Obsidian CEO Talks Working on Fallout Again

I'm probably gonna get chased off with pitchforks and torches for saying this, but something that would excite me would be Beth and Obsidian doing Fallout 4 together. yes, you heard me. together.

Bethesda's writing sucks. bigtime. Obsidian's writing is great. but even though I loved NV, it often felt like the story was held back (old engine, smaller studio, restricted budget). I also think Bethesda did a better job with the environment. say what you will about the story and writing in Fallout 3, but I really enjoy downtown DC. and the wasteland around the city had a lot more attention to detail and interesting places to discover than NV did. Bethesda are in my opinion pretty good at setting the mood and creating atmosphere.

the story in NV often felt very disconnected from what you actually saw in-game. and even if it was miles ahead of F3's story, that one never really had me thinking "huh, this is supposed to be an army? it's 5 guys..."

Obsidian, on the other hand, have a much greater understanding for game mechanics, and RPG mechanics in particular. the changes they made for NV were all for the better, in every concievable way.

so basically, what I'm saying is that with both Bethesda's fine touch for creating environments and their budget, together with Obsidian's writing and sense for rpg mechanics, it could be the best TES: Fallout game to date.
 
aenemic said:
the story in NV often felt very disconnected from what you actually saw in-game. and even if it was miles ahead of F3's story, that one never really had me thinking "huh, this is supposed to be an army? it's 5 guys..."
Click to expand...
It isn't obsidian's fault. In oblivion great army who defend empire from daedric prince is only a 10 or 12 soldiers. it's matter of engine
 
Neither developer should be making Fallout games.

Sure, Obsidian sucks less at it, but damn, F:NV was a borefest. A game with no passion behind it, no intent of making player give a shit about anything.

And yes, FO3 was far, far worse.
 
shihonage said:
Sure, Obsidian sucks less at it, but damn, F:NV was a borefest. A game with no passion behind it, no intent of making player give a shit about anything.
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself.
 
DemonNick said:
That doesn't change anything. I'm sort of struggling to understand your point.
Click to expand...

My point was just to jokingly poke fun at what star wars has/could devolve into. Some people are so upset at what it has become that they would rather it died so they stop getting disappointed.

I definately loved fallout new vegas which I've said in many different posts so most of your argument towards me is kind of pointless since I more or less agree already :P - I just can't be bothered to get too serious in discussions like these because people are pretty set in their opinions and its ok to hold different opinions than mine.

On the whole :"Fallout 1 has bad and tedious combat" thing, I have to say that the tactical nature is very appealing to me but I've always been a big fan of tactical turn based games. X-com, heroes, final fantasy, goldbox games, fallout, all supreme games in my opinion, and I tend to gravitate towards those kinds of games because they dont require me to focus on aiming my crosshair on enemies. They aren't as frantic as many games today. Frantic, stress inducing, etc.

Many games today require you to use a shit ton of energy simply to be able to play them. Most games are marketed at children which tend to have a ton of energy to begin with which they dont know what to do with. Games are less marketed at someone like me who is older and takes medication which slows down my brains processing speed which makes it more enjoyable to play tactical games rather than FPS.

Even if you feel that the tactical gameplay of fallout 1 and 2 is inferior to fallout new vegas - someone like me still find those inferior game design choices better due to the nature of the gameplay and the lack of that kind of games on the market today :)


(damn that person who wrote b/c all the time was annoying)
 
Personally, I enjoyed New Vegas a lot. And I'm also glad that WL2 is getting made, so that something a little more in the spirit of what I grew up on will be out there. I don't really mind there being first person Fallout games (though they need drastic changes to the current formula), and, realistically, the IP is too valuable to not get milked. But the issue for me is not really perspective and turn-based vs. real-time, it's more a matter of having a company like Bethesda at the helm, whose only experience is in making extremely large, extremely shallow fantasy games that are completely different in tone from Fallout. I remember being excited when I heard who was in charge of New Vegas, and I think Obsidian delivered pretty well, considering what they had to work with. NV had more depth than just about any big budget project nowadays, and I felt like I had stepped into a Fallout game when I entered Freeside. Not to mention serious improvements to mechanics and gameplay. And it made me realize how mediocre F3 was.

