And Here’s Obsidian’s Idea For Fallout: New Vegas 2

When you speak with someone in Las Vegas, the topic of conversation naturally shifts to Vegas-themed things. In the case of Obsidian CEO Feargus Urquhart, that meant Star Wars, of course. Oh, and I guess Fallout: New Vegas. During a DICE chat that lasted innumerable moons, months, seasons, and centuries, Urquhart and I briefly touched on his studio’s return to its old techno-magically irradiated Black Isle haunt. “Oh, we’d love to do Fallout: New Vegas 2,” he enthused. “It would be awesome.” But how would that work? And is Bethesda on board with the idea? Here’s what Urquhart had to say.

“If I think of going from Fallout 1 to Fallout 2, we tried to associate the two areas somewhat closely,” he explained to RPS. “It wasn’t just ‘Oh, we’re gonna do this 2,000 miles from here.’ So I think if we were to do Fallout: New Vegas 2 – or just a new Fallout – we would probably separate it from what the internal team at Bethesda’s doing. We’d keep it on the West Coast, because we’re West Coast people. They’re East Coast, so it makes sense.”

“And we need an interesting confined area. So I mean, it could be LA. Fallout LA. That could be interesting. It’d probably be The Boneyard, which is from Fallout 1. It could be very different. It could be almost a Walking Dead meets Fallout-like thing because of all the radiation.”

Which, of course, sounds pretty damn enticing. But there’s a lot more to making a bombed-out wasteland than, well, dropping some bombs. Red tape abounds, and Urquhart didn’t deny that it’s kind of a kick in the head. But Obsidian and Bethesda are definitely on good terms, so there’s plenty of hope.

“We talk to Bethesda all the time,” he said. “And I think the challenge here doesn’t just apply to Bethesda specifically, but to a lot of publishers in general. But basically, what does all the [current] console crap mean? The challenge in this period of time has been, you have this console transition, and it’s strange that they’re still not announced. But that always creates a disruption in the industry. And now you mix in [the emergence of] mobile and F2P stuff, and it’s left a lot of people reeling.”

“So that’s a lot of the conversation we’ve had with publishers. ‘OK, how do we get back to normal – whatever normal is going to be.’ That’s just the process right now.”

Meanwhile, I also managed to pull Bethesda’s Todd Howard aside and get his two cents, which basically amounted to a reiteration of Urquhart’s sentiment. Nothing’s set in stone, but New Vegas was great, and having another go at it certainly makes an awful lot of sense. So, right then, fingers crossed. Extra radiation-borne ones too, if you’ve got ’em.

Look for the full interview with Urquhart very, very soon. Sooner than last time I said this, even. Because that’s how time works.


  1. Ravenholme says:

    Yessssss. FNV was far greater than FO3.

    • Lemming says:

      I’ve still not got around to getting NV, but does it have the same creeping atmosphere FO3 has? The thing I loved about FO3 was just wandering around and finding ruined places to explore in the wasteland that pushed the horror factor.

      From what I keep seeing when NV is mentioned in reverence it’s all referencing lulz rather than atmosphere.

      I’m not someone who’s bothered about what human faction is doing to what other human faction, for instance. I find that stuff pretty meh.

      • PopeRatzo says:

        No, NV was not as good as FO3 for what you’re talking about. It was a lot of in-jokes and less of the horrifying atmosphere of actually exploring a wasteland.

        And, unfortunately, less focus on brilliantly chosen musical selections. I can still hear Billie Holiday singing “Crazy They Call Me” from FO3 whenever I find myself looking at a bleak landscape:

        “I say I’ll move the mountains, and I’ll move the mountains…”

        Sheesh, I just got a shiver. That’s what a great game does for you.

        • Premium User Badge

          gritz says:

          On the other hand, few things in a game have made me feel more like a badass than smoking a few Legionaires with my Ranger Sequoia while a gunfighter ballad like “Big Iron” plays, or winning big at the Tops while old blue eyes croons “Blue Moon”.

          The only conspicuous absence was Elvis, which would have been great to hear while cleaning up Freeside with the Kings.

          • AlphaCentauri says:

            Johnny Guitar.

            I ended up playing the game with going on a killing spree each time this song started playing.

          • maninahat says:

            “Pig iron on his diiiiiick….Pig iron, pig iron…”


            I’d say FO:NV trumps FO3 in almost every respect, with the exception of the iconic setting. Vegas is kind of uninspiring, compared to seeing the distant crumbling capitol buildings of FO3, again, with the much more haunting choice of ironic music.

        • Enkinan says:

          I’ve got spurs that jingle jangle jingle that disagree.

          NV is a bit smaller, but much better put together in terms of gameplay and story.

          Play on hardcore if you havent, I am so glad I did on my initial playthrough. It made the game have a much more pronounced feeling of survival than FO3 ever did for me. Also 3 had way too much subway and the inner city parts were very hit or miss. The main story was way worse as well.

      • Discopanda says:

        Fallout NV had much less of an urban focus, without the subways and abandoned buildings, so there were a lot fewer creepy dark places. There’s still plenty of exploration, but (as far as I can tell) with fewer overall areas, which have more backstory. What I preferred about New Vegas was the depth of the factions. Instead of randomly EEEEVIL slavers/raiders a la FO3, you’ve got more interesting groups that make sense. The NCR are nice enough, but they’re often corrupt and inefficient, taking a lot of the worst parts of the “Old World” and bringing them back to life. Caesar’s Legion are cruel, brutal, and treat women more or less like cattle, but their iron fisted rule is very stable. They’re bastards, but you can understand why it would appeal to some people in the wastelands. The Fiends are… insane, evil raiders. But it’s cause they do drugs! And drugs are bad. BETTER CHARACTERZ

        • gwathdring says:

          And in FO3 you have the Brotherhood of Steel who have their foibles but are mostly alright, the Raiders who aren’t so much evil as territorial and irritable, the Enclave who seem by turns crazy then evil then … well, you understand where they come form and why even if it’s still awfully sketchy (and rather silly in a good way).

          • mouton says:

            Are you kidding? FO3 Brotherhood of Steel are goddamn knights in shining armor. No nuance there at all.

          • cue kalamos says:

            the brotherhood in fallout 3 was retarded in comparison to what they did with them in fallout 1 and 2, New Vegas brought it back to what it was supposed to be about, their over reliance on technology and arrogance

      • woodsey says:

        FO3 was more concerned with exploration and what I guess you could call “visual quests”. Stuff that you’d see in the environment that told a certain story, but weren’t presented in writing.

        New Vegas is absolutely jam-packed with written quests and choices, but there’s much less of that quiet exploration. It’s also set in a far more established area of civilisation, which rather affects the tone. If anything it’s almost post-post-apocalypse.

        • AlphaCentauri says:

          It is post-post-apocalyptic. But this makes sense, seeing as it takes place hundreds of years after the apocalypse.

        • Wolfe says:

          Fallout 1, 2, and Tactics were all post-post as well… FO3 just is the black sheep because “hey, it would be coolz if we haz lotsa rads everywhere…. ig0re all how if teh was muchos rados then D.C. would be a big hole… but hey, we have Liam Nesson!”

      • Teovald says:

        Fallout 3 focus is a very Bethesda-esque take on the franchise. You are a super-heros wandering in the wasteland.
        In New Vegas there are some major differences :
        -the monster level with you, like in fallout 3 but only partially here and it is a great thing. In fallout 3 I would kill lvl1 super mutants at the start of the game, and lvl 70 super mutants several dozen hours later, without a real difference. In New Vegas, the most dangerous creatures will massacre low level characters. When you are told to make a big detour because this area is infested with giant scorpions or DeathClaws it is not to flatter your ego when your winpy character will kill them, it is because they will surely kill you. A very high level character in New Vegas is still able to kill almost anything relatively easily. I guess for this last point whether it is a weakness or a good thing depends on you …
        -There is a lot of exploration as well, especially if you get all the extensions (of variable qualities) with very varied places. If I remember well, F3 took almost entirely place in an urban setting. New Vegas takes place in the Mojave Wasteland (that name alone brings some sweet memories)
        -The focus of the story is very different. I won’t spoil it here though :)

        • Imadeanaccountforthis says:

          I call BS on the “deathclaws kill you because they are so much stronger than your weak character” stuff. The deathclaws are strategically placed in an area where there is absolutely no way to have a strategic advantage. The quarry? It’s surrounded by mountains, but invisible walls prevent you from ever going up to it. Ranged combat would be possible still because of the surrounding hills, except that the deathclaws run around like idiots after you shoot them once.

