What if both Obsidian and Bethesda Fallouts existed, side by side?

[ZigzagPX4]

I'm just wondering, if a single thing had changed during Fallout 3's development. What if Fallout 3 had not been a numbered sequel? What if they were all spin-offs, and Van Buren was released anyways? Would there have been hate for it anyways? What if both Fallout 3 and 4 as we know it were not numbered sequels at all? Would the reaction be more like XCOM fans towards The Bureau: XCOM Declassified?

What would prove if Fallout by Bethesda is a good series or not, is if both classic Fallout and first-person spinoffs existed along side-by-side. NMA would exist anyway, criticising any inconsistency in the lore. But with every few years would come both an isometric cRPG as a numbered Fallout, and a Fallout: [insert name here] as a first-person series by Bethesda, accompanying the flagship headed by Obsidian. How different would everything would've turned out?

What if, instead of Bethesda taking over the series like it happened in reality, or them never getting it and Obsidian taking charge from the start instead like so many here wants, both of them share the series? And only the isometric, turn-based ones were numbered? Would people here still be the exact same way? Better? Worse?

What if, people. What if. And if you don't think an isometric game can survive in the mainstream culture, take a look at XCOM 2, and think again. Who knows? Maybe the world would perceive isometric RPGs completely differently today.

 

[naossano]

See what happened with FoBos...

 

[Languorous_Maiar]

Fallout spin-offs are... mediocre at best. (with most optimistic approach)

But easy metaphor for you?
Ex-administrator was hating so much on Fallout Tactics that developers created such character:
http://fallout.gamepedia.com/Roshambo
Basically, nothing would change.

 

[ZigzagPX4]

Not... what I meant. I was talking about if it had not gone this way:

[TABLE="class: outer_border, width: 750"]
[TR]
[TD][O] Fallout 1[/TD]
[TD][O] Fallout 2[/TD]
[TD][O] Van Buren (cancelled)[/TD]
[TD] Fallout 3[/TD]
[TD][O] Fallout: New Vegas[/TD]
[TD] Fallout 4[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


But theoretically, instead, this way:

[TABLE="class: outer_border, width: 750"]
[TR]
[TD][O] Fallout 1[/TD]
[TD][O] Fallout 2[/TD]
[TD][O] Fallout 3*[/TD]
[TD][O] Fallout 4**[/TD]
[TD][O] Fallout 5***[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD] Fallout: Capital[/TD]
[TD][B+O] Fallout: New Vegas[/TD]
[TD] Fallout: Institute[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


(*Van Buren from original timeline)
(**Successor to Obsidian's FO3 instead of an FPS)
(***Successor to Obsidian's FO4)
([O] stands for Obsidian development, stands for Bethesda development)

The Capital Wasteland Fallout and Commonwealth Fallout both by Bethesda as an FPS WOULD still exist in this theorised timeline, but so would Obsidian's isometric series - Van Buren, and the successors of it, on and on.

Simply put - Obsidian makes Fallout in the vein of the original two, and on and on, and the Bethesda FPS we see today would be the spin-offs. I'm not referring to Fallout: Tactics or ANYTHING like that.

Is it really that hard a concept to grasp?

 

[PossibleCabbage]

I think dropping the number and going with the subtitle is a good idea, both because numbering your games suggest that they are both connected and sequential. Like "Fallout 5" suggests both that it continues a story from the previous "four" Fallout games and that you should play them all in order to get a sense of what's going on. This is very much not what Bethesda wants or what Bethesda is doing, so there's no real point to send this message.

The additional benefit to dropping the number is that it lets you set games out of chronological order. Like Fallout 3 was originally envisioned (and works much better) as a prequel, set shortly after the war not long after folks started emerging from vaults. One of the reasons it was moved up to 200 years later was simply that having "Fallout 3" happen before either of the other two was weird (mostly they just wanted to tie it in by borrowing stuff from 1&2 though). But if Bethesda (or anybody else) wants to make a Fallout game set before 2160-2260, they should feel free to do so as one of the main features of a "post apocalyptic" setting is that each given region is pretty well isolated so they can advance at different rates and wouldn't necessarily be affected by what their distant neighbors are up to.

I think Bethesda honestly would be better off making a Fallout set 60 years after the war in which you shoot radioactive alligators in the Everglades, than by trying to move the timeline forward.

 

[ZigzagPX4]

I think dropping the number and going with the subtitle is a good idea, both because numbering your games suggest that they are both connected and sequential. Like "Fallout 5" suggests both that it continues a story from the previous "four" Fallout games and that you should play them all in order to get a sense of what's going on. This is very much not what Bethesda wants or what Bethesda is doing, so there's no real point to send this message.

It's a discussion forum, and I like bringing up theories. Nothing wrong with this, just wanted to see people's opinions about the idea of a side-by-side series.

