What if Fallout "4"..

[TorontoReign]

Especially since the original 2 games weren't "that good" without the awesome work from the community like the restoration project?

Kinda like Fallout 3 wasn't that good without mods? Most games are made better with mods or patches. You mean games can improve by people polishing unfinished work?

Then the obvious question, why don't just make a new game instead of rehashing an old one?

Because as i said before. Most people wants the timeline to go on and a Fallout without all the things that made Fallout what it is would not be so great. Sure you could make a game happening around the time of F1-F2 but then they might just step on the lore and people would complain as usual.

Fallout can still visit other places within the timeline of the original. It can't step on lore if it takes place in Texas, Seattle, Montana, Florida - Pretty much everywhere else in the United States minus California, D.C, and Arizona. Revisiting the old locations might make more sense if done AFTER F1 and F2. I would rather expand upon the lore rather than rehash it. I guess I'm just complaining as usual. It's not like Fallout is my favorite RPG series or anything. Maybe I should just keep my opinions to myself for fear of bothering someone...

And I an still waiting for an explanation what exactly is so outdated in Fallouts gameplay.

Lets see where should i start?

Melee: Basicly you are slamming your hammer 1 way over and over in hope of getting a crit and sometimes "crits included here!" your target falls down! Facinating to do this over and over for the entire game!

Unarmed: Well well what do we have here? Special attacks!.. That you actually don't use because you can't use them when having a fist weapon equiped.. And even without it you will prolly use that strong punch/kick 99% of the game anyways.. Not repeatable at all!

Guns: Same thing here. Just click on the target and hope for a crit.. Or unless you are going with small guns then you can actually target certain parts!.. But you will allways aim for the head/eyes anyways!

Throw: This is really something!.. That you will never use? Really awesome that they put a combat skill in game that you can't use efficently at all.

Non combat things.

Companions: If you ever played with x companions then started a solo game you will never want to use them again.. Unless you need a pack mule. Not only do you have to talk to them.. Then enter a menu to tell them not to use than spear they had in their inventory but use the awesome gun they actually got? And now that you are done with that you can't just continue the game you actually have to "slowly" click back twice! At least new vegas fixed this really well compared to all the previous games.

Speech!
The same crappy speech checks that F3 had. Basicly it can still fail if you have the right ammount of speech and it it does just reload and try again.. But F2 actually had "1?" speech check that worked decently! And i'm obviously talking about Officer Jack in NCR! And that's it.

Map!.
Honnestly. Have you ever used the map? I can say that i never did since the map is useless and with the overview you get there is no need for it.

The world!
Going over a "map" and then enter a town without seeing anything of the surronding area feels really RP'ish. Who needs to see the world when you are thrown into the parts of the world where the next quest is?

Also! By reading trough the forums most of "you" wants the BOS/Enclave ETC gone from the game and focus more on the rebuilding instead of the original radiated wasteland? That sounds really fun...

You should learn one word. Logic.
BoS and Enclave in future games is unlogic.
Simple and obvious.

Also, actually F:NV/F3 is outdated because their system of character/fighting sucks, in comparing to old Fallouts.

Ahh yes. The BOS and Enclave just vanished from the face of the earth. And clicking twice with the mouse to kill someone is a "better" combat gameplay then actually having to aim whatever weapon you are using? I guess pong is your fauvorit sports game to since the new sport playstyles sucks so hard compared to the simple style of pong!

Seeing how the "Original" Fanbase thinkts that every game but the first one and "maybe" the second one is bad in one way or another and the slightest new thing will be crap no matter what.

And your logic about "Don't touch the old things!" is ruined by every modification to the ORIGINAL game/games.

Also! By reading trough the forums most of "you" wants the BOS/Enclave ETC gone from the game and focus more on the rebuilding instead of the original radiated wasteland? That sounds really fun...

How is my "Logic" ruined? one thing is a FAN MADE MOD that restores cut content or makes their own game with the assets, and another is making the exact same game in another engine because apparently Turn Based should be buried forever and replaced with First Person.

