Bugs got fixed.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Will Obsidian do a new Fallout?
- Thread starter Calderc
- Start date
Bugs got fixed.
texhnolyze
Banned
Just let them remake New Vegas with Fallout 4 engine, and I'll be all over it.
After playing New Vegas and hearing constantly how FO4 story sucks from my friends I seriously hope they do. Not going to touch FO4 until it gets a decent amount of modded quests. I don't see myself playing a Bethesda RPG for the story after Skyrim.
As they suggested before it'd be cool if they could focus on the West while Beth focuses on the is East.
As they suggested before it'd be cool if they could focus on the West while Beth focuses on the is East.
Obsidian has been very upfront that they would love to do another. The big stumbling block is Zenimax and I suspect that they won't give them the offer. New Vegas was successful enough to likely give Obsidian greater weight at the bargaining table and I doubt that Zenimax is that interested in that sort of negotiating atmosphere.
As an aside, people who portray New Vegas as not being zany are really off the mark. There is a lot of weird and wacky elements in New Vegas. Hell, one of the primary factions is an army of dudes in football gear pretending to be the Roman Army. One of the radio stations is run by a mutant that pretends the station is her own little paradise kingdom despite being a radioactive crater. There is a casino full of cannibals!
The difference between 3 and New Vegas is presentation. New Vegas takes its ludicrous elements and balances it with verisimilitude. It makes its world work through internal consistency and grounded struggles. It's following in the footsteps of classics like Mad Max where the unbelievable is sold through the personal conflicts. 3 does not and simply skips between location and location. It is reduced to the essence of a game. Here is one play element. Here is the next. The only connection between the two is enough information to lead you to another playground.
The primary difference between the games is that they're in essence different genres. New Vegas is a role-playing game in the strict definition of the word. People are there to play a role in a story and a believable world. The verisimilitude is a primary attraction and necessary component for maintaining suspension of disbelief. 3 is an adventure. Players are drawn to a ride through wonders and set pieces. Verisimilitude is unnecessary or even a detriment since it will introduce elements that aren't light hearted, fun and solely there for the player's amusement. It is a game first and foremost. Everything else is extraneous framing.
The reason that the discussion over Fallout as an IP produces such vitriol compared to The Elder Scrolls is that Fallout was once an RPG. Its fans expected it to follow the design goals of that genre. Bethesda has turned it entirely into something else. Is it successful in what they are trying to accomplish? Sure, to some degree. But it's building its house on the foundations of another genre's skeletons and it doesn't matter how many times you open the build menu, you can't delete those bones from your living room.
As an aside, people who portray New Vegas as not being zany are really off the mark. There is a lot of weird and wacky elements in New Vegas. Hell, one of the primary factions is an army of dudes in football gear pretending to be the Roman Army. One of the radio stations is run by a mutant that pretends the station is her own little paradise kingdom despite being a radioactive crater. There is a casino full of cannibals!
The difference between 3 and New Vegas is presentation. New Vegas takes its ludicrous elements and balances it with verisimilitude. It makes its world work through internal consistency and grounded struggles. It's following in the footsteps of classics like Mad Max where the unbelievable is sold through the personal conflicts. 3 does not and simply skips between location and location. It is reduced to the essence of a game. Here is one play element. Here is the next. The only connection between the two is enough information to lead you to another playground.
The primary difference between the games is that they're in essence different genres. New Vegas is a role-playing game in the strict definition of the word. People are there to play a role in a story and a believable world. The verisimilitude is a primary attraction and necessary component for maintaining suspension of disbelief. 3 is an adventure. Players are drawn to a ride through wonders and set pieces. Verisimilitude is unnecessary or even a detriment since it will introduce elements that aren't light hearted, fun and solely there for the player's amusement. It is a game first and foremost. Everything else is extraneous framing.
The reason that the discussion over Fallout as an IP produces such vitriol compared to The Elder Scrolls is that Fallout was once an RPG. Its fans expected it to follow the design goals of that genre. Bethesda has turned it entirely into something else. Is it successful in what they are trying to accomplish? Sure, to some degree. But it's building its house on the foundations of another genre's skeletons and it doesn't matter how many times you open the build menu, you can't delete those bones from your living room.
Zenimax owns Arkane. I heard they got a good deal on that studio.
Chance Hale
Member
It got good reviews from most critics, with slightly lower scores due to being launched earlier than Obsidian intended and was very well received by most people. Especially those who enjoy branching quest design and good writing. Ie, original Fallout fans.
Welp, that'll do it.
The Lone Courier
Member
Oh God yes please.
kamineko
Does his best thinking in the flying car
Probably not. The improvements from NV, and I say this as a guy who liked F3 too, were not incorporated into F4. The faction stuff in F4 is just.... ew. Whether this was a matter of pride or just bad taste, who can say, but F4 doubles down on almost every weakness in F3. I just can't see it happening.
Would be there day one, though, would love to be wrong.
Would be there day one, though, would love to be wrong.
Northeastmonk
Gold Member
Won't the Fallout 4 team be working on DLC to Fallout and then moving onto TES? Zenimax has quite a few IP's right now and maybe they do or don't want to do another fallout until another TES is made. It was a two year difference between Fallout 3 (2008) and New Vegas (2010), so who knows. 2016 is probably all TBA right now for most of their games.
