When are they making a sequel for Fallout 4?

When are they making a sequel for Fallout 4?

Hopefully soon. And hopefully it will be better

They're not going to work with Bethshithsda ever again after how they got fucked over with NV development.

They're not going to.

Odds are Bethesda isn't even extending their hand this time around.

>obsidian still exists
wtf o___o

sorry they only do shitty isometric games now rofl

I personally think FO3 and FO4 were far superior to New Vegas

FO4 was, for sure

...

who ru quoting

can some stupid fag give me a fallout 4 + dlc torrent

Never. Bethesda got legit embarrassed with New Vegas success.

hopefully never after the blunder Tyranny was.

Why do people in here hate them anyway? I haven't played much of their catalog but they seem pretty good at writing characters and plots.

You don't want it

3 definitely was

Don't forget the picture next time you're todd posting.

The only thing 3 did better than NV was atmosphere, gameplay and characters were better in NV. Unfortunately both games were still borefests that get old after a week.

How can anyone prefer 3 over NV or 4?

i remember it to have some fun gunplay and that's all i'm looking for right now
all i'm playing is my sparta campaign in rome 2

>4
>redeemable aspects

Why would you want that to happen? Anyone imprtant already left Obsidian, Tyranny shpws this hard. They're just a name now.
It's like faggots still going on how Gainax should adapt this or that, even though they aren't what they once were.

Fallout 4 was atrocious, and somehow went backwards from Fallout 3

>muh son plotline
>voiced protag aka no roleplaying
>shit dialogue masked with dialogue system
>pipe guns everywhere, shit loot
>barely any memorable plotlines

New Vegas was probably my favourite game of last gen even with its shortcomings, another obsidian fallout would be my dream.

Anyone know anything more about the rumours of one being in Louisiana?

>voiced protag aka no roleplaying
Genuine question, why is this always a massive fault for virtually any RPG but Witcher 3 gets away with it and is GOTY best WRPG ever instead? Could say the same about most complaints aimed at FO4 and other recent WRPGs, Witcher does all the same shit but doesn't get the criticism the other games do. Why the double standard?

Because Witcher does not sell the premise of making your own unique character. You roleplay as a predefined character and that is very clear right off the box.

it kinda wasn't.

Neither Fallout 4 nor Witcher 3 are RPG's.

Obsidian will never touch the Fallout IP again and people will be salty forever, it's hilarious

But why the double standard? Why is it okay for one WRPG to do it but not another? Expecting it doesn't change what it is, it's still shitting on your ability and freedom to role-play in a role-playing game. It's bad in FO4 and its bad in Witcher too.

Witcher 3 is about the character of geralt, Fallout games are typically a vague character you craft into your own "the chosen one", "the courier"

reality

Never, I hope. I'd rather have them work on something more interesting than modern Fallout.

>The only thing 3 did better than NV was atmosphere, gameplay and characters were better in NV
jesus christ learn to structure you sentences

It's not a double standard because, like I said, Witcher does NOT have the same premise. You can't judge on something it's not attempting to do at all. It's like complaining not having Tribes jetpacks in Rainbow Six, makes no sense because the game isn't about that.

Mario 64 is about the character Mario but it's not an RPG.

And the voiced dialogue is what limits role-playing, you could still play as Geralt but have much more fleshed-out and varied dialogue and responses without voice acting.

>The only thing 3 did better than NV was atmosphere; gameplay and characters were better in NV
Here, have a semicolon.

>premise
Not talking about story content here, we're talking about basic gameplay. They're in same genre, they're both open world RPGs. Might as well say we can't directly compare Halo and CoD because the premise isn't the same in both games.

Except it's not double standards.
As the guy said, the difference is the premise of making your own character compared to a pre-defined. You can only guide Geralt in a certain way, but he's still jis own man. When he says something in a certaun tone that's because that's who he is.
Now when I make a character from scratch, how I imagine the character to sound and act yet the voiced dialogue is always presented in a way I didn't vision it, it sucks. With no voiced protag shit's up to my imagination, but devs think they know it better and have to force it down my throat.

If you honestly cannot see the difference O have good news for you, necause you're eligible to file for being clinically retarded. Get those autism bucks, user!
Also what this guy said.

>consolefags

>Fallout: Alaska never ever
end me

thanks doc

That worked out great with Tyranny didnt it

You've missed the point entirely.

I didn't say anything about making your character, I said voice acting limits role playing options and questioned why FO4 is bad for doing it but Witcher is praised.

You can still play as Geralt and have more fleshed out dialogue without voice acting, the voice acting is the limiting factor. You can only record so much dialogue, but without it you can do whatever you want and as much of it as you want. So we could have more dialogue options and a lot more variation in Geralts responses, resulting in more varied outcomes, allowing more room to actually role play.

for a lot of people role playing as a certain character is what brings fun to the gameplay
for example, if you're playing a bad guy who makes dumb shitty choices that wind up helping the good guys you might enjoy the game in a way you never enjoyed it before
or it could be something much simpler, like only using explosives because your parents were killed with a gun when you were young, or some other stupid shit like that
the choices are endless, and for some people having a voiced protag limits those choices
maybe in my head I'm imagining my character to be a whiny motherfucker. dialog limitations will always put somewhat of a damper on RPing but that's not exactly the same as a voiced protag
to be clear I haven't played FO4 so idk if there's a way to turn off the voiced protag without mods

More interesting than Fallout, that's for sure.

bump

OK let me explain it to you like a 16 yo who doesn't get it.

Witcher is a game where you play as geralt. He is a witcher and he has certain motivation, and having him voiced is a good thing because it plays towards the RPGS strengths.

Fallout on the other hand is game where the motivation is in the hands of the player. Having a voiced character with predisposed motives takes power away from the player, making it barely qualify as an rpg

because The Witcher dialogue options aren't
"Yes", "Yes", "Maybe, but yes", "More info"

It's a question of legacy, really. Well, that and execution.

Since they don't own the rights, and Bethesda has no plans of working with them......never. no publisher wants to work with Obsidian, because they suck. Always going over budget, never finishing on time and their games are always buggy as fuck.


>b....but it's the publisher's fault
Every damn time?...

>Bethesda
>their games are always buggy as fuck

Obsidian never got their bonus for NV because they got 84/100 instead of 85 on metacritic. The irony is at least one verson of FO4 has an 84 right now.

I have downloaded the corepack with every dlc. What am I in for?

I know the spoilers of the story because of that one gif...

Bethesda are so toxic and evil they literally conspired and sabotaged New Vegas at every step and made sure Obsidian would release a bad game with poor reception and make little money from it.

Obsidian won't fall for it again. Beth wouldn't dare, especially after Obsidian made the greatest game of all time and showed them up despite the sabotage.

bump

>after Obsidian made the most linear game of all time

FTFY