Also, just to clarify, New Vegas is my favorite Fallout game.

On another note i'm not saying that this idea is the next comming of christ but it was an idea and the responce i got was just what i was complaining about earlier. "Oldschool" fans with rosetinted glasses saying "In my days everything was better than now!"
Worst part is that i've been with "you" guys since 2000 ish and when i came back to these forums i was sickened by how much you guys complain about every new thing since Fallout 2 and nowdays most of you even complain about that game to.

Bullshit. How much have you read the forums ? "You" must want 'sploding heads, Nuclear 'splosion launching catapults, and "immursion", right? See how that works? Don't expect everyone to agree with you when you suggest something. People are nifty like that - We all have differing opinions on what makes Fallout great. The BoS and Enclave should not play a major role since they're practically wiped out. You want more of the same factions? Why not introduce new factions? Who wants the same fucking factions over and over again? I tell you who – Uncreative people.

Why revisit old plot-lines anyway when so much can be done with new ones? It's not a horrible idea, but the way it was said was pretty assholish. Assuming that the entire NMA community is one way, is pretty fucking stupid, and it gets old after awhile. Most of your complaints about the originals are all based on graphics. You act as if the combat in the originals is inferior to Fallout 3. I guess you prefer Raiders charging at you with poolsticks while repeating the same dialog over and over again. You can always just eat some Cram to regain health if the kamikaze Raiders do hit you, so Fallout 3 has that tactical advantage that the originals never had. Yeah, aiming without having sights is so superior to isometric combat too. Why not completely remove all RPG elements from the game while we are at it? How did Fallout 1 and 2 have the same speech checks as Fallout 3? Fallout 3 hardly had any skill checks at all anyway when compared to the older titles and even New Vegas. A RPG game feeling too RP'ish? Yeah that sounds horrible.

No one denies that the originals had issues, but most of them are fixed with one mod, as opposed to needing over 80 to make Fallout 3 playable. I honestly hope Bethesda knocks Fallout 4 out of the park, so I would prefer if they focused on that.

Don't missunderstand, Walp. I want to see new FO games too--but in between games, I don't think it would hurt to remake the older ones. But the key is *so long as they don't screw it up* which is expecting a lot from Bethesda, I think. I love FO3, but I CAN see it's flaws. New Vegas was much better, and now I know why--Obsidion was involved with that one, according to what I've read. A remake would be much better by them, but even NV wasn't without its flaws.

Like I said though, in between 'main' fallout games, as long as they still work on those too, I don't see the problem in remakin the older games.

There's no reason they couldn't farm out FO1 and 2 remakes to Obsidian while they work on the new games

I would definitely like that if it was handled properly, but Bethesda treated Obsidian pretty shitty with New Vegas, so it might not work out.

 

[pyroD]

Actually, and I don't mean to interrupt your argument, but I personally would love to see the originals remade. As long as its a replica not a movie style remake, like willy wonka or king kong.

 

[Walpknut]

No I wouldn't like Obsidian getting shafted by remaking old games while bethesda makes another Fallout 3.

 

[Ohaimerk]

As long as its a replica not a movie style remake, like willy wonka or king kong.

Or fallout 3

 

[Oppen]

I think it's not a bad idea. I'd rather play the old ones anyway, but because I suck at shooters.
Most people nowadays can't really enjoy the old school games because they are not used to the graphics nor the game mechanics. As long as they don't mess the plot nor the dialogs, I think it's a good idea to allow them to understand much of the fallout lore.

 

[Makta]

As someone who got into the series through fallout 3 and hasn't played the originals I would like to see them updated and re released on consoles



Yeah yeah I know I'm a noob flame away

I bolded the only true reason for flame..!

I figured that would do it lol, but a good gaming PC is out of my budget for the forseeable future I gotta roll with the xbox for now

Well if you didn't buy an xbox it would not cost that much more to get a good PC!

Kinda like Fallout 3 wasn't that good without mods? Most games are made better with mods or patches. You mean games can improve by people polishing unfinished work?

