Obsidian would “love to do Fallout: New Vegas 2″: dev talks dream pitch

Tuesday, 12th February 2013 12:45 GMT By Dave Cook

Fallout: New Vegas developer Obsidian Entertainment would love to do a follow-up to its 2010 RPG. Studio CEO Feargus Urquhart has discussed what his dream pitch for Fallout: New Vegas 2 would be like in a new interview.

Speaking with RPS, Urquhart spooled off his vision for New Vegas 2, based on his previous work on the series at Black Isla Studios, “If I think of going from Fallout 1 to Fallout 2, we tried to associate the two areas somewhat closely.

“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.”

We’re not sure what lies next for the Fallout franchise, but Bethesda’s recent hiring of next-gen devs has sparked a fresh bout of Fallout 4 speculation. What do you think?



  1. The_Red

    I would KILL for an isometric, turn based Fallout game from Obsidian. New Vegas was good but still not Fallout 1-2 worthy.

    #1 2 years ago
  2. YoungZer0

    Don’t care much for LA, but another Fallout from Obsidian is always a good thing.

    #2 2 years ago
  3. Moonwalker1982

    So it seems the new Fallout won’t be done by Obsidian? Sorry Obsidian fans, but i’m happy about that.

    #3 2 years ago
  4. ArcticMonkey

    Nah, Fallout 4 will be done by Howard and co. and then when that’s out they’ll move on to Elder Scrolls five, that’s when the Obsidian/Fallout romance reignites.

    …Or I’m completely wrong.

    #4 2 years ago
  5. Erthazus

    Fallout from Obsidian devs would be much better then clusterfuck from Bethesda and Howard that know nothing about Fallout and what it should be about.

    Fallout:NV was excellent. Finished it two times. My second playthrough was about a character that was a complete pacifist. Finished all quests without killing a beast or a guy. That was fun.

    “It’d probably be The Boneyard, which is from Fallout 1.”

    I think that would be awesome. Fallout 1 locations were excellent.

    @2, It’s Bethesda’s fault for making Fallout in to a shitty FPS with abilities.

    #5 2 years ago
  6. Sadismek

    @6 Wow, I actually agree with you this time! :D

    #6 2 years ago
  7. bitsnark

    @2 Me too! Until that happens though, Wasteland 2 fits the bill *very* nicely in the meantime.

    #7 2 years ago
  8. DSB

    Oh snap. That pretty much means they’d finally make San Fransisco. Easily my favourite spot from Fallout 2, or any Fallout.

    #8 2 years ago
  9. fearmonkey

    Fallout 3 was not a bad game at all, it was typical of Bethesda’s focus on Exploration and questing rather than story. Fallout:NV was far more based on story and was far more “Fallout” than Fallout 3.

    I enjoyed both games, but Fallout:New Vegas was the better game overall.
    They did have the benefit of having an already established game design to build upon though. Unfortunately, I didnt play the game until 6 months after it was released and it was still so buggy that I couldnt finish the game properly. I got stuck at a point where I literally had to wait for a patch to continue playing. I got the patch and then ran into a bug where I was forced to make a decision i didnt want on the main quest just to be able to finish the game. I never ran into those issues on Fallout 3, never got stuck where I couldnt finish the game.
    Both games were a bug fest, but Fallout:NV was far worse in my experience, on the Xbox 360.

    #9 2 years ago
  10. YoungZer0

    I’d say the rewards for exploration were much better in Fallout: NV than in Fallout 3, which to me is probably the biggest reason why i should explore. Most places either had something interesting to find, or a story to tell.

    #10 2 years ago
  11. DSB

    Fallout 3 may not be a “bad” game, but it was still Fallout without all the things that make Fallout such a treasured memory for a lot of people.

    Bethesda’s style strikes me as very “pseudo-realistic”, they aren’t willing to be very outrageous and crazy, and that’s a very bad fit for Fallout.

    In Fallout 2 it didn’t take you very many minutes before someone was trying to make you fluff a porno. That’s not exactly the pinnacle of the series, but it’s just another example of its post-apocalyptic world which had clearly gone mad, and been left to either desperate, angsty idealists or complete psychopaths.

    There was very little neutral ground there.

    #11 2 years ago
  12. bespread

    i dont really know what they should do but any new fallout is good for me. i dont care if its by bethesda or obsidian both made great games. But what i think would be a good idea is have one released by bethesda and one by obsidian ,and like 7 years from now make a game that they both work on and instead of it just being west coast or east coast meat somewhere in the middle like the rockie mountains. this would be badass

    #12 2 years ago
  13. GwynbleiddiuM

    @13 I really care who is going to make a game based on the franchise I love, Bethesda has failed to develop their own franchise properly and while I don’t necessarily hate them for what they did to TES series, I certainly don’t want another Skyrim re-skin for Fallout. Comparing Fallout 3 with Fallout: New Vegas will reveal how much of a failure Fallout 3 ever was, just like when you compare Skyrim and Oblivion with Morrowind. There are a things that I absolutely love about Skyrim, like the combat system and it being classless, but there are a lot of other things that I hate to see them go with the re-skin process into Fallout 4.

    @11 Bethesda made games don’t reward exploration anymore.

    #13 2 years ago
  14. Telepathic.Geometry

    I must be one of the only bastards in here who loved Fallout 3 and barely liked New Vegas. I’m a trophy whore, so for me F3 was perfect. Every single trophy was a joy to get my hands on. For New Vegas, I had to do a whole load of stupid bullshit to snag the trophies…

    Also, fucking Boone killed almost every living thing in Vegas, the bloodthirsty maniac. ^-^ Also, F3 had a kind of epic story, whereas New Vegas felt unimportant to me…

    #14 2 years ago
  15. GwynbleiddiuM

    @15 but FO3′s story wasn’t that epic, while NV hasn’t an epic start but it was pretty much epic. I suppose it falls under the personal preference and one’s expectation from a story and the narrative. I liked the ending of Fallout 3 a lot though.

    #15 2 years ago
  16. TheShadowStrike

    I am going to get a lot of hate for this, but I think Obsidian is better than Bethesda was with Fallout. They just put a lot more care into it. I would much prefer a fallout new vegas 2 over fallout 4.

    #16 2 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.