Fallout New Vegas 2 May be on the works

[gabrielrock19]

So... after Microsoft bought both Obsidian and Bethesda, they can literally "delegate" all future fallout entries to Obsidian. There are no ridiculous trademark issues left to fight for, and for all we know the Fallout franchise can be handed back to their original creators or at least what's left of Interplay staff there.

The franchise holder will possibly depend on which company performs better in a given title. Bethesda has at last some serious competition when it comes to Western Open World RPGs, and because of that - and just because of that - we might even get a decent Starfield or Elder Scrolls 6. We'll see just how beneficial for us (gamers as a whole) is these two major studios working under the same roof and fighting for their bosses' favour. According to Eurogamer, talks on a sequel for FNV have already begun.

 

"A lot of people at Microsoft think that this could work and there's a lot of interest to make it happen."

 

Sources: Eurogamer/Gamerant.

Edited August 22, 2022 by gabrielrock19

[showler]

A rather serious problem with your hypothesis is that Fallout 3 performed better than Fallout: New Vegas (financially) and Fallout 4 was way, way more succesful than either. So, giving the franchise to the studio with the worse financial return seems unlikely.

[gabrielrock19]

A rather serious problem with your hypothesis is that Fallout 3 performed better than Fallout: New Vegas (financially) and Fallout 4 was way, way more succesful than either. So, giving the franchise to the studio with the worse financial return seems unlikely.

 

Right. Let's elaborate on that.

 

I actually hate when companies do this - decide games must sell at the cost of good gameplay and good storyline. What they do is solely based on greed: a game that sells is a good game because they make money from it. That's not true, and if you think about it, FNV kind of proved the opposite. Even if it "underperformed" in sales at the time, it probably sold way (way) more than Fallout 3 over the course of ten years. Can you even play Fallout 3 in a modern system today? No, and I'll tell you why: I tried and it's simply impossible. It's a game for sale in Steam that needs GAMES FOR WINDOWS as prerequisite to run.

 

Let's not even bring up the fact that it's a sloppy, glitched dumb-down mess of a game it can only be played once and forgotten (that's what everyone in the world did, essentially). Sadly, FO3 was my first Fallout and the critical taste of a ten year old child is questionable, so that's why I played it. And I remember nothing of it.

 

Is Microsoft greedy? It certainly is. But maybe they're looking at the sales potential of a sequel to the "critically acclaimed masterpiece" from Obsidian. Maybe, for the sake of [intelligent] greed, they decided to re-invest in "quality" as a primary factor.

[showler]

Uh, no. Fallout 3 has still sold more copies. And got better reviews. And is playable. And no longer has the GFWL requirement.

 

I could certainly see Obsidian being offered the chance to make a FONV2, hopefully with help from Bethesda to overcome their shortcomings.

 

But Fallout 5 will remain with Bethesda, hopefully with help from Obsidian to overcome Bethesda's shortcomings.

[JimboUK]

Another New Vegas would do well based on nostalgia alone, it's the highest rated Fallout game by user score and that won't have gone unnoticed. These days sales numbers are not as important as they were, bringing new customers into Game Pass is what matters and nostalgia is a way of doing that, it's why they keep making the God awful new Star Trek even though it has shocking viewing figures, the brand brings people in and once in they may find something else to make them stay.

 

 

New Vegas has a prequel of sorts that was never made, the original Fallout 3, Van Buren, if they went with that they wouldn't have to start from scratch or worry about the different endings people would have chosen in New Vegas.

 

 

 

Right. Let's elaborate on that.

 

I actually hate when companies do this - decide games must sell at the cost of good gameplay and good storyline. What they do is solely based on greed: a game that sells is a good game because they make money from it. That's not true, and if you think about it, FNV kind of proved the opposite. Even if it "underperformed" in sales at the time, it probably sold way (way) more than Fallout 3 over the course of ten years. Can you even play Fallout 3 in a modern system today? No, and I'll tell you why: I tried and it's simply impossible. It's a game for sale in Steam that needs GAMES FOR WINDOWS as prerequisite to run.

 

Let's not even bring up the fact that it's a sloppy, glitched dumb-down mess of a game it can only be played once and forgotten (that's what everyone in the world did, essentially). Sadly, FO3 was my first Fallout and the critical taste of a ten year old child is questionable, so that's why I played it. And I remember nothing of it.

 

Is Microsoft greedy? It certainly is. But maybe they're looking at the sales potential of a sequel to the "critically acclaimed masterpiece" from Obsidian. Maybe, for the sake of [intelligent] greed, they decided to re-invest in "quality" as a primary factor.

 

 

GFWL was patched out of FO3 by Bethesda, not that it needed to be because a mod from 2008 disabled it so it's never been an issue. The game itself runs as well on Windows 10/11 as it did on XP, it's still buggy and broken but it's a Bethesda game so that's to be expected.

[showler]

 

New Vegas has a prequel of sorts that was never made, the original Fallout 3, Van Buren, if they went with that they wouldn't have to start from scratch or worry about the different endings people would have chosen in New Vegas.

 

I think far too much of the design work for Van Buren was incorporated into New Vegas already.

[JimboUK]

 

 

New Vegas has a prequel of sorts that was never made, the original Fallout 3, Van Buren, if they went with that they wouldn't have to start from scratch or worry about the different endings people would have chosen in New Vegas.

 

I think far too much of the design work for Van Buren was incorporated into New Vegas already.

 

 

Yes but there should be enough to work with and who wouldn't want to travel with Joshua Graham in his prime? one reason for suggesting Van Buren is Obsidian have lost of a lot of the talent they used to have, I'm not convinced that they're good enough to come up with something as good as New Vegas, you can't lose the likes of John Gonzalez and Chris Avellone and expect to reach the same heights, look at the Outer Worlds, after all that hype it turned out to be painfully average and was forgotten about within a month of release.

[gabrielrock19]

Were I able to pitch an idea for Fallout New Vegas 2, I'd choose California's NCR as the main setting. I'd love to see how that small community called "Shady Sands" suddenly became the Wasteland's N.1 developed nation aside from a small New Vegas. In the sequel, you'd be able to visit five main cities and their surrounding areas in all five states that make up the republic.

[gabrielrock19]

Brazil's nation also fascinates me. Remember Project Brazil? What if, in Fallout New Vegas 2, you'd be able to traverse the world all the way to South America and "emigrate" to its largest, old-world style nation - completely untouched by the nuclear war between the US, China, USSR and the European Commonwealth. After all, as far as we know, Brazil could have retained its historical neutral stance in the great conflict; thus it became the most powerful nation in the post-apocalypse, a sort of isolated "old world paradise".

[showler]

Brazil seems to have oil production, so a neutral stance would never have worked.