          When the developers of New Vegas decided to put arbitrary speech checks and lock off areas with invisible walls I call hackiness. I get it, you didn’t want me to kill the death claws until I was level 45, but guess what? your desert is so boring I can’t find any way to level up besides meaningless fetch quests and talking to boring characters that don’t even provide quests for 23 hours. I’m more hours in to NV than it took me to complete the FO3 storyline and I’m bored to tears.

          The game isn’t immersive…I don’t feel like I’m “really there” and even if I did, I wouldn’t want to be. Why make a game unentertaining and then say “well, that’s because it’s a desert, nothing lives there.” Alright, well maybe don’t make a video game in that setting, cuz it’s boring and crap.

          • LionsPhil says:

            I managed to clear out the deathclaw quarry as a mid-level character by leaving my suicidal companions behind and climbing the mining equipment ramps, leaving landmines in my path to blow up the odd deathclaw that could actually path up there.

            You’re right about the invisible walls being awful, though.

          • CookPassBabtridge says:

            I used a stealth boy then found a spot on the geometry of one of the trucks or whatever they were. Deathclaws couldn’t get there, and I just spent lots of pistol ammo chipping away at them.

            Of course you can always go North via another route and face the Cazadores instead

      • Trent Hawkins says:

        New Vegas is pretty much nothing but factions. In fact you can’t really be much of a center to all the action, you just pick which faction you would like to win and you’re mildly acknowledge as being a part of it.

        There’s little to no exploration that isn’t part of some fetch quest, so you really have to wait for the quest as an excuse to go in to a random vault and the early half of the game has you on a rail going from point A to B and blocking your other paths with invisible walls and massively overpowered enemies.

        The writing also lacks the fun elements of Fallout 3. It’s so dry, boring and mostly made of references to other Fallout games.

        • Discopanda says:

          Old World Blues would like a word with you.

        • Werthead says:

          FALLOUT: NEW VEGAS is much, much better-written than FO3. It’s smarter, funnier and more convincing. The characters have actual personalities, including your companion characters. In FO3 and SKYRIM I’d often forget I had a companion character. In NEW VEGAS you can hack them off, they can give you quests and they comment more on the things that are happening.

          The game really is also about you. You are the real star of the show (something that is subverted in the DLCs) and ultimately it’s your choices that determine the end of the game. Most notably, you can tell ALL of the factions to go stuff themselves and conquer the Wasteland yourself with an army of robot minions. How is that not making you the star of the show?

          • Geen says:

            Ah, that ending moment is fantastic. Also the ability, when asked to hand over your weapons, to say “Five words: From. My. Cold. Dead. Hands.”

        • Premium User Badge

          gritz says:

          Yes, factions play a bigger role in NV than F3, but that’s because your character actually decides their fates. As opposed to F3, where you’re working for the Brotherhood of Steel against the Enclave and nothing else. And the most obvious ending is to blow off all the factions and take Vegas for yourself. (no forced suicide in this one!)

          The only area in the game that is absolutely blocked off from you in the beginning is the Legion camp, which is just one plot-sealed area compared to F3’s, what, half-dozen? At least? Your exploration in NV is only limited by your creativity.

        • Stupoider says:

          “the early half of the game has you on a rail going from point A to B and blocking your other paths with invisible walls and massively overpowered enemies”

          It’s entirely possible to get past the deathclaws at the start of the game. You just didn’t try hard enough, probably because you’re used to the level scaling Bethesda has force fed you.

      • werix says:

        I actually had this conversation of a friend recently, and I came to the conclusion that neither game was better. When it comes down to it, FO3 had the better location/s than Vegas did. Vegas had some small interchangeable towns and THE STRIP! FO3 had the DC downtown, Megaton, Tenpenny tower, The Citadel, paradise falls, Rivet City, etc. For being so desolate, the Capital Wasteland felt more alive than the Mojave desert, which maybe is the point, but I liked the variety of different small factions in FO3 more than the “Big Three” of NV.

        That said NV has the better writing and characters. When I ask friends who have played both, “Who was your favorite companion NPC in FO3, there never is an answer(in part because they were so hard to find), whereas when I ask the same question for NV, they’ll have a favorite and a few stories to go with it. Mr. House, the ranger with PTSD in Camp Maccarran, Caesar, there were really deep, well-written characters in NV that FO3 lacked.

        They both were good in their own way, and I guess depending on your tastes one or the other is “better” but I appreciate each ones differences enough.

        • Premium User Badge

          geoffreyk says:

          I have not played NV (yet), but I can answer your question for FO3 easily: Fawkes. He is awesome.

          • Premium User Badge

            gritz says:

            Yes, Fawkes, the radiation-immune super mutant you befriend when he goes into a radiation-filled room that would surely kill you. Then, at the end of the game, when you are faced with a radiation-filled room that will surely kill you, he says he can’t do that.

            A+ writing and characterization on that one.

          • neonordnance says:

            @ gritz

            you, sir, win the thread. well done.

          • Wolfe says:

            @ gritz

            Don’t forget the Robot follower and ghoul follower – both rad immune. Oh, and the lunatic raider chick that would do anything for ya. But yet you ask any of these to do it you’re a horrid person. But it’s ok, because broken steel happens and then you’re the hero again :D

          • Kuraudo says:

            These comments are reminding me of all the massive plotholes Fallout 3 was littered with; I’d much rather remember it as fun “3d fallout with lots of gore!” and enjoy it for what it was: a slow motion kill generator.

      • Continuity says:

        Fallout 3 was the better sandbox, FO3NV was the better RPG (branching quests, dialogue trees, loot).

        So basically it just boils down to whether you prefer the Bethesda brand of RPG or the Obsidian brand of RPG.

        • dE says:

          Sitting on my Isle, I’m affraid tis looking all black to me.

        • cue kalamos says:

          i would not call what Bethesda makes these days RPgs at all, your role in them is almost always GOD EMPEROR PERSON CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE MAN, that’s bad/lazy writing, and it also makes for a shitty character, even super heroes have more problems than Bethesda player characters, that are devoid of real choice.

      • Saiko Kila says:

        I’m one of these who think that F3 had actually better atmosphere than F:NV. Also, at least from that perspective it also had some better (or more memorable) quests. When I try and recall any moving moment from any of these games, it is usually from F3.

      • LintMan says:

        I loved both FO3 and FONV and recommend both. FONV doesn’t have quite as much random stuff of interest to see/encounter in the wilderness as FO3 does, and it has some annoying invisible walls that prevent you from crossng certain mountains/areas, which I don’t recall FO3 having. But it does have much better writing for the characters and quests. The quests feel more varied ad interesting. It’s a bit of a subtle difference: In FONV, random exploration feels slightly less rewarding, but once you’re at the various destinations, it feels like there is more to do, and you find more resons for you to travel to other destinations. So I very frequently had a whole list of places to go and people to see.

        FONV also doesn’t in general feel so micro-partitioned off like the whole downtown DC area does in FO3. (The small walled off surface areas connected only by mazelike tunnels was a frustration for me in FO3).

    • neonordnance says:

      FALLOUT NEW VEGAS IS THE GREATEST GAME OF ALL TIME (when it’s been properly modded with project nevada, Nevada Skies URWLified and Darnified UI)



      i love fallout new vegas. i have modded it, i have made mods for it, i have cracked it and explored its data, i have played character after character after character, and it never, ever gets old. it is my #1 all-time favorite game and to have a follow-up would be the BEST THING EVER.

      • Wolfe says:

        Amen to that. 600+ hours and still going strong.

      • Tom De Roeck says:

        wouldnt mind an obsidian star wars RPG again. the idea he had with trying to find the last of the jedi was brilliant. (avellone, I mean)

    • DestroyYourEgo says:

      Meh, to you.

