As much as i love building in Fallout 4...I always venture back to the Mojave...Obsidian for me.

Lets hope we see more from them...sooner than later!

Personally? I haven't played FO4 yet at all, mostly due to my rather... un-fortuitous situation in which I am using my tiny little laptop, so for me its the Mojave all the time Obsidian for me. Besides, its optimized surprisingly well for low-end computers.

The answer is all too obvious. For me, of course, Obsidian, I respect the developer for having created the Fallout New Vegas, which is a great game even in 2016. Bethesda, however, is terribly arrogant in their dealings, if all people knew in advance what will get after buying a Season Pass ... Bethesda their actions made FO4 is so weak that only mods are able to make this game better so that you can nice play.

A hard choice, obviously people will bash Bethesda for moving the game towards action rather than RPG, however I doubt the community would really even exist without them so I give them credit where credit is due. However with that being said, I prefer Obsidian. Do I think New Vegas is higher quality than Fallout 4? No I don't. And it really isn't if you compare the content in each game. Do I think it's a better game? For some, perhaps. That boils down to personal tastes.

neither, i would choose the original, Interplay.

Obsidian. New vegas (especially the DLCS) had true fallout lore story and stuff, interesting NPCs and more.

Credit to bethesda where is due, ofc. But Obsidian all the way.

Bethesda for the worldspace, Obsidian for the story.

But overall what makes a good game good is the story so I'm with Obsidian on this one.

Ima have to go for Obsidian, Fallout 3 was great, but when it came to main story, side missions and DLC, Obsidian just damn right owned Beth, theres no point me even getting into Beths Fallout 4 in that respect cause Obsidians effort just put Beth to shame, and they made the South Park game so thats a plus from me lol, P.s nice Shawn of the dead GIF lol, Let's go to the Winchester, have a pint, and wait for this to blow over

I just got back to New Vegas too. Cant play yet because im ironing out the perfect modded playthrough (HUD issues, ENB lighting issues, etc...).

New Vegas is just so damn replayable. Bethesda's Fallout 3.. everything is on 1 character. New Vegas? I have multiple characters for different roleplaying. Plus the quests are fun, substantial, and varied - favorite thing about New Vegas was the choices we made and how they affected everything (Towns, Factions, the Endings, Companions). So Obsidian all the way, even Pillars of Eternity is so much more engaging than FO3 + 4. (FO4 was just disappointing)

Skyrim (my first Bethesda game) was good though, much more better with mods.

I'm on team Obsidian. Although I don't have Fallout 4 yet, I love the original games and play New Vegas more than Fallout 3. Also I feel Obsidian adds more to their characters than Bethsda.
I would like to see Obsidian release more side games.

Hoppyhead wrote:

I'm on team Obsidian. Although I don't have Fallout 4 yet, I love the original games and play New Vegas more than Fallout 3. Also I feel Obsidian adds more to their characters than Bethsda.
I would like to see Obsidian release more side games.

I don't know how to reply lol, im new. I'm not sure Fallout 4 is worth the full price now. Wait for all the DLC to see if that redeems the game or not. If you do want to play Fallout 4, you have to play a very certain way (Lawful Good, Roleplay like you had actually cared for the characters, and I cant think of anything else lol)


Mods might be worth the game though

I prefer Obsidian over Bethesda. I feel Obsidian had a job to improve and fix Fallout 3 and they delivered, but they also come from a background of making games with stories, which I feel helped contribute to it's success. There were many ways to play the game as well, there were side factions, many unique NPCs that didn't babble the same dialogue, and there were actually uniques to go hunt for (one of my personal favorite things to do). Not to mention the 4 FULL sized DLCs they added into the game. Bethesda and Fallout 4 felt lazily put together in my opinion, they had 5 years to make they game (maybe even more assuming it was being worked on as a project). It felt more like a well-polished FPS, then a building game, then a RPG game. Everything felt like a "go grab this" or "liberate this settlement!" quest, which lost my interest quite fast. Not to mention, NPCs can be quite boring, or annoying *cough* Preston *cough*. The locations weren't too bad, and the unique ones such as Pickman's gallery were quite nice. My biggest gripe towards the game is the DLC, 4 of which could've basically been mods, (I count Automatron in there because it really could've just been a building robots mod with a quest). Far Harbor felt like the only genuine, Bethesda DLC to come out because you had choices, and the map felt fresh and unique with its mysterious, foggy atmosphere. But, the game wasn't all just steps back, the new VATS system felt great, weapon and armor modding made you able to truly customize how you wanted your weapons, power armor felt like you were an actual tank walking around, legendary effects are things you go out to look for (because rip unqiues), and my personal favorite is the color pallete isn't just orange on top of orange, making less modding required for a nicer looking game.

MonAsaX wrote:

Even though this is purely subjective, I believe Obsidian is better at producing a higher quality Fallout game than Bethesda as we saw with New Vegas. Fallout 3 wasn't bad but New Vegas had a better world and writing. Fallout 4 was more of a shooter with some RPG elements sprinkled in. It also had pretty boring characters and plot.

You took the words outta my mouth sir

I prefer Obsidian because to me, NV seemed like a bigger game. I can't really explain it, but it seemed like the world was bigger and there was more...stuff. The way I explain it to friends is that it suffers from 'shiny sequel syndrome', where a sequel has - subjectively - better graphics but the game itself is dumbed down, like The Sims 4 and Saints Row The Third. Now that's not to say that F4 is in any way a bad game, because I played it a lot before I got a PC and i thoroughly enjoyed it, but I feel like Bethesda sacrificed content and mechanics that made Fallout the way it is to make it easier for mainstream appeal. But that's just my two cents on the matter.

kingofthefrenchquarter wrote:

...NV seemed like a bigger game. I can't really explain it, but it seemed like the world was bigger and there was more...stuff...

I guess its because fonv fells like it have more content than fo4. I dont know if youre going to agree with me but for me fo4 fells like a linear game and once were done with the game its done, while with nv we just cant get enough of it, i once heard this "... fallout 3/nv are rpg's with shooter elements while fo4 is more like a shooter with rpg elements" and i totally agree about that.

Bethesda is cancer, obsidian should do the next fallout. Fallout 4 is skyrim with guns and balance out of the window.

Obsidian for sure, those guys actually know how to make a proper RPG and not a Mass Effect/Far Cry Clone made to sell copies.

I loved Fallout 4, but after a week or two I was done. That being said I always get done with a Fallout after a week or two when I first get them but this is different. I can't go back to 4, in 3 and NV I can but not 4. And at this point I find NV so much fun to come back to even more so than 3, its just a far superior game IMHO. So I'd say Obsidian is better by far.

I come here on occasion and love seeing most people say New Vegas is the better of the 3, you're GOD DAMN RIGHT IT IS! there's something about that game it's like heroin

Obsidian for story, and Bethesda for environment. Seems about right. A full collaboration between the two would be outstanding.