It is not a direct-squeal, but it is the next installment to the Fallout Universe. When Fallout 3 came out, I heard a lot of great things about it. I was not so sure I would actually care about, until my cousin bought this game. My cousin only came with good reviews, saying things like the game runs very smoothly, the action is nonstop, and you cant get away from the strategy. I am honest. I am addicted to Fallout 3, and at the moment there is a tiny crack in the middle of the DVD so I cant play it at the moment. But that was Fallout 3. What will you expect from Fallout: New Vegas? I expect them to have the same Post-Apocalyptic wasteland. New perks of course, higher level ups, Vaults, and Pip-Boys just as well. I happened to like Galaxy News Radio and am hoping they keep Three Dog on the line.
I kind of doubt that Three Dog and Galaxy News Radio would be in it. Seeing how His broadcasts barely have enough signal strength to get across Washington D.C.. Let alone all the way on the other side of the country like Las Vegas. But you never know maybe they'll find a bigger radio building that has more range or, He just may decide to pack up and move to New Vegas.
I think it would be pretty awesome if Vegas was still a living city. Hoover dam would still be producing power for the city and all the casinos would still function. Stuff like that would give it a kind of old west feel. It would probably be a little run down but not as run down as the Pitt. Vegas wasn't one of the cities directly hit by the bombs was it? If it was it would be just like DC. New Vegas still being a living breathing city is my hope for the game but it could turn out very different.
Isn't it being made by another company ?...gameplay might change...
xsubtownerx
It's still being published by Bethesda. So odds are it'll be the same gameplay. Really? According to Fallout.Wikia.com it says Obsidian takes the next roll!
I think it would be pretty awesome if Vegas was still a living city. Hoover dam would still be producing power for the city and all the casinos would still function. Stuff like that would give it a kind of old west feel. It would probably be a little run down but not as run down as the Pitt. Vegas wasn't one of the cities directly hit by the bombs was it? If it was it would be just like DC. New Vegas still being a living breathing city is my hope for the game but it could turn out very different.RAMRODtheMASTER
The Pitt was very annoying. I just did not like the design of the place. But I got to say I agree with you.
[QUOTE="_Doomsayer_"]Ghoul Hookers If not, I will be disappointed. What the hell? Are the Fallout fetishes already rolling in? But I digress. Ghoul hookers would be nice.
Isn't it being made by another company ?...gameplay might change...
Underworldy69
It's still being published by Bethesda. So odds are it'll be the same gameplay. Really? According to Fallout.Wikia.com it says Obsidian takes the next roll! Obsidian is developing it. Bethesda is the publisher. Bethesda own the Fallout license now.
[QUOTE="Underworldy69"][QUOTE="xsubtownerx"] It's still being published by Bethesda. So odds are it'll be the same gameplay.x-2tha-z
Really? According to Fallout.Wikia.com it says Obsidian takes the next roll! Obsidian is developing it. Bethesda is the publisher. Bethesda own the Fallout license now.
Publishers have nothing to do with the gameplay just to let you guys know lol...you write a book I publish but It doesn't mean I had anything to do with how the book came out.
[QUOTE="x-2tha-z"][QUOTE="Underworldy69"] Really? According to Fallout.Wikia.com it says Obsidian takes the next roll! DranzarTypeF
Obsidian is developing it. Bethesda is the publisher. Bethesda own the Fallout license now.
Publishers have nothing to do with the gameplay just to let you guys know lol...you write a book I publish but It doesn't mean I had anything to do with how the book came out.
I know publishers don't make the game. That's why I said Obsidian was developing it. But you're wrong about publishers having nothing to do with gameplay. Publishers provide guidance on how they want the game to turn out. What did you think, that Bethesda would just let Obsidian make the game however they wanted? Lol.
[QUOTE="x-2tha-z"]Obsidian is developing it. Bethesda is the publisher. Bethesda own the Fallout license now.x-2tha-z
Publishers have nothing to do with the gameplay just to let you guys know lol...you write a book I publish but It doesn't mean I had anything to do with how the book came out.
I know publishers don't make the game. That's why I said Obsidian was developing it. But you're wrong about publishers having nothing to do with gameplay. Publishers provide guidance on how they want the game to turn out. What did you think, that Bethesda would just let Obsidian make the game however they wanted? Lol.Publishers have little or nothing to do with a game's development.