      Don’t get me wrong, I LOVE Fallout: New Vegas. I just felt like it wasn’t as epic as FO3.

      Not only was it not as epic, it wasn’t as realized, in terms of accessibility. I’ve gone back to NV quite a few times, but it’s always for a short stay before I realize, “Why am I not just playing FO3?”

      I’m sure one day I will sprawl all that is Fo:NV. But honestly, that won’t be for a looonnnnnggggg time. i have all of the DLC’s and everything, I just can’t seem to make a meaningful stay with it.

      Quite frankly, at times, it’s just boring compared to Fo3. But, again, that’s just my opinion. Like you thinking NV was better. >snicker snicker<

  2. DrScuttles says:

    Another Obsidian Fallout would make me far more receptive to Bethesda’s inevitable Fallout 4. But then while I greatly preferred New Vegas to Fallout 3, there’s a substantial group of people who prefer Bethesda’s efforts. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could have both and everyone could be happy?

    • povu says:

      I’d love to alternate between Bethesda’s Fallout [Number] post apocalyptic sandbox exploration game and Obsidian’s Fallout: [Location] Fallout-y story focused RPG.

      • Jason Moyer says:

        I really enjoyed Fallout 3, not as much as New Vegas, but I’d be more than happy to have BGS and Obsidian doing alternating fallout titles. On the other hand, I’d be even more receptive to Bethesda letting Obsidian do something with their tech that isn’t a Fallout game because, as great as the 4 core games have been, how many damn sequels do we need? Or if they want to work with an established property, why not do an Elder Scrolls spinoff in one of the provinces that is too weird to likely ever see a BGS game.

        • PopeRatzo says:

          An irradiated Elder Scrolls with spooky 40’s music. I love the idea.

          • JabbleWok says:

            Fallout New Seyda Neen, complete with an irradiated lighthouse ruin and glow-in-the-dark mudcrabs. Maybe this time the crazy enchanter has mutated wings so could actually fly. I’d buy it…

        • Werthead says:

          In an interview with Kotaku in December, Feargus from Obsidian did say the they’d be up for doing something just like that. I can’t imagine Bethesda doing a full-on Elseweyr game, for example (though I think a ES6 set in Summerset Isle and maybe the Valenwood mainland, following up on the Aldmeri Dominion after the events of SKYRIM would be interesting), but Obsidian would do something crazy and interesting with it. Or even a follow-up to MORROWIND or DAGGERFALL set in the same region as ES2 or 3.

          I must admit that my first thought was that Bethesda might be a bit reluctant to let another company have a go with their fantasy franchise, but then they’ve since let another team work on ELDER SCROLLS ONLINE under their close supervision, and this could be the same.

          • Hidden_7 says:

            I’ve staked my reputation on the fact that TESVI is going to be Elsewyr (I even refer to it among friends as Elsewyr, which every time garners a “what did you hear?” and every time it’s like, “nothing, I’m just confidant in my guessing), so I hope for my sake you’re wrong about that.

            Well, maybe Summerset Isles.

            I really don’t think that there’s any Tamrielic province that is off the books for a TES N. There’s this perception that Bethesda are scared of anything different since Morrowind, and I can see where that comes from, but I don’t think it’s accurate. Oblivion was fairly traditional after Morrowind, and that was probably partially because they wanted that one to be the big audience getter, but it’s also possible that they felt like a return to more traditional fantasy after the departure of Morrowind. Some people like traditional fantasy, at least some of the time. I know that when Morrowind first game out I was disappointed by how different it was in style from Daggerfall. I’ve since learned to love it, but at the time it was like “what is this? where are my walled medieval towns?”

            There’s also the fact that Morrowind was hugely popular and I think Bethesda knows that. They name checked it in the run up to Skyrim, I honestly think that Skyrim pushes for some cool different stuff insofar as they are constrained by the Nordic theme, and there’s the fact that Dragonborn is just a massive love letter to Morrowind in general. I think Bethesda are aware that something that’s a Morrowind 2, insofar as it’s quite a different setting. And I think that people at Bethesda would be excited to do something like that. There’s all sorts of stuff around the edges, books and off hand comments and such, that suggest that there are people in the company that have great love for places like Elsewyr and would be ecstatic to place a game there.

            And even considering all that, Elsewyr isn’t even THAT weird. It’s basically Arabian Nights themed desert/jungle with cat people. You could sell that game EASY, especially to the scores of people that discovered TES with Skyrim and loved it for the sandbox gameplay as much as they loved it for the vikings. And if all else fails, they’ve proven that they’re more than willing to alter the nature of a province to fit their goals for the current game, even going against established lore. Let’s not forget that until Oblivion, Cyrodiil was a jungle, with the developed part of the province being largely contained to the heavily urban and metropolitan Imperial City island itself.

            Shame about that one actually, cause I would really love to play that game. I keep waiting for a Bethesda style open world sandbox with a focus on a big sprawling city rather than village dotted countryside. It’s going to happen one of these days. Hell, maybe that could be an Obsidian led project. The Elder Scrolls: Imperial City, or The Elder Scrolls: Wayrest, focussing on political intrigue, with much of the action being set in a large city, and it’s surrounding environs. Dragon Age 2 but done right.

    • hamburger_cheesedoodle says:

      I’ve played and am happy with both! I accept them both for being the different things that they are, with their own strengths and weaknesses, and enjoy the things they have in common while being okay with the things that are different.

      Oh, except I didn’t enjoy how both were heinously buggy on launch, and they did have that in common. That part can go, as far as I am concerned.

      • Enkinan says:

        They really are both a ton of fun. It’s like asking me if I love my son or daughter more.

    • DestroyYourEgo says:

      Better question-

      Why aren’t we happy? You like NV better than 3. I like 3 better then NV. Where’s the impasse, again?

  3. Neurotic says:

    Yet to try NV, although I will do eventually. For a new Fallout, I’d live to see the whole post-apocalypse scenario from another angle completely. How can we make it fresh again? My idea is to zoom forwards in time, closer to a period of rebuilding civilisations than recovering from the immediate aftermath.

    • basilisk says:

      Well, they’ve painted themselves into a corner with that one. Fallout 3 is already supposed to take place 200 years after the bombs fell, which is completely at odds with what you actually see in the game world. And if they try to change the game world, the backslash from rabid fans will be unbearable.

      • RodHope says:

        In Fallout 3 I thought they just couldn’t resettle the Capital wasteland because it was too messed up and full of mutants. There’s still the NCR and other mentioned factions rebuilding society elsewhere.

      • Teovald says:

        That would be a good thing though. I see Fallout 3 as a politically correct adaptation of Fallout 1&2. Nothing really new here, just the same universe, without the giving grenades to kid thing.
        What would be the point of another remake of Fallout ? Let’s make the franchise evolve. 70 years after NV/F3, cities are being rebuilt everywhere, lost technology is starting to be reinvented rapidly. Most super mutants have been killed. However some of them are more or less integrated to these cities with JacobsTown still acting as a hub for the lost super mutants. The brotherhood had to abandon its isolation in order to do not be destroyed by the NCR numbers. They had no choice but to unite with the NCR and are using their technological superiority to build new cities at the republic frontiers.

        Then the aliens make first formal contact with one settlement in New Canaan (after all there have been alien cameos since Fallout 1).
        I want to play that game. Fallout XXXI, the ultimate remake? no, thanks.

        • Gravitsap says:

          Add Doctor Who and Star Trek characters and you will get a full picture.
          Don’t mind this, I just didn’t like how they turned one special encounter into DLC. This is really lazy.

    • Nick says:

      Thats kind of when F:NV is set.

    • coldvvvave says:

      New Vegas takes place in a relatively civilised area. Lots of progress compared to F1 and F2. Radios, industrial equipment, paper money( NCR), trade, huge militaries, government( NCR again).

    • Lemming says:

      There’s always Wasteland 2. It’s a post-apocalyptic game completely devoid of the 50s retro futurism.

    • InternetBatman says:

      You pretty much just described NV, which its creators call a post-post apocalyptic game.

      • The Random One says:

        NV is a wild west story. A wild west story needs a civilization to exist, but it takes place at its borders where its influence is only barely felt and settlers need to use all of their resources to estabilish anything that would be recognizeable to them as a town.

