How about as little legacy content as possible?

[NMLevesque]

The only things that would return would be universals, like Nuka Cola, power armor, and vaults. No old factions or characters. No enemy types except those that should be everywhere, e.g feral ghoul. Personally I think deathclaws shouldn't be everywhere, but I can see an 'invasive species super-apex predator blah blah blah' argument coming so whatever. Though I will say that an original megafauna that could hold their territory from deathclaws could be cool. I also suppose raiders should still be Mad-Maxian, but I don't see why a fresh take on them wouldn't work. Ostensibly if we did get to visit Legion territory as was planned, presumably the only raiders there would have been the Legion, and non-generic raider gangs are definitely better imo.

 

[Juza The Cloud]

If you must have giant bugs gamma world style then have local types of bugs; no more scorpions everywhere. Same goes for yao guai and mole rats. Add flying and aquatic enemy types. Have a weather patteren. Im sure others have said similar things. But to be honest, beth can’t handle legacy factions nor flesh out new factions. I feel in the long view it is a moot point.

 

[Ediros]

Allow me to quote Mister Caption here: "Fallout could still be Fallout without Nuka-Cola or power armor or 10mm SMG's but Fallout is not Fallout if you can't tell people to go fuck themselves in 20 different ways."

 

[Hassknecht]

I'd love it. Like a game set pre-war in the Boneyard with all the gang wars and stuff and the emerging Children of the Cathedral and Followers of the Apocalypse (in very early stage) or something like that. Ignore the whole "it would be The Walking Dead in Fallout" malarky about ghouls being actual zombies.

 

[Big Paulie]

Not sure. I love Fallout. The lore, factions etc. Interesting concept though.

 

[Unorthodox Outlander]

This sounds like a complete reboot. Most wouldn't trust Bethesda with a reboot of the franchise anymore than a continuation of current lore (which they have already done a crap job of handling).

 

[Atomkilla]

This is something I've been saying for a long time. It's a huge world, that was once devastated by a nuclear war, but that was a long time. Everything in that world should be varied. Universals, as OP said, should remain here and there, but we need that local feel.

I liked how FNV dealt with this. Sure, it had several recurring factions, but those showed evolution from previous games - NCR becoming its own greatest enemy and a mirror of a pre-War country, BoS slowly dying out, Enclave being little more than a cameo (one that reinforces the notion of their demise) and Super Mutants becoming a lesser presence in the wastes - but it also introduced a huge amount of new things that perfectly fit the spirit of Fallout - from Legion in the vanilla, to pretty much every area, faction or new enemy featured in the DLC.

 

[Deleted member 116369]

Fallout set in a futuristic 80s/90s would be interesting imo.
The technology, factions, style and everything else would be significantly different.

 

[Atomkilla]

Fallout set in a futuristic 80s/90s would be interesting imo.
The technology, factions, style and everything else would be significantly different.

That's basically Wasteland.

Not to mention that FO1 and FO2 have plenty of 80s/90s culture influence to them. They just tend to get overlooked because FO3 really forced the whole 50s retrofuturism.

But yeah, if you wanna see (more or less) pure 80s retrofuturism, play Wasteland.

 

[Deleted member 116369]

That's basically Wasteland.

Not to mention that FO1 and FO2 have plenty of 80s/90s culture influence to them. They just tend to get overlooked because FO3 really forced the whole 50s retrofuturism.

But yeah, if you wanna see (more or less) pure 80s retrofuturism, play Wasteland.

Which Wasteland is a better game?

 

[Atomkilla]

Which Wasteland is a better game?

Good question.

In my opinion, original Wasteland is one of the best RPGs ever made, one that manages to still be fun and original in so many ways. Its story is pretty good to this day (though nothing mind-blowing), whereas its aesthetics (as minimal as they can be due to obvious reasons) are pretty cool. Gameplay is...entertaining, if you can get used to it. It is also a fun part of the experience when you compare and contrast all the various details that would later be reused or remade in Fallout.

Wasteland 2 is far more accessible than the original game, but I think it is an inferior title. Its story is a rehash of W1's story, gameplay is a blander version of XCOM Enemy Unknown and it has many faults in its design that hinder the overall experience. It isn't that good in graphical department either (if you care about that), but is great aesthetically and hits that 80s retrofuturism sweet spot.
I believe that most people (including me) would consider it a better game were it not hailed as a messiah of old school RPG renaissance - in reality, it's a mediocre-to-good game.


To conclude, I personally think that Wasteland is a better game than its sequel, but because of the time and tech difference between them, such comparison is actually problematic. This is not a case of Fallout vs Fallout 3 where two different developers made two games of the same name. These are the same people making two games under the same moniker - that are very different in many ways, yet one is the obvious successor to the other.
If you wanna have the whole experience, play the original first - story of the W2 is a continuation of the original game, with many characters returning. GOG (and Steam I think) host the new updated version of the game which is the same as the old one with few quirks here and there to make it more accessible for new audience and modern machines - its still the same experience though.
On the other hand, if the only thing you're looking for is 80s retrofuturism, go with Wasteland 2. Director's Cut, preferably (DC contains very few, minor improvements over vanilla - the reason I'm recommending it over the other is because it is a more stable version, or so I've heard).


tl;dr

Play the original. They don't call it the godfather of post-apocalyptic RPGs for no reason.
If you can (not) handle it, play the sequel.

P.S. Don't edit your initial party in Wasteland. It's a flawed party, really, but it adds to the experience. You'll see.

 

[NMLevesque]

I've been toying with the idea of something that uses a broader range of aesthetic influences. For one thing the 1950s still had a bunch of shit that was iconic of previous decades, 40s, 30s, 20s, as part of the overall mosaic of the times. There's also all the stuff associated with the 60s that were just popularized then, but were already around. Every era is a medley after all, and the dividing lines between them are fuzzy if not essentially arbitrary.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

I would prefer a mix of both old and new, old as in perhaps a few elements of FO1/FO2/FN returning (just a couple) and of course recurring elements like Vaults, Power Armor (probably robots) and such, but for the rest I would not object against a lot of new content such as new critters and mutants, new factions, a world that has not been affected by the politics and development in the Core region. Basically its own little microcosmos.

But this is a rather pointless discussion because none of us can affect the design of any new Fallout title. At best we can perhaps make a mod for one of the games or a fan fiction set in the universe.