UESP Forums

Bethesda is a subsidiary of Zenimax, why would Zenimax care what Bethesda thinks?


It was a bonus on the contract, they didn't sign the contract expecting to get it, they signed for the base amount. Is it unfortunate they didn't? Yes, but it wasn't a stupid decision on Obsidian's part. They also got paid in a lump sum, not residuals for every copy sold or a bonus at a certain number of sales. Are they stupid for not signing that contract?

If you think it's bad for developers (it is) it's also awful for voice actors. The guy who voiced Kellogg didn't even know what game he was in until another actor who was working with him figured it out from context and told him. It's very hard as an actor to have any reference for your acting when you don't know even know what genre the work is never mind how difficult it is to negotiate pay when you don't know how big your role is, how often they'll call you into the studio or how big the game is. Fallout 4 wasn't some relatively small game like SOMA, it was one of the biggest releases of the year. It puts the collective bargaining power of labour in a weaker position. Developers and actors should unionize and fight for better conditions.


Actually there's a direct reference to that encounter in For Auld Lang Syne in Fallout: New Vegas. Another quest refers to the kid you can have with one of the Bishop family women in Fallout 2, but anyone could have had a kid with the mother or daughter so it's not as solid "The Chosen One is male" as Fallout 1 had. Which isn't the case in the manual for a Fallout 2, they even go so far as giving their spouse a gender neutral name there. But in game it's not the same. Which is unfortunate.

Also the character from Fallout 2 who should come back is Goris, obviously. I love Goris. You even had Albino Deathclaws in Fallout 4, come on guys.

Eh, I wasn't a big fan of the smart Deathclaws from Vault 13. Them, the Shi, and the Hubologists were probably the worst parts of Fallout 2 for me, and I'd rather they never be referenced or reinstated in the series ever again. (Hubologists are in Nuka World, I know)

Another faction I hope fades out of prominence are the Followers of the Apocalypse. Never liked them either, and I hope they don't get any more expanded roles.

I used to think the complete opposite of this, but after Fallout 4's release, I now think they need to go to a distant region of the US and have a fresh injection of factions. Or if that's too vague, they should go to Alaska. Go. To. Alaska.

Voice actors do get treated badly and the most notable example i can think of is Kojima getting rid of David Hayter for a crap reason in the final Metal Gear Game. I do feel that agreeing to the bonus based on metacritic was a stupid decision but that's just the bonus I feel is stupid. Though, anything that relies on metacritic is really daft.

A talking deathclaw or two would be interesting. It could be a Fawkes type companion. I mean, Fallout 2(I think) had a talking deathclaw as a companion. Heck, I would love to have a Fawkes type character again or for him to somehow pop up again. Or just more unique super mutant characters that don't act like a sterotypical one. Heck, seeing Marcus from 2 in a cameo type role was a nice touch in New Vegas.

I'm aware of the reference in New Vegas and it seems to confirm that a Canon Chosen One did do the speech route in Narrvo. It's just a shame that the NCR never had a similiar character or the legion.

I agree, Fallout moving away from both coasts(though, to be fair, i think the East coast has a lot of room left due to not much of it being there compared to the NCR expanding across the west) along with original factions. I think, sadly, we will always get the standard BOS as a major faction in Bethesda's fallouts instead of being a small faction. I mean, it's an iconic faction that seems to be on the same level as the Vaults but the BOS needs to be downgraded. I would love to see more Ghoul factions along with super mutant ones. Though, i would like to see replacements for super mutants as they kinda have no purpose beyond being generic mooks most of the time. 3 was Super Dumb Dumb central. New Vegas only featured a small amount(which, was mostly the last remanants of the Master's Army, i think). It would be nice to see something else replace them. Heck, mutant gorillias would be interesting to see. I wouldn't put it past old world america to have experimented with them.

I love The Followers of the Apocalypse and they're possibly my favorite group in fiction, but I'll let that slide. As for Deathclaws, I'd be happy with just Goris coming back because I really like him as a character, he was my favorite companion in Fallout 2, I don't think we need a bunch of them. Although you could do some interesting stuff with them, I'd kind of love to adapt "The Whisperer in Darkness" to a Fallout quest swapping out Mi-Go for intelligent Deathclaws.