The additional benefit to dropping the number is that it lets you set games out of chronological order. Like Fallout 3 was originally envisioned (and works much better) as a prequel, set shortly after the war not long after folks started emerging from vaults. One of the reasons it was moved up to 200 years later was simply that having "Fallout 3" happen before either of the other two was weird (mostly they just wanted to tie it in by borrowing stuff from 1&2 though). But if Bethesda (or anybody else) wants to make a Fallout game set before 2160-2260, they should feel free to do so as one of the main features of a "post apocalyptic" setting is that each given region is pretty well isolated so they can advance at different rates and wouldn't necessarily be affected by what their distant neighbors are up to.

I think Bethesda honestly would be better off making a Fallout set 60 years after the war in which you shoot radioactive alligators in the Everglades, than by trying to move the timeline forward.

This is a great idea, nevertheless. Not sticking to the chronology would allow Bethesda to have more leeway with how the make their Fallouts.

 

[TheSnake]

Not... what I meant. I was talking about if it had not gone this way:

[TABLE="class: outer_border, width: 750"]
[TR]
[TD][O] Fallout 1[/TD]
[TD][O] Fallout 2[/TD]
[TD][O] Van Buren (cancelled)[/TD]
[TD] Fallout 3[/TD]
[TD][O] Fallout: New Vegas[/TD]
[TD] Fallout 4[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


But theoretically, instead, this way:

[TABLE="class: outer_border, width: 750"]
[TR]
[TD][O] Fallout 1[/TD]
[TD][O] Fallout 2[/TD]
[TD][O] Fallout 3*[/TD]
[TD][O] Fallout 4**[/TD]
[TD][O] Fallout 5***[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD] Fallout: Capital[/TD]
[TD][B+O] Fallout: New Vegas[/TD]
[TD] Fallout: Institute[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


(*Van Buren from original timeline)
(**Successor to Obsidian's FO3 instead of an FPS)
(***Successor to Obsidian's FO4)
([O] stands for Obsidian development, stands for Bethesda development)

The Capital Wasteland Fallout and Commonwealth Fallout both by Bethesda as an FPS WOULD still exist in this theorised timeline, but so would Obsidian's isometric series - Van Buren, and the successors of it, on and on.

Simply put - Obsidian makes Fallout in the vein of the original two, and on and on, and the Bethesda FPS we see today would be the spin-offs. I'm not referring to Fallout: Tactics or ANYTHING like that.

Is it really that hard a concept to grasp?

I'm with this guy. Though I'm clearly in the minority in that I actually like the open world aspect of the series, and I could do with or without the isometric view (don't crucify me, I'm playing Wasteland 2 at the moment and yes, I enjoy it.)

 

[naossano]

Numbers are only there for cashgrab it. You expect more money from the numbers.
Otherwise, they are not needed and there are quite some IP that don't use numbered sequels.

 

[Risewild]

I always thought that the Fallout universe could be used in developing different types of games. Just because the classic games were Isometric turn based RPGs doesn't mean we can't also have 1st person perspective RPGs, FPS games, a RTS or turn based strategy game or even a CCG game in the same universe for example.

There are a lot of different players out there and making different genres of games in the same universe is quite feasible and the same point in time could even allow several games (take FO4 for example, it could also have a strategy game that happens in exactly the same point in time where the different factions try to overtake eachother).

I probably wouldn't like some games, but I am sure other players would love them, there would be something for pretty much everyone.

I love the old games (I am even replaying them at the moment and I still love them) but others hate them, I kinda like FO3 but not as much and I like FNV, other hate them or love them, so why do we have to have just one kind of games in a franchise when there is plenty of market for more genres of games?

I know my post will probably make some people think I am crazy or hate me for suggesting other genres of Fallout games, but it is just my opinion and I think it would be a good practice in terms of making money for Bethesda and a good thing for players .

 

[Languorous_Maiar]

Its not possible to have Van Buren and New Vegas at the same time. Just look at entire plot, characters, locations and so on. : <

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

I know my post will probably make some people think I am crazy or hate me for suggesting other genres of Fallout games, but it is just my opinion and I think it would be a good practice in terms of making money for Bethesda and a good thing for players .

Nah, I also felt that the franchise would be suitable enough for all kinds of spin offs.
Long ago, before or during the development of Van Buren someone was already working on a Fallout 3D (clearly have titled it so) and I thought there was room enough for such a game.
It looked somewhat like an earlier version of Fallout 3, there were even plans for a Power Armor overlay over the standard UI once you had equipped such armor long before it was done in Fallout 4.

Even an overhead shooter would have worked in Fallout, I blame FOPOS's failure mostly on that it took precedence over Van Buren's development, juvenile humor, bad attention to Fallout Lore, average gameplay for an overhead shooter, and so on.

Sawyer a long time ago proposed a tactical strategy game taking place during the resource wars in Europe.

 

[Stone Cold Robert House]

Its not possible to have Van Buren and New Vegas at the same time. Just look at entire plot, characters, locations and so on. : <

Yeah New Vegas is basically the complete version of the concepts that would be used in Van Buren, albeit built around another gameplay. If you look at the basics of the setting and characters, NV has a more refined version of almost all of them. A "finished" Van Buren now would feel very redundant.