I was aiming this toward people that "compare" a modded F2 vs the unmodded F3. Both game needed a "few" modifications before being good!

Fallout can still visit other places within the timeline of the original. It can't step on lore if it takes place in Texas, Seattle, Montana, Florida - Pretty much everywhere else in the United States minus California, D.C, and Arizona. Revisiting the old locations might make more sense if done AFTER F1 and F2. I would rather expand upon the lore rather than rehash it. I guess I'm just complaining as usual. It's not like Fallout is my favorite RPG series or anything. Maybe I should just keep my opinions to myself for fear of bothering someone...

It can't? So the Tactics and F3 boss are just like the real ones? And the vaults/ghouls etc have changed to even if the location changed in the games!

Bullshit. How much have you read the forums ? "You" must want 'sploding heads, Nuclear 'splosion launching catapults, and "immursion", right? See how that works? Don't expect everyone to agree with you when you suggest something. People are nifty like that - We all have differing opinions on what makes Fallout great. The BoS and Enclave should not play a major role since they're practically wiped out. You want more of the same factions? Why not introduce new factions? Who wants the same fucking factions over and over again? I tell you who – Uncreative people.

Why revisit old plot-lines anyway when so much can be done with new ones? It's not a horrible idea, but the way it was said was pretty assholish. Assuming that the entire NMA community is one way, is pretty fucking stupid, and it gets old after awhile. Most of your complaints about the originals are all based on graphics. You act as if the combat in the originals is inferior to Fallout 3. I guess you prefer Raiders charging at you with poolsticks while repeating the same dialog over and over again. You can always just eat some Cram to regain health if the kamikaze Raiders do hit you, so Fallout 3 has that tactical advantage that the originals never had. Yeah, aiming without having sights is so superior to isometric combat too. Why not completely remove all RPG elements from the game while we are at it? How did Fallout 1 and 2 have the same speech checks as Fallout 3? Fallout 3 hardly had any skill checks at all anyway when compared to the older titles and even New Vegas. A RPG game feeling too RP'ish? Yeah that sounds horrible.

No one denies that the originals had issues, but most of them are fixed with one mod, as opposed to needing over 80 to make Fallout 3 playable. I honestly hope Bethesda knocks Fallout 4 out of the park, so I would prefer if they focused on that.

Ahh yes because the old Fallout did not have gorey deaths at all. Like loosing half of you stomach + arm from a single pistol round.
And i'm not expecting people to agree with me but i do not like the "It's not Fallout 1/2 so it sux" responds.

And as for the poolque raiders. In my last 3 playtroughs i've seen 4 poolques and only 1 was from a raider. Most of them are in NV aka the better game! And even so they are as dangerous as most early enemies in F1-2. THe only hard enemies in F1 is super mutants and deathclaws and in F2 it's Enclaves deathclaws and supermutants. And even so you can have them charge at you just to be 1 shoot or bursted down behind a corner
And the 1 mod for Fallout is is actually "From my understanding" several mods stiched together as 1 mod same as FWE/Project nevada. And even with all of my fun/improved visual mods i don't have more than 13 mods and most of them are new looks for armors/weapons or new things such as the ! in my latest screenshoot.

I would definitely like that if it was handled properly, but Bethesda treated Obsidian pretty shitty with New Vegas, so it might not work out.

But according to most people NV was better than F3 so i guess it wouldn't be impossible to make it happen. Especially if they listen to the player base and Obsidian like they did in new vegas.

I think it's not a bad idea. I'd rather play the old ones anyway, but because I suck at shooters.
Most people nowadays can't really enjoy the old school games because they are not used to the graphics nor the game mechanics. As long as they don't mess the plot nor the dialogs, I think it's a good idea to allow them to understand much of the fallout lore.

They should mess with it a bit to remove the crappy parts and fix missing stuff. But obviously they should not touch any good parts or mess it up with crappy bullshit.

 

[Oppen]

They should mess with it a bit to remove the crappy parts and fix missing stuff. But obviously they should not touch any good parts or mess it up with crappy bullshit.

