Opinion - New Vegas 2 Could Save Fallout

GameRant writes that a potential Fallout New Vegas 2 from Obsidian could save Fallout.

The Bethesda games in particular don't do very much work to show how the world has changed since the initial moment of destruction. Drumlin Diner, a location featured in the Commonwealth in Fallout 4, is the perfect example. The diner is the setting for a small side quest in Fallout 4 involving the diner's owner, her son, and the chem-dealer trying to collect a debt from the latter. However, Drumlin Diner is the perfect example of some of the opportunities that Bethesda misses with its installments in the series.

Drumlin Diner might as well exist in a timeline where the nuclear war either just happened or never happened at all. It has missing windows, some rust, and no door, and looks as though it was simply either life to become dilapidated over the last couple centuries or had literally just being burnt by nuclear fire. There are no signs of adaptation, and it is adaptation which makes the Fallout setting interesting.

Why haven't the inhabitants patched up the holes in the windows and doorway? If they did then players would be able to see the unique blend of old 1950s aesthetics and new, gritty adaptations made to make life livable in the wasteland. To present parts of the setting as simply "the '50s but run down" misses the whole human aspect of the Fallout setting that Fallout: New Vegas does fantastically, likely thanks to some dev's work at Black Isle Studios establishing that setting.

[…]

Thanks Couchpotato!

More information.

At this point it probably has a very small chance of happening. If it ever does get developed I wonder what the campaigns setting will be? Maybe years after the courier?

This idea is certainly a great clarion call to the heavyweights from the original two games and indeed any surviving team members responsible for New Vegas.
I wonder what Tim and Leonard think about the idea of Fallout under the greater umbrella of MS? It may give them the best possible position for working on Fallout again but contrarily, would there be artistic compromises aiming for larger mainstream success?

Obviously the recently announced Avowed would affect the amount of Obsidian developers able to work on any new Fallout project. The Outer Lands development would be logically coming towards its conclusion given we're into the DLCs now.
There's also the project which Josh Sawyer is working on. In any case, it could awhile for a project like this to be organised. I notice Josh has tweeted images from the "F4NewVegas" mod in progress which is interesting.

It's unfortunate that Bethesda didn't learn from New Vegas by implementing deeper role-playing systems into Fallout 4 to give more credence and connection to 1&2.
This is an excellent opportunity to correct that and return the franchise somewhat to its roots. Should management be able to assemble the appropriate team, a New Vegas 2 could well be the rejuvenating concept that Fallout needs.

I doubt Obsidian will be able to recapture the magic. I think The Outer Worlds shows that the old duo of Tim and Leonard are not willing to take risks with their designs anymore although perhaps they may have learned something from the experience.

It's not same Obsidian anymore
Did you played outer worlds? Writing was garbage, maybe if they manage to get Avellone back, but i doubt

Despite the fact that New Vegas has some die hard fans, both here and in the media, it was not the financial or critical success that would motivate Bethesda to make another one.
What many fans fail to consider is that big developers are mostly interested in making games that are commercially successful, so that they can continue to be successful, and like it or not with the exception of Fallout 76, Bethesda has shown themselves to be very successful using the same formula every 6 years when the next installment of one of their series comes out.
Even Fallout 76, was not original, but tried to take the game concepts of financially succesful indie games and tried to transplant them in the Fallout universe.
That's not to say Bethesda doesn't occasionally try new things. Both New Vegas and Prey are examples of this. But if they don't pan out financially, they're one and done. Just like Might and Magic X was for Ubisoft. It doesn't matter how good these games are.
Its the small developers who consistently play the lottery of putting out what AAA companies would consider to financially risky. The ideas of the winners may eventually get incorporated into an AAA game if a company thinks they can profit from the idea.

I've just returned to New Vegas this past week, and playing it now it sticks out even more as a great game when compared to some of the other dross which is out there now.

If memory serves me right Bethesda screwed with the development of New Vegas forcing them to release a half baked game then cutting off their raiting bonus, basically doing everything they could to make sure it failed. That NV did as well as it did was the surprise.

Originally Posted by Terry
If memory serves me right Bethesda screwed with the development of New Vegas forcing them to release a half baked game then cutting off their raiting bonus, basically doing everything they could to make sure it failed. That NV did as well as it did was the surprise.

There are some documentaries on YouTube with former developers who talked about those issues. The loss of the bonus was just another slap on the face by ZeniMax.

That Obsiaisn finished the full game in 18 months was surprising.

Originally Posted by forgottenlor
Despite the fact that New Vegas has some die hard fans, both here and in the media, it was not the financial or critical success that would motivate Bethesda to make another one.