But anyway, to talk about your other point, San Francisco in Fallout 2 is really bad. I've played Fallout 2 I think three or four times and every time I get to San Fran I'm just so ready for things to end. It's easily the weakest town in Fallout 1 or 2, by quite a bit. People rag on the Temple of Trials a lot, and yeah it sucks, but at least it's short. San Fran will take you a couple of hours. The only thing I really like about San Fran is how it pushes you to go to Navarro, but that doesn't quite count as San Fran. So, reasons I don't like San Fran:

-It's the most unfinished area in the game, as evidenced by something as simple as the fact that there's no loot in any of the containers. Or references to weird stuff going on with plants in the ending which you don't see that much of in the game. But even the stuff that was finished isn't very good.

-Lo-Pan vs The Dragon is so dull. There's no depth to it at all or interesting background. It's literally, do you want to work with the obviously good guy Bruce Lee or the obviously evil guy who's named after the Villain from Big Trouble in Little China. I dunno, hard decision there, have to think on that. The fighting itself is pretty bad and knocking people out leads to weirdness as they stick around in the ring and wake back up for the next round of fighting. That's not even getting into the can of worms which is the depiction of Chinese people in general with them seemingly obsessed with nothing but martial arts and vague notions of honor. "Look at the funny round-eyes." "Rice, rice, rice." Are you serious Fallout 2? Even in '98, Black Isle should have known better than this crap.

-Hubologists are bad. Oh, it's scientology. Yeah, so? Do you have anything interesting to comment on in relation to Scientology or at least some funny jokes to tell? It was '98 and in the years since then other games (Watch Dogs 2 and Dead Space come to mind) had worthwhile looks at the religion. Fallout 2? Not even close, if it's meant to be satire it's bad satire, it's not insightful or particularly funny. What about some interesting quests or interactions or ways to secretly undermine and murder them? Well no, they don't really have that either. And if it's just "Evil Cult" Fallout 1 did that so, so much better. Thankfully the interesting stuff that might be done with a space cult was salvaged with New Vegas.

-The Shi are bad. I think it's a shame they took the idea of a PLA submarine crew meeting up with the residents of an internment camp and turned it into Imperial China ran by a computer. Like, The Brotherhood of Steel were descendants of US Military, would have loved to see something similar happened with the PLA but it doesn't, not really. Being run by a computer doesn't in and of itself make the group interesting, in fact carrying on more like People's Republic of China mirroring how New California Republic is like that USA and then possible tensions between the two groups would have been way more interesting. And Van Buren got canceled, so they didn't even got wiped off the map by an Enclave nuke at the end of all this. But how PLA remnants in the states would set up a new society after the bombs is an idea that I like so much I'd love to see Bethesda adopt it and do it well this time.

-The Brotherhood Outpost is not a great pay off to be honest. Going to Navarro is good and I'm fine with the Brotherhood this far north just having listening posts instead of larger bases, that's not an issue either. But they're still basically a non-factor here and when you do get to their base, they'll probably be killed by Frank Horrigan while you're having surgery and unlike the Deathclaws you probably won't care that much.

-The Ship is terrible. The idea of a group who travel the pacific in an oil tanker is cool, you could hear a lot about Latin America for example or even Asia potentially. But instead they're just living on the ship and have never actually gone anywhere. Again, going to Navarro is cool, that makes sense as a way to get access to the oil rig too. But everything with getting the fuel or the mandatory combat dungeon in the bowels of the ship is crappy (even something like filling it with poison gas but that killing the people still down there would be okay.) It makes all the other stuff mandatory, if San Fran had been an optional town ala Redding or Broken Hills it would still be bad but at least you could skip it. Why are there Wanamingos on this ship in the first place? People keep blocking your path in corridors and again by that point you just want to be done with San Fran. It means when you go to the Oil Rig you feel less "Oh yeah, bring it Enclave!" and more "Thank Christ that's done."

fite me 1v1 irl




Ya, I don't really have much to add. Those are essentially the reasons why San Francisco is probably the worst part of Fallout 2.

See, the Chinese sub survivor stuff is a thing everyone likes, which is why I've always said to go to Alaska. Considering stuff like military remnants or POW camps or internment camps or whatever, there's plenty of things they could do with the Chinese and US military remnant aspects in Alaska, which is the biggest reason I want them to go there. But I'm almost certain if they head there, there'll be a Brotherhood or Enclave bunker, and worst of all, there'll probably be multiple Vault-Tec vaults present with no sensible explanation provided for why the hell they would be there.