If Bethesda did the right thing, they would put Obsidian on the next one and give them more autonomy and the time they needed to actually make a finished product, instead of a buggy mass of half-finished features and repetitive voice acting.

I mean, if I'm dreaming, I might as well wish for them to give the license to Fargo, but I think we have it pretty well, what with WL2 on the way. I would definitely buy an Obsidian Fallout. If Bethesda develops it in house, it might be the first title in the franchise that I don't want.
 
Lexx said:
Not 30-40 years after the war, but the NCR gold reserves are stashed away in the Boneyard. The setting kind of screams for a NCR vs. Brotherhood war scenario. Though, NCR was used already once now, so people most likely would think it's a cheap New Vegas rip-off....

Other than that, LA offers everything a generic Fallout game needs:

- Huge City with ruins all around (and city skyline)
- A desert on the outside
- Ocean on the other
- Radiated areas (after all, Cathedral got destroyed by a nucelar bomb)
- Civilized enclaves like Adytum, the Gun Runners factory and the Blades territory.
- landmarks that can easily be remembered
- The lore allows the existence of renegade super mutants to kill

etc. etc...

In my old 7 days wasteland clone game thingy from long time ago, I had the idea to move slavers into the hollywood area. I thought that was a great idea that even fits the Fallout setting. :>
Click to expand...

Its a question of personal taste. For me the west coast is getting a tad too civilized and I would like to see a more Fallout 1 like world where you have a large wasteland with small pockets of survivors who really have only limited contacts with each other. Not large governing bodies stretching over the entire region (which implies the presence of transportation/communication etc links to sustain it).
 
Crni Vuk said:
Chocolate Cookie O . o ?

nomnom?
Click to expand...

Don't tell me you never found the chocolate chip cookie in Sierra Army Depot... it gives you 1 extra ap!

agility 10 + fast shot + bonus rate of fire + 2x action boy + 2 doses of jet + 1 dose of antidote + 1 cookie + alien blaster = 18 action points, each shot costs 2 = 9 shots/turn

profit
 
You can get them in Modoc, too. One comes free with ever thousand-dollar glass of water.
 
I enjoyed both games, I personally liked F3 better than F:NV However I believe that Obsidian is capable of making a fallout that is better than both. Just get better writing that makes you feel more attached to what's going on and something better than an ending where you kill the legate and bam game over. It would look better with a modern engine too, so thats a plus.
 
Makenshi said:
Crni Vuk said:
Chocolate Cookie O . o ?

nomnom?
Click to expand...

Don't tell me you never found the chocolate chip cookie in Sierra Army Depot... it gives you 1 extra ap!

agility 10 + fast shot + bonus rate of fire + 2x action boy + 2 doses of jet + 1 dose of antidote + 1 cookie + alien blaster = 18 action points, each shot costs 2 = 9 shots/turn

profit
Click to expand...
The +1 ap is only temporary though.
Or maybe that's just a change that happens with Restoration Project?
 
Sonichu_fanboy3456984 said:
if they do make NV2 they better make Mr. House ending cannon
Click to expand...

And for that reason alone I hope we do not get a NV2. It kinda takes away from the whole experience of the first game if you're forced into only one of the endings in the sequel.

Of course, it would work if they let you import a save from NV which basically decided the canon for your NV2 playthrough. But that's asking for too much.

Nah, I want a new story. Even if it's Bethesda's usual lame ass crap, the least they could do is try to come up with something new. No Enclave, no NCR, no Super Mutants and no BoS. If any of those appear in game, they should play a very little role and be little else than cameos.
 
Makenshi said:
Crni Vuk said:
Chocolate Cookie O . o ?

nomnom?
Click to expand...

Don't tell me you never found the chocolate chip cookie in Sierra Army Depot... it gives you 1 extra ap!

agility 10 + fast shot + bonus rate of fire + 2x action boy + 2 doses of jet + 1 dose of antidote + 1 cookie + alien blaster = 18 action points, each shot costs 2 = 9 shots/turn

profit
Click to expand...
hey it would not be Fallout if we didnt even find something after 15 years which is completely trivial and boring, uninteresting stuff that makes us emdiately install the game again to search for it.
 
aenemic said:
Nah, I want a new story. Even if it's Bethesda's usual lame ass crap, the least they could do is try to come up with something new.
Click to expand...

