Possibility of Obisidian working on Fallout...

Bethesda bought a masterpiece and scribbled on it; it's not "in their DNA".

Spoiler

 

You're all part of my DNA.

 

no ew

 

Hopefully someone somewhere will change their mind….

Ultimately even if Fallout is part of their DNA…..they’re probably not going to be able to touch it for another decade since their slate is so full. If another studio can put out a new installment basing it off 4 in 2 or so years, that’d be cool.

 

Assuming Bethesda Softworks could be pried from Fallout long enough again for another company to make another iteration, I'm just curious as to what they'd do with it. A New Vegas 2, while neat, would be a jungle of multichoice hell and nearly impossible to mesh out without Bioware tier canonizing/making the choice ironically unimportant and all it changed was the color of a person's tunic (The Mass Effect Udina/Anderson dilemma, or Dragon Age Allowing or preventing Anders from going Aloha Snackbar on the chantry changing dialogue in Inquisition) (forgive me for using bioware examples). It'd also be kinda meh anyways what with Vegas pretty much explored and more or less done. If Obsidian did another Fallout, where would they put it?

Oregon/washington? The Sonoran Desert or maybe some midwestern region? It'd be nice to see some new factions I guess. I'm sure this question alone has been harped on a lot, so I guess I'm late to the party.

 

Isn't that what they effectively had to do for New Vegas? They had to choose a specific ending of FO2 to go off of.

Bethesda basically canonized certain endings to FO3 and FO4 with their DLCs.

I don't forsee that to be a problem.

 

You make a valid point I suppose, but for New Vegas you have four different core ending to work with. In Fo1/2 you had I believe 2 per game (one for completing the main quest and one for failure, with variance between ending reels; I know in Fo1 you could finish the game but all the settlements were destroyed, or Fo2 where you could have a kid with Mrs. Bishop and the kid basically runs Reno) and I assume that victory is the ending for said quest-lines as truth be told the failure options don't leave much for sequels. You also have 3/4 where truthfully there wasn't much in the way of different endings save for reels; both had 2 endings in the strictest sense and 4's only difference in one ending given was who you used to explode the MIT.

The arguments between either Mr. House, Yes Man, NCR, and Legion endings however all have vast consequences and outcomes between what you specifically did or how you did it (like good/bad karma or what specific quests you did) that would make writing a direct sequel next to impossible unless you write one as canon, pseudo retcon it to be pliable, or ignore it entirely. To me I guess the difficulty would come from a literal direct sequel; you can totally make a West-Coast game again, but I'd think (in my totally unprofessional, IP autistic opinion) you'd want to leave Vegas as it sits. I dunno, maybe they could pull a Bethesda and take a locale we heard of from Vegas and make an entire new game out of said location, like how you hear of The Commonwealth in 3; we heard of a lot in Vegas proper, like Baja or any of the deserts down south.

To play devil's advocate on myself though, if any writers could come up with how to make that spaghetti sequel friendly, it'd be Obsidian; the old guard from way back yonder way in the Black Isle times.

Maybe if we're hyper lucky, Inexile could take a shot; wishful thinking though.

 

Their is little possibility of Fallout being anything but a few phone apps and shitty 76 expansions along with some merch to ride out the rest of the decade, I also wouldn't trust obsidian to do good work with Fallout anyway. I would like to see Inexile or someone else take a crack at the IP though.

 

Did you play The Bard's Tale IV? BT4 was effectively a Frayed Knights clone. It had almost nothing relatable to any previous Bard's Tale—except IP names. [So why bother naming it a Bard's Tale numbered sequel?]

Spoiler

*Krome did such an excellent remaster of the series; InXile should have used a clone of Krome's work as a basis for BT4. Have BT4 be an evolution rather than a mutation from the established series. It's an entirely unrelated game... that seems to copy Frayed Knights instead of Bard's Tale.

Spoiler

Did you play Wasteland 2? WL2 was effectively a FO:Tactics clone, bearing little in common with WL1, aside from a few IP names. I liked WL2, but only because it was the closest thing to Fallout; it was not close to Wasteland—except for IP names.

This is a pattern with them.

 

So what you're saying is that Inxile will produce the Fallout 1 remake but make it an 18+ visual novel available on their patreon? Sign me up.