I think it's basically going to be like Fallout 3, just in a different setting.Doolz2024
I dunno since it's being developed by a total different company. Obsidian's RPGs are a totally different style. Just like Bioware's are different as well.
Publishers have little or nothing to do with a game's development. DranzarTypeF
Thank You. Developers make the game and regularly submit new builds to the publisher. The publisher voices any concerns it has and tells the developer about things it wants changed. Do you honestly think Bethesda would just let Obsidian make the game however they like and then publish it without even testing it? Bethesda have brought the Fallout license back from the dead, a bad game from Obsidian could kill it again. Bethesda aren't going to let that happen. Or, going by your logic, I suppose Obsidian could always use the license to make a karting game, to compete with Mario Kart. Super Mutants racing Fire Ants around the wasteland.
Publishers have little or nothing to do with a game's development. x-2tha-z
Thank You. Developers make the game and regularly submit new builds to the publisher. The publisher voices any concerns it has and tells the developer about things it wants changed. do you honestly think Bethesda would just let Obsidian make the game however they like and then publish it without even testing it? Bethesda have brought the Fallout license back from the dead, a bad game from Obsidian could kill it again. Bethesda aren't going to let that happen. Or, going by your logic, I suppose Obsidian could always use the license to make a karting game, to compete with Mario Kart. Super Mutants racing Fire Ants around the wasteland. Yeah, I'm sure Bethesda will let Obsidian make the game however they want.Again, publishers have nothing to do with gameplay and little or nothing to do with development.
Developers make the game and regularly submit new builds to the publisher. The publisher voices any concerns it has and tells the developer about things it wants changed. do you honestly think Bethesda would just let Obsidian make the game however they like and then publish it without even testing it? Bethesda have brought the Fallout license back from the dead, a bad game from Obsidian could kill it again. Bethesda aren't going to let that happen. Or, going by your logic, I suppose Obsidian could always use the license to make a karting game, to compete with Mario Kart. Super Mutants racing Fire Ants around the wasteland. Yeah, I'm sure Bethesda will let Obsidian make the game however they want.Again, publishers have nothing to do with gameplay and little or nothing to do with development. EA would like to have a word with you.
Publishers have little or nothing to do with a game's development. x-2tha-z
Thank You. Developers make the game and regularly submit new builds to the publisher. The publisher voices any concerns it has and tells the developer about things it wants changed. do you honestly think Bethesda would just let Obsidian make the game however they like and then publish it without even testing it? Bethesda have brought the Fallout license back from the dead, a bad game from Obsidian could kill it again. Bethesda aren't going to let that happen. Or, going by your logic, I suppose Obsidian could always use the license to make a karting game, to compete with Mario Kart. Super Mutants racing Fire Ants around the wasteland. Yeah, I'm sure Bethesda will let Obsidian make the game however they want.
That Is why these are multi-million dollar companies they are trusted not to make mistakes, especially with a franchise as big as Fallout, also you forget that without Obsidian a Fallout 3 would never exist. Obviously since Bethesda created a game worthy of the GOTY, Obsidian will look for a little bit of direction, but they are capable of doing the whole project on their own.
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="x-2tha-z"] Developers make the game and regularly submit new builds to the publisher. The publisher voices any concerns it has and tells the developer about things it wants changed. do you honestly think Bethesda would just let Obsidian make the game however they like and then publish it without even testing it? Bethesda have brought the Fallout license back from the dead, a bad game from Obsidian could kill it again. Bethesda aren't going to let that happen. Or, going by your logic, I suppose Obsidian could always use the license to make a karting game, to compete with Mario Kart. Super Mutants racing Fire Ants around the wasteland. Yeah, I'm sure Bethesda will let Obsidian make the game however they want._Doomsayer_
Again, publishers have nothing to do with gameplay and little or nothing to do with development. EA would like to have a word with you.
