A new Fallout game... by Obsidian?

Ok... the real interesting question now is:

WHY?

gyt_why_gyt_now.jpg
 
Ausir said:
Yes, it will be based on Fallout 3's engine and gameplay style.
Click to expand...
And why are you people exactly optimistc again ?

I dont want to be the devils advocate. But honstely, guys since when does Bethesda give soem company FULL CONTROLL over their projects? Anything will either be either contractual controlled or under supervision of Bethesda/Zenimax.

What does it help, for the case it really is true, if you have either Obisidian, Interplay, Spidermen or even the holy ghost working on any Fallout project when people like for example Todd or any other guy in Bethesda and Zenimax have the finall say ? If they come to them with the idea of the best story with complex elements and the answer is just "no, we want you to make it cool [in other words: simplified]" then we will just get another project similar to Fallout 3. Just with a different setting.

*Edit
Black said:
gameplay style.
Click to expand...
But Obsidian doesn't have any experience in making shooters.
Well, neither has bethesda.
Click to expand...
Well they will make it easy that way. If it sucks hard (like now) they and its fans will just say "but its not a shooter!", if it is suprisingly good you will hear "even shooter fans can enjoy it, even though its not a shooter".

You see, everyone happy. Marketing solves every problem, by simply saying, that its not there. Bad shooter? Its a RPG. Not a shooter. Bad RPG? You re just hardcore. And you cant please everyone (the best answer ever ..)
 
So, who's spin-off now, eh? Whatever.
Click to expand...
Arf! :D


I really am interested to see if adding some real dialogues and personalities to the npc will be enought to change the shooter experience Fallout 3 gave me...
 
5 things in my mind:
Turn-based combat (with groin shot!), multiple choice and consequence dialog (based on player character's intelligent), combat message, multiple ending that really makes sense and isometric view. Are they coming back now? :shock:

Also, for some reason, new Vegas sounds like new reno to me. :ugly:
 
Mikael Grizzly said:
Star Trek's not a Bethesda IP.
Click to expand...
No but it was done under their supervision. Anything that was happening there was with their knowledge.

May I just remember you to the Star Trekk.

Bradylama said:
Where No Trekkie Can Go Anymore

While Fallout changed hands between Interplay and Bethesda, the Star Trek gaming franchise was suspended in a state of limbo. STG's[22] Victor recalls in his interview with NMA[23]:

Star Trek gaming history, now THAT'S a toughy, there's over a decades worth of my views on that subject. Suffice to say it went from one of the most lucrative franchises in the world (PC Gamer Magazines words...not mine) to a blatantly mismanaged mess. For more details have a look at http://www.startrek-gamers.com/history2.htm. It's my ongoing attempt to chart the rise and slow fall of Trek gaming from its official inception by Interplay in 1992 to the death of the franchise in 2003 with the Activision lawsuit, the history stopped there but a new section from 2003 onwards is in the works.
Click to expand...

At some point, however, Bethesda was able to acquire the rights to make Star Trek games. In a private exchange with this author, Victor relates:

To be honest no one knows how Bethesoft managed to aquire the rights for the Star Trek franchise. No one knew about it until Harry lang from Paramount announced it at the very beginning of January 2006, what made CBS go with Bethesda no one knows since the 4 previous publishers were much larger companies than Bethesda ever was.
Click to expand...

(...)

Legacy was awful, and the sentiment was felt at STG. Why would Bethesda ship such a horrible title? Again Victor relates:

As for Legacy. The game itself was based on 2 previously cancelled titles from Activision. Legacy's first appearance was as Star Trek: Bridge Commander 2 which was to be published by Activision and developed by Totally Games (same devs as the original Bridge Commander). It was cancelled in early 2002 and then reappeared in late 2002 as a new title called Star Trek: Admiral and was held over to the developers of Armada 2....MadDoc Software. That game was then cancelled in 2003 since Activision was in the process of filing the lawsuit and all games under development at that point in time was canned.

Fast forward 3 years into 2006 and Star Trek: Admiral was renamed Star Trek: Legacy and work began on a game which was already cancelled twice by the previous publisher. It's no wonder that there is signs of 3 different game engines inside legacy's core files the most predominant one being the engine of Star Trek: Armada 2.

No one in the community knew much about Bethesda Softworks. Some of the forum posters knew them from the Oblivion game and told tales of how Bethesda shafted that community, some of those early posts are stll viewable in the official star trek gaming forums of Bethesda. No one took them serious though since the hype that surrounded Oblivion was so intense that everyone in trek gaming thought that Bethesda would be Star Trek gaming's new "messiah"...

