Should Obsidian be the only one making Fallout games?

Goodness no. I thought New Vegas was awful.

3 was a far better game in every way. However I don't hold Fallout as highly as many people appear to, so I'm hoping no one is working on Fallout 4, and everyone is working on Elder Scrolls 6

Can't believe the mods are sitting idly by while people slander Matt Rorie's Fallout: New Vegas. Disgraceful.

As with all the things its not simple. I agree that Fallout New Vegas was a better game but being honest with myself I enjoyed Fallout 3 more. I assume that's because it was simply first, remember that first super mutant encounter? My wife came into the room to make sure I hadn't gone cazy with all my cussing and laughing.

How? How do so many people think this? New Vegas is objectively better than 3 in almost every aspect except for the Wasteland being better than the desert. Yes, it's possible to enjoy 3 more for that reason, but New Vegas improved almost everything over 3, especially story.

@zolroyce: Hundred percent agreement on that last paragraph.

Nice troll, almost had me for a moment.

Every time I come into a Fallout 3 Vs. New Vegas thread, I leave angry. Every time. But I just can't help myself.

New Vegas is absolutely the better game.

Although I will add to my earlier response and say that I'm fine with Obsidian making another Fallout as long as they are required to go back to the series being and isometric turn-based game like the originals. I never thought the first person semi-real-time system in the new ones worked as well.

Honestly, if they adopted a system similar to what's in Valkyria Chronicles, I would be fine with that.

New Vegas didn't hook me like fallout 3 did so I say no.

i say no because no-one else makes the type of game that bethesda makes, and taking an IP away from them for the sake of 'a better story'? fuck that shit.

How so?

Fallout 3 was way too crashy for me to actually play it very far, but I loved it. Fallout New Vegas was my jam, though. It just had more of the fallout feel than 3 did. What I played of 3 was really grim and dark, which is what it should be, but it completely lacked that odd jovialness of the original games.

For me, that's basically the differentiator. Also, the faction stuff in NV was a lot of fun. I got totally absorbed by that world the same way I did Skyrim.

I want Obsidian to come in and do the follow up, the same way they always do. They are so great at improving what's good and then adding their own amazing story arcs and amazingness on top. Obsidian does characters and story better than most. Bethesda and Obsidian are among the elitest of the elite imo.

If Bethesda takes the tone from New Vegas into F4, job's done.

people who say fo3 is better than new vegas are just looking for replies. they know it's trash but they love all that salt.

@krullban: I respectfully disagree. I found the story in NV to choppy, filled with too many characters I didn't care a thing about, and at the end the choices weren't really significant, it was just chose a dude then he controls everything (which clearly you chose the TV robot guy cause...c'mon.) It was a pretty bad "revenge" story, and I'll call it that in the loosest terms available.

I also found NV to be way more buggy and glitch filled, far more then the average Bethesda buggy, but sometimes game crashing, save corrupting bad, and this was over the Xbox and PC version.

Throw that together with the a world I just did not care about, and was much less appealing to look at, let alone navigate and be in, and I was very turned off from New Vegas. I completed it, but didn't have much of a grand experience throughout it, opposed to the fun in 3 and some of it's DLC.

But again I should state, I care little about Fallout and it's universe/game play tropes (and yes I've played 1 and 2 to completion as well) so I REALLY hope Bethesda is working on something else, and just leaving Fallout alone. Let 3 and, to an extent, NV be the things they were, both well liked and received by many, and move on. That universe really doesn't go very deep, and I don't think I wanna play another game where I'm dealing with scum gang dudes, ghouls and power armor.

No, I liked 3 better than New Vegas.

How about Fallout 4 by Bethesda and a sequel made by Obsidian called "Fallout: China B. China" or something?

Come one. Objectivity is bullshit when it comes to games.

While Obsidian did an amazing job with New Vegas, Bethesda definitely did the groundwork for their success with the series. That is not to detract from what Obsidian accpmished, as I enjoyed New Vegas more than Fallout 3, but Bethesda have consistently innovated where Obsidian seems to supplement.

