woo1108 said:No I didn't mean Wasteland is best.
just saying it's hard to say Fallout 1 is best game ever.
plus Fallout 1 itself isn't good sequel too for many aspect.
whatever spiritual successor or just sequel, it's sequel.
and I have to study English more
don't think it's idiotic comparasion since both are same genre. and Fallout1 is kind of sequel of Wasteland.
Fallout 4 - What's The Big Secret?
- Thread starter Dienan
- Start date
And what? Diablo 2 is a direct sequel to Torchlight and R.A.W? Just because Wasteland and Fallout share similarities that doesn't mean it's a sequal of the former. That's plain stupid.woo1108 said:
Just to let you guys know, English isn't my first language.
After reading here and there, I say I'd love to see an isomatic view Fallout again. A modern game in the same setting. Anyway by adding a time limit to the game and little force make you manage time. Go to the hub, don't take caravan jobs, don't hang out in the Junk town for too long because you're there for a task. It keeps you in the rail and makes you feel this isn't just a time counter going up.. In FNV, I totally gave up the revenge and started helping people out of kindness. I've never played a eveil character (building one or not building one is your choice) and I just don't see the point because you're making the world far better by making almost everyone kill you. Even by the neutral guys. After fixing the balance they should add the inability to ID someone in power armor unless self ID'd by that person him self. Otherwise, there's no way nobody would've ever known that I've killed Ulysses the crazed with a weapon based on German mathematics LOL
Actually the Interplay was planning to make remake of Wasteland not Fallout. but since EA has the copyright of Wasteland they couldn't so they change their plan to make original game.
but they use huge amount of things from Wasteland.
so it can't even called sequel of Wasteland but remake of Wasteland.
but they use huge amount of things from Wasteland.
so it can't even called sequel of Wasteland but remake of Wasteland.
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
Fallout is not a sequel to Wasteland at all, and being of the same genre doesn't mean one is a sequel to the other, mostly because they were different in what kind of rpg they were. This "Fallout 1 is a sequel to Wasteland" thing you keep repeatign everywhere makes no sense woo, they are not sequels, Fallout 1 started as a remake of wasteland in GURPS, but then they went on to a lot of desgn changes, the game even had magic at one point.
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
Spiritual Succesor just means is trying to follow on the spirit or intention of something without being a continuation, so no, it's not a sequel, they play differently, they have completely different lore, tone and world too. So I don't even see how Fallout 1 could be considered a sequel to Wasteland...
That's like saying Quantum Conundrum is the Sequel to Portal 2...
That's like saying Quantum Conundrum is the Sequel to Portal 2...
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
Uh. no. The story is very different, the only thing they have in common is that it's post-apoc.... The background, characters, limitations and rules, characters and everything is completely different.
There are references to it in FO1 but they are just that, references, just like the Tardis and the Godzilla footprint.
And being from the same company has nothing to do with anything, unless you believe that Team Fortress 2 is a sequel of Half Life because they share assets and engine and are from the same company. Your reasoning makes no sense Woo.
There are references to it in FO1 but they are just that, references, just like the Tardis and the Godzilla footprint.
And being from the same company has nothing to do with anything, unless you believe that Team Fortress 2 is a sequel of Half Life because they share assets and engine and are from the same company. Your reasoning makes no sense Woo.
Oh, in Wasteland (game) you get kicked out of a air craft instead of a vault to find an air cleaner chip to save its pilots from suffocation by breathing little mushrooms in the air? Dude, stop that already. My own thread is de-raild by me and please, let's not continue this and foucs on the title of the topic. Thanks for the extra talk all the same..woo1108 said:
story is just wrapping.
basic structure of game is too similar.
it's not just references, too much similar.
I can't say clearly with english but explain
both two. the cover looks different and add some
optional flesh but the bone and DNA is same.
It's more then son and father but original and clone+adiitional parts.
they looks different because they lived different age and
different rule but actually they are alike.
anyway. for Fo4, I guess beth made something
but I'm not sure it's fo4 or tes 6.
I rather want tes6 then fo4 though.
or I just don't want them to make more POS.
One thing I curious about is why you make this thread in
NV index? there's a "Future Fallout Game Discussion" index.
basic structure of game is too similar.
it's not just references, too much similar.