EA develops and publishes their own games lol, that's why.:P
Developers make the game and regularly submit new builds to the publisher. The publisher voices any concerns it has and tells the developer about things it wants changed. do you honestly think Bethesda would just let Obsidian make the game however they like and then publish it without even testing it? Bethesda have brought the Fallout license back from the dead, a bad game from Obsidian could kill it again. Bethesda aren't going to let that happen. Or, going by your logic, I suppose Obsidian could always use the license to make a karting game, to compete with Mario Kart. Super Mutants racing Fire Ants around the wasteland. Yeah, I'm sure Bethesda will let Obsidian make the game however they want.Again, publishers have nothing to do with gameplay and little or nothing to do with development. How can you take what I just said then repeat your same, stupid, ignorant comment about publishers having nothing to do with game development? You are wrong.
[QUOTE="x-2tha-z"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="x-2tha-z"] Developers make the game and regularly submit new builds to the publisher. The publisher voices any concerns it has and tells the developer about things it wants changed. do you honestly think Bethesda would just let Obsidian make the game however they like and then publish it without even testing it? Bethesda have brought the Fallout license back from the dead, a bad game from Obsidian could kill it again. Bethesda aren't going to let that happen. Or, going by your logic, I suppose Obsidian could always use the license to make a karting game, to compete with Mario Kart. Super Mutants racing Fire Ants around the wasteland. Yeah, I'm sure Bethesda will let Obsidian make the game however they want.Again, publishers have nothing to do with gameplay and little or nothing to do with development. How can you take what I just said then repeat your same, stupid, ignorant comment about publishers having nothing to do with game development? You are wrong.Because they don't...after publishers agree to publish they have little or nothing to do with development other than setting a release date.
Yes publishers do have a say in how a game is made. Especially since they are the ones that own the rights to the title. You think Bungie and Microsoft just let Ensemble run loose like a crazy person with their top money maker? No! Ensemble had to get every idea and change approved by their masters. lol
Just like Bioware and Obsidian. Obsidian had to develope KOTOR 2 so it stayed within Bioware's standards. And Bioware in turn had to stay in Lucas Arts standards because they own the Star Wars title.
Yes publishers do have a say in how a game is made. Especially since they are the ones that own the rights to the title. You think Bungie and Microsoft just let Ensemble run loose like a crazy person with their top money maker? No! Ensemble had to get every idea and change approved by their masters. lol
Just like Bioware and Obsidian. Obsidian had to develope KOTOR 2 so it stayed within Bioware's standards. And Bioware in turn had to stay in Lucas Arts standards because they own the Star Wars title.
Shika_Stoner
You're confusing publishers with internal developers with projects that have separate developers and publishers. And in this case we are talking about Bethesda/Obisidian which are separate.
[QUOTE="x-2tha-z"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Again, publishers have nothing to do with gameplay and little or nothing to do with development. KC_Hokie
How can you take what I just said then repeat your same, stupid, ignorant comment about publishers having nothing to do with game development? You are wrong.Because they don't...after publishers agree to publish they have little or nothing to do with development other than setting a release date. You're wrong.
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="x-2tha-z"]How can you take what I just said then repeat your same, stupid, ignorant comment about publishers having nothing to do with game development? You are wrong.x-2tha-z
Because they don't...after publishers agree to publish they have little or nothing to do with development other than setting a release date. You're wrong.How so? Are you saying that publishers of external games are involved in the development of games after they agree to publish?
[QUOTE="x-2tha-z"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Because they don't...after publishers agree to publish they have little or nothing to do with development other than setting a release date. KC_Hokie
You're wrong.How so? Are you saying that publishers of external games are involved in the development of games after they agree to publish? What I'm saying is Bethesda have control over how this game turns out. If they want something changed, it'll get changed. If they want something added, it'll get added. If they want something removed....you get the idea. If they want to completely remove Obsidian and get someone else to make it they can do that too. How can you say that equates to nothing to do with the way the game is made? I'll give you one example of a publisher getting involved. Microsoft didn't want the chainsaw bayonete in Gears of War. Epic thought for a while they might have to remove it. As far as I know Microsoft doesn't even own the GOW franchise. IDK, I could be wrong. Microsoft changed their mind after the chainsaw was shown at E3. I think you'll agree that would've been quite a big impact on the way the game turned out.