New Vegas was fucking rad as shit save for the fact that it was completely broken for me on consoles. I encountered probably 2-3 game breaking games that caused me to completely restart. Judged solely on the merits of the quest stuff alone though, New Vegas is undeniably the more interesting game.

Either way, adding in new features doesn't make something objectively better. Especially when said features are good in theory, but clumsily executed.

Even if you liked New Vegas more than Fallout 3 that doesn't change the fact that it was built upon what Bethesda did. New Vegas doesn't exist without Fallout 3.

I have some faith that Bethesda would get better at making Fallout games. Don't forget they only made 1 of them. To assume that every Fallout game they ever make would have the same flaws as Fallout 3 is silly.

@matatat: yeah, like all of fo3.

I am in the Fallout 3 party. New Vegas was interesting, but I thought it lacked compared to Fallout 3. New Vegas did the story better, but Fallout 3 was a much tighter game. I hated the restricted open world of New Vegas and I thought they had a lot of redundant/bullshit systems like the factions and ammo creation.

@carlthenimrod: Fallout 3 was built on what Black Isle/Obsidian did though? I'm not sure how any of this is relevant to which developer put out the better game.

And Fallout 3 doesn't exist without...

People need to stop using the "Obsidian only built upon Bethesda foundations" line. It's bullshit. Just stop.

From what I understand Bethesda's Fallout 3 was created from scratch and tossed out everything from Black Isle's Fallout 3. New Vegas took a lot from Fallout 3 and the canceled Interplay game.

I think he's saying that Bethesda is better at building the base and, if they had opportunity to improve upon themselves, could make something even better. Obsidian seemed to have the structure of New Vegas plotted out for them so they didn't have to worry about building the gameplay or world in the same way Bethesda did.

I think that New Vegas added on some really good shit that theoretically makes it better than 3, but I ended up loving 3 a lot more for some reason. Think it mostly had to do with setting+the fact that it came out first- NV just didn't have as big of an impact because it was building upon 3.

I can't believe people are seriously trying to argue this. New Vegas was absolutely built off of Fallout 3. They made an expansion pack the size of a full game, they didn't make the entire game from the ground up themselves.

Obsidian took Bethesda's clay and sculpted it into something amazing, something a lot of people prefer over Bethesda's sculpture they made with their own clay. But here's the thing: Obsidian doesn't know how to make the clay, they only know how to sculpt it really well. And that's ok.

More than ok even, because it means we could have another situation where we get a Bethesda made Fallout for the people that liked Falllout 3 better, and then an Obsidian Fallout for the New Vegas fans.

We can all co-exist here, it doesn't always have to be about which 3D Fallout is better. Fallout 3 and New Vegas play to different strengths, and they focus on different things. Some people put more importance on the things Fo3 does well, and some put more importance on what New Vegas does well.

Explain to me how it is bullshit.

If Bethesda never developed Fallout 3 and instead went right to Obsidian to make a game how similar does that game look to New Vegas? Not very would be my guess. Maybe it would be better or maybe worse. But it would be completely different.

It's relevant because New Vegas wouldn't exist without Fallout 3.

Remember, the topic isn't about who puts out better games. It's about Obsidian exclusively making Fallout games. I come from the point of view that it doesn't hurt to have Bethesda make another Fallout game.

No I really disliked the structure of New Vegas. It's practically a linear game in a open world you can't explore until you invest enough time to get to The Strip. So like after ten hours it opens up and it's great but it's incredibly frustrating after fallout 3 where you could go in basically any direction and not get punished for it. Whoever thought blocking half the game world off with deathclaws is not a bright person.

I'll give you the writing being superior though.

It wasn't that much better is the problem. The first time is always the best and even if it was incrementally better the second time, it doesn't mean I'm going to like it better.

@carlthenimrod: @berserker976: What I was saying that the "who made who" argument is stupid. Especially if you are arguing about Fallout in favour of Bethesda.

As someone already posted earlier in this thread:

All the terrible taste in this thread.

New Vegas has more characters and characters that are written like actual humans, more quests and more complex quests, better "dungeons", coherent world building that is built on Fallout 1 and 2, better shooting, more easter eggs and less black and white morality.

