Fallout: New Vegas 2 - Some Chris Avellone Twatter Q&A

Atomic Postman said:
Either way, I think a direct NV sequel is a bad idea no matter how you slice it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, making any ending canon would pretty much destroy the long running discussion on which ending is better. And that's one of the best parts of the game to discuss.
 
Walpknut said:
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/microsoft-is-reportedly-discussing-a-fallout-new-vegas-sequel/1100-6501021/?TheTime=2022-02-24T20:55:55&PostType=image&ftag=ftag=GSS-05-10aab8e&ServiceType=twitter&UniqueID=29299684-95B4-11EC-8B4C-544F0EDC252D

A New Vegas sequel doesn't have to be a direct sequel in the Mojave, it could simply be a new Obsi Fallout. Which would be the best case scenario.
Click to expand...
I don't understand why anyone even considers the possibility of an NV 2 being set in the Mojave, obviously that wouldn't happen in any case.

What is more likely but I don't think should happen is it being set after New Vegas chronologically. New Vegas is a good if imperfect end to the series on the West coast... or really, the series full stop.
 
NV 2 would take place in Arizona and be called New Vegas 2: Phoenix City Arizona Wasteland Spinoff: not a real sequel.
 
Outer Worlds is ok. I don't know how anyone can even look at the Outer Worlds and say they have no sense of Irony or that the morality is black and white when the point of all quets is that everybody is an idiot that is a failure and even the "golden" choice endings ends have some element of morbidity and dystopia.
 
You must have played a different game then, because the Outer Worlds I played gave you two choices: The first being siding with The Board, who the game repeatedly presented as extraordinarily evil and incompetent at every opportunity available, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and to such an exaggerated degree that it makes The Enclave in Fallout 3 look nuanced in comparison. The second being siding with 'Totally-Not-Rick-Sanchez', who was unambiguously presented as a scientific genius with a heart of gold that had nothing but the best intentions for the star system (they try to tone it down a bit by adding some background where he accidentally caused some people to die while trying to reanimate them, but then immediately undo any significance this fact could have had by giving a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why he did it and showing how he himself felt bad about it). The game gives you no good reason whatsoever for your character to ever side with the board. The option of siding with The Board in The Outer Worlds is exactly equivalent to doing a "Renegade" run on Mass Effect; something that you won't do unless you are roleplaying some cartoonishly evil and traitorous character who takes the most evil decisions possible even when they are completely irrational and obviously bad.

As for the humour and irony, I saw almost none. Sure, the game looks as thought it had some sense of irony and comedy from the aesthetics and design choices (generally resembling shows like Futurama and Rick and Morty, which I find both ugly and unfitting of the actual tone the game has), but the actual delivery of the story is completely straight and serious. Playing that thing is akin to watching an actuary deliver a presentation about risk assessment in a completely professional manner, with the only difference being that the presenter is dressed as a party clown.
 
Norzan said:
Yeah, making any ending canon would pretty much destroy the long running discussion on which ending is better. And that's one of the best parts of the game to discuss.
Click to expand...
Imported saves maybe? Obsidian already did it with Pillars of Eternity. It works with 3D RPG like Dragon Age for example.
 
Norzan said:
Yeah, making any ending canon would pretty much destroy the long running discussion on which ending is better. And that's one of the best parts of the game to discuss.
Click to expand...
I feel like if there's ever another Fallout game that takes place in the American Southwest, it's going to have to chose an ending as a necessary evil. The war within New Vegas is quite a large, region changing one and to just try to not acknowledge it in any way in a sequel is going to be extremely hard. If the game were to take place in, let's say, Utah, it would seem ultra suspicious that this grand battle for Hoover Dam is just a legend that no one knows the outcome of and no one knows if the NCR owns the region. The amount of loopholes and justification to try and not answer who won would become silly really fast.

The only reasonable option would be set the game like, a hundred years later when all the people and factions have largely died out, but it would feel very much like a cop-out in my opinion. Like, everything in Fallout 1, 2 and New Vegas didn't matter because everyone just forgot everything anyway or something. And it would still be silly in that case because it would mean the NCR and Legion kept no records of one of their most important battles.
 
Eumesmopo said:
You must have played a different game then, because the Outer Worlds I played gave you two choices: The first being siding with The Board, who the game repeatedly presented as extraordinarily evil and incompetent at every opportunity available, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and to such an exaggerated degree that it makes The Enclave in Fallout 3 look nuanced in comparison. The second being siding with 'Totally-Not-Rick-Sanchez', who was unambiguously presented as a scientific genius with a heart of gold that had nothing but the best intentions for the star system (they try to tone it down a bit by adding some background where he accidentally caused some people to die while trying to reanimate them, but then immediately undo any significance this fact could have had by giving a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why he did it and showing how he himself felt bad about it). The game gives you no good reason whatsoever for your character to ever side with the board. The option of siding with The Board in The Outer Worlds is exactly equivalent to doing a "Renegade" run on Mass Effect; something that you won't do unless you are roleplaying some cartoonishly evil and traitorous character who takes the most evil decisions possible even when they are completely irrational and obviously bad.