        There’s no law east of Vegas.

        • rsanchez1 says:

          Mr. House got civilization up and running pretty quickly. In fact, he just hired the locals as human shields and to obstruct the truth from the NCR and the Legion. House’s plan to rebuild succeeded marvelously, until that Courier had to stick his nose in business that didn’t concern him…

    • Skhalt says:

      Actually a pretty good angle could be to set the games in other countries entirely. I’ve always wondered what was happening in Europe in the meantime, or you could with the most direct counterpart to America : China.

      • unsane says:

        You mean a game full of filthy forriners and eurothrash?

        Who’d play THAT??

  4. PC-GAMER-4LIFE says:

    Bethesda screwed Obsidian out of their bonus because it only got 84% on Metacritic instead of 85% why on earth would they work together again!

    • Isair says:

      Obsidian screwed themselves out of that bonus, by accepting such a stupid contract. Presumably, if they’re to work with Bethesda again, they’ll aim for a contract less dependant on arbitrary numbers.

      • Jenks says:

        Obviously the contract is to blame.

        • Trent Hawkins says:

          how about making the next bonus relative to the number of bugs they have at launch?

          • Werthead says:

            Since it’s the publisher’s job to do QA on the game (certainly in hired-for-work situations like this), Bethesda could avoid paying out the bonus by deliberately shipping the game out with tons of bugs.

            Hang on… (cue ominous conspiracy theme music)

          • Premium User Badge

            gritz says:

            Yes, Bethesda certainly has unimpeachable credibility when it comes to making bug-free games!

          • Bigmouth Strikes Again says:

            Funny, just yesterday while playing Skyrim: Dragonborn I saw a hare pursuing and attacking a Spriggan. It reminded me of the Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog.

          • Baines says:

            Obsidian would already be screwed out of a bonus if it depended on Bethesda giving them a bug-free engine to work with.

    • Tyrone Slothrop. says:

      Are you per chance, aware of the concept of a ‘contract’? I principally believe developers should receive vastly more compensation for the work they produce and in the specific case, Zenimax should have in the spirit of generosity relented and given them that bonus for such a commercially successful title (though on the heels of Fallout 3, another Fallout was a license to print money after all) but to say they were somehow maliciously ‘screwed’ out of legally or justly obligated funds is absurd.

      • Bhazor says:

        It certainly wasn’t a great contract. I always get the impression Obsidian are on a weak footing when they make contracts. My big hope for Eternity is that it will give them a buffer fund. A few million to keep in their back pocket for when they need a few months to secure a better contract.

        Given the sales of New Vegas, rumoured to have outsold Fallout 3, the fact Obsidian didn’t receive any royalties or even a bonus tells me it was “accept their offer or go bankrupt in the time it takes to find someone else”. With a bit of a money cushion they have the potential to be much more selective or even go entirely independent.

        • InternetBatman says:

          Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if Project Eternity turned into an ongoing project with them. It will be something that is constantly in development, Kickstarted every twoish years, and redone. When times are lean they would cut down to just the PE team, and still look for work from publishers.

          • Bhazor says:

            Hmmm, a new Obsidian written party based tactical RPG every couple years? I wouldn’t complain.

          • Lars Westergren says:

            An expansion is already planned.

            I don’t remember where I’ve read this, so take it with a grain of salt, but I think they’ve said they want to make more Eternity games now that they put so much effort into creating their own world and ruleset, but it is not decided yet if Kickstarter is always the way to go. Self publishing or partnering with a big publisher are also possiblities.

          • welverin says:

            The expansion was part of the kickstarter, to a degree.

        • Werthead says:

          Yup, it’s linked on the particular Wikipedia pages for each game.

          FALLOUT 3 shipped 4.7 million copies in its first two months on sale. FALLOUT: NEW VEGAS shipped well over 5 million in its first two weeks on sale (some other sources put the numbers a bit closer to parity). Even allowing for the vagueness of figures like this, NEW VEGAS definitely seemed to outsell FO3 in the initial release window. How that’s unfolded over the long run is less clear; NEW VEGAS took a lot longer to release its ultimate edition with all the DLC included, which may have hurt it a bit.

    • Lemming says:

      I say Obsidian wait until they’ve done their new RPG, got the next Star Wars contract and then buy the Fallout license.

      • Werthead says:

        FALLOUT 3 and NEW VEGAS made Bethesda something like half a billion dollars.

        I think it’s rather unlikely that Obsidian would ever be able to raise the funds to buy the franchise.

  5. Bradeh says:

    Fallout: NV ideas and foundation don’t exist without Fallout 3, just like Fallout 3 doesn’t exist without Fallout 1 and 2. Can we stop this notion that they are so seperate. Both games have their merits and both have a healthy fanbase. Fed up of this A > B and B > A.

    • LordOfPain says:

      They’re not separate but they are different. And it’s not invalid for people to have an opinion on which was better, as long as they can accept it is only an opinion.

      • sabasNL says:

        Personally, I found Fallout 3 a leap too far from the original Fallouts, while Fallout New Vegas was right in the middle, right in that perfect spot. That’s why many prefer New Vegas, I believe.

        • Keran says:

          For me it was because Fallout 3 bored me to tears, while New Vegas was full of interesting stuff and characters that actually felt like somebody put some thought into them. And some proper dialogue.

          …buuut I’m generally bored by Bethesda’s take on RPGs. Sure, you can go wherever you like, do whatever you like, but there’s nothing there that would make me do anything, go anywhere. Just a lot of blandness.

    • Nick says:

      “Fallout: NV ideas and foundation don’t exist without Fallout 3”

      Huh? Well, in a way you are correct as a lot of NV stuff came from the orginally cancelled Fallout 3, codenamed Van Buren. The only foundation was the engine, which is the absolute worst part of NV.

      • StashAugustine says:

        I hated FO3, but I have to admit that it did do a good job of balancing the skills. There’s precious few builds in FO3 that aren’t viable, unlike FO1/2. New Vegas expanded on that, but the foundation was set up by FO3.

    • DestroyYourEgo says:

      Thank you, dude! Thank you.

      I don’t understand why people are trying to pit NV against 3- I don’t care if they “are different”.

      To me, they are the same. Just, 3 was a little better. But that’s just me.

      Again, I totally agree- why does one have to be either, and if they’ aren’t either, why do they have to be nothing?

    • Enkinan says:

      Just like Fallout wouldn’t have existed without Wasteland.

      Get off my damn lawn whippersnappers.

  6. Snids says:

    Fallout in the Appalachian mountains. Or around the Great Lakes.

  7. LordOfPain says:

    People often say they liked New Vegas much more than Fallout 3. In my opinion, 3 was much better. New Vegas’ storyline was not as well-done and integrated into the game world (the main quest had lots of potential but ended up much more shallow and short than I had hoped), the different areas of the map felt too separate and not part of a cohesive world, and New Vegas itself just looked so small and unimpressive. Fallout 3 seemed better on each point, and had more memorable moments for me too. Overall, it was just better designed and produced.
    Oh, and the Caesar part of the story seemed so try-hard. Even the ‘authentic’ pronunciation of Latin terms, which were often wrong (the ‘s’ sound in ‘Caesar’ should not be like the ‘s’ in ‘rose’ but like in ‘spot’). A Rome-inspired faction would have been interesting but they went over-the-top.
    Just my opinion, to offset the ‘New Vegas was way better’ comments that these stories always get.
    And yes, sequels to both would be good.

    P.S. Fallout 2 is still the best.

    • Prime says:

      I had many debates about the two with my friends, and essentially we concluded that they are both very different approaches to the exact same genre. Fallout 3 was your basic Heroic myth while New Vegas was much more of a choose-your-own adventure. Comparing them is problematic because they both strive toward different goals. 3 tried to make you feel like a superhero while NV tried to give you genuine moral choices and character development. I loved them both. It took me a while to warm to NV but in the end I found myself liking that one slightly more as the better, more rounded game.