 

[PossibleCabbage]

Its not possible to have Van Buren and New Vegas at the same time. Just look at entire plot, characters, locations and so on. : <

Yeah New Vegas is basically the complete version of the concepts that would be used in Van Buren, albeit built around another gameplay. If you look at the basics of the setting and characters, NV has a more refined version of almost all of them. A "finished" Van Buren now would feel very redundant.

There's a lot of stuff from Van Buren that didn't make it into New Vegas though. Like the whole "inadvertently spreading a plague" and "the other group of adventurers working at cross purposes to your party" alone from Van Buren could support a whole new game that felt very different from New Vegas.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

A "finished" Van Buren now would feel very redundant.

I would still play it though, as an alternative take on what happened after Fallout 2.
Best thing would have been if this would lead into an PC only alternative universe spin off series (console gamers seem to make it clear that they would not enjoy a Fallout game with a more traditional viewpoint and gameplay.

Ah one can dream...

 

[Gaddes]

console gamers seem to make it clear that they would not enjoy a Fallout game with a more traditional viewpoint and gameplay.

Not all of us Dutch lol. I'd play the hell out of a more traditional Fallout game. =D

 

[ZigzagPX4]

There's plenty of possibilities here that isn't equivalent to taking over someone's restaurant, switching the entire menu into fast food, but keeping the same name, ruining the reputation of the old restaurant despite the new menu attracting more customers.

I mean, sure, people still knows who owned the original restaurant, but now its name and all the tables and chairs inside are all associated with this new menu. What should've been done is to just build a new fast food restaurant rather than taking over someone else's old, well-loved proper restaurant.

And then we come to my point - having both menus exist in the same restaurant, rather than replacing the old menu.

Its not possible to have Van Buren and New Vegas at the same time. Just look at entire plot, characters, locations and so on. : <

Still though, my point was more towards a coexistence of both Obsidian (or whatever ex-Black Isle would've been named) isometric turn-based RPGs and Bethesda's jack-of-all-trades exploration FPS.

The plot of Obsidian's Fallout 3 wouldn't need to be exactly Van Buren. Or maybe it would've been, and New Vegas could've just turned out completely different.

 

[Spacemunkey]

I think Bethesda honestly would be better off making a Fallout set 60 years after the war in which you shoot radioactive alligators in the Everglades, than by trying to move the timeline forward.

This is so true. I think a lot of franchises, not just games, get a severe case of sequelitis and are afraid to do anything outside the box. Imagine the difference in the Star Wars prequels had Lucas set them during the time of the old Republic.

 

[Juza The Cloud]

This reminds me of the time that they were two different James Bond films out at similar times. One with Connery and one with Rodger Moore.

 

[Korin]

I'm just wondering, if a single thing had changed during Fallout 3's development. What if Fallout 3 had not been a numbered sequel? What if they were all spin-offs, and Van Buren was released anyways? Would there have been hate for it anyways? What if both Fallout 3 and 4 as we know it were not numbered sequels at all? Would the reaction be more like XCOM fans towards The Bureau: XCOM Declassified?

What would prove if Fallout by Bethesda is a good series or not, is if both classic Fallout and first-person spinoffs existed along side-by-side. NMA would exist anyway, criticising any inconsistency in the lore. But with every few years would come both an isometric cRPG as a numbered Fallout, and a Fallout: [insert name here] as a first-person series by Bethesda, accompanying the flagship headed by Obsidian. How different would everything would've turned out?

What if, instead of Bethesda taking over the series like it happened in reality, or them never getting it and Obsidian taking charge from the start instead like so many here wants, both of them share the series? And only the isometric, turn-based ones were numbered? Would people here still be the exact same way? Better? Worse?

What if, people. What if. And if you don't think an isometric game can survive in the mainstream culture, take a look at XCOM 2, and think again. Who knows? Maybe the world would perceive isometric RPGs completely differently today.

If Fallout had been released under a different title or at least not labeled "3" it probably would have gotten less backlash from at least this community. Once you label something as a sequel you expect it to be a continuation that follows the previous trajectory.

Also, if Obsidian kept making games on the west coast while Bethesda did the east I don't see why they couldn't co-exist peacefully since they hardly interact with each other.

 

[Mohamed2001]

If Fallout had been released under a different title or at least not labeled "3" it probably would have gotten less backlash from at least this community. Once you label something as a sequel you expect it to be a continuation that follows the previous trajectory.

Also, if Obsidian kept making games on the west coast while Bethesda did the east I don't see why they couldn't co-exist peacefully since they hardly interact with each other.

There's one problem though; The Eastern Brotherhood of Steel chapter.

They're strong now. Too strong. Liberty Prime, Airship, T-60, Enclave technology, LOTS of recruits... The Western Brotherhood is dying out. There's no reason that Maxson wouldn't go West when his Commonwealth campaign is over. There's just no reason. Hell, I'd even say that if he doesn't help the Western BoS, then that's treason.

So.. either eBoS destroyed is canon, or the NCR will be in for a rather bad surprise.