The radio station isn't as good mostly because there are too few songs. That is the weakness I can think of.

Black Isle should make the game.

Nah, Fallout 3 was way better than New Vegas. (And the old Fallout games for that matter).

Nope. No game is objectively better than any other.

I preferred Fallout 3, and I really liked New Vegas a lot. Yours and my personal subjective experience can't be objectively wrong. That's not how any form of entertainment works.

I hope both teams get a shot at making a new Fallout game. But the OP's question is pointless anyway.

@crembaw: I'm not intending to be a blowhard, just stating that I do not find the Fallout games very much. The only reason I tried 3 was because it was from Bethesda, who are my favorite game company, and I was surprised. Sadly I didn't have the same surprise with NV. I just wanted to state my views on the game as a whole, so people could take my statement however they wanted.

And I forget that on the internet I actually need to put "this is my opinion" before something. Objectivity is what makes games great, and makes people great and not boring. Someone likes what I don't, I like what someone else doesn't, and so forth. Makes for fun discussion as to why someone likes game X more then game Y, what drew them to it, pushed them off one of the games or the other.

But yes, my bigger question still stands. What comes from another Fallout game? Another landscape post nuclear-war, that still looks barren and destroyed? Unless they did something super weird, like a game set in a different country (Fallout in China would actually be cool, due to the lore) or a game set way after the other Fallout's, where civilization has actually rebuilt to something of a shadow of pre-war, then I don't think it would be much more then close copy of 3 or NV.

That's why I hope Bethesda is making a new Elder Scrolls. The ES universe has some deep lore and landscapes not yet seen in a game, so creativity could have no bounds. If they aren't doing that, I hope it's something brand new. I would love a new IP, attempts at new things are always interesting, even if they end up being poor.

We shall see at E3!

No because someone else could make it better (like Bethesda aka Fallout 3)

I wish they were personally. As hyped as so many people are assuming Bethesda's inevitable announcement is fallout 4 related, even though I too have been waiting for just SOMETHING in general as an update to the series, I can't simply be happy if it gets announced, because I don't like Bethesdas take on Fallout whatsoever. I feel they do virtually everything to the setting and world of Fallout entirely wrong, and in the hands of Obsidian, its at least at the mercy of writers that worked on the original 2 games and universe.

So yes, I do personally wish this was the case.

The one with the better open world wins and that's FO3

No, because Obsidian has better things to do than work on a series like Fallout. Fallout has a legacy and a owner who doesn't particularly care about it. Why waste the time making a game for them when they could do their own thing, like making their own IP with Pillars of Eternity, or building a new legacy with their pathfinder license. Wasteland 2 was already a better Fallout follow up for fans of the originals, leave the new fallout to bethesda.

That said those who say fo3 was better are crazy, both in terms of core and dlc, vegas was better.

The Ranger duster featured in New Vegas is the best Fallout cover art to date.

I like to think people in the know can all agree that New Vegas *BLEW* Fallout 3 out of the fucking water...

-Damage Threshold was a way superior damage model to Damage Resistance.

-Emphasis on faction standing rather than "karma."

-Hardcore mode (If it doesn't make a return in some form in Fallout 4 if Bethesda makes it, then I would be wont to say that RPGCodex has a point. And believe me, that would be a terrifying thing to say).

-Superior and sensible crafting (It's Hand-loaded .45-70 SWC or bust for my Ranger Sequoia).

Seriously, I could never go back to Fallout 3 after playing New Vegas.

I liked 3 so much more than NV.

Obsidian games are almost masterpieces but are buggy as shit, so are Bethesda games.

The major difference is Obsidian works best with other people's engines, as programming is seemingly their weak point, Bethesda focuses less on the story and more on the mechanics of the game.

I like New Vegas way more than Fallout 3, but I can still appreciate a Bethesda game.

rather than the mechanics I would say bethesda focuses more on the ability to play the game independent of the story, which many story fans seem reluctant to recognize as a widely appreciated and valuable thing.

Black Isle should still be able to make fallout games too.