I can't say clearly with english but explain
both two. the cover looks different and add some
optional flesh but the bone and DNA is same.
It's more then son and father but original and clone+adiitional parts.
they looks different because they lived different age and
different rule but actually they are alike.
anyway. for Fo4, I guess beth made something
but I'm not sure it's fo4 or tes 6.
I rather want tes6 then fo4 though.
or I just don't want them to make more POS.
One thing I curious about is why you make this thread in
NV index? there's a "Future Fallout Game Discussion" index.
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
Is that the "Pissy fanboy" blog or something?
George32027
First time out of the vault
that's what I meant when I said ''fake news gaming sites''. You can easily tell it's fake, talking only and about unlikely releases of unannounced titles (Half Life 3? Mass Effect 4? seriously?)
Those sites only exist to lure people desperately in need of news. :/
Those sites only exist to lure people desperately in need of news. :/
Oppen
FIXT n°1 fan
woo1108 said:
I fully disagree. Story is a core piece, IMO.
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
To cut back to the previous conversation, it would appear that the answer is: No, woo does NOT understand what it means to be a "spiritual successor".
Consider this, woo. Dark Souls is the spiritual successor to Demon's Souls. They're made by the same company, they use almost identical mechanics, the engine (as far as I know) is the same, and despite the successor using the same "currency" for purchases and character leveling, unlike the previous title, it has no logical reason for this. Maybe that's because they're the same thing? No. It was clarified from the beginning, before the game was even out, that Dark Souls was not a sequel, it was a spiritual successor. No amount of identical game mechanics changed this. What determined that it was no sequel was the COMPLETELY SEPARATE UNIVERSE it was set in. In Demon's Souls, there was a lore-based, canonical reason that Souls were the universal currency, used both to purchase items as well as level your character. Dark Souls? No, they never came up with a reason, they just kept it that way, rather than reinvent the wheel. They left that as it was for simplicity's sake; it was an aspect that players would be familiar with, so why bother changing it? But the setting wasn't the same, the plight wasn't the same, the lore wasn't the same. Dark Souls and Demon's Souls did NOT overlap in any respect relative to their narrative. They had a few cameo characters reference the previous title, but that's all they were, cameos. It was still not a tie-in declaring that the title was a sequel.
Fallout 2 was a sequel to Fallout not because it had the same name with a sequential number tacked on, but because it was set in the same universe, following in the footsteps of the same story. It was a continuation of the previous game, no a reboot, not a separate game utilizing the same assets but set in a different universe. It was the same universe, 80 years later. That's what made it a sequel.
Bioshock is another fine example of spiritual succession to System Shock (and more recently, Bioshock: Infinite to Bioshock, itself!) They kept part of the name in the title to act as a call-back to their predecessor game(s), but they were separate series. There was no direct connection to the game universe between the titles, despite being from the same developers. But they maintained the same theme and tone in storytelling, which is why they were spiritual successors. They didn't take a survival horror themed first person shooter role playing game and decide to make third person action game and say it was a spiritual successor. They made another first person shooter role playing game (albeit with toned-down role playing elements) with a strong survival horror theme. It played out very similar, so much so that some reviews like Yahtzee stated, "[Bioshock] isn't 'like' System Shock 2, it 'is' System Shock 2." But that made it a spiritual successor. It followed in the themes and tones of its predecessor, but it DID NOT carry on the story and was not set in the same universe.
Games are made as spiritual successors versus direct sequels for all sorts of different reasons. In Fallout's case it was legal, because they could not use the Wasteland IP at the time because it was held by EA, and in Bioshock's case it was artistic license, since they intended to tell another story, not bind their new ideas to an existing setting they'd worked in before. Yes, Tycho's description of his father's group sounded like the Desert Rangers of Wasteland, but that was a callback to the game, not a direct tie-in.
Your opinion doesn't have an impact of what is and isn't. Fallout isn't a sequel to Wasteland because you think it is. It just isn't.