      • Stevostin says:

        You’re so lucky, I don’t have friends who played both and I really missed having that discussion. I often have it in my head :P

        Like you I love both. After 100h+ on each I slightly preferred 3 to NV. After 200h+ on each NV is now slightly ahead. I love the both more than any other RPG, more than TES stuff and far far more than Fallout 1 & 2. They’re in my top 5 games of 30 years of gaming so nothing would please me more than to have a sequel for each games. Why is it not already in the making is passed me : both games made 5 millions +, so what’s the big question ? It’s a solid license.

        I thought myself than F3 is more like a comic book and NV like a book, which is not entirely different from your way of putting it. F3 is all about small stories, some dialog really made me laugh hard, there are some events that are mainly visuals, and cynical humor is constantly there. OTOH NV takes itself so seriously that even when you meet granma, it’s more tragic than funny. You have a heap of dialog, but a heap of redundant one, so just “exploring all options” gets tiresome, which is ultimately a good thing but makes it pretty dull as long as you don’t get it. There is not one point on the map (actually there is one) that is not connected story wise to the other. While it brings you deeply into the world, it’s also somehow a bit forced and a prison ; I found myself wanting for just one situation that would be independant and not trying hard to explain me how it’s connected to all the rest.

        Map is way better in NV. The very first thing I did out of the start in NV was to follow the road, while the very first thing I did in F3 was to cross it and ignore it. I didn’t really choose it but it says a lot of things about how F3 feels like a unsignificant places where you move from A to B and do a random amout of encounters (like 1 & 2 actually!) while FNV feels like a place like no other game (but the STALKER ones). I really hope Beth will learn the lesson on how Obsidian made us travel through the map up to NV in a memorable road story, how every encounter made sense retrospectively, etc. To a point that’s already the case in Skyrim.

        OTOH “dungeon” and gamey stuff are just better done by Bethesda IMO. PPL often mock their subway as TES dungeons in Fallout but F1 & 2 also have those confined places packed with hostiles and IMHO Bethesda does it better than anyone else now, and that’s a good discrete part of their success. FNV dungeons are ok but there is just no enough of it. Also more often than not FNV seems to be push the engine on stuff it can’t do well enough. The crafting is a good exemple of this – I do think Bethesda way of doing immersive UI is a good pick but in its state it doesn’t deal well with craft needs and companion’s inventory, which are main assets in NV. Sure FNV companions are great & interesting, but are they worth the hundred of hours managing their inventory ? Yes, but not by a lot :P

        Ultimately FNV’s setting, sense of place, and overall better DLC makes me lik… love it even more. The Lonesome Road really was a strong, deep, hypnotic experience to me and the final is maybe the most memorable one I’ve had in a game (although it’s very much a 90% linear combat DLC).

        • lowprices says:

          Agree with you about the dungeons. FO3 did environmental storytelling a lot better, whereas F:NV did human drama a lot better. Ultimately I preferred New Vegas’ human conflict over Threes ‘Good Knights vs Evil Knights vs Orcs’ dynamic, but both were good.

        • Tei says:

          Great post, +1

        • Zelos says:

          I’ll never understand how anyone can spend 200+ hours on a game that can be 100% completed in less than 50, without skipping text or using any speed-run crap.

          There aren’t even enough ways to play through the game to make up the difference.
          It boggles the mind.

          • Stevostin says:

            Actually there are and if you doubt it, read any F3 walkthrough : options, options, options – way more than in Skyrim BTW, which is a big stepback to that regard, even regarding Oblivion. Actually F3 is the game that let you influence the most radically the playing ground. Most of the hub can be drastically changed, either from faction or completely wiped out with consequences around.

            Moreover, just doing ALL the content really takes that time. There really are hundred of places with contextual storytelling, probably a hundred of quest, etc. Also, the ressources system is well balanced and keeping yourself up to speed is a constant and deeply enjoyable grind. After 100+ hours on one character there still are some type of ammos you’re so happy to find. This doesn’t work at all like a Mass Effect game – even with total completion you’re below the 40h treshold.

            On the top of that I also have developped what I call a “connaisseur” take on gaming. I noticed how Daggerfall could be great or boring depending on your mind set and I realised that like food & drink, good gaming experience require some care. Like headphone and dark room for some games… In the case of Fallout 3, the minimal thing is to decide before creating him/her what’s the essence of your character, then try to play along those lines. My first character was a complete psychopathe, something I had never played in RPG. Fallout 3 was really ground breaking to that level. I really add some troubles selling that small girl to slavers, her lines really felt excruciating while I was leading her to her awful destiny. I forced me into this like I forced me into eating people, something that really felt disturbing. But the worst was in NV when I had with a similar typed character the idea to let my companion get eaten by cannibals to solve a quest while “cutting any tie to me and a certain casino attack” which was just my fantasy. She was so nice and enjoyable that I had to stop in the process and get a walk to blow some steam.

            So you see, playing those games isn’t really about the completion, it’s the experience and what you make of it. If you’r in this to “finish” it like an ARPG or a FPS, fine, and that can be pretty fun, but fact is that unlike ARPG and FPS, there is room for way more than that if you’re ready for it. So that’s the difference : we can play more than that because what we seek in those game is different from what you seek. Doesn’t mean you have to embrace our way to see things on this but at least you can see it makes sense.

        • brianisbrilliant says:

          will someone please explain to me how you play fallout 3 or fallout:NV after playing stalker? i’m hoping that the wanderer’s edition mod will bring enough FPS combat elements to make it better for me, because i sit there and play an hour at a time and the whole time i’m thinking, “but it isn’t stalker!”

          am i right in thinking this? did anyone else have this problem?

          • Stevostin says:

            The FPS part is nowhere one tenth as good as it is in Stalker. That being said there are mode that turns both F3 and NV into FPS experiences that are IMHO working better than the tactical freeze based experience of vanilla. Mainly they turn your action points into bullet time and with the very erratic pathfinder and bullet spray, it really helps without feeling like cheating.

            While I can’t praise Fallout fights, I realise I nev.. rarely (ok, some DLC were boring regarding this) grow tired of the one in F3 and FNV. That’s probably because they always have some form of chaos elements with companion, random encounter (very often a 3rd party join the fight) and because they’re always challenging even in engame. Also, there is a great emphasis on traps and stealth game. Putting grenades in people trousers and see them explode is just so gratifying ;-)

          • Werthead says:

            STALKER has better FPS combat and, generally speaking, a better atmosphere (though parts of NEW VEGAS and the DLCs in particular have a really weird – and interesting – ‘off kilter’ vibe).

            In terms characters, writing and story, FO3 is a stronger game and NEW VEGAS much stronger. But that is to be expected, as they are very different genres with different emphasis.

          • InternetBatman says:

            By using a mouse and keyboard.

          • Thirith says:

            If you play Fallout 3 expecting Stalker you’ll be disappointed – and vice versa. Beyond the post-apocalypse theme and the first person perspective, they’re extremely different games.

          • Stevostin says:

            Wow, maybe not better atmosphere. Some part of Fallout 3 are pretty great regarding this. The ghoul infested factory really weights a ton once you’re in it as are some Vault (“Gary ?”). Some places are also pretty amazing visually – on thing that’s also better done in F3 than NV, creating memorable settings. I would rate Fallout like STALKER as “it doesn’t really get better than this” in term of atmosphere.

    • JFS says:

      Fallout 1 is best :P

    • Lars Westergren says:

      > the different areas of the [F:NV] map felt too separate and not part of a cohesive world

      I felt the complete opposite. F3 felt like a Fallout Disney Land, with every location its own little attraction with no relation to anything next to it. F:NV had believable economical and political boundaries, and battlefronts. People knew of their neighbours and heard rumors of things that happened far away. Fallout 3 had raider camps with dismembered torsos of hundreds of people on spikes (where did all the victims come from?), right next to a village with giant ants (what do they eat?), right next to a building packed full of ghouls milling around doing nothing.

      > New Vegas itself just looked so small and unimpressive

      That I can agree with, but we can thank engine limitations combined with consoles for that. They had it as one big zone early on and lots more people in it, but the console versions, especially the PS3 one, kept crashing due to memory issues.

      But the reason I like F:NV so much more is that it really feels like a RPG. There is so much more dialogue, and more options to resolve quests in different ways. More moral shades of gray, you can choose to align with different factions for many different reasons. In F3 you only had the goody-goodies (IMO, the Brotherhood are isolationalist technology worshippers, not bloody paladins with guns) and the nasty-nasties.

