Van Buren in IGN's top cancelled games

Brother None

Brother None

This ghoul has seen it all
Orderite
The IGN PlayStation Team (what?) penned a top 10 "Cancelled Games We Wish Were Released". Number 3:<blockquote>The codename for the original Fallout 3 (you know, the one crafted by the Black Isle Studios developers) was, for many years, the stuff of legend. Oh, it existed, as made obvious by the fact that, fairly recently, a tech demo for the halted work-in-progress version of things was leaked that stood in marked contrast to the official version that Bethesda was already hard at work and trucking along on, but it was far from complete.

Even still, the heady mix of nostalgia and honest-to-goodness pedigree that Black Isle had built up before folding when Interplay took a nosedive made for plenty of "what-ifs." The tech demo made it clear the game still had far to go, but we can't help wondering what would have happened had everything fallen into place. If the core design team was still working on things, if the game was a proper sequel to Fallout 2, if Interplay had the financial muscle to really push the game like Bethesda did. Unfortunately, just like all those ifs, the Van Buren version of Fallout 3 exists only as a possibility. </blockquote>Thanks kumquatq3.
 
I wonder how many users feel like shit after reading that.

Dammit...I want to play a game that never exists mostly becuase Ceasar's Legion is such a bad ass Idea AND THEY ARE NOT EVEN IN THE GAME!

Kinda like Boba Fett. Who is a Bad ass charecter and is all movies a total of 4 minutes.
 
[possiblederail]

I remember some modders trying to build Van Buren from that tech-demo and design notes... Any news about it?

[/possiblederail]
 
The tech demo made it clear the game still had far to go
Click to expand...

The tech demo wasn't very indicative of the state of the game on the cancellation day, was it now?
 
if Interplay had the financial muscle to really push the game like Bethesda did
Click to expand...

Yes, Bethesda pushed it "only" financialy...

It's pretty weird that an article about a pure PC game, is being written by a console team?
Maybe soon Brits will be voting for a president in USA?
 
The last time I loaded up the Van Buren tech demo and saw the Fallout 3 menu screen, the mixture of anger and sadness was too much.
 
Van Buren wasn't a proper Fallout game and I was happy it didn't manifest into anything complete. But compared to what we got from Bethesda, it's a no brainer which one would've been better game and more Fallout-y.
 
Why do you consider it "not a proper Fallout game"? I'd say it was going to be more of a Fallout game than Fallout 2.
 
Ausir said:
Why do you consider it "not a proper Fallout game"? I'd say it was going to be more of a Fallout game than Fallout 2.
Click to expand...

how's that? it would have pretty ugly 3D graphic, it'd have real-time combat, the SPECIAL system was going to change, etc.

I would have loved playing Van Buren but I'm not so sure it would be the perfect Fallout game everyone thought it would be.
 
how's that? it would have pretty ugly 3D graphic
Click to expand...

The graphics in the final product would definitely be better than in the tech demo. They might be ugly in the final version too (we'll never know), but graphics are not my top priority anyway.

it'd have real-time combat
Click to expand...

Optional, with the default option being turn-based (i.e. the reverse of Tactics).

the SPECIAL system was going to change, etc.
Click to expand...

Some of the changes were for the better (some were IMHO for the worse, but generally I think the system as a whole would make more sense than in FO1 and 2).

And it would definitely be better than Fallout 2 in terms of the setting - the locations were not theme towns like in FO2, the design was consistent with the retro style (no real world weapons), Presper was a more interesting villain than the Enclave.

I would have loved playing Van Buren but I'm not so sure it would be the perfect Fallout game everyone thought it would be.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it would be perfect. It had its flaws. I'm just saying that it would likely be better than Fallout 2 (but not Fallout 1).
 
story- and setting-wise it would probably more in style with Fallout and maybe it would be a more fun game than Fallout 2. but when I checked out the tech demo I didn't feel like I was playing a Fallout game at all. Fallout Tactics gave me better Fallout vibes.
 
The tech demo was something cobbled together to demonstrate the engine to the suits before the game was even greenlit. Much of the art there was placeholders and the gameplay (especially combat) had nothing to do with the final version, and was simply taken from Jefferson (Baldur's Gate 3), which also used the same engine.

The default combat mode was going to be turn-based, and the real-time mode was going to be the "continuous turn-based" from Fallout Tactics.
 
so... nothing about the tech-demo actually says anything about Van Buren? what was the point of it then?

but yeah, enough of this... Van Buren would have been as awesome game and it's a shame it was never finished. let's leave it at that. ;)
 
so... nothing about the tech-demo actually says anything about Van Buren? what was the point of it then?
Click to expand...

The point was to demonstrate the general capabilities of the engine and the general look of the game (although the graphics would of course be improved during the development) to people who decided whether to greenlit the game or not.
 
Public said:
It's pretty weird that an article about a pure PC game, is being written by a console team?
Maybe soon Brits will be voting for a president in USA?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing it's probably just them riding off the coattails of Fallout 3's popularity by covering the OTHER fallout 3. Otherwise, it makes no sense.
 
so what, because they usually cover PS3 games they're not allowed to talk about PC games?
 
No, it's just weird that it was published only in the PS3 section and not as a general IGN article.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top