Josh Sawyer speaks about a possible future Fallout

[Practicat]

I don't think people should feel a hypothetical Obsidian Fallout would have to streamline things. Close to everyone agrees that being limited to four dialogue options at once is probably Bethesda's worst idea to date, so there's no worry that it will return. Bring back traits and the skills system, maybe also doing something like capping skills by X points for each point below 4 in the related SPECIAL, so you can sacrifice some abilities in favor of excelling in others and also provide a solution to the case where a character's proficiency in a particular skill is outlandish given their corresponding SPECIAL stat. Have plenty of combinations of quest outcomes, using SPECIAL/skill/perk checks well, and other things that I haven't mentioned, and I don't see that it's inevitable that such a hypothetical Fallout game by Obsidian will be noticeably streamlined, if at all, in comparison to the first two games.

 

[Risewild]

How does that work, anyway? They can make a Wasteland game that's not officially one? I'm confused.



*shudder*

Quoting a post on GOG.com forum made by BrotherNone (a inXile Dev guy):

We (inXile) own the name Wasteland (and Bard's Tale). EA owns the intellectual property rights (so the names of locations, characters, factions), but they let us use them for Wasteland 2.

 

[100LBSofDogmeat]

Even if Bethesda somehow losses the rights to the series, there is no going back. Too much of the fanbase demands Bethesda's brand of Fallout and fans of original titles have been demonized. Look at the reaction people had for Fallout New Vegas for not "getting" the series.

Well, if Bethesda taught me anything with taking over Fallout is that you can pretty much ignore canon so I don't see why, if they lost the series, that someone else couldn't ignore what happened since Fallout 3 and set it right again.

 

[CaptJ]

the successor will probably be what Dishonored was to classic Thief and Bioshock was to System Shock. It will be a little bit more streamlined, so not as complex as the older ones, but it will capture the spirit perfectly and look great while its at it.

Never played System Shock but I hated Bioshock. The game is so linear, so hand-holding, so lacking of depth, and so streamlined. If I can sum up my experience with Bioshock, it would be playing the camera-man in a movie. While there are many problem that I have with the game and this isn't the biggest one, I hated how the game presents the choice of saving or harvesting the little sisters. Not only is the choice so clearly black and white but the only incentive to harvest the little sister was the vague promise of more Adam which wasn't explained why it was important at the time or how much more. The only human being that you encounter that wasn't trying to kill you killed the last guy that tried to harvest the little sister, she gives the ability to obtain Adam without killing the little sister, and she points a gun at you telling you not harvest the little sister. Sure you might get away with later but you already invested on not being a dick so why start now?

I don't think people should feel a hypothetical Obsidian Fallout would have to streamline things. Close to everyone agrees that being limited to four dialogue options at once is probably Bethesda's worst idea to date, so there's no worry that it will return. Bring back traits and the skills system, maybe also doing something like capping skills by X points for each point below 4 in the related SPECIAL, so you can sacrifice some abilities in favor of excelling in others and also provide a solution to the case where a character's proficiency in a particular skill is outlandish given their corresponding SPECIAL stat. Have plenty of combinations of quest outcomes, using SPECIAL/skill/perk checks well, and other things that I haven't mentioned, and I don't see that it's inevitable that such a hypothetical Fallout game by Obsidian will be noticeably streamlined, if at all, in comparison to the first two games.

I liked a lot of the changes that Josh Sawyer implement and suggested to the skill system. However, there were somethings lost from old skill system. The old system was never designed around "balanced." Melee Weapons and Unarmed have a significantly higher initial value than Small Guns, Energy Weapons, and Big Guns. Ultimately, I think the new skill system is better with the merging of Sneak and Steal, and the merging of Doctor and First Aid.

Bring back traits and the skills system, maybe also doing something like capping skills by X points for each point below 4 in the related SPECIAL, so you can sacrifice some abilities in favor of excelling in others and also provide a solution to the case where a character's proficiency in a particular skill is outlandish given their corresponding SPECIAL stat.

I have no idea what you mean by this in particular.