I spent 5+ hours straight playing New Vegas the other day. I was playing, and then looked up and it was dark outside. I'm not sure how I feel about this.

I've got a question, that I'm hoping someone can help me with without too many spoilers: should I side with Mr. House, or do my own thing? Like, what does doing my own thing result in? Do I become the leader of the Strip or whatever? Will siding with Mr. House be bad for the NCR? Is there any option that's best for the Followers (love those guys)?

I haven't really been paying the best attention during all my conversations. ;^-^ Now I'm kinda lost.

All I can say is, in classic fallout fashion, there are way too many endings and questlines to follow. I haven't even beaten the game and I already know it's not so black and white(or easy)

"A lesson, if you will. There're other organizations out there. And, in time, I'm sure they're going to spoon-feed you their own patented form of [&@%!]. Ignore the verbage and look at what they're doing. What they're asking you to do. What sort of world they'd have you build and how they're going to pay for it."

Sorry, kid, just have to figure this one out yourself. It's not an easy, but there is time to make the decision. And you can back out and go with Yes Man at any point, like a lot of people work with Mr House, get to a certain point and find they can't accept what he wants them to do anymore and go with Yes Man instead. Honestly what Arcade Gannon says is true as long as you aren't helping the Legion, anything's better than that. But I will give you some knowledge:

-The Wild Card/Yes-Man route involves ousting Mr House and taking control of the Strip yourself. What that will actually involve, so what any government will actually be like is left intentionally vague. It's a gap you fill in with what you think your Courier would do. But it does involve getting rid of House and putting Yes Man in charge of all the robots on the strip. It also involves giving Yes Man a firmware update eventually so he becomes more assertive. Some people (people who are wrong as I like to call them) think that oh no, Yes Man will betray you, but what it actually just means is you wouldn't need to check up on him every 5 seconds to have him do things or have any Tom, Dick or Harry walk up and tell Yes Man what to do.

-If you give supplies to the Followers (donate them to Julie Farkas in Old Mormon Fort) eventually she'll extend an invitation to officially join the organisation. As a trusted member your opinion will also matter more, so you might be able to convince them to provide medical support to the NCR military against the Legion or to your own forces in attempting to maintain an independent Vegas.

Ahh, thanks, Kerr. ^-^

So if you go on your own, it's kind of an "imagine what your Courier would do" situation? Good to know. I'm not sure entirely what I think of Mr. House, yet...

Anyway, I've still got many many sidequests to do, so it's not super urgent. But I can ponder in the meanwhile.

I will say isn't entirely open, you'll still get very concrete endings on what happens to different factions and characters. Expect a mixed bag regardless of which of the big 4 your pick because that's life. The modular endings are similar to Dragon Age Origins or Inquisition if you've played either of those.

But what your Courier's rule would actually look like, you don't get a super solid view, it could go well, it could go poorly, you could be nice, your could be an authoritarian jerk. Who knows?

Okay, well, what happens to factions is good. As long as, like, everyone doesn't die because I decided to take over for Mr. House.

I've played Origins, so I get the idea (my Origins game really didn't end well, though, if I remember correctly...).

New Fallout! New Fallout! New Fallout!

More news at E3.

New Fallout! New Fallout! New Fallout!

This is more motivation for me to hurry up and finish New Vegas.

Oh wow it's Fallout: Battle Royale!

^ I'd personally crucify Todd Howard.

I'm probably one of like 3 people in the entire world who want settlement building (or something vaguely equivalent) to return. A young Baloth saw Big Town in FO3 and thought, "I wish this was expanded on. More than just a random merchant saying he's selling parts to Big Town now that they build robots."

Yknow? I want to see and feel the effects of my actions in the world. And carve out a little piece for myself.

Anyway, I'm excited!

I liked settlement building, to an extent. It was fun! Until I got overly ambitious at The Castle. Ech, I got to the point where I couldn't add anything more but it defo didn't look like I wanted it to. And then I just got annoyed.

Also who's got time to build at all the smaller settlements? Not me, that's for sure. I had a few big settlements that I cared about, and the rest were given the bare minimum, whoops.

