Due to them doing an amazing job with new vegas

No. Fallout 3 was great.

Hell no. Fallout 3 was better than New Vegas.

Nope. Fallout 3 is one of my favorite games of all time. New Vegas was a broken, buggy, restrictive mess.

Word..................

No! I really enjoyed New Vegas but they were just piggybacking off all the work Bethesda did. They'd never make anything as great as Fallout completely on their own.

I won't say that they should be the only ones making them, but if the difference between Fallout 3 and New Vegas is any indication, it should rather be them than Bethesda. I happen to value story and world in an open world RPG to the extent where that laughable crap people refer to as the storyline of F3 mostly managed to offend me whereas New Vegas has one of the most impressive faction systems I've seen in video games.

That being said, I would most prefer it if someone else did one. We've seen what these two can do. Give it to someone else.

The best outcome would be the programmers of Bethesda with the writers and designers of Obsidian. New Vegas is super buggy but the writing is way better and the quests are way more interesting.

Word x2

Yeah, no.

New Vegas is much better as a fallout game. The story isn't shit like Fallout 3s. The story in New Vegas actually feels like Fallout.

Fallout 3 wasn't without its own bugs.

Bethesda should just make the game and lease Obsidian to write it. :P

No, but they make better Fallout games than Bethesda do. New Vegas is much closer to what Fallout was in the original games than what Bethesda tried to make it.

@f0rtun3: That's true! Every Bethesda game is fairly buggy. My experience with Fallout 3 was running into a few silly bugs and a few annoying bugs. In New Vegas, I ran into show-stopping, game-breaking bugs upwards of 10 times.

Honestly Bethesda did a good enough job with Fallout 3 that I'm fine with them continuing to shepherd the franchise. New Vegas is a hell of a lot of fun, and maybe captures the feeling of OG Fallout a little better, but I do like the way Bethesda spread their wings, so to speak, and made the setting of Fallout 3 new.

Fallout 3 was better, IMO. So no. New Vegas had some interesting ideas, but the story/quests didnt hold my attention like they did in 3.

New Vegas was a first person RPG and those who played Fallout 1/2 probably enjoyed New Vegas more than Fallout 3. Depending on your actions, you could get endings as a soldier of Caesar's Army. Or a puppet of Mr. House. Or a member of the NCR. Or as a loner, out for their own good. The environment was boring, but the character and faction interaction was great. Outside of Caesar, no one side was more evil than the next. And if you were a crazy ass psychopath, you could side with Caesar, or go out on your own.

Fallout 3 was a first person shooter with RPG trappings in a post apoc world. Maybe it's because I had a mod that made every building have interiors, but Fallout 3 felt like there was more to see and more to shoot. No matter how much of a psychopath you were, you were in the Lyon's Pride. And despite having a mutant in your party who THRIVES ON RADIATION, you have to go into a room full of radiation to die. Unless you get the DLC. Then, oops! We... didn't really mean that! The environments were fun to explore, but the Brotherhood vs. The Conclave is boring knights vs bad guys stuff.

But just like how FF7 was the mainstream Final Fantasy, and the first for many, Fallout 3 is the mainstream entry into the Fallout series.

I rather enjoyed both takes on the Fallout world, though. As long as the games have the GECK and its as robust as it was for Fallout 3/NV, it'll be a day one purchase.

Yeah, Obsidian has better writers than Bethesda without a doubt, but they only get so much credit for finding ways to improve on an already good game. I think they're getting better as a studio, but I'm not sure they're to the point of making AAA titles on their own yet.

I'd be fine if they were in charge of writing them but New Vegas was one of the buggiest gaming experiences I ever had. I know every Bethesda game is buggy but New Vegas was the only one I stopped playing and never finished because of them.

End of the day, I much preferred Fallout 3.

New Vegas was superior in FO3 in literally every possible way and it baffles me that people think it's the other way around in TYOOL 2015

y'all need jesus

No because Zenimax/Bethesda own the rights to it? Also Fallout 3 was amazing.

I thought Obsidian did a great job with New Vegas. I thought that the faction metres were a great inclusion and that the setting was superb. Also Dave Foley's character is one of the best in all of video games. However, I recently went back and played Fallout 3 and am of the opinion that it is the better game. I had forgotten how well the early side content tied into the main storyline thematically, and how well developed the characters were. Of course I'd still play a new Obsidian Fallout game with gusto.