I think SPECIAL stats should create skill caps but not have a skill cap for every point of SPECIAL. Instead of Intelligence dictating your skill points per level, I think that it should be biggest factor in determining the skill cap for most of skills. For example, having lower than 4 Intelligence caps Speech, Science, and Repair at 30 and having lower than 8 Strength caps Melee Weapons at 70. I think this would also nerf skill magazines and buff stat boosting drugs. For example, 7 Intelligence character needs to take Mentats and read a programming magazine to boost his Science skill beyond 70. The upper skill caps would be removed for tagged skills.

Well, if Bethesda taught me anything with taking over Fallout is that you can pretty much ignore canon so I don't see why, if they lost the series, that someone else couldn't ignore what happened since Fallout 3 and set it right again.

Fallout 3 is the first Fallout for a lot of people.

 

[Practicat]

CaptJ, what you're describing regarding skill caps based on SPECIAL is actually close to what I meant. My implementation however would be less punishing and I would make the skill cap the same across all mapping from SPECIAL to skills; I would have it lower by 20 points for each point below 4 in its associated SPECIAL. So 4+ → no penalty, 3 → max of 80, 2 → max of 60, 1 → max of 40.

A good thing to this is that the values can easily be changed in a mod depending on personal preference, like what Jsawyer, Project Nevada, or any gameplay tweaks do.

 

[ZigzagPX4]

Quoting a post on GOG.com forum made by BrotherNone (a inXile Dev guy):

We (inXile) own the name Wasteland (and Bard's Tale). EA owns the intellectual property rights (so the names of locations, characters, factions), but they let us use them for Wasteland 2.

Wait, if that's the case, why doesn't Bethesda just let Obsidian do the same thing on their own right? It's not like EA had a hand in any of Wasteland 2, so why can't Bethesda let Obsidian spin one off without having to oversee it?

That is, if Obsidian can fund it entirely by themselves. Then it wouldn't be a business risk to Bethesda, and they would approve it. Right?

If this is possible, is there any reason apart from "being a dick" for Bethesda to not let Obsidian do a thing the same way EA let inXile do a thing?

 

[CaptJ]

CaptJ, what you're describing regarding skill caps based on SPECIAL is actually close to what I meant. My implementation however would be less punishing and I would make the skill cap the same across all mapping from SPECIAL to skills; I would have it lower by 20 points for each point below 4 in its associated SPECIAL. So 4+ → no penalty, 3 → max of 80, 2 → max of 60, 1 → max of 40.

A good thing to this is that the values can easily be changed in a mod depending on personal preference, like what Jsawyer, Project Nevada, or any gameplay tweaks do.

I was trying to nerf Intelligence but not to the extent of Fallout 4. I wanted skill points to be mostly fixed so that it becomes harder to max out almost every skill. However, I wanted low Intelligence to remain extremely punishing. Thus, Intelligence determines the "lower skill cap" for most of the skills. For example, having lower than 4 Intelligence caps Speech at 30 despite your character having high Charisma due to his inability to speak proper English. I have no idea how the numbers should scale but the idea is:

• average stats locks you out of mastery of that certain skill unless it is a tag skill
• low stats locks you out of mastery of that certain skill even if it is a tag skill
• low Intelligence severely limits your options

 

[tekhedd]

Never played System Shock but I hated Bioshock. The game is so linear, so hand-holding, so lacking of depth, and so streamlined.

One things System Shock 1 could never be accused of: hand holding.

Unlike half the world (apparently), I don't think System Shock and Bioshock should be in the same sentence together, much less considered spiritually related to each other, except in the sense that System Shock should be considered related to pretty much every game that was influenced by it, which is to say pretty much every game that came after.

Didn't care much for Bioshock either. ..Oh, decent enough storytelling but didn't really move me; thegameplay really just annoyed me after a certain point. Maybe someday I'll finish it on easy just to see how it ends. :>

But I digress. I'd like to think a good Fallout game could still happen again. It'd just take a miracle at this point, after millions of fans of the new borderlands-style gameplay have dropped their holiday money on it.

 

[DVL]

I'd like to see a system where your hp is (mostly) always just your hp. And the only way to increase durability would be base stats, story events like cybernetic implants, armor and the like. This is effectively the system used in BRP, Gamma World and Deus Ex. In the first two, your hp was just some multiplier of your equivalent of Endurance (i.e. average of SIZ and CON or some multiplier of CON).

You don't level, you just gain skills and equipment.