As for the humour and irony, I saw almost none. Sure, the game looks as thought it had some sense of irony and comedy from the aesthetics and design choices (generally resembling shows like Futurama and Rick and Morty, which I find both ugly and unfitting of the actual tone the game has), but the actual delivery of the story is completely straight and serious. Playing that thing is akin to watching an actuary deliver a presentation about risk assessment in a completely professional manner, with the only difference being that the presenter is dressed as a party clown.
Click to expand...

I think you simply didn't read the text on screen. Also Phineas is nothing like Rick from Rick and Morty, for starters Phineas' main character trait is being idealistic and hopeful which is the complete opposite of a Rick Sanchez type of character, and even in his ending you have to do really terrible things if you want his plan to succeed, like when you have to remove the entirety of the unthawing component from the Board's cryogenic experiments which makes all the test subjects die painful deaths that you see all the way through leaving it.
The Board are not like the Enclave really, the reason yo would have to side with them is the same as siding with the Legion, the promise of authoritrianism being preferable to the anarchy that ensues with the alternative, you can even choose to spare the director to have him manage things for you which characters show approval of with the exception of his son who is part of the Iconoclast cult which are presented as actually far more destructive to their set location than the milquetoast Sanjay, in fact killing the leader of the Iconoclasts and have their forces surrender to Sanjay is the better ending.

If you saw no humor I don't know what to tell you, are you just humorless? Also they were liek Futurama but nothing like Rick and Morty, I don't get why you keep comparing it to Rick and Morty, is it because there is an old guy scientist? He is more of a reference to Doc Brown, you know the guy who Rick is parodying? Did you actually play the game?
 
Well I guess if Microsoft wants to print money they could pull this off.
 
Walpknut said:
I think you simply didn't read the text on screen. Also Phineas is nothing like Rick from Rick and Morty, for starters Phineas' main character trait is being idealistic and hopeful which is the complete opposite of a Rick Sanchez type of character, and even in his ending you have to do really terrible things if you want his plan to succeed, like when you have to remove the entirety of the unthawing component from the Board's cryogenic experiments which makes all the test subjects die painful deaths that you see all the way through leaving it.
The Board are not like the Enclave really, the reason yo would have to side with them is the same as siding with the Legion, the promise of authoritrianism being preferable to the anarchy that ensues with the alternative, you can even choose to spare the director to have him manage things for you which characters show approval of with the exception of his son who is part of the Iconoclast cult which are presented as actually far more destructive to their set location than the milquetoast Sanjay, in fact killing the leader of the Iconoclasts and have their forces surrender to Sanjay is the better ending.

If you saw no humor I don't know what to tell you, are you just humorless? Also they were liek Futurama but nothing like Rick and Morty, I don't get why you keep comparing it to Rick and Morty, is it because there is an old guy scientist? He is more of a reference to Doc Brown, you know the guy who Rick is parodying? Did you actually play the game?
Click to expand...

Regarding Phineas, you are basically reinforcing my point about him being essentially Rick Sanchez without the negatives. Stripping away the moral nihilism of Rick only makes him a less conflicted and less interesting character and further reinforces the lack of reasons for ever picking the side of The Board. The fate of the other guys that were in cryo-sleep in the ship is just another contrived thing that Obsidian added in a failed attempt to balance out the two sides, but it falls flat due to the fact that it is a completely reasonable and justified action given the alternatives, and it's not like the frozen colonists ever play a role in the story or are made in any other way relevant if you don't pick Phinea's side anyway.

I don't agree with the idea that siding with The Board is anywhere similar to siding with Caesar's Legion at all. Even in despite of all the rushed manner that Obsidian was forced to produce FNV and all the cuts they had to make regarding Legion content, they still managed to include enough content to show glimpses of the Legion in a positive manner; they are shown to enforce peace and order within their territories and completely eradicate all raiders and gangs, they are well disciplined, well organized, fierce, just, cunning, brave, etc... Whereas in TOW almost all content shows The Board in an ultra-dystopian manner, every other conversation with NPCs is some story about how you have to pay a tax if your friend commits suicide, every computer terminal is another story about another way in which the employees are enslaved and abused, every new area is filled with more ways in which The Board completely failed at achieving even the most basic measures of success in maintaining order and control over their colonies. In order to be anything at all like The Board, Caesar's Legion would also have to have exactly all of the flaws the NCR has: Widespread corruption and incompetence.

Even at the point where the game tries the hardest and most repeatedly to coy players into centrism, I still picked the side of the hardcore Iconoclasts and slaughtered all of the moderates without even blinking because the idea of appeasing or negotiating with The Board was completely pointless since they are purely evil and incompetent. I'm not going to side with Jeff Bezos if on top of forcing employees to piss on bottles and shit on bags, they also delayed my same-day-delivery by 3 weeks and accidentally got my order of aspirin mixed up with the order for chemical castration pills.