I always thought that New Vegas was better. The story just felt more Fallout.

No, not at all.

I like both but shit they could give it to another developer and it could be even better. So who knows. I definitely would never make any kind of rule about it.

Ideally for Fallout 4 they've just combined Bethesda and Obsidian into a Voltron of open world games.

Fallout 3 was so much better than New Vegas, so no thank you.

This along with the amazing writing have made fallout new vegas one of the best experiences i had last gen. I still remember the lottery winner in this game, where i was really confused when i met him and learned his story. I was like should i be happy for him or should i be sad because he practically won nothing.

Fallout New Vegas is a Fallout game done in the Bethesda engine.

Fallout 3 is an Elder Scrolls game done in the Fallout setting.

The characters, the cultures and factions, the tropes and narrative devices used, the attention to anthropological details, the diversity of references, the expressiveness in dialogue and the somewhat immutable crackerjack sense of dark humor; on all these fronts, Obsidian has a superior vision of the Fallout setting than Bethesda. If you've seen any of the dev logs that Josh Sawyer of Obsidian has been making regarding developing Pillars of Eternity, it becomes extremely clear why this is. The amount of work they do into developing thorough cultures down to dress, accent, economic concerns. New Vegas effectively recreates a pioneer West adventure setting in their insane post-apocalypse. You can exchange the NCR, various caravan companies, settled tribes, raider road warriors and slum gangs with the US government, capitalist robber-barons, independent indigenous bands, murderous highwaymen and family defense groups. I'm not usually into cowboys-and-indians old West stories, but they subvert it in such interesting ways and make it great.

Meanwhile, Bethesda makes really nice caves. It's funny how you can be really really evil or really really good. They create a lot of content. They do a very good sense of placing you in an open landscape that you can explore in any direction. But their version of the Fallout universe is just... less considered and more about discrete stories. Their world doesn't feel cohesive in the same way. I don't know. It's not as good as Obsidian.

No. Bethesda will make an amazing groundwork for Obsidian to build and improve on. Or at least that's how I hope it goes. Not that I that I actually care about a Bethesda made Fallout 4. After Skyrim I'm convinced they're incapable of making anything than the dullest, most lifeless game worlds in existence. So I'm looking foreward to Obsidian coming in and do right by the wasted game mechanics of a Bethesda made Fallout 4.

@brodehouse said it best. Fallout New Vegas is a Fallout game, Fallout 3 is not.

Fallout 3 was essentially Skyrim in a post apocalyptic world, size of an ocean, depth of a puddle. I am almost completely turned off by Bethesda these days. They make huge worlds that all are so empty and drab and boring. New Vegas was so very good, because it had what Bethesda does well, the tech behind the world and world building but populated it with what Obisidan does so well. Story, setting and characters. Plus they had a deep understanding to what Fallout is, which you really feel throughout if you ever played the original ones. It feels like a real Fallout game, and was the worthy successor much more so than 3.

Nope

I couldn't agree more with that statement. Still I think that with the state Fallout is in right now different studios could have a go at it. It's not like they will ever make games as good as the first two titles so I'm ok with developers trying something new with games. Even if they feel kinda like big but empty shells that are the trademark of Bethesda.

In the end I was primarily happy Fallout managed to be one of those revered franchises that survived the modernization just fine. Fallout 3 was a pretty impressive attempt at combining some of oldschool FO's core design with a modern Bethesda open-world sandbox. It's far from perfect but it tried to solve a significant problem and succeeded much more than it failed in my opinion. I can respect that.

It also laid the basis for FN:V to really run with the concept and polish up the interactive narrative elements. Ahistorically speaking FN:V is the better modern continuation of old FO but that door most likely only opened due to FO3's mainstream success. I was pretty damn happy with FO3 when that was all I had (never loved the main plot but exploring the wasteland still yielded fun little stories, places and encounters!) and I was even happier when I got a modern FO that managed to push all the right buttons like those original games did.

That said, if you wanted to choose FO3 or FN:V I'd vote for the latter. If there were a chance for another game in that engine (very hypothetical I think) I'd rather have Obsidian design it.

As I learned recently, FO3 is hard to go back to after spending so much time with New Vegas.

F:NV all the way.

I'd like to preface this comment by saying Bethesda is probably my favorite developer of the last generation, and Skyrim, Oblivion and Fallout 3 would land spots in my top 25.