A further extreme is a Traveller-like system, which goes even further with progression and assumes you're mostly an older adult and your skills are what they are after your stint in a military service. You don't "progress" a skill very much or at all, unless you spend a lot of time developing it. You don't kill Deathclaws then suddenly have 20 points to assign to science. Mostly your characters are motivated by dosh and personal prestige.

 

[CaptJ]

Didn't care much for Bioshock either. ..Oh, decent enough storytelling but didn't really move me; thegameplay really just annoyed me after a certain point. Maybe someday I'll finish it on easy just to see how it ends. :>

I liked the story but not the storytelling. The storytelling is super linear and someone had the bright idea to add something much worse than cutscenes, unskipable scripted events. Going back to my analogy of being the cameraman, my avatar and are just spectators in the story. The main character is silent protagonist with no dialogue options even thought he talks in the opening scene of the game. It is just a bunch of legwork until you reach the next scripted event where your only interaction is moving the camera around.

Also, I hate the gameplay. This game tries to be Portal 2 but fails. It has big quest marks in tight corridors and Atlas telling you obvious uses for your spells. This feels like a game that children play when they are too stupid solve puzzles in the Legend of Zelda or Portal.

Unlike Skyrim which has an appearance of being a good game, I really don't see the appeal of Bioshock.

 

[ZigzagPX4]

One things System Shock 1 could never be accused of: hand holding.

Unlike half the world (apparently), I don't think System Shock and Bioshock should be in the same sentence together, much less considered spiritually related to each other, except in the sense that System Shock should be considered related to pretty much every game that was influenced by it, which is to say pretty much every game that came after.

Didn't care much for Bioshock either. ..Oh, decent enough storytelling but didn't really move me; thegameplay really just annoyed me after a certain point. Maybe someday I'll finish it on easy just to see how it ends. :>

But I digress. I'd like to think a good Fallout game could still happen again. It'd just take a miracle at this point, after millions of fans of the new borderlands-style gameplay have dropped their holiday money on it.

Bioshock was System Shock dumbed down to make space for focus on world design and plot. Some could consider it unnecessary, but I thought the evolution was fine and predictably expected. Whether Bioshock games had good world design or plot is sort of debatable on this forum, so I'll leave it at that.

It's annoying how several people consider that "depth = good game" which isn't always the case. Sometimes, losing depth is a necessary and beneficial part of game design. But I do know there's a discernible difference between shedding depth in favour of focusing on the right things, and shedding depth because they fear that complexity might alienate the audience that produces the most profits. The former I approve of, but the latter is sadly what AAA games today are built on.

And finally, you would think that Fallout would be impossible to turn back, but here's the thing. With the right marketing, you can sell anything. That's the core of modern capitalism, I think. If a publisher geniunely wanted to, they could order Fallout 5 to be developed into an in-depth RPG so complex in narrative and gameplay that it rivals classic cRPGs, and still make as much money as Fallout 4 did, as long as they advertise it right. Case in point, the Witcher 3, which isn't that complex but tackles both the kind of themes and gameplay you wouldn't see in other mainstream games.

Bethesda doesn't want to favour Obsidian's work. They don't want to share the glory, not because of developer ego (I'm not sure about that though), but because sharing the spotlight means splitting profits. So they undermine Obsidian, if even in the slightest, by not giving them equal marketing as they did their own games. If Obsidian was working under a cooperative and supportive publisher, then Fallout, a post-nuclear roleplaying game, can definitely make it their way to the top of all records and seep into cultural relevance.

If not in Bethesda's hands Fallout could become an RPG again, on this simple basis - if you can make absolute crap sell by the millions, then trying to sell solid gold cannot result in any worse. Just get the right developers and the right games the good kind of publicity and no matter what, it will sell. Publishers just need to see that there's nothing to lose in letting developers take the charge if they handle the advertising end with their full effort.

 

[MercenarySnake]

losing depth is a necessary and beneficial part of game design

Oh you mean like Fallout 4? Yeah it benefited from spilling its guts on the floor, that was totally necessary.

 

[CaptJ]

It's annoying how several people consider that "depth = good game" which isn't always the case. Sometimes, losing depth is a necessary and beneficial part of game design.

 

[ZigzagPX4]

Oh you mean like Fallout 4? Yeah it benefited from spilling its guts on the floor, that was totally necessary.