      • Imbecile says:

        Edit: Ack, Reply fail, but I’ll leave it here anyway – especially as I seem to largely agree with you :P

        I loved Fallout New Vegas. For me, it was Fallout 3, but with a more cohesive, less theme parky feel, better characters and dialogue (especially the allies you could do quests for), a decent crafting system, a nice factional reputation system and better levelling. Some areas were genuinely dangerous at the start. Lots of varied outcomes to quests too.

        I was very lucky in that I ran into no bugs, but it was one of my favourite RPGs ever, and I felt a little burned out after Fallout 3. Didnt expect to like it as much as I did.

        A new New Vegas would definitely be a purchase for me, Fallout 4….maybe.

        • DestroyYourEgo says:

          Gamers are SOOOo fickle.

          You agree that it’s like 3. But then you say it isn’t. Then you say you’ll buy a new NV, but maybe not a Fallout 4?

          What an idiot demographic- and I don’t care how many pieces of paper you have that might tell you otherwise.

          Long and veiny- both exist. And both are appreciated.

    • InternetBatman says:

      The largest problem with Fallout 3 was that there was little world cohesion. For instance you have an anti-slave faction, but there are no plantations. You have all these mercenaries working for the Enclave, but no idea where they are from. There’s a conflict between Twopenny Towers and Megaton, but the two are so far away. Fallout NV was an attempt at cohesive world design. Fallout 3 was a dungeon-running playground.

  8. Mario Figueiredo says:

    While I greatly appreciated New Vegas game mechanics over Fallout 3, I will take Fallout 3 world setting over New Vegas anytime. It was so important to me in fact that I actually never took New Vegas too far, having only 30 and something hours of it, whereas I have close to 300 hours of Fallout 3 over 4 playthroughs.

    Please no more New Vegas. No more. That cowboy robot, that barren world, that bowl of western dust and over the top factions, completely put me off of what was otherwise a much superior game. Fallout 3 was a cradle of artistic imagination, whereas New Vegas was the exact same desert it tried to portray.

    I’ll vote for another metropolis+outskirts setting.

    • Stupoider says:

      “Fallout 3 was a cradle of artistic imagination”

      Could I interest you in more subways and invisible walls, sir?

      • Tyrone Slothrop. says:

        Do you really have to ridiculously adumbrate something or create necessary illusions to justify your own opinions?

        • InternetBatman says:

          About 10% of the world map and a good third of the content is DC proper, which is only navigable through subways, and heavily segmented using invisible walls. That’s not a misrepresentation of the game.

          • DestroyYourEgo says:

            No, but I can say something rude about the game and villianize it, as well.

            I just don’t understand why you people have to jump down the throats of people that like Fo3.

            GET OVER IT- NEW VEGAS WAS NOT THAT GOOD. It was good, but it wasn’t Fallout 3 good.

            But your Ego won’t let you admit that. I understand.

            Keep strokin’ yourselves, flockers. Keep strokin’…

      • Mario Figueiredo says:

        LOL. Ok, not all was right :p

        But I think you know what I meant. I’ll take Washington content rich ruins over New Vegas barren circular wall anytime. Heck, I’ll take Megaton over Goodsprings any day.

        • Gamboni says:

          I guess artistic imagination is exactly what it takes to have an unexploded nuke create a crater big enough to build a town in.

          • Llewyn says:

            I’m pretty sure that while the bomb is in the crater it is not the cause of it.

        • Lyndon says:

          Megaton is the game’s main quest hub. It’s more comparable to The Strip in Vegas. I’d rather the Strip.

          • DestroyYourEgo says:

            I’d rather you have a nice glass of “stfu”, but we can’t always get what we want, can we Mick?

          • FrankHorrigan says:


            Wow, somebody’s really mad, huh? Enjoy your shallow Bethesda games, we’ll enjoy writing, world-building, and game design that’s actually done competently.

    • Sheng-ji says:

      I know it’s not a popular opinion, but I couldn’t agree more – I’ve had much the same experience as you. Fallout 3 hooked me in for hundreds of hours, despite the many flaws of the game, whereas New Vegas was too over the top, too ridiculous to hold my interest despite mechanically being the better game.

      • JFS says:

        Same thing here. Somewhat unfortunately, as I loved the style and setting and mechanics of Fallout: New Vegas, but somehow Fallout 3 got played a lot more.

      • Premium User Badge

        gritz says:

        I feel like I’m in bizarro world when Fallout 3 is considered more down to earth and New Vegas is too “over the top”.

      • DestroyYourEgo says:

        I won’t say that New Vegas was more over the top.

        I will say that I felt more important being The Wanderer than The Courier. Halfway through my time in Vegas, I thought to myself, “God, I just want to be playing FO3”.

        I just felt like there is MORE to do in Vegas, but not in the way you might think. I don’t care what people say about the DC wastes- I love traversing through it. Everytime.

        I’ve played through FO3 dozens of times. I’ve yet to make it through a full sitting of NV. I just lose interest too quickly, where as 3 really grabs a hold of me.

        I guess I’m just not that into cowboys. NV could barely hold my interest, while I’m STILL playing FO3 (and discovering new things every time).

    • Nick says:

      Yeah, fuck all that actual Fallouty stuff, I want me more Oblivon with guns. Have you seen my dad? Middle aged guy?

      • HadToLogin says:

        This time it will be Skyrim with guns.

        Wondering if it take Far Cry 3’s crown…

  9. wyrmsine says:

    I’d much prefer Obsidian to continue the overall Fallout universe, as Bethesda’s version is a little too polarized for my taste. One of the things that appeals to me about Fallout is the pervading grey vs. grey morality, which was pretty much absent from Fallout 3. Bethesda makes fine games, but they write stories like a teenage dungeon master.

    • cptgone says:

      haven’t played NV yet (got too burnt out on Fallout 3, i stopped playing while i was doing the DLCs) but i agree.

      it wasn’t as open ended as it should have been either. at Twopenny Towers, i tried to reconcile the factions. IIRC i ended up killing an NPC for the sake of peaceful coexistence. worked like a charm, until i went back and found most occupants murdered by the ghouls anyway. i was reminded i was only playing a game, a scripted one, that had failed to leave me room to do things as i please.

      the game often feels shallow, childish, and lacks credibility.
      (i did enjoy playing it, but compared to FO1 and FO2, it’s like an uninspired Hollywood remake of some classic foreign movie)

  10. caddyB says:


    • MuscleHorse says:

      I’m with you sister. I gasped ‘YES’ out-loud when I read the headline.

  11. Dowson says:

    It would probably do Bethesda good to split Fallout.

    Let Obsidian do the West coast, following on from the original.
    Let Bethesda do whatever they want on the East Coast, hell they should have done that with 3, but I hope they do it with 4, completely new stuff not previously mentioned in any previous Fallout.

  12. ecat says:

    My speculation gland has certainly gone into overdrive.

    Beth. must be high on the list of studios offered launch title opportunities. So with the next ES title not due until quarter past eight 2015, I’m predicting a new Fallout in about 10 months time, this could be a Beth. or Obsidian title. If Beth. run to form Fo4 will come from them and the Obsidian follow up will be out end of 2014 as a hype generator just before the ES announcement.


  13. Blackcompany says:

    To me its all moot if they cannot find a stable, modern game engine capable of handling these creations. Gamebryo and Creation (aka, Gamebryo 1.5) are ancient, decrepit engines. So old that they constantly show the breaks in the worlds created with their antediluvian limitations.

    Get a new, modern engine. Make sure its capable of handling a large open world like the one you want to make. Or even narrow the scope of the game world for the sake of technology and your narrative. Witcher 2 did it and the game was fantastic – as much for what it left out (endless fetching, arbitrary side quests) than for what it included.

    But another Fallout game on Gamebryo/Creation? Nope. I’ll pass.

  14. RedViv says:

    Further proof that Todd Howard is actually just a robot.

  15. tnzk says:

    Ugh, I hate as much as I love to hear Obsidian talk about their RPG ideas. But please, if there’s one thing Obsidian aren’t very good at, it’s time management, which is why they constantly find themselves with buggy/unfinished games.