As for the humour, no, I hardly saw any. The story of the game is completely played straight and there is not really any sense of irony like you would find in something like Bullestorm. There are some attempts at humour such as the line for one of the gun ads that repeats "You have tried the best, now try the rest" ad nauseum, but that wasn't really funny. There is also the aesthetics of a comedy show (i.e. the game looks like Futurama visually), but like I said; dressing yourself in a clown's suit without cracking any jokes is not the same thing as being a clown. I only remember one particular joke that actually got a good chuckle out me when I found out that a squad's medic had a shotgun that was called "Euthanasia Kit", but other than that I found the sense of irony of the game to be absent.
 
Dude, for real your media literacy is so lacking. Like I don't even know what to tell you at this point, you see the elements but decide that even if your argument makes no sense it is what it is because you already had your mind made, so lets leave it at that, there is no point, if you seriously see a quest where using corpses to grow vegetables because feeding the entire population with canned food has given everyone scurvy being received by the major as an inventive way to recycle company property (workers) and see no irony I just don't know what to tell you. Do you also think Fallout has no Irony or humor?

Let's leave it at that.
 
I would rather they got the right people together to put the cut content into Fallout New Vegas before they even bothered with a second game. I've seen the topic of remasters is back and getting lumped with this as well.
 
I disagree that Obsidian can’t make another good Fallout, and I don’t think the writing of The Outer Worlds would reflect a team of Fallout developers if they got the IP back for a second round. I get I’m in the minority on that though. Like I said before though, even if the impossible happens and “NV2” does become a reality and I’m proven wrong when it comes out because it’s mid, I’ll gladly take an attempt at a good Fallout RPG again over the abortions Bethesda puts out.
 
Big No said:
I feel like if there's ever another Fallout game that takes place in the American Southwest, it's going to have to chose an ending as a necessary evil. The war within New Vegas is quite a large, region changing one and to just try to not acknowledge it in any way in a sequel is going to be extremely hard. If the game were to take place in, let's say, Utah, it would seem ultra suspicious that this grand battle for Hoover Dam is just a legend that no one knows the outcome of and no one knows if the NCR owns the region. The amount of loopholes and justification to try and not answer who won would become silly really fast.

The only reasonable option would be set the game like, a hundred years later when all the people and factions have largely died out, but it would feel very much like a cop-out in my opinion. Like, everything in Fallout 1, 2 and New Vegas didn't matter because everyone just forgot everything anyway or something. And it would still be silly in that case because it would mean the NCR and Legion kept no records of one of their most important battles.
Click to expand...
The game can easily be set in the past of the setting.
 
Hardboiled Android said:
The game can easily be set in the past of the setting.
Click to expand...
That just sort of seems like delaying the inevitable though. Assuming they were to make more than one Fallout game take place in that region, all of them would need to be prequels. That would in turn hinder a lot of roleplaying elements I believe since it means the NCR, Legion, some of the smaller factions like the Khans are not allowed to change too much. You can affect them, yes, but you can't do much world changing stuff.

It also depends how further back we're going I suppose.
 
Big No said:
That just sort of seems like delaying the inevitable though. Assuming they were to make more than one Fallout game take place in that region, all of them would need to be prequels. That would in turn hinder a lot of roleplaying elements I believe since it means the NCR, Legion, some of the smaller factions like the Khans are not allowed to change too much. You can affect them, yes, but you can't do much world changing stuff.

It also depends how further back we're going I suppose.
Click to expand...
For me, I don't think it's inevitable, or at least it shouldn't be. NV, especiallly with Lonesome Road, is as good an ending to the series as we're going to get, imperfect though it is. I'm really not interested with exploring the future of the setting in any serious way, at least not in that area.
 
Why would anyone want a New Vegas 2? Are Cesar's Legion going to fight NCR again at the battle of Hoover Dam while you run around New Vegas again meeting all the factions again with sprinkles of mutants, enclave and the Brotherhood thrown in to remind you it's a Fallout game? It would be like getting Skyrim 2.

What Fallout needs is originality, the whole enclave/brotherhood/mutants thing has been run into the ground. We need new factions, new locations, new ideas, new monsters but right now Obsidian is a shell of what it used to be. There's no way they could pull it off missing the people who made NV possible.
 
drawnacrol said:
Why would anyone want a New Vegas 2? Are Cesar's Legion going to fight NCR again at the battle of Hoover Dam while you run around New Vegas again meeting all the factions again with sprinkles of mutants, enclave and the Brotherhood thrown in to remind you it's a Fallout game? It would be like getting Skyrim 2.
Click to expand...

I’ve always figured “New Vegas 2” just meant another Obsidian Fallout, or another good Fallout RPG. Not literally New Vegas 2, but just a nice way of saying “a good Fallout game again.” I’m sure some dumbasses mean it literally, but I doubt that’s what the majority mean. It’s just that we don’t know where they would set another spin-off or what it would be about so they say New Vegas 2 rather than Fallout 5 because that would imply a mainline Bethesda entry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top