How so? Are you saying that publishers of external games are involved in the development of games after they agree to publish? What I'm saying is Bethesda have control over how this game turns out. If they want something changed, it'll get changed. If they want something added, it'll get added. If they want something removed....you get the idea. If they want to completely remove Obsidian and get someone else to make it they can do that too. How can you say that equates to nothing to do with the way the game is made? I'll give you one example of a publisher getting involved. Microsoft didn't want the chainsaw bayonete in Gears of War. Epic thought for a while they might have to remove it. As far as I know Microsoft doesn't even own the GOW franchise. IDK, I could be wrong. Microsoft changed their mind after the chainsaw was shown at E3. I think you'll agree that would've been quite a big impact on the way the game turned out.I don't think you understand how the developer and publisher agreement works. There is no micromanaging from the publisher nor nit picking after the initial deal. And your example is further proof that the publisher rarely even sees the product until the developer sends them the final product to go gold. Do you really think Bethesda being 2279 miles (3667 kilometers) from Obsidian is going to have much say in the development in Fallout New Vegas after the initial agreement? I sure don't and Bethesda likely won't see a demo until E3 like everyone else.
Have to jump in on the whole "Role of Publishers" argument. Yes, publishers DO have quite a bit of control over a game's development; they are, in essence, the boss. It's like at the company I used to work for, AMD. They would contract out various companies to make something for them, but they still had complete control, even though they weren't doing the actual "building". We would say, "Hey, this is what I want, this is how I want it to be, now go make it." That's the case with publisher/developer relationships in games and and in movies, too. It's naive to think that Bethesda, who owns the Fallout license, would just hire Obsidian to make THEIR game with little or no oversight. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive.
[QUOTE="x-2tha-z"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]How so? Are you saying that publishers of external games are involved in the development of games after they agree to publish? KC_Hokie
What I'm saying is Bethesda have control over how this game turns out. If they want something changed, it'll get changed. If they want something added, it'll get added. If they want something removed....you get the idea. If they want to completely remove Obsidian and get someone else to make it they can do that too. How can you say that equates to nothing to do with the way the game is made? I'll give you one example of a publisher getting involved. Microsoft didn't want the chainsaw bayonete in Gears of War. Epic thought for a while they might have to remove it. As far as I know Microsoft doesn't even own the GOW franchise. IDK, I could be wrong. Microsoft changed their mind after the chainsaw was shown at E3. I think you'll agree that would've been quite a big impact on the way the game turned out.I don't think you understand how the developer and publisher agreement works. There is no micromanaging from the publisher nor nit picking after the initial deal. And your example is further proof that the publisher rarely even sees the product until the developer sends them the final product to go gold. Do you really think Bethesda being 2279 miles (3667 kilometers) from Obsidian is going to have much say in the development in Fallout New Vegas after the initial agreement? I sure don't and Bethesda likely won't see a demo until E3 like everyone else. I never said there was "micromanaging" or "nitpicking". How can you say my example is proof of the developer having nothing to do with development? Are you reading the same thing I posted? Look, I'm sick of talking to you. You're obviously an intellectually challenged individual who thinks he's right if he gets the last post. I'm not going to debate this with you all night. It's pointless. No doubt you'll quote this post then make another comment, pretending you understand the subject matter. You're right. Congratulations.
Have to jump in on the whole "Role of Publishers" argument. Yes, publishers DO have quite a bit of control over a game's development; they are, in essence, the boss. It's like at the company I used to work for, AMD. They would contract out various companies to make something for them, but they still had complete control, even though they weren't doing the actual "building". We would say, "Hey, this is what I want, this is how I want it to be, now go make it." That's the case with publisher/developer relationships in games and and in movies, too. It's naive to think that Bethesda, who owns the Fallout license, would just hire Obsidian to make THEIR game with little or no oversight. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive.
SidetableDrawer
Except I've seen the legal documents for games and the developers get creative control of their product. This is also true with most directors for films. I'm sure Bethesda gave Obsidian a few rules in the initial agreement, but won't interfere with Obsidian's creative control and won't see anything until E3 like everyone else.
