It is also important to me that a sequel stay similar if not the same to it's origins.
Except, that we are talking about games, and not movies. You can't tell me that
gameplay isn't an important factor for video games. You like MGS, as far as I can tell. Would Metal Gear Solid be as fun, if it was, let us say, exactly done like Angry Birds? Keep all the writing and story. Just a
simple change in gameplay. Or Quake done with the gameplay of Candy Crush?
A change from top down and turn based gameplay to a first person real time combat really is hardly a negligible change!
And you can easily see that when comparing the gameplay of New Vegas directly to Fallout 1/2, like the combat. This change can be so heavy, that some people can't even play the game! Just ask someone (Alec mentioned that once I think?) suffering from motion sickness, and actually can't get into FPS games due tue some condition that makes them nauseous, because FPS games, including F:NV, contain fast paced combat. And now you're telling me, it's similar for
you ... which is not what I argue, I do NOT argue against your perception, I am just arguing that for the definition of Fallout, the GAMEPLAY is AT LEAST(!) as IMPORTANT like the story and the setting. For you and a couple others here, it might be enough for a game to do what F:NV did. But for me, and aparantly the original developers of Fallout 1, it isnt. Which is shown by the fact that they decided for top down/TB combat very early in the design process.
The transition from turn based/top down to real time/FPS, it's not just a small thing, like merging doctor with first aid. It is a pretty heavy change. At least as heavy like what Tactics is to Fallout 1 and 2. Tactics is neither a true Sequel, despite the fact that it is in many ways similar to Fallout 1 and 2. But it simply doesn't continue the game where it counts.
Gizmo said:
[TABLE="width: 800"]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Fallout 1[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Fallout 2[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]New Vegas[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
To say gameplay doesn't matter is akin to say that story/setting doesnt matter!
Obsidian has done the same thing Bethesda did. Has Obsidian done a much better job with it? Absolutely! They created a splendid game in those 18 months of development, worthy to be called a FALLOUT game. But it is nonetheless a shift in gameplay.
A game in first person, simply can never ever be a true sequel to Fallout. The reason for this is very simple. It's not the same gameplay. A gameplay that was chosen for a reason. I don't get it why people, including you, always dodge this.
Why have the developers of Fallout 1 chosen turn based and top down and not first person and real time combat? And why have they chosen to follow this with Fallout 2, and Van Buren? Why going trough all of that. Simple. Because with video games, gameplay is NOT a negligible thing.
Take Fallout 2 as example. Fallout 2 is a
true sequel to Fallout 1, as it follows ALL the characteristics of Fallout 1 and THEN some. If Fallout 2 looked like this, with FPS and real time combat,
It could never ever be a true sequel to Fallout 1, even if it had the exact same writing, story, quests, characters, that Fallout 2 has now. It's simply not the same gameplay. And how can
gameplay not matter in a video
game. - Seriously, it's part of the name. One strong characterisation of a video game is the interactivity.
A first person shooter can not be a real sequel to Fallout 1 and 2, just as how a turn based/top down game can not be a true sequel to a first person shooter with real time combat, as it works both ways!
Would really anyone here accept this:
as a sequel to this?
As before I revert to mentioning Super Mario Brothers.
(...)
Did changing the series from 2D to 3D change the game? Is Super Mario 64 a spinoff or the next entry in the series? How about Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island? It was a sequel to Super Mario World but technically a prequel. Your definition is very loose as in you pick and choose when it applies.
Ever heard about “The exception [that] proves the rule”? We are after all, not talking about something like math or physics here.
Hence why I said, that I decide from case to case. But only very very few franchises are as broad like Super Mario or if you want Sonic. I agree with you, that it can get really wonky sometimes. But this kind of transition we are talking about in particular, is very rare with games! You have to give me that much. Like what happend from Commandos 3 to Commandos 4, where ALL the previous Commandos games have been top down games and Commandos 4 a first person shooter.
Remember the bitter sobs that moved trough this community when the first X-Com videos have been released,
with FPS combat? And what relief it was when the developers/publisher thankfully decided to follow a more
traditional X-Com approach? - Which actually ended up as a rather succesfull game after all. Succesfull enough to get some DLC/addon and a sequel even!
It just doesn't always work like that which is why you get sequels to movies and games that suck, or are so drastically different from their predecessors that the fanbase revolts.
Why? Why doesn't it work like that. It aparantly worked pretty fine for Fallout 2! Is there some law of science that says a developer can't create a Fallout 3 that is not top down and turn based? Or that Obsidian could not have done it with New Vegas, if Bethesda wasn't forcing it down their throat? They decided to follow a different approach with Pillars of Eternity after all. Of course! You can not sell a game like Fallout 2 to 30 million gamers, I guess. But we are not talking about such considerations here anyway!