Pretty simple. Who should carry the torch of Fallout into the future?

My vote will always be with Obsidian. With New Vegas, they showed that they "got" Fallout, more so than Bethesda ever did. Plus, they did make some of the best DLC packs ever.

Plus, they have some of the best writers in the biz on their side.

Obsidian made the best Fallout game. Why would I pick anybody else?

Design, writing and VO direction by Obsidian.

Coding and quality control not by people from Obsidian or Bethesda.

Whoever will manage to make a worthy successor to Fallout 2 and bring the franchise back to its roots.

Zhukov:
Bethesda, due to their ability to release games in a more or less functional state.

PS3 Skyrim would disagree.

Zhukov:
Bethesda, due to their ability to release games in a more or less functional state.

+1. I demand Cazadores that fly backwards!

OT: Obsidian. A buggy game is eventually patched, but a bad game is bad forever.

Bethesda. I loves me some Obsidian, but in terms of controlling the property, keep it in Bethesda's hands. They've got more cash and more power behind them. They can afford to go out TO Obsidian or anyone else to help make really good Fallout games a reality, but I want the dudes who control the actual property to be around for a good long while to create continuity between the products.

I'd want them to hand it to a different developer for each iteration, even if the developer has never done a game like Fallout.

Like I'd be interested in seeing how a Fallout game would turn out in the hands of a developer who's only previously developed sports or racing games. Seemed to work out for Dead Rising.

But if I had to pick a specific developer, I'd let Vatra give it a shot. From what I've heard the atmosphere and exploration aspects of Downpour are pretty great.

I actually liked New Vegas more than 3, so my vote probably goes to Obsidian.

Give it to EA so they can make it more shooty (no not really), or just leave it with obsidian and make them do some play testing (or give them the time they need to finish it).

ME! I'd set it in Atlanta next time!

But in all seriousness, Bethesda. New Vegas was great but Bethesda just have that "Magical" feel behind them that makes their games feel special.

In all honesty, fuck the root's game play. Being able to take cover, fire, or heal when I want is much better than sitting there taking bullets from 4 people before being able to take out my damn stimpak which I MIGHT drop because my skill level isn't high enough.

I honestly don't know.

I love Fallout 3. I like New Vegas. I'm still playing Fallout 3 after 3.5 years, and I'm also still playing New Vegas, though I do find NV a bit more constraining.

I found the Interplay ones frustrating as all hell, but that style of play has pretty much gone the way of the dodo anyway, so if for some reason Interplay did Fallout 4, it would likely be completely different, and more like 3 and NV in terms of gameplay. Would it be better? Hell if I know. What has Interplay done recently anyway?

From a pragmatic viewpoint, this:

Zhukov:
Bethesda, due to their ability to release games in a more or less functional state.

Or give it someone else entirely... like Treyarch!

Though I have no idea who Treyarch is or if I'd want them to do a Fallout. :p

Mostly because what I've come to expect is a nice big sandbox with lots to explore, and I can roll with either the darker setting of 3 or the lighter, western setting of NV. Some criticized 3 for its darker tone, but it makes sense to me that the Capital Wasteland is a much grimmer place, it was hit worse after all. And if nothing else, big open worlds is Bethesda's bag, and with Skyrim's engine many of the problems of 3/NV would be left behind. Too bad it brings its own problems, such as a big FUCK YOU to animators.

Anthraxus:
OP, I'd be looking forward to Wasteland 2 more than Fallout 4 if I were you. As I don't think Obsidian will be doing F4.

It does look delicous, doesn't it? But I do like the modern Fallouts. I actually think New Vegas may be the greatest of them all, then Fallout 2, then 1, then 3.

Bioware. It would be entertaining to say the least.....

Kahunaburger:

Zhukov:
Bethesda, due to their ability to release games in a more or less functional state.

+1. I demand Cazadores that fly backwards!

OT: Obsidian. A buggy game is eventually patched, but a bad game is bad forever.

thank you! this is the exact logic that i always follow

(quote me if i'm wrong, but didn't bethesda do the QA work for new vegas? I could be wrong on this..)

buggy games are eventually fixed, no matter how much you polish and fluff up shit, it stays shit.

I'd normally say Obsidian, based on the fact that I liked New Vegas better than F3, and as much as I liked F1 and F2, I don't think Interplay would be able to pick it up successfuly...

BUT...

As much as I liked NV, it crashed like a mofo, to the point that it simply became unplayable after about 100 hours of gameplay, and besides, NV was based on the F3 engine anyway, so Bethesda it is.

Daystar Clarion:
Obsidian writes everything that is put into the game, but touches absolutely nothing.

Then get someone who actually knows what they're doing, to build it.

Um, as long as they aren't suddenly forced to cut 6 months to a year off of dev time, they can make perfectly fine games. Case in point, DS3, which while a meh hacknslash was a pretty damn polished pile of meh. Not to mention they have never done QA on any of their buggy games.

I loved Fallout 3 but New Vegas was simply so much better in pretty much every single way.
Definitely Obsidian.
Hell, I never even had any bugs in New Vegas, no problems whatsoever.

Obsidian 200 times over. As long as they recruit some form of playtesters.

I didn't really find any crippling bugs in my MANY playthroughs of New Vegas, but apparently there are.

In the ideal world I would have game design by bethesda, writing by obsidian, and quality control by some other company. Fallout 3 had such amazing atmosphere and NV had some great writing but if I had to choose one, I'd choose bethesda because NV had so many more bugs than fallout 3.

Gonna go with Obsidian. Same logic as those before me who would rather have a buggy game that can be patched than a shitty game that will always be shit.

Not saying I thought Fallout 3 was shit, or anything like that. Still enjoyed it. But it's easily my least favorite Fallout game (assuming the one for the original X-Box and PS2 never existed, which it didn't)

I think Team Ninja should take over the franchise.
We're not getting enough out of Fallout in the boobs department.
And I'd love to see a 'Fallout Xtreme Radioactive Beach Volleyball' game starring scantily clad Super Mutants.

Obsidian, they are gods at storyline. ALSO JE Sawyer is awesome and likes cats, so hes okay with me.

If reality followed my wishes, I'd opt for a reboot myself done by some JRPG developer in a similar manner to how Wizardry was kept alive in Japan after SirTech closed in 2001. Basically preserve the core elements of the series, but give a different culture's spin to the rest.

But because reality has not gotten on board with my desires, I would give it to Obsidian, but only if it were less sand box and more episodic. Maybe if the game would force you to pick a faction at the start of Act 2 and not at the end of Act 4, I would enjoy it more. Because replay value should matter, the game should force you to play itself over and over again.

Bethesda, because of the rather unrestricting Gameplay. Bethesda makes buggy Games, but the Stuff Obsidian does is ridiculous. Bugs might be patched; but many Bugs still remain in New Vegas and balance Issues are still around. The crafting System is still BS and could be entirely scrapped. Some People say that Fallout 3 lacks the "wackyness" of the other Fallout games. It really is too dark and too grey. But you can grab a Rock-it Launcher and kill People with Teddy Bears.

Characters are better and more fleshed out in New Vegas, but Bethesda is apparently learning. Look at Oblivion, then at Fallout 3, which is a huge Step up. And then Skyrim. The Dragonfights there are set very nicely. The Dragon lands often enough for you to deal some Damage and you'll hear some epic music while you fight. The Dragon wont spent too much time airborne so you wont get bored while fighting.
Excellent Atmosphere. I hope they build upon that to make Fallout 4.

Bethesda builds the world, Obsidian writes the story.

Obsidian agrees to not program ANYTHING as long as Bethesda doesn't write ANYTHING.