I hope we get to see a lot of their titles come out next year, but who really knows. Obsidian would do well, but aren't they busy making another Pillars of Eternity? That's probably taking the place of their own version of Fallout if you ask me.
I hope we get to see a lot of their titles come out next year, but who really knows. Obsidian would do well, but aren't they busy making another Pillars of Eternity? That's probably taking the place of their own version of Fallout if you ask me.
Dick Justice
Banned
I replayed New Vegas numerous times because of the branching quest paths and outcomes (beyond "Be Good" and "Be Sarcastic"), as well as obviously the main story itself. Not to mention the ability to actually roleplay. I've found myself becoming less and less interested as I progress in 4, partly because of the shitty loot and partly because of the bland quests. If I do replay it, it'll likely be due to mods rather than anything from the vanilla game.
Count of Monte Sawed-Off
un33dab@dpu$$y
I'd love it, but I think they're otherwise occupied with other stuff.
And the dialogue system in 4 was fine in theory. Bethesda didn't do a great with it, but it doesn't mean a studio like Obsidian couldn't make it work.
Id also be fine with an updated new Vegas.
And the dialogue system in 4 was fine in theory. Bethesda didn't do a great with it, but it doesn't mean a studio like Obsidian couldn't make it work.
Id also be fine with an updated new Vegas.
Kikorin
Member
I'm playing Fallout 4 and I'm loving it, it's my first real RPG experience after years, until the first Mass Effect, so I'm not an expert. Can someone explain me what was better in New Vegas compared to Fallout 4? I'm curious, because I'd love to play New Vegas too after I've finished 4.
Tom Nook Sawyer
Member
So apparently I missed something...what fiasco?
Count of Monte Sawed-Off
un33dab@dpu$$y
For the most part the writing in New Vegas is a lot better. Although Bethesda really stepped up their game in 4 in regards to companions which I think are easily on par with the ones New Vegas. Also quest design is a lot better in that many quests have multiple ways they can play out. Dialogue is also richer with more options. New Vegas is a just a lot more ambitious in those areas, although it's a lot buggier.
Obsidian was supposed to get a bonus if they hit a certain meta critic score which they missed by one point. Bethesda was somewhat responsible for rushing the game out with numerous issues. But Obsidian has said that they would work on a new Fallout if offered. They don't really seem that bothered by it.
A contract where if the game got 85 or better Obsidian would get a bonus. The game got 84.
From what I understand Obsidian is not bitter about it. Seems like a non-issue in regards to a new Fallout game from them.
diffusionx
Gold Member
I'm not sure Betheseda rushed it out as much as Betheseda gave the game a release date and Obsidian couldn't get it done on time.
Up to DS3 every game Obsidian released was a technical disaster. I blame them for their decisions.
I doubt they'll ever do another Fallout.
Intheflorsh
Banned
True, Bethesda looks bad all on their own.
A.D. Skinner
Member
They want to do a star wars game. Let them do star wars fallout. Start out as a scrap and junk collector or something.
It wasn't meant as one. But if you're willing to tell me what monumental work Bethesda has done for Fallout that Obsidian would be considered to be merely standing on their shoulders, I would be willing to listen.
Dick Justice
Banned
Some of the writing in 4 is just flat out lazy. Like (Bunker Hill spoilers, though you'd know if you've seen the blatant red workshop)
. And the speech checks are the usual "state the obvious" crap from 3.
As much of a joke as trying to claim that Obsidian had an easy job and just iterated on 3.
Kessler just giving you control of Bunker Hill because "you have powerful friends" or some bullshit, instead of giving us an interesting quest to take control of it
As much of a joke as trying to claim that Obsidian had an easy job and just iterated on 3.
CyberPunked
Member
Rushersauce
Banned
To every Fallout fan.
That's so funny. I remember playing fallout 2 and 1 and thinking "wow, these feel like new vegas"
New Vegas is truly fallout 3. Though 4 is up there. Fallout 3 though? meh
I'd love to see Bethesda pump out a sequel in a year and a half. Just to see what would happen.
.....Why don't Bethesda make their own game that caters to casual "RPG" fans?
Fallout did cater to hardcore fans, when it was Fallout 1 and 2 and made by the people who nowadays work at Obsidian.
This is doubly true for Bethesda, as they have no clue on how to properly use the Fallout property, other than shallowly appropriating some concepts and visual design.
Let them invent their own property to go ahead and underutilize. Just like they've done with TES, they can do it again.
Red Blaster
Member
they should
bethesda is not talented enough to make something as good as them
bethesda is not talented enough to make something as good as them
Can someone explain where the New Vegas fetishism developed? I thought the game was decent, and enjoyed the extra Fallout experience, but I just don't get it. The whole "omg b-b-b-but the dialogue!" is becoming pretty meme-like.
I just feel like there's so much hype piled onto NV since it's Obsidian vs Bethesda.
edit: yes, I do appreciate that there are gameplay enhancements in NV. But I would chalk those up to natural sequel-level enhancements, not God Tier Developer Ultra Enhancements.
