand other games like that, play one of them if that's what you're looking for. Please let us have Fallout actually feel like Fallout.
Plus FO3 missed a whole lot of things about Fallout. Yes it feels more post-apocalypse, but it's been over 200 years since the bombs fell, people have been rebuilding for decades on the west coast. The series is actually post-post-apocalypse if that makes any sense. Hell, by the time the game starts the NCR had already been around for almost 100 years. Yet there are only two decent size settlements and virtually no economy or organized leadership.
Fallout was never supposed to be that grim and desolate. There are a thousand other games like that, play one of them if that's what you're looking for. Please let us have Fallout actually feel like Fallout.
Annual? At my count, Fallout 3 was released almost 5 years ago, in 2008, with the final DLC, Mothership Zeta releasing in 2009.Steven Bogos said:Obsidian Would Love Another Chance at Fallout
The New Vegas developer says the development of Fallout 4 is entirely up to the bigwigs at Bethesda.
Fallout fans are still eagerly awaiting any news on their favorite Franchise. Bethesda recently quelled rumors that a "secret showing" of Fallout 4 happened behind closed doors at this year's E3, stating that "We are not into annual franchises ... These are big games that take a long time and folks need to understand that we have a very certain way of going about things."
Source: Gameranx [http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/15895/article/fallout-4-development-up-to-bethesda-but-obsidian-would-love-another-chance/]
Permalink
Fallout New Vegas was 2010, 3 years ago, with the final DLC releasing in 2011. The ultimate edition has been out since 2011.
This seems to be the opposite of annual. I'm not saying that they should have a Fallout 4 in development. I'm just saying that they should be considering it. More than an Elder Scrolls MMO in any case.
The Sierra Army Depot ones? The floating art-deco radios with zappy laser tails? I can't see why, besides personal aesthetic preference. They had no personality, and were just fodder of the base, that if I could, I would skip with skill checks. The sentry bots in FO2 (were they in FO? Can't remember.), were fine, but I'd have said they were easier prey than the sentry bots of Bethesda's Fallout. They were slow and huge. I'd get a nostalgia hit from seeing them roam the wasteland, like the first time I spot a Robobrain in FO3, but are they sorely missing?Ultratwinkie said:
Centaurs, floaters and aliens (WANAMINGOS!) say Fallout to me. Proper centaurs, with six arms and two heads.
Edit: So many goofs in the first post of this D: Sorry.