Sorry but where are you getting this information from? The game wasn't financially successful for Obsidian (due to not hitting one of their targets - Metacritic review scores) but to suggest it wasn't for Bethesda suggests you have inside knowledge?

The facts are it produced over 300 million in revenue from New Vegas through 5 million shipped units at launch. Since then it has sold over 12 million copies (across all platforms) which makes it not only successful, but one of the best performing games of 2010. It has shown incredible longevity and still sometimes makes the steam sales charts (in 2018) when it has a deep discount (75%).

i would need isometric + some great demo/trailer to put money on fallout

I don't think we need another New Vegas to save Fallout or at least not the location. We need a good Fallout game to save Fallout. The location is largely irrelevant.

In fact, I'd prefer NV not have a direct sequel taking place in Las Vegas. It was a great setting for that game, but it was also kind of a one-trick pony imo. I don't think the novelty of using Vegas as the setting would carry over into a second game.

i would do a new vegas replay but would need a day just to mod it and am not in the mood

Originally Posted by Silver
I doubt Obsidian will be able to recapture the magic. I think The Outer Worlds shows that the old duo of Tim and Leonard are not willing to take risks with their designs anymore although perhaps they may have learned something from the experience.

Risks? Tim didn't really take risks in Fallout so much as create something that was fun for him. And, in that regard, Outer Worlds is plenty a success. Where it failed was its loot and combat; frankly, stuff like that (and its Q/A) takes time and money - money the project didn't have.

I have my doubts that any sort of "New Vegas 2" could recapture the scope of the first. Not only is the team completely different now (notably, no Chris Avellone), but they poured in so much from Van Buren and design docs of yesteryear that I doubt there's many fleshed-out ideas left over. It's certainly possible, but they would need some time to really develop the premise and not simply recycle the same junk (as Bethesda is wont to do).

Since Bethesda and Obsidian are now both owned by Microsoft, I'm not sure that individual past results matter that much. They could combine the best of both and produce a potential masterpiece. Maybe.

Another article was also posted this week.

Fallout: New Vegas At 10 - The Definitive Game Of War, Greed, and Loss

The tale of New Vegas is over. Perhaps one day, we could do with a remake to restore some of the content that got left behind, but other than that, this chapter in Fallout history is closed.

All the factions that die in New Vegas die because they were stuck living in the past. As Father Elijah puts it in the DLC Dead Money, the NCR, Legion, Brotherhood of Steel, and Mr. House were all after a “bright, shining monument luring treasure hunters to their doom. An illusion that you can begin again, change your fortunes.” But all it does is seal their fate.

The Brotherhood wouldn’t accept newcomers, the NCR wouldn’t stop expanding, the Legion wouldn’t plan beyond their glorious leader’s life, and Mr. House refused to acknowledge the threat of some courier blasting some Dean Martin on a Pip Boy.

The point is, New Vegas is all about moving on, and it’s time we did too. Ten years ago, we got the definitive game of war, greed, and loss. With The Outer Worlds and the upcoming Avowed, it’s clear Obsidian have different stories to tell. With any luck, Microsoft and Bethesda will let them tell these stories in the Fallout universe once more.

Hard to believe it's been ten years already.

Does Fallout need saving? Fallout 4 gets criticized a lot, but the reviews range in the 80-90s, it sold more copies than Skyrim in the same time and even beat GTA V for most concurrent online players. If that means "needs saving" then hell, yeah, I would love to need saving (while spending my millions).
Sure, Fallout 76 was a burning pile of feces, true, but a) ESO started off similarly bad (and got better with the years) and b) an online-rpg is no indication for the next single player game (nobody expects the next TES to be like ESO). With the results from Fallout 76, there is little doubt that a Fallout 5 would be much more like Fallout 4 and not at all like Fallout 76. As long as Bethesda avoids being dragged down by the bad Fallout 76 rep, there is little that indicates that a Fallout 4+1 will not sell really well.

Of course, we can criticize a lot about Fallout 3+. I agree with the point that the world does not really feel like "200 years after nuclear Armageddon", for example there are a lot of purely wooden houses still standing and look like they were deserted for perhaps 20 years or even 50, but after 200 without any care, I would expect them to be basically ruins. But that's true for Fallout New Vegas as much as for any other game in the (Bethesda) series. The whole "What still exists and in what state is it" deserves a lot of re-thinking, true.

Yeah, NV was better in some details, especially rp-wise, but in total it wasn't a much better game. More like the same with some more attention to some specific details. Claiming more of that could "save" Fallout is a bit preposterous. Could it improve some details of the Fallout formula to learn more from Fallout New Vegas? Sure, absolutely. Would that totally change everything (or even just a lot)? Not really.