Yeah - Fallout 4, now with DRAGONS! w00t. :mrgreen:
 
Personally would love to see a Fallout: LA from Obsidian and I hope one day they would get to make one or something similar. Could have a lot of lore about the events of Fallout 1.
 
Ulrox said:
DemonNick said:
That doesn't change anything. I'm sort of struggling to understand your point.
Click to expand...

My point was just to jokingly poke fun at what star wars has/could devolve into. Some people are so upset at what it has become that they would rather it died so they stop getting disappointed.

I definately loved fallout new vegas which I've said in many different posts so most of your argument towards me is kind of pointless since I more or less agree already :P - I just can't be bothered to get too serious in discussions like these because people are pretty set in their opinions and its ok to hold different opinions than mine.

On the whole :"Fallout 1 has bad and tedious combat" thing, I have to say that the tactical nature is very appealing to me but I've always been a big fan of tactical turn based games. X-com, heroes, final fantasy, goldbox games, fallout, all supreme games in my opinion, and I tend to gravitate towards those kinds of games because they dont require me to focus on aiming my crosshair on enemies. They aren't as frantic as many games today. Frantic, stress inducing, etc.

Many games today require you to use a shit ton of energy simply to be able to play them. Most games are marketed at children which tend to have a ton of energy to begin with which they dont know what to do with. Games are less marketed at someone like me who is older and takes medication which slows down my brains processing speed which makes it more enjoyable to play tactical games rather than FPS.

Even if you feel that the tactical gameplay of fallout 1 and 2 is inferior to fallout new vegas - someone like me still find those inferior game design choices better due to the nature of the gameplay and the lack of that kind of games on the market today :)


(damn that person who wrote b/c all the time was annoying)
Click to expand...

See, I like tactical isometric combat too. But fallout was kind of bad at it. Most tactical turn-based combat games, going back to the eighties, had more going on than Fallout. Even if you're going to write off magic/magic-like abilities, there's still shit like, say, sweeping in Pool of Radiance that would have made Fallout's combat more dynamic.

My point isn't that turn based top down combat is boring. It's that Fallout's particular take on it is boring. I'd go so far as to call it bad. It's shallow and dull compared to stuff that came before and came after, and as I said before, a lot of that is probably down to the fact that SPECIAL was hastily written as a substitute for GURPS. Compared to games that came before and which came after (Arcanum, like I mentioned, and now Wasteland 2), Fallout's combat system is shallow. I think what's interesting about tactical combat is making decisions about your tactics, and I think that requires having more options available than you get in the classic fallout games.

I can understand having accessibility issues with a more FPS-y game, or just plain not enjoying FPS-y combat. But IMO both classic and newer fallouts have kind of lame combat systems. New Vegas has more tactical depth, and it's improved by mods like Project Nevada or jsawyer, but I don't think the combat is the main draw in either case. I think the main draw is the narrative, the quest design, the characters, and the setting. I think New Vegas just plain does those better.
 
I wouldn't say bad. It's just extremely middling. There's very little to Fallout's combat, especially since you only control one character and enemy AI is never much to write home about. But even without that, the basic system (shooting them in the eyes is always best) could've used some tweaking.

The reason most people still have very fond memories of it is that its presentation was and is among the best ever done; a good variety of guns that sounds and "feel" great, high-quality animations and gorgeous death animations, really good text descriptions and satisfying crits. And presentation is part of it. I don't see how you can call the whole package bad. Now if you want to separate out presentation and say the core was bad then yeah ok, maybe, though again, I'd rather call it middling.

There have certainly been better turn-based games.

I do wonder how much of a difference GURPS would've made. I think it had a more complex hit location system and might have made for more tactically sound combat.

That said, I'm still with others in that my dream would be a turn-based spinoff done by Obsidian. That is too unlikely though. Brand dilution! Fallout is a first-person shooter brand now, can't risk confusing the market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top