I agree. Also, I'd remove a some of the pop culture references from Fallout 2. Most new players (who I think it would be targeted to, since old school ones do enjoy the old games the way they are) wouln't get them, and they kind of break the atmosphere.

 

[SnapSlav]

Also, I'd remove a some of the pop culture references from Fallout 2. Most new players (who I think it would be targeted to, since old school ones do enjoy the old games the way they are) wouln't get them, and they kind of break the atmosphere.

Some, but not all. The more subtle ones were great, and didn't break atmosphere if you didn't catch the reference.

Example: You find the guy in the cave, and your character even mentions how the situation is suspicious. This is obviously a reference, and the whole scenario just breaks the scene and makes you realize "Oh yeah, this is a game."

Opposite example: You're seducing T-Ray, and he says something about how voracious you are. If you didn't catch the South Park quote, you'd just laugh at the situation; but if you caught the reference you'd laugh even harder.

 

[FOvet]

Shit, I missed that one Snap. And I watch SP too, but am new to the series, so I wouldn't understand humor based on older episodes.

And i'm not expecting people to agree with me but i do not like the "It's not Fallout 1/2 so it sux" responds.

THIS Makta, is the ONLY issue I take from most of the original fans arguments. I don't mind people who disagree and actually have valid reasons for doing so. Like with FO3: I LIKE a good FO3 debate, but it pisses me off when I see people who hate on the game solely because it's not fallout 1 or 2. I mean, DUH, we KNOW it's not FO1 or 2, it's a brand new game entirely. That argument REALLY vexes me, if you couldn't tell

 

[Oppen]

Also, I'd remove a some of the pop culture references from Fallout 2. Most new players (who I think it would be targeted to, since old school ones do enjoy the old games the way they are) wouln't get them, and they kind of break the atmosphere.

Some, but not all. The more subtle ones were great, and didn't break atmosphere if you didn't catch the reference.

Example: You find the guy in the cave, and your character even mentions how the situation is suspicious. This is obviously a reference, and the whole scenario just breaks the scene and makes you realize "Oh yeah, this is a game."

Opposite example: You're seducing T-Ray, and he says something about how voracious you are. If you didn't catch the South Park quote, you'd just laugh at the situation; but if you caught the reference you'd laugh even harder.

Well, another example of pop culture which doesn't break the atmosphere is the quote to Clint Eastwood, "there are two kind of people, the ones with a loaded gun, and the ones who dig". It's just playing badass if you don't catch the reference, so you don't mind about it.

 

[FOvet]

OMG! I missed a lot of referrences. That is probably my favorit line in FO2 (or even of any FO game), it made me laugh so hard when I read it!!! Where is that quote from? Did he actually say that in a movie, or just a similar quote?

 

[Oppen]

OMG! I missed a lot of referrences. That is probably my favorit line in FO2 (or even of any FO game), it made me laugh so hard when I read it!!! Where is that quote from? Did he actually say that in a movie, or just a similar quote?

The good, the bad and the ugly.
I lose a lot of references, too, in fact, I found out that was a reference to something through the wiki.
It's a great line.

 

[TorontoReign]

Fallout can still visit other places within the timeline of the original. It can't step on lore if it takes place in Texas, Seattle, Montana, Florida - Pretty much everywhere else in the United States minus California, D.C, and Arizona. Revisiting the old locations might make more sense if done AFTER F1 and F2. I would rather expand upon the lore rather than rehash it. I guess I'm just complaining as usual. It's not like Fallout is my favorite RPG series or anything. Maybe I should just keep my opinions to myself for fear of bothering someone...

It can't? So the Tactics and F3 boss are just like the real ones? And the vaults/ghouls etc have changed to even if the location changed in the games!

snip

Ahh yes because the old Fallout did not have gorey deaths at all. Like loosing half of you stomach + arm from a single pistol round.
And i'm not expecting people to agree with me but i do not like the "It's not Fallout 1/2 so it sux" responds.