I did say sometimes and at no point did I ever say Fallout 4 was a good example. Why does everyone feel the need to take my opinions out of context?

Oversimplified games are by no means good, but neither is a game where you have to micromanage every single last bit of your skills, inventory, quests and dialogue log. What, is there no such thing as a game too complex?

So yes, the industry does have too many streamlined games nowadays, but I wouldn't want a world full of games so intricately developed to the very last drop to be unintuitive and too thick to get through in terms of gameplay and story either. There needs to be a right balance.

Okay... I'm not actually sure if you're trying to agree or disagree with me, because that definition of depth is correct and plenty of the games regarded as well-designed in this video, I would consider excessively over-developed. I know the video compliments depth, but I feel like a lot of the examples prove that sometimes it is unnecessary.

Especially the skill divide - I feel like it's completely ridiculous to have gameplay differ that much depending on the player's skill. Just have games for people not looking for a challenge and games for people who are. These do not need to be layered onto each other. Gives modern stealth games this problem of allowing players to take the loud way if they want - options make each aspect less meaningful.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

I am also in the camp that things Obsidian would do better by trying to make its own Post Apocalypse/Dystopian RPG rather than picking up the mess Bethesda left behind after Fallout 4 and try to make somewhat of a decent game with it and somehow get around the damn limitations and cut gameplay/character build system that have been put in FO4.
Especially if it doesn't help Obsidian keep its bank accounts in the black.

At some point it is like trying to rebuild a house while the fire that destroyed it is still going on.
Let Fallout first fall on its ass and make the 'fans' realize how truly poor Bethesda is at actually building a world outside visuals and gimmicks, it is the only way to make them face reality.
I think that as the series under Bethesda continues Fallout as a franchise will become completely irrelevant as other similar games do both the gameplay and the graphics much better, and the new core audience dissipates as they leave for other franchises.


As for intelligence capping skill levels and such, not really a fan of that to be honest but that is my taste.
I can imagine how a certain degree of intelligence might limit what you are capable of learning like in real life. I experience it myself when I try to understand complex subjects like math or physics despite how much I want to.


I didn't know BTW that EA still owned the original Wasteland IP and its internal content, not that I am surprised though as EA has always been a hoarder when it comes to the game IPs they own.
They don't want to develop them themselves when their marketing people says there is no market for them but they sure don't want to sell them either to other studios or publishers that perhaps out of fandom want to make a sequel or spinoff, because one day that IP might be worth something and if it has a history of being once a popular game or game series, the better. (we saw that with Syndicate)

 

[Izak]

Was New Vegas a commercial failure for Obsidian? I know they got stiffed by Bethesda on that whole review bonus thing but I thought they still made money off of it and anyway, now that more or less everyone on the Internets in agreement that Obsidian makes great fallout games combined with the fact that Fallout sells really well wouldn't it be a good thing for Obsidian to make a new Fallout, both in the commercial and critical sense?

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

Perhaps a commercial sense, but would Obsidian be able to do what they did with FNV with all the gameplay limitations that Bethesda has now put on Fallout.
I still think you would end up with something that feels more Borderlands than a Fallout game.
The again, perhaps that is what people want, but with the wit and world building Obsidian did but without all the skill checks and dialogue trees in order to get a cinematic experience.

 

[TorontoReign]

Was New Vegas a commercial failure for Obsidian? I know they got stiffed by Bethesda on that whole review bonus thing but I thought they still made money off of it and anyway, now that more or less everyone on the Internets in agreement that Obsidian makes great fallout games combined with the fact that Fallout sells really well wouldn't it be a good thing for Obsidian to make a new Fallout, both in the commercial and critical sense?

It made more than Fallout 3 I think.

 

[Atomkilla]

Obsidian kickstarting a new post-apoc IP, preferably isometric, would be pretty sweet. And successful, I bet.
I haven't played PoE, but from what I've read, it's got flaws but is a solid game.

 

[Izak]

I don't like the idea of Obsidian just making a new post-apocalyptic IP, the thing that makes Fallout (and Wasteland) great is it's rich lore and atmosphere, don't get me wrong Obsidian could almost certainly make another fantastic Apocalyptic IP with a deep story but it wouldn't be fallout and well, that's kind of the point.