As long as it's not close to Fallout 3/4 I'm willing to see what they come up with, come hell or high water.

 

If that's what they actually would state in writing, then sign me up too... except that the pattern I alluded to is one of replacing established mechanics with recent gameplay trends in sequels to games that didn't originally play like that.

 

Ii think its more significant than that.

https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/Fallout_2_endings

New Vegas canonizes 11 endings and 3 canonizes 1.

But yeah, I don't think they have to answer that question, but I think the likeliest is 1) NCR ending, because I think Sawyer said that was the most popular ending, and NCR won all the endings in 2, so why not? or 2) House/Indepdent, that way we might be able to relitigate New Vegas since the status quo might be similar and fan favorite characters wont be dead.

 

Honestly, that change was what got me into the Wasteland series as hard as it did; Fo1/2 style gameplay took a while for me to take to -- what with me being a millennial and all -- but after a year or so I would play them with genuine pleasure from the experience. With Wasteland 2 being essentially a tactics clone (albeit hard-lined into turn based) I feel it turned out to be much better than it would have been as a direct continuation of what Wasteland OG did; that being the staple of older-than-old CRPG game.

I would say though that you have a point; if a game decided to suddenly change the speed of their gameplay, like say Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance, it would alienate other people who like the original hack and slash vibe it had. But were I to spout personal opinion, Wasteland does kinda fit the Fallout Tactics framework -- team based tactical action game, with actual rpg elements unlike the OG FT. I would pay to see another classic style Fallout however, as faint a hope that may be.

Ah, nothing like a trip to the wikis to realize how much ignorance one might be speaking with (speaking for myself). I would admit to speaking only of the primary quest endings -- success at defeating the big bad versus failure -- but I forget that Fallout's endings aren't so simple.

 

Would anyone even want a Obsidian Fallout game if it had to include any and all of Bethesda's lore_
Cause I wouldn't. Even with an A-team where they got back any and all important previous Fallout people it just wouldn't matter to me as I wouldn't even consider it canon.

Like, I think Fallout New Vegas is "canon 2", meaning that we have a split in the Fallout timeline where one path diverges to Van Buren and the other to New Vegas. But that's the thing. New Vegas is the marvel "What If", sure it's canon in the multiverse sense of things but it isn't 616 Marvel. So I'm already counting out New Vegas as being canon so if Obsidian had to acknowledge that Bethesda's lore is canon in any conceivable way I wouldn't want it. I don't even know if I would buy it on a big discount the way I would a Bethesda Fallout game. Like Fallout 4 is fun on its own merits because of how stupidly designed it is. A Obsidian Fallout would take itself too seriously. Like I can fuck around and just listen to a podcast as I gun down dungeons in Fallout 4 but Fallout New Vegas' content is all storyrelated so if I don't care about the story because I don't give a shit about the lore then I can't find much fun in it.

 

If you think Van Buren is less of a bizarro elseworld from the events of Fallout 2 than New Vegas is, I don't know what to say man. The only thing I can see is the handful of F3 references in NV which necessitate 3 being semi-canon ala Tactics

 

I just like Van Buren's lore a lot more then New Vegas. It's not that New Vegas is bad lore, it's just that I got a choice betwene New Vegas and Van Buren and I choose Van Buren.

 

Obsidian making the next Fallout entry, would be refreshing for the writing aspects for sure, however, I don't know about you, but The Outer World, for example, wasn't great either, the game run smoothly with no bugs (none that I remember) but it was a very "safe" game (with almost no risk taken), a forgettable experience for me and they had the chance to make a game of their own and give a massive slap in Bethesda face which I'm sure it didn't, hope Avowed will be better. Don't forget about the Van Buren project and Tactics too (the Fallout downfall started before Bethesda came into the picture ... I think Fallout should go to a modders team who really cares about Fallout like most people here do, sadly it's not gonna happen ... I think the more a company has financial means the more their game start to lose their identities to appeal to a larger audience, it's like trying to make Call of Duty an RPG, that is human nature called GREED, the more you have the more you want. This is not only true in the Gaming industry and will cause the world to become a real FALLOUT eventually, just you wait, maybe you'll find yourselves in an underground shelter and your grand-grand kids will emerge in a totally different world with tribals ruling in a shell of the world once was.