And as for the poolque raiders. In my last 3 playtroughs i've seen 4 poolques and only 1 was from a raider. Most of them are in NV aka the better game! And even so they are as dangerous as most early enemies in F1-2. THe only hard enemies in F1 is super mutants and deathclaws and in F2 it's Enclaves deathclaws and supermutants. And even so you can have them charge at you just to be 1 shoot or bursted down behind a corner
And the 1 mod for Fallout is is actually "From my understanding" several mods stiched together as 1 mod same as FWE/Project nevada. And even with all of my fun/improved visual mods i don't have more than 13 mods and most of them are new looks for armors/weapons or new things such as the ! in my latest screenshoot.

I would definitely like that if it was handled properly, but Bethesda treated Obsidian pretty shitty with New Vegas, so it might not work out.

But according to most people NV was better than F3 so i guess it wouldn't be impossible to make it happen. Especially if they listen to the player base and Obsidian like they did in new vegas.

I didn't mean they absolutely can't mess it up, just that it isn't that difficult to follow lore if they try, so in theory they shouldn't have problems if they make games for a living. If they can't create new games without stepping on the originals then maybe they shouldn't make them. I know thats stupid, but I honestly feel that way. These guys do this shit for a living yet they alienate one of the oldest and most vocal Fallout fanbases? What a poor choice. I guess they figured they have enough support from the Elder Scrolls fans and all the new ones that came along for Fallout 3. Many of the new fans don't care about lore anyway I guess, they only care about cool shit to blow up, skipping all the dialog that comes up along the way, and wondering why hardcore RPG fans dislike the focus on combat. I'm not saying all F3 fans are like that, but I see quite a few, and know a few personally in RL. Anyone try doing a pacifist playthrough on Fallout 3? I'm actually curious if it is possible. No one cares to listen to the longest running Fallout fansite, actually they pissed on us and said we don't matter...funny I hear similar things popping up from some of their more vocal fans...

The gore complaint isn't meant to criticize it being in any of the games, more so where the focus of those games resides. All of the games were excessively gory really, but Fallout 3 felt almost juvenile at times because it was so over the top with everything (minus sexual stuff). It took what many disliked about Fallout 2 and turned it up to 11.

I'm definitely not a "if it's not Fallout 1 and 2 it sux" guy either. I liked Fallout 3, but I don't care for it anymore. Many in NMA were originally closer to "If it isn't Fallout 1 it sux", not too long ago. I'm more of a "If the game sucks it sucks" kind of guy. I actually made myself play Fallout 3 long after I stopped enjoying it, simply to give the game a chance. It just didn't add up. It resides next to Fallout Tactics, below the originals and New Vegas, in my opinion.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If they did remake the originals they might as well turn it into a FPS all the way and make it a spin-off of some sort. It might introduce newer fans to the originals and it would be harder to screw things up within a 10-15 hour game - story wise anyway. Maybe they could get ID to do it? Just a thought.

 

[SnapSlav]

And i'm not expecting people to agree with me but i do not like the "It's not Fallout 1/2 so it sux" responds.

THIS Makta, is the ONLY issue I take from most of the original fans arguments. I don't mind people who disagree and actually have valid reasons for doing so. Like with FO3: I LIKE a good FO3 debate, but it pisses me off when I see people who hate on the game solely because it's not fallout 1 or 2. I mean, DUH, we KNOW it's not FO1 or 2, it's a brand new game entirely. That argument REALLY vexes me, if you couldn't tell

I THINK that the majority of that argument is a legitimate sentiment lost with time, and turned into something ugly. I mentioned elsewhere that many people have reasons for "knowing" something, but they forgot some time ago, and not being able to cite it is labeled as making up excuses. "I know it, but I just can't tell you where I know it from... derp!" While that excuse IS indeed abused in that very way by many, it doesn't mean that there aren't people who LEGITIMATELY forgot a true fact/citation but you knew the meaning, even without recalling the details.