But yeah, customization of the world is really cool. ^-^

So I'd be happy to see it return, but also happy if it's not back. Excited either way, yup yup! Fallout is such a vibe aaaaa I love it.

I'm a bit conflicted about 76. If it is a battle royale clone, I am utterly diappointed in Bethesda for jumping on the bandwagon. I'm not to keen on the idea of a MP online only Fallout as it kinda doesn't work imo. A survival fallout MP has potential but at the same time, I just feel it being about one man/woman's adventures in the post nuclear war wastes is what Fallout does best. But at the same time, story is one of Bethesda's weaknesses.

I am hoping it's something like New Vegas. Not a proper sequel nor spin off but just another entry. It does sound like it's a bit Enclave-y and I really would have preferred for a non-vault related PC again. Granted, most PCs in Fallout have ties to a vault but i just feel the franchise could do more Courier style backgrounds. No vault related backstory, able to craft it via dialogue etc..

It kinda reminds me of Rage. A Fallout game is reminding me of a Fallout Clone. Is... is this insanity?

According to Kotaku, "anonymous sources" say it will be an online survival based game similar to Rust and DayZ. Settlement building is still a thing.

Call me crazy, but I'm actually not hating the idea. UESPF, let's build a junktown together.

My problem with Rust and DayZ is that they're not permanent, persistent worlds (at least, not to my recollection), they reset for every match.

I'm hoping this will be different. Something like Ark: Survival or whatever.

Hmm, I don't know anything about either Rust or DayZ. Perhaps some research is in order.

I've actually got internet good enough for online games now, though, so hey hey I can possibly play.

If reports and conjecture are true, then hey; who wants to live in a closed town/city run by an autocratic Baloth?! ...No? What if I promised incredibly low taxes (which would be going directly back into the city's development), legalizing all chems (and monopolizing the [&@%!] out of them), and to build a wall (to keep out raiders and such)? Kind of like a Vault City, except without our heads up our nethers.

I mean, I got loads of mixed feels about this. Like, I'm all for something alot more casual and less.. resource heavy than another MMO but just with guns.. on the other.. ehhh. You'll see Now, I actually know a thing or two into this genre, and let me say, most are not static. It's ultimately up to the server(s) but it can be on a weekly or monthly wipe. Each game that does it has their own reasons. What I'm hinging on are a few things, how will it address the survival aspect, how will solo/groups work, what degree can we alter the terrain, and how static is this world?

The biggest thing for me is the survival aspect My other thing is how much can we affect the world? Is it how we scavange, can we build bases, do we have a static base the game provides, or will this be like the settlement system in Fallout 4.

I can go either or on this. Like, we certainly shouldnt have free reign to build ourselves, not like in Rust or Ark. Heck, occupying settlements seem liks a blast, or each player having a static vault room that they slowly stockpile(and seperate from the actual world)

My bet tho, be it group settlements on a server, or personal chambers, or both!, Whatever they do, I think they can learn a thing or two from this game, less survival and more scavanging. Bc thats what I want. Give people the most fun when their out in the open, give the real Fallout experience. Edit: But if i'm being honest, I seriously thought this was gonna be another battle royal grab. Which, eh

Oof, I’m looking forward to hearing more actual info. I’m not a fan of so much speculation, especially when I don’t know much about what’s being speculated about.

I just want the game to be good. ;-;

If this is some PvP multiplayer only thing, which it looks like, gonna be slightly bummed. And Bethesda shouldn't bury that lead. Like, ESO or TES: Legends wasn't teased like they're proper mainline releases.

Like originally I figured it was gonna be some Death of the Outsider style stand alone expansion with Co-oP stuff.

Apparently, it's co-op focused and will be online always. That really [&@%!] me off but only because I loathe the concept of online only games. Local co-op is dead but to be always online in order to enjoy a game is something I hate. It also means the game has a limited shelf life. It is apparently closer to Day Z and Rust then a Battle Royale game. A massive open world RPG and apparently, it will be voiced. Again. >.< Bethesda, you did learn why people disliked Fallout 4's voiced PC? Right? I hope they really overhaul the dialoguse system so it's not random guessing again or so the reputation goes.

Why couldn't they have done a New Vegas type thing? That worked. Accessible for everyone. Oh and rumour has it that 76 will only allow mods via Creation Club. Because apparently, [&@%!] off the modders by restricting it to CC is good for business.