Consider this, woo. Dark Souls is the spiritual successor to Demon's Souls. They're made by the same company, they use almost identical mechanics, the engine (as far as I know) is the same, and despite the successor using the same "currency" for purchases and character leveling, unlike the previous title, it has no logical reason for this. Maybe that's because they're the same thing? No. It was clarified from the beginning, before the game was even out, that Dark Souls was not a sequel, it was a spiritual successor. No amount of identical game mechanics changed this. What determined that it was no sequel was the COMPLETELY SEPARATE UNIVERSE it was set in. In Demon's Souls, there was a lore-based, canonical reason that Souls were the universal currency, used both to purchase items as well as level your character. Dark Souls? No, they never came up with a reason, they just kept it that way, rather than reinvent the wheel. They left that as it was for simplicity's sake; it was an aspect that players would be familiar with, so why bother changing it? But the setting wasn't the same, the plight wasn't the same, the lore wasn't the same. Dark Souls and Demon's Souls did NOT overlap in any respect relative to their narrative. They had a few cameo characters reference the previous title, but that's all they were, cameos. It was still not a tie-in declaring that the title was a sequel.
Fallout 2 was a sequel to Fallout not because it had the same name with a sequential number tacked on, but because it was set in the same universe, following in the footsteps of the same story. It was a continuation of the previous game, no a reboot, not a separate game utilizing the same assets but set in a different universe. It was the same universe, 80 years later. That's what made it a sequel.
Bioshock is another fine example of spiritual succession to System Shock (and more recently, Bioshock: Infinite to Bioshock, itself!) They kept part of the name in the title to act as a call-back to their predecessor game(s), but they were separate series. There was no direct connection to the game universe between the titles, despite being from the same developers. But they maintained the same theme and tone in storytelling, which is why they were spiritual successors. They didn't take a survival horror themed first person shooter role playing game and decide to make third person action game and say it was a spiritual successor. They made another first person shooter role playing game (albeit with toned-down role playing elements) with a strong survival horror theme. It played out very similar, so much so that some reviews like Yahtzee stated, "[Bioshock] isn't 'like' System Shock 2, it 'is' System Shock 2." But that made it a spiritual successor. It followed in the themes and tones of its predecessor, but it DID NOT carry on the story and was not set in the same universe.
Games are made as spiritual successors versus direct sequels for all sorts of different reasons. In Fallout's case it was legal, because they could not use the Wasteland IP at the time because it was held by EA, and in Bioshock's case it was artistic license, since they intended to tell another story, not bind their new ideas to an existing setting they'd worked in before. Yes, Tycho's description of his father's group sounded like the Desert Rangers of Wasteland, but that was a callback to the game, not a direct tie-in.
Your opinion doesn't have an impact of what is and isn't. Fallout isn't a sequel to Wasteland because you think it is. It just isn't.
I can't say it's exactly a sequel but it's more than spiritual succesor. I just don't know how to express it.
what I exactly say is Fallout is sequel>Fallout>spiritual successor of Wasteland. I know what spiritual sucessor is but relation between Wasteland and Fallout isn't that simple.
it's close to remake too. but not exactly remake. kind of remake I guess.
what I exactly say is Fallout is sequel>Fallout>spiritual successor of Wasteland. I know what spiritual sucessor is but relation between Wasteland and Fallout isn't that simple.
it's close to remake too. but not exactly remake. kind of remake I guess.
Snap gave a very nice explanation because you were standing on your own tail. Now, since your IN is too low you keep doing the same circle.. Before an admin takes this thread down, I suggest we all move on with the original topic.. Thanks everyone!woo1108 said:
Oppen
FIXT n°1 fan
I think I know what you mean, woo. Is it related to the fact they wanted to make a sequel, but EA having the copyright forced them to make a spiritual successor instead?
it's more closer to remake.
lots of main features are too simialr to be sequel or spiritual succesor. but I heard they couldn't make sequel of Wasteland because of EA.
I think we don't need this thread since there are already thread about fo4.
and if you didn't played Fo1 or Wasteland just shut up and play these two.
lots of main features are too simialr to be sequel or spiritual succesor. but I heard they couldn't make sequel of Wasteland because of EA.
and you are too lazy or stupid enough to write future Fallout article at NV index huh?Dienan said:
I think we don't need this thread since there are already thread about fo4.
and if you didn't played Fo1 or Wasteland just shut up and play these two.