So I BELIEVE it to be the case with "It's not FO1/2!" It's a perfectly legitimate criticisms to levy against something (in this case, FO3) when you state that very clear boundaries were set from its predecessors (in this case, FO1/2) which it breaks, and thusly you form an argument explaining how, due to the originals, the new has certain specific problems. The issue arises when people forget that THIS is the line of thinking that proved a valid point, and instead recall the outline of the argument, "It wasn't the original, therefor it sucked!" Sorta like how people retroactively form slang to spell the sounds of actual proper grammar (spelling "would of" when they were actually sounding out "would've"), many times they retroactively reshape an argument to suit the purposes of the point they're trying to make, but forgot how to. Just like with the slang, it's equally as appalling and ugly.

....Or, some people REALLY DO believe in something so silly as "It isn't FO2, so it's bad- derpy derp!" Roosterteeth made a comic about this shortly after Halo 3's release where a cartoon "Halo fanboy" buys Halo 3 just so he could chuck it out the window (inspired by the man who did the same to the first iPhone, I believe) and when asked why, said "It wasn't Halo 2 enough!"

 

[Dukeanumberone]

Love how most threads that dare to mention 3 in the same sentence as 1/2 turn into this .

REALLY TorontRayne ??

The gore complaint isn't meant to criticize it being in any of the games, more so where the focus of those games resides. All of the games were excessively gory really, but Fallout 3 felt almost juvenile at times because it was so over the top with everything (minus sexual stuff). It took what many disliked about Fallout 2 and turned it up to 11. "

Its not about focus, its a simple matter of graphics, you shoot something and something else happens, Causality,and BTW in case you forgot>>>>>>


Fallout Vision Statement
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((#1)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))Mega levels of violence. (you had better give us that Mature rating right now)
You can shoot everything in this game: people, animals, buildings and walls. You can make “called shots” on people, so you can aim for their eyes or their groin. Called shots can do more damage, knock the target unconscious or have other effects. When people die, they don’t just die – they get cut in half, they melt into a pile of goo, explode like a blood sausage, or several different ways – depending on the weapon you use. When I use my rocket launcher on some poor defenseless towns person, he’ll know (and his neighbors will be cleaning up the blood for weeks!)
*** This is the wasteland. Life is cheap and violence is all that there is. We are going to grab the player’s guts and remind him of this. **


snap

I think that is a pretty accurate assessment of the situation, I believe you are one of the most neutral people on this board. I think a lot of the animosity on both sides stems from the needless name calling. I am not going to make the same mistake and generalize all the "hardcore/ longtime Fallout" fans. What I will say is that I have read the same statement,or similar statements made that either call all new fans: heretics/ idiots/ or some incarnation/ or implication of the two made repeatedly by established board members.

back to the topic/ and the Op
Yes I would because I agree about the outdated-ness (((I M O))))
of the older games. After playing the shit out of 3 (still doing)
I bought the combo pack off ebay for 12.00 shipped.
Cracked that B open and installed. 2 hrs in and I was beating my head to the desk. I know Its not blatently obvious to anyone who's been playing primarily the same Fallout for 5+/10+/ yrs but it is very dated. 1yr ago I reinstalled Diablo (came out b4 fallout), I started playing again and low and behold it felt like "new" 1 month in and uninstalled after recalling the HUNDREDS of HRS spent in the dungeons/caves and not wanting/having said time to dedicate to that game again. D2 has more shit,better graphics, more classes etc etc etc. I still fell 1 is the Better game , So I know where a lot of you Hardcore fans are coming from when you talk about FO1, and that is Why I bought it because I fell in love with the world of 3 and would like more, but it is a chore to play for me. Everyone tells me to get NV and I will when I can afford a Good PC to run it. In the meantime I will continue to give 1 the chance to grow on me that it has the potential to do.

 

[TorontoReign]

I wasn't just referring to graphics with that statement - Note, I said juvenile with everything. The Quests, the story, the characters, the entire focus of the game, and yes, the gore was too fucking corny. The violence is meant to be pretty intense with Fallout, but the shitty exploding body parts looked ridiculous, not to mention the Raiders that hang bodies up where they live. I guess every Raider automatically converts to cannibalism even though there are mass quantities of food laying around right? Meh. Different strokes...