That being said, New Vegas, after the extensive patching, is a better game than Fallout 3. At the very least, it's a better Fallout game. It's story is better(much, much better). The weapon customization and creation, I find preferable. The dialogue and voice acting is better. At the same time, 3 certainly has better dlc.

Ultimately, the difference between them isn't huge. My biggest hang-up is probably story and characters. The characters in 3 sound like cartoons, whereas the characters in New Vegas don't. The story in 3 is kinda boring and straightforward, with no real player agency until an arbitrary choice at the very end, while in New Vegas you have several different factions to influence along the way, and you have a real choice as to who wins the final battle. At the same time, there are some really interesting side quests in Fallout 3.

I was under the impression that Obsidian and Bethesda weren't on good terms after Bethesda didn't pay out bonuses tied to the Metacritic score for New Vegas?

I thought I remember hearing that Bethesda might of sent out review copies to outlets looking for negative reviews to bring down the score, when it was apparent it wasn't a critical home run and was only barely going to squeak by the threshold, so they could save some money.

I'm not sure how much room Obsidian has on their plates, now that their wrapping up Pillars of Eternity and have some Pathfinder games lined up.

No

New Vegas was disappointing. 3 was amazing

No. Fallout 3 was one the best RPGs I've ever played. Ive started New Vegas 3 times and can never get past the first 5 hours.

Then you're missing out on the better Fallout game.

If Bethesda make another Elder Scrolls but-with-guns game and Obsidian uses that tech to make another modern day Fallout game, I'd be pretty happy. I just hope that they finally make a game that feels different to what they've been doing for the past decade. Whether it's down to gamebryo or whatever I don't pretend to know, but if I can Oblivion-hop up mountains in FO4, I will be pissed.

Maybe it's a more truer game to fallout but that doesn't mean it's better. Just different. And I didn't like it.

@xanadu: New Vegas is the better Fallout game. That doesn't necessarily mean it's the better game.

What does Fallout 3 do better than New Vegas? The only thing I can think of is a more interesting open world area as the wasteland is more interesting than a desert to just walk around in. Besides that New Vegas objectively has better character development, better story progression, better crafting mechanics, and more polished gameplay.

@corevi: I'm pretty sure thats what I said? Unless you meant something else. Or meant to reply to someone else. Or are just being sarcastic. In any case, whatever...Three Dog. That's all I have to say.

Fallout 3 is the worst main Fallout title. That's not to say it's bad, it's just not great. Similar deal with Skyrim which is a mediocre game full of problems which the community then later turned into a good game.

People calling out New Vegas for being buggy and not Fallout 3 should probably be arrested for the truckloads of drugs they must be doing. And the story and characters in New Vegas are far better than anything in Fallout 3.

Considering most of the people who make the original fallouts who still make games at all work for Obsidian... sure they are qualified. They don't have the rights though. Like many I would like to see Bethesda make a new fallout but contract Obsidian to do the writing and story for the game.

I'm pretty much in absolute agreement, though I enjoyed some of the little events here and there sprinkled throughout 3, some of the chance meetings and collective of characters weren't the worst, but the main story points were awful, which pretty much sums up Beths general writing style.

I think as of right now, 3 is as good as Beth can do with Fallout, and New Vegas was as good as Obsidian can do with Fallout, I wouldn't mind seeing the series being handed around, like different directors tackling the same movie universe but with their own story and view point of things instead of re-treading the same companies and the same general game factions/locations over and over.

They could do what the Metro 2033 writer did where he allowed people to use his universe for their books, but have them set it up in different locations, a Metro book in England, or a Metro book in France or Canada etc.

How cool would that be if they handed it off to a team that did Fallout from the point of view of what's been going on somewhere besides the U.S? Fallout China? Fallout Canada? Even if they keep it in the U.S. put it in a different state to give a different viewpoint with a different team.

And never ever let Beth write for it EVER AGAIN.
EVER.
SERIOUSLY.
EVER.
Duuuuur its your destiny to be irradiated to death duuuuuuuur Fawks can't help you, duuuuuuuuur, the code for the secret room is your mothers favorite bible passage about water, duuuuuuuuuuuuuur symbolism, duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

They should make another South Park. Anyone know how the stick of truth sold?

Also, I thought 3 was better.