[QUOTE="x-2tha-z"] What I'm saying is Bethesda have control over how this game turns out. If they want something changed, it'll get changed. If they want something added, it'll get added. If they want something removed....you get the idea. If they want to completely remove Obsidian and get someone else to make it they can do that too. How can you say that equates to nothing to do with the way the game is made? I'll give you one example of a publisher getting involved. Microsoft didn't want the chainsaw bayonete in Gears of War. Epic thought for a while they might have to remove it. As far as I know Microsoft doesn't even own the GOW franchise. IDK, I could be wrong. Microsoft changed their mind after the chainsaw was shown at E3. I think you'll agree that would've been quite a big impact on the way the game turned out.x-2tha-z
I don't think you understand how the developer and publisher agreement works. There is no micromanaging from the publisher nor nit picking after the initial deal. And your example is further proof that the publisher rarely even sees the product until the developer sends them the final product to go gold. Do you really think Bethesda being 2279 miles (3667 kilometers) from Obsidian is going to have much say in the development in Fallout New Vegas after the initial agreement? I sure don't and Bethesda likely won't see a demo until E3 like everyone else. I never said there was "micromanaging" or "nitpicking". How can you say my example is proof of the developer having nothing to do with development? Are you reading the same thing I posted? Look, I'm sick of talking to you. You're obviously an intellectually challenged individual who thinks he's right if he gets the last post. I'm not going to debate this with you all night. It's pointless. No doubt you'll quote this post then make another comment, pretending you understand the subject matter. You're right. Congratulations.The example you cited is further proof that the developer often gets the final say in creative issues due to the initial contract signed. No developer wants to be told how to make a game half way into development and contracts protect them.
Except I've seen the legal documents for games and the developers get creative control of their product. This is also true with most directors for films. I'm sure Bethesda gave Obsidian a few rules in the initial agreement, but won't interfere with Obsidian's creative control and won't see anything until E3 like everyone else. KC_Hokie
You're totally right and wrong. The amount of creative control is determined in a legal agreement for sure, but very few developers, film directors, etc. get complete creative control. Hell, Oliver Stone didn't even get final cut for ALEXANDER (hence its subsequent director's cuts) and he won an Oscar for crying out loud. It's very rare that a publisher or film studio give ANYONE final cut or total creative control. I know from my time at AMD that every thing we outsourced for development was under constant survellaince from our people so as to insure that it met our specifications and standards. It's the same for any other business, and I see no reason why Bethesda would buck that trend to give Obsidian complete creative control. You fellas are naive or just don't know how business works...I'm in my 30's, and even though I'm a school teacher now, I worked in this business for many years and this is standard business practice. No company is going to outsource a highly sought-out IP to a developer and give them the laissez-faire "hands off" treatment (unless your last name is Spielberg). It just doesn't happen. And for you to say that it doesn't happen in film shows your ignorance on the subject. Virtually nobody gets final cut. That's why you see so many director's cut come out on DVD. And the film studio never just gives a director a 100m budget and lets them do whatever they want unsupervised (ever hear of a script supervisor?). The suits are constantly on set monitoring things, the same way I'm sure Bethesda has been monitoring FALLOUT NEW VEGAS. For you to say that Bethesda, who is paying Obsidian to develop the game and is funding its creation, won't see anything on it until the rest of us do at something like E3 is the most ludicrous statement I've read on here in a long time. How old are you, 18? 19?
[QUOTE="x-2tha-z"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]I don't think you understand how the developer and publisher agreement works. There is no micromanaging from the publisher nor nit picking after the initial deal. And your example is further proof that the publisher rarely even sees the product until the developer sends them the final product to go gold. Do you really think Bethesda being 2279 miles (3667 kilometers) from Obsidian is going to have much say in the development in Fallout New Vegas after the initial agreement? I sure don't and Bethesda likely won't see a demo until E3 like everyone else.
KC_Hokie
I never said there was "micromanaging" or "nitpicking". How can you say my example is proof of the developer having nothing to do with development? Are you reading the same thing I posted? Look, I'm sick of talking to you. You're obviously an intellectually challenged individual who thinks he's right if he gets the last post. I'm not going to debate this with you all night. It's pointless. No doubt you'll quote this post then make another comment, pretending you understand the subject matter. You're right. Congratulations.The example you cited is further proof that the developer often gets the final say in creative issues due to the initial contract signed. No it isn't. It's an example of a developer having to remove a major gameplay feature because the publisher didn't like it. The publisher then changed their mind because everyone loved it after it was shown at E3. It had nothing to do with the contract. What's wrong with you? You're that worried about being proved wrong in a forum discussion that you'll try to spin anything rather than admit you have no clue about what you're talking about?