I just feel like there's so much hype piled onto NV since it's Obsidian vs Bethesda.
edit: yes, I do appreciate that there are gameplay enhancements in NV. But I would chalk those up to natural sequel-level enhancements, not God Tier Developer Ultra Enhancements.
There's way more emphasis on NPC's and your relationships with them. From what I can see the NV love comes from the feeling that it's more fun messing around with that then random enemies in dungeons. Way more of my time in NV was spent scheming within narratives than in Fallout 3/4.
Beats me. It's only on this site that I've seen the "fetishism". I've platted both New Vegas and 3 and never once thought of NV as the overall better game. I'll grant that the writing is a bit better, but it's still nothing remarkable.
I honestly didn't get that. Granted I only have one playthrough whenever it was released (2010?), so my memory isn't the best.
All I remember thinking was "Ok, so this is FO3 in the desert with different factions."
Exactly. I'll accept that the writing is generally considered to be better than FO3 (although I'm indifferent on the whole thing), but the way GAF/reddit act towards NV makes it seem like they resurrected the 10 greatest writers throughout history. Sure, maybe it's +2 writing compared to FO3, but that makes it what, 6 or 7?
It developed as soon as the game came out. Hell as soon as we found out Obsidian was gonna get to work on Fallout. And everything from the dialogue to the amount of build specific skill and perk checks to how thought out the wasteland is to the branching questlines is why people think the writing is far superior. It isnt just dialogue. In every meaningful aspect of role playing New Vegas is better.
A casual gander into any Bethesda and Fallout thread will have a dozen people tell you exactly why NV is much better. Here is flowchart of a quest in NV and there is no equivalence in any quest in FO4.
Dick Justice
Banned
Certainly explains why the improvements made to writing, quest design, characterization, RPG mechanics, etc, were included in 4, right? Oh.
It's not hard to see the chasm in writing/dialogue quality between the two companies when comparing New Vegas with 3/4. Seriously, if you play the games and try to claim that there's no discernible difference in quality, it says more about you than anything else really. And writing is pretty damn important in an RPG where there's tons of it.
New Vegas initially got a bit of a bad rap because it was buggy as fuck, and on the surface level it just looked like Fallout 3 in the Wild West. Guess it simply took some time for people to look past all that (and for the game to be patched to a decent level).
so fanboyism
Count of Monte Sawed-Off
un33dab@dpu$$y
Eh, somewhat. I think New Vegas is better than 3 or 4, but the Bethesda hate you see around here is definitely overblown.
Dick Justice
Banned
So people knowing of the developer's RPG pedigree and history with the franchise.
So tell me what does a Fallout fanboy like?
No, most of those people will probably cite a bunch of reasons why they like it better. They are fans of NV and Obsidian because of the things they do. It doesnt develop the other way around. Nor is it the first series where some people prefer the Obsidian entry over the original. KotOR and NWN being two examples.
New Vegas is so good, oh god it's so good.
He wasnt the only guy but yes, three of the biggest contributors to the writing are no longer at Obsidian.
Solid Samus
Banned
no offense but you have dropped into threads like these before to talk about how NV is basically nothing more than a Fallout 3 mod, just to dip out when you're called out on how silly that whole train of thought is to begin with. "Standing on the shoulders of giants" etc. which is a fair point to make when you're not using it to handwave away massive differences in design philosophy and roleplaying potential. if anything it's cool that you're not drive-by posting but I don't feel like you're really conveying what you mean here with a lot of what you're saying. like, what element of 'soul' is missing from Fallout: New Vegas? That's so nebulous, and I'm very interested in hearing exactly how New Vegas lacks soul in pretty much any context. the whole 'worldbuilding is gone' thing in relation to NV is honestly kind of of 100% crazytown to me, especially considering how many of these threads you've dropped by and all of the argumentation you've probably seen for yourself at this point. like, whether or not fallout 3 has fnv beaten in terms of general aesthetics, the actual worldbuilding in nv, with a few notable exceptions shared by fallout 3 and many other games of this nature, is generally on-point. it's apparent that genuine effort went into justifying each location, through its history (and the history of its people), its viability as whatever it is, and its worth to the other denizens of the wasteland (based on both the location's unique ingame characteristics and its geographical location relative to other places). and where the people themselves are concerned, there's generally a lot more unique npcs in nv, who have a lot more to show and say about their place in the world, the world around them, and how they're getting by.
and by the way, this is what the word cohesive means. to cohere:
- to stick together; be united; hold fast, as parts of the same mass
- to be naturally or logically connected
The word cohesive does not apply to Fallout 3's world.
Bethesda made no attempt at providing anything close to a cohesive game world, and that's okay, but there's no reasonable explanation for you seeing Fallout 3 not just as a cohesive world but as one that's somehow more cohesive than a game like New Vegas whose world actually works constantly at maintaining cohesion.
have none of you ever read through even one of these threads before? it's not quite just the writing that puts NV ahead of FO3 for many of us here.
Sure. But they certainly have a company culture that fosters that kind of care. IIRC nearly all the designers of that game wrote their own quests and parts of others.