    This kinda talk about new ideas while they’ve barely started on Project Eternity doesn’t help their time management thing. Just focus on the task at hand, nail it, then go onto the next one.

    I can’t be the only one to have noticed something iffy about Obsidian’s iffy production management. Then again, I am one of the true sufferers of ADHD, and we know all too well th

    • Lars Westergren says:

      > which is why they constantly find themselves with buggy/unfinished games.

      Dungeon Siege 3 wasn’t. Mask of the Betrayer was pretty polished too, but admittedly that was an expansion and not a full game.

      > This kinda talk about new ideas while they’ve barely started on Project Eternity doesn’t help their time management thing.

      Most studios have several games in the pipeline and different teams working on different stages. For instance, when the writers are finished with the world+main plot+quests, and the coders take over, you can’t just keep the writing team sitting around costing money and doing nothing.

      This is why inXile is already planning their next title after Wasteland 2 – Torment: Tides of Numenera.

    • Stupoider says:

      I can’t imagine time management having much to do with it. NV has a relatively short production cycle and I don’t think time management can solve the problem of a publisher riding your back to release an incomplete game. Not the first (or the last time) Obsidian have had publisher woes.

      It still surprises me that Obsidian managed to release an actual RPG that put Bethesda’s output to shame, but then again it’s not all that surprising.

      • dicenslice says:

        According to Josh Sawyer’s formspring, development time on FNV from start to release was “about 18 months”.

    • Nick says:

      Yeah, every Bethesda game ever has been bug free.

    • Werthead says:

      As an independent studio, Obsidian are only ever one major financial flop from going under. As such they need a development pipeline with multiple projects either underway or being discussed to ensure they get paid and remain in existence. Something that Gas Powered Games know too well at the moment.

      With SOUTH PARK possibly indefinitely delayed due to legal action, Obsidian now only have one confirmed game underway: PROJECT ETERNITY. WHEEL OF TIME is on hold until Red Eagle stump up the money (so, never, then). Obsidian need to start getting some other projects arranged to pay their bills for next year. Fortunately, the Kickstarter has apparently opened a lot of publisher doors for them, allowing them to talk to people about STAR WARS, a possible NEW VEGAS sequel and some other things. Hell, ALPHA PROTOCOL is apparently still selling so well that they haven’t written off the chances of a sequel.

  16. Mr. Mister says:

    So it’d take place in the “Fallen Angeles”?

    “Angeles Fall Out”.

  17. The Dark One says:

    RPS sez:

    Look for the full interview with Urquhart very, very soon. Sooner than last time I said this, even. Because that’s how time works.

    C’mon, Nathan, don’t you know that it’s a sin to tell a lie?

  18. rcbrgs says:

    I’ve enjoyed both FO3 and FO:NV (played around 500 hours in each), and there are a few things I would really want for the next title:

    1 – Focus on the engine, assets and mod-making tools. Even to the cost of having much fewer quests than previous Bethesda titles. After I played a quest, it isn’t so much fun to play it again. But we can download and play a new quest mod years and years after the game launch. Leverage that.
    2 – A real hardcore mode. Surviving should be *though*. Wounds should take game-hours to heal, food and water should be real scarce. Simply surviving should take either a lot of luck, a lot of cunning or a lot of skill.
    3 – Less fantasy. Much less mutants, enemies should be predominantly other survivors. Killing to steal food and water should be the norm.
    4 – Less technology. Stuff breaks even when we maintain it diligently. Give a couple of decades unmaintained, and all we will have is rust. Having a gun and ordinance should be rare. Melee is the norm.
    5 – The skill and level progression in Skyrim is better, use that. I should increase my skill by practicing that skill.

    I have a lot more wishes for a new Fallout, but these are the “big” ones. I am sure they break the fun for other players, but perhaps it will resonate with other players who enjoy Fallout because it is the closest thing to a first person post-apocalyptic survival simulator, and I would like the next installment to be even more like that.

    • Jason Moyer says:

      I’d like to see a game with all of those elements. I’m not sure I’d like to see a Fallout game with all of those elements, though.

      • drewski says:

        Yeah, it sounds like a pretty interesting game. But not a Fallout game.

      • Zelos says:

        Luckily, it’s impossible, because most of those features run directly contrary to fallout.

        Obsidian is more respectful than that, and I don’t think bethesda is stupid enough to try it.

    • InternetBatman says:

      Sounds kinda like Stalker.

    • Werthead says:

      Have you tried J.E. Sawyer’s ‘real’ hardcore mod? It’s apparently a much more challenging proposition.

  19. BreadBitten says:

    The way I like to see it is, in terms of mechanics and design, Bethesda usually put out ‘Fallout Beta’ while Obsidian come in and see it through to it’s fullest potential. At least that’s how the ‘Fallout 3’ and ‘New Vegas’ dynamic felt like, to me.

  20. 1Life0Continues says:

    Maybe it’s just me, but I’d like to see Fallout: New York

    Imagine it. ‘Scraper scavenging, Metro station villages (like Metro 2033 but with New Yorkers), Liberty Island could be a headquarters for the prevailing Authority force (the Mafia perhaps?) Central Park could be a great big bastion for an environmental faction like the Oasis druids from F3. Potential to introduce new combat abilities like throwing enemies off towers and such. Set the game across all 5 boroughs

    I dunno, I just think that would be an interesting setting. Imagine a post apocalyptic Times Square being like The Strip in F:NV. So much potential.

    …s’only an idea.

    • Lemming says:

      It’ll be done eventually I’m sure. These kind of semi-real world franchises rarely leave NY out.

      Personally, I want to see London.

      • Llewyn says:

        If we’re going for departures from the two existing environments I’d be really keen on Shanghai/Hong Kong/Macau/Taipei. There’s a lot of room for telling interesting stories from the other side of the nuclear conflict, with historic tensions between an authoritarian regime and underground opposition to the war, the possibility of survivors/descendents of US espionage or military infiltration units, and a lot of room to play with how China’s balance of modern and historical architecture might have played out through the 21st century. There’s also the possibility of Chinese society having been destroyed less completely than the US, giving the option of a more populated environment or perhaps one which is recovering more quickly. There is also, I assume, less established canon for Obsidian to have to worry about.

        • InternetBatman says:

          I would love to see post-apocalyptic Kenya. Bring on the mutated lions.

      • Tuskin38 says:

        The Fallout universe has always been the Future seen by the Americans of the 50s, so I doubt they would leave North America. If they were to do London, it would probably be based on 1950s American Stereotypes of the UK.

        • colw00t says:

          The condition of the world outside of the US has always been intentionally left sketchy, although Avellone’s version of the timeline said that there was a US infantry division in China when the bombs fell, which could be a good story hook.

          Really, though, the US is a big country. They’ve got lots of land left to use. Personally, though, I’d like to see them double back to the post-Fallout 1 but pre-Fallout 2 era, when the NCR barely existed. The problem with always moving the timeframe up is that the NCR is successful enough that it becomes a post-post-holocaust game. New Vegas era California would pretty much just be civilized again, and that’s not what the games are about. So either they blow up NCR, get away from it entirely, or go back in time a bit.

          • InternetBatman says:

            They could do it during the NCR BoS war. That would have a sufficient breakdown of law and order, or they could do it near Chicago before Fallout Tactics.

            There’s also Glacier Park, and the amazing wilderness of Montana.

    • Werthead says:

      This would be good, but it’d need a much more capable engine. Given that FO4 is using the Creation Engine (Bethesda said they’d use it for one more game and FO4 is in development, so that adds up), that won’t fly, aside from us pretty much knowing it’ll be set in Boston anyway.

      An FO5 set in New York using a new, much more powerful engine would be pretty cool though.

  21. InternetBatman says:

    I think that Bethesda should update (or replace) the current engine for the new consoles and make their own Fallout game first.

  22. realmenhuntinpacks says:

    Until they can actually make supposedly populous areas feel inhabited, I’ll always struggle with the modern Falloutisms to some extent. I played the christ out of 3 and NV, but the disappointment of finally getting to New Vegas and it being so desolate really broke it for me. Bustling F1 & 2 towns really helped it to feel like you’d come in from the cold when you pitched up. Technical limitations I know, but I can dream.