Except I've seen the legal documents for games and the developers get creative control of their product. This is also true with most directors for films. I'm sure Bethesda gave Obsidian a few rules in the initial agreement, but won't interfere with Obsidian's creative control and won't see anything until E3 like everyone else. SidetableDrawer
You're totally right and wrong. The amount of creative control is determined in a legal agreement for sure, but very few developers, film directors, etc. get complete creative control. Hell, Oliver Stone didn't even get final cut for ALEXANDER (hence its subsequent director's cuts) and he won an Oscar for crying out loud. It's very rare that a publisher or film studio give ANYONE final cut or total creative control. I know from my time at AMD that every thing we outsourced for development was under constant survellaince from our people so as to insure that it met our specifications and standards. It's the same for any other business, and I see no reason why Bethesda would buck that trend to give Obsidian complete creative control. You fellas are naive or just don't know how business works...I'm in my 30's, and even though I'm a school teacher now, I worked in this business for many years and this is standard business practice. No company is going to outsource a highly sought-out IP to a developer and give them the laissez-faire "hands off" treatment (unless your last name is Spielberg). It just doesn't happen. And for you to say that it doesn't happen in film shows your ignorance on the subject. Virtually nobody gets final cut. That's why you see so many director's cut come out on DVD. And the film studio never just gives a director a 100m budget and lets them do whatever they want unsupervised (ever hear of a script supervisor?). The suits are constantly on set monitoring things, the same way I'm sure Bethesda has been monitoring FALLOUT NEW VEGAS. For you to say that Bethesda, who is paying Obsidian to develop the game and is funding its creation, won't see anything on it until the rest of us do at something like E3 is the most ludicrous statement I've read on here in a long time. How old are you, 18? 19?
I kind of doubt that Three Dog and Galaxy News Radio would be in it. Seeing how His broadcasts barely have enough signal strength to get across Washington D.C.. Let alone all the way on the other side of the country like Las Vegas. But you never know maybe they'll find a bigger radio building that has more range or, He just may decide to pack up and move to New Vegas.
Shika_Stoner
I highly doubt that Three Dog will be heard/seen in the new Fallout world because.....well i killed him. muhuhahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
lol, finally an on-topic post. I would keep the DJ of radio station like Galaxy News though because I like hearing him update about how I terrorized the wasteland. Muhuhahahaha indeed. Looks like Little Lamplight got what they deserved!!!
[QUOTE="x-2tha-z"]Obsidian is developing it. Bethesda is the publisher. Bethesda own the Fallout license now.x-2tha-z
Publishers have nothing to do with the gameplay just to let you guys know lol...you write a book I publish but It doesn't mean I had anything to do with how the book came out.
I know publishers don't make the game. That's why I said Obsidian was developing it. But you're wrong about publishers having nothing to do with gameplay. Publishers provide guidance on how they want the game to turn out. What did you think, that Bethesda would just let Obsidian make the game however they wanted? Lol. Seeing how this is gonna be Obsidian, hopefully it doesn't take a fantasy twist. (i.e OMG, Elder Lyons is flying!!)
Hopefully it will be a bit less bug ridden than KotOR II was. Still I loved that game even though some do not seem to, even if it wasnt the classic that the first was. I dont really expect Obsidian to reinvent the wheel here so to speak, so I expect it to feel pretty similar to FO3. Gambling for caps would be pretty fun, hopefully we get a nice stream of DLC like Bethesda did with FO3.
I would look at it having a relation similar to GTA: Vice City to GTA3. Basically the same engine but with expanded features and a brand new storyline. Perhaps we'll see some more cameos from characters of the first two games given the proximity of Vegas to California.
I would look at it having a relation similar to GTA: Vice City to GTA3. Basically the same engine but with expanded features and a brand new storyline. Perhaps we'll see some more cameos from characters of the first two games given the proximity of Vegas to California.sLiPz1984
That would be nice but then again, your Fallout 3 character could have killed those cameos. I know Three Dog wont be traveling to Las Vegas... because I killed the son of a b****. (>_
It will use the same engine as Fallout 3, and gameplay will be basically the same also.
Obsidian has made KotOR 2, Neverwinter Nights 2, and is now working on New Vegas as well as Alpha Protocol. The game will take place in Las Vegas (obviously), though when is anyones guess right now.
Log in to comment