...boy...did we get that part wrong.[24]
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Soruce
 
Honestly im quite interested, i have no problem in saying i enjoyed some aspects in Fallout 3, mainly the whole wasteland was nicely done, the rest was poorer, however, since its obsidian and even tho its the same engine, they can work on the story, questlines, maybe some UI changes, etc, things that could make the game stronger.
 
with obsidian the chance is big that we will see a "Knights of the old Wasteland" or something.
 
Actually some of the stuff I would love to see in it has nothing to do with Fallout at all, such as XP only for completing stuff but not for killing much like VTM: BLOODLINES. Making killing non obligatory (and sometimes risky) really evened the playfield for all types of gamers.

Either way it is months away so I wont get too worked up with anticipation, at least until some screenshots come out.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Mikael Grizzly said:
Star Trek's not a Bethesda IP.
Click to expand...
No but it was done under their supervision. Anything that was happening there was with their knowledge.

May I just remember you to the Star Trekk.

Bradylama said:
Where No Trekkie Can Go Anymore

While Fallout changed hands between Interplay and Bethesda, the Star Trek gaming franchise was suspended in a state of limbo. STG's[22] Victor recalls in his interview with NMA[23]:

Star Trek gaming history, now THAT'S a toughy, there's over a decades worth of my views on that subject. Suffice to say it went from one of the most lucrative franchises in the world (PC Gamer Magazines words...not mine) to a blatantly mismanaged mess. For more details have a look at http://www.startrek-gamers.com/history2.htm. It's my ongoing attempt to chart the rise and slow fall of Trek gaming from its official inception by Interplay in 1992 to the death of the franchise in 2003 with the Activision lawsuit, the history stopped there but a new section from 2003 onwards is in the works.
Click to expand...

At some point, however, Bethesda was able to acquire the rights to make Star Trek games. In a private exchange with this author, Victor relates:

To be honest no one knows how Bethesoft managed to aquire the rights for the Star Trek franchise. No one knew about it until Harry lang from Paramount announced it at the very beginning of January 2006, what made CBS go with Bethesda no one knows since the 4 previous publishers were much larger companies than Bethesda ever was.
Click to expand...

(...)

Legacy was awful, and the sentiment was felt at STG. Why would Bethesda ship such a horrible title? Again Victor relates:

As for Legacy. The game itself was based on 2 previously cancelled titles from Activision. Legacy's first appearance was as Star Trek: Bridge Commander 2 which was to be published by Activision and developed by Totally Games (same devs as the original Bridge Commander). It was cancelled in early 2002 and then reappeared in late 2002 as a new title called Star Trek: Admiral and was held over to the developers of Armada 2....MadDoc Software. That game was then cancelled in 2003 since Activision was in the process of filing the lawsuit and all games under development at that point in time was canned.

Fast forward 3 years into 2006 and Star Trek: Admiral was renamed Star Trek: Legacy and work began on a game which was already cancelled twice by the previous publisher. It's no wonder that there is signs of 3 different game engines inside legacy's core files the most predominant one being the engine of Star Trek: Armada 2.

No one in the community knew much about Bethesda Softworks. Some of the forum posters knew them from the Oblivion game and told tales of how Bethesda shafted that community, some of those early posts are stll viewable in the official star trek gaming forums of Bethesda. No one took them serious though since the hype that surrounded Oblivion was so intense that everyone in trek gaming thought that Bethesda would be Star Trek gaming's new "messiah"...

...boy...did we get that part wrong.[24]
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Soruce
Click to expand...

As far as I remember, Legacy was developed in house, not by a competent exterior studio.

We do not know the extent of creative control Beth will have over New Vegas. I highly doubt it'll be extensive, since MCA and company are the original Fallout developers.
 
The biggest question right here is... will the game actually be an RPG this time around and be turn-based in combat? Or will it reuse the same engine as Fallout 3 and have essentially the same 1999-era-shooter gameplay mechanics... essentially just an expansion pack of sorts?
 
Mikael Grizzly said:
As far as I remember, Legacy was developed in house, not by a competent exterior studio.
Click to expand...

No, it was Mad Doc Software, which by the way has recently been purchased and rebranded Rockstar New England.

Anyway, since it seems pretty obvious it'll use the same engine and gameplay, and since we can usually not expect much technical polish from Obsidian, there's no real reason to be hopeful there.

Better written and better designed than Fallout 3? Hells yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top