  23. acoff001 says:

    You know, Obsidian would probably already be making F:NV 2 if the original didn’t receive horribly biased and uniformed reviews when it first came out… oh wait link to
    It is a little ironic to complain about the unfairness of Obsidian not being able to make a sequel when poor reviews of the original are at least partially responsible for that situation.

    • Premium User Badge

      gritz says:

      To be fair to Obsidian, that’s probably the shittiest review RPS has ever done.

      • x1501 says:

        Still not sure what exactly is so shitty about it. It seems pretty much spot-on.

        • Premium User Badge

          gritz says:

          It’s literally an advertisement for Fallout 3 Game of the Year Edition.

        • Stupoider says:

          “So, Bethesda went to great lengths to infuse their D.C. wasteland with colour. It was populated by kooky, occasionally even cartoonish characters- it’s no accident that super mutants and the Brotherhood of Steel featured so prominently. Then you had the independant towns, which were all built in or around visually striking setpieces, and Bethesda even built a labyrinth out of the subway system. Whatever direction you walked in Fallout 3, you felt confident you’d find something interesting.”

          “God, the dialogue in this game. I think there were several points where I was so bored my brain began rotating in my head like food in a microwave. Whatever voice acting agency or methadone rehabilitation clinic Bethesda used to voice the populace of Oblivion and Fallout 3 is back, and while I didn’t particularly like the writing in Fallout 3 either, the characters in that game were often interesting or disturbed enough that you were curious about what they had to say.”

          Damn it Quintin what were you thinking… RPS were throwing their weight in with Bethesda on that one, poor show.

          • Deadfast says:

            “So, Bethesda went to great lengths to infuse their D.C. wasteland with colour”
            Bethesda certainly went to great lengths to infuse their D.C. wasteland with green.

        • InternetBatman says:

          It was nearly willfully malign and ignorant. “Impressively bold in its laziness.” Is a cheap personal jab from an incompetent reviewer. I would not be surprised if the review and Quentin’s departure were related.

  24. Universal Quitter says:

    I hope they don’t just focus on a small area, and make it big.

    The things I loved about New Vegas were the large, relatively untouched wasteland, and NOT spending 20+ hours crawling around in uninspired, identical sewers, clutching at my chest every time one of 10,000,000 ghouls announced its presence with a raspy, yet deafening, “Raaaaaaagch!!”

    After awhile in Fallout 3, I prioritized new quests by whether I had to go into the stupid city or not.

  25. Paul says:

    The best decision Bethesda made in the last 20 years was giving Obsidian chance to make New Vegas.

    So yes, new Fallout from Obsidian needs to happen. Make it so Beth !

  26. SelfEsteemFund says:

    I remain hopeful, cheers RPS.

  27. Barberetti says:

    Dear Bethesda. If you really must let Obsidian make another Fallout game, please add as part of the contract, that the person who went slap-happy with the collision markers last time isn’t allowed within 500 metres of a fucking G.E.C.K. ever again. Thanks.

  28. Ernesto25 says:

    fan of both without fallout 3 i wouldn’t have even got into the old fallout which made NV a lot better as i didn’t really like NV as much when i played it first time without 1 and 2.

  29. Farcelet says:

    Once made a mod for Fallout New Vegas for my own purposes. The general idea was to create a far less forgiving setting while maintaining plausibility – rather than making combat harder by giving NPCs and the player *more*, I gave everyone *less*.

    Tweaked AI behaviour to make NPCs in general act with a far greater concern for their well being – whether in melee or using ranged weapons (far fewer firearms but thrown weapons, which showed up much – much more) by maintaining appropriate range for their weapons at any given time – incidentally I found a WEALTH of inconsistencies in melee weapon hitbox length, fixed them all, removed some ridiculous melee attack animations (or only one, notably the manga-style lunge forward silliness) and altered all melee weapon statistics to ensure none utterly dominated – each would excel, or at least be superior to others in one particular situation, or against one particular weapon.

    Guns were rare and NPCs would eventually run dry. You might think it would make firefights a hell of a lot shorter but I also had the AI conserve their ammunition – They’d stay ducked for a random amount of time before poking out, taking a shot or more (also randomised) and taking cover again. A firefight I had against an NCR squad around a gas station was an awesome experience, they – and I – behaved as I’d expect one would in this situation – by being cautious as fuck.

    Most raiders used melee weapons and throwing spears, many of which carried a bundle. Armour itself changed completely – I’ve never been fond of the idea of one of two near identically robust pieces of garment in appearance being different in stats – I want my character to look good, not feel compelled to have him wear something else because I’ll be gaining a single point of resistance.

    In melee opponents would sidestep, keep their distance, come in for a jab before backing out of the player’s range again, I tried to make them act very much the way I would – no longer would they throw themselves against one another with no regard for their own life. I found that the CAPACITY for AI behaviour in this game was excellent – the actual implementation was poor, providing one considers NPC opponents to be more than mere experience point donators.

    They’d flee, too, and in fact were able to do so successfully as the player no longer ran faster than every human being in the entire world. Fair enough, he was a courier, but jeez.

    I made armour pretty much a discardable resource – the higher tiers (metal armour and such) might stop a few bullets but after that it’ll be no better than a regular jacket.

    Smaller inventory, less trade value for items – or perhaps vendors weren’t even interested in buying most of the random junk collected from a corpse, I don’t recall exactly how I went about it – it was really all about scavenging and survival. Doing one’s best with a shotgun, a handful of shells, a throwing hatchet and a combat knife sort of thing. Having to ASSESS whether confrontation was worth the risk.

    Coupled with spawn randomisation, misfire randomisation and generally a whole lot of make-it-more-challenging mods I had a blast playing it but ultimately moved onto other things when I realised it’d have taken me months to get the rest of the game in line with it – altering ammo counts on NPCs, diminishing the availability of ammunition throughout the world, altering all trader inventories, etc.

    Might come around to finishing it some day.

  30. borisvdb says:

    Fallout: LA? Ugh, no thanks. I’d rather not talk to pretentious people who put cilantro in everything.
    On the other hand, Fallout: San Fransisco sound good. They could have a post -apocalyptic porno studio and even touch on gay rights. It’d be cool if you could go to arizona or new mexico as well.

    • Syphus says:

      I guess you’ve never seen or heard of any of the locations in Fallout 1 and 2.

    • InternetBatman says:

      Arizona and New Mexico are part of Caesar’s Legion. I wouldn’t mind hearing what the Baja campaign was about though.

  31. Sidewinder says:

    I wonder how much of the reputation the US has of being geographically ignorant stems from this belief that the country is an isthmus, featuring a west coast, an east coast, and nothing else.

  32. rsanchez1 says:

    YES! YES! YES!

    Come on Bethesda, make it happen. Give them the Skyrim engine, let’s see some Fallout magic.

  33. Kranchan says:

    There are some cities in the US that I would like to see host Fallout games. New York, New Orleans, Honolulu but why just confine yourselves to Fallout being in the remains of America? There are plenty of other interesting cities out there. London, Moscow, Beijing, Tokyo, Paris, Rome, Dubai, Hong Kong, Mumbai, Rio De Janeiro, Sidney, and more.

  34. paddyt007 says:

    Big fan of both Fallout 3 and NV, but having looked at my play time fallout 3 is almost three times more than NV which speaks for its self in my opinion. Hopeful for a sequel to both.

  35. stoner says:

    I never got FNV to work on my Win7 (64-bit) system. Apparently, I was not the only person with this problem. Lots of forum discussion with some ideas; none worked. FNV would stop working after I selected the New Game option. It would play the cut scene, then die.

  36. werepossum says:

    I loved both Fallout 3 & New Vegas, to the tune of several hundred hours in each. Now however it looks as though Fallout 4 is going to be fall 2015. No point in rewarding publishers for publishing games I like every half decade, so I’ll probably skip it and pick up the GOTY edition with all the DLC sometime in 2016 or 2017 – assuming I live that long – when it drops to $20 and there are mods to actually make it work. In the mean time I can enjoy mods for free – mods that are often better written than the original, and almost always more stable.

    And that’s assuming it isn’t a third person broken console port, of course.