 

[Walpknut]

And Raiders have preserved the knowledge of taxidermy so the bodies don't rot.

 

[SnapSlav]

snap

I think that is a pretty accurate assessment of the situation, I believe you are one of the most neutral people on this board. I think a lot of the animosity on both sides stems from the needless name calling. I am not going to make the same mistake and generalize all the "hardcore/ longtime Fallout" fans. What I will say is that I have read the same statement,or similar statements made that either call all new fans: heretics/ idiots/ or some incarnation/ or implication of the two made repeatedly by established board members.

I appreciate the sentiment (as I consider being called moderate a compliment). But ultimately, while I may devote myself to the cause of neutrality and objectivity, I still hang my coat up somewhere at the end of the day. I avoid the blind fanboyism that labels FO3 nothing but garbage, however I do honestly dislike the game. However, I think what the modern games have that the originals don't is accessibility. It's not so much a matter of the older games being "dated" as that they're not as accessible.

When I think of the term "dated", what comes to mind is being UNABLE to play a game, because its software platform no longer exists. I want to play God of Thunder (you have NO IDEA how badly!!!) but I can't without a DOS emulator. But, once I CAN play it, is it dated? In some senses yes, and in others no. It's a generic fantasy setting, so it wasn't handling subject matter specific to an era, whereas some FO2 content lends itself to late-90s ideologies and pop culture. GOT functions simply and it gets the job done. It offers very little immersion, and you're never fooled into forgetting that this isn't a game. However, it pulls of its puzzle/adventure gameplay perfectly, and if it was re-released almost unchanged as an iOS minigame, I can guarantee that it would be called "timeless". However, that all skirts the issue that the game itself still IS inaccessible due to dated software.

Other qualifiers for a game being "dated" that comes to mind are mechanics/gimmicks that have been improved-upon since the older game's release, or been removed altogether for similar reasons. But ultimately, in the case of the Fallout games, I find the older ones are simply not as accessible, yet they're not dated; their functions still work well, even today. Some users discount the turn-based combat as being "proof" that the games don't work, in absolute favor of real-time combat. (Humorously, I find the same people refer to the TBC as "VATS"... so, go figure, these are just new-generation fans railing on the originals because their context is self-centered.) Yet Turn-based combat can still work, even today. Similar criticisms are levied against the top-down isometric view as if that "cannot be done" nowadays, yet we needn't go so far as to point out Wasteland 2 as a fine example that it can still go strong. Blizzard has already proven that for us with Diablo III!

What it comes down to, is the modern Fallout games are easy to pick up and start using. Combat hold little enough consequence that players can avoid it, and they won't be treated with "You are dead" screens to discourage them, so they play on. The originals, of course, came from an era where "appealing to a wider audience" (i.e. "make it easier so more people will play it") hadn't really been thought up, and it was intended that time would be invested in learning about the games we were to play. Even in genres, very few games played using the same control scheme and followed a "proven formula", so learning your game before you started was part of gaming, back then. Today, games are used to being able to pick up a game in a genre they're fond of, and being able to acclimate to the game almost immediately because all the controls are familiar- or even identical -to them. So, as a result, FO1/2 are "different". They were more difficult, and picking them up for the first time wouldn't yield the same results as investing hundreds of hours into knowing the engine mechanics. Demon's Souls and Dark Souls are games within the same vein; they're NOT dated (the older of the 2 is merely 3 years old), but they're very inaccessible. They take time to learn and adjust to in order to play them "correctly".

As far as "next generation fans" versus "original fans"; I find this to be another scenario that relies entirely on the individual. Some fans who were introduced to the series through FO3 became hardcore fans of the originals, and some newer fans refuse to acknowledge the same faults in FO3 as those that the rest of us recognized. It's not FO1/2/3/NV that make a particular fan one or the other... it's the fan.

 

[Dukeanumberone]

Some fans who were introduced to the series through FO3 became hardcore fans of the originals, and some newer fans refuse to acknowledge the same faults in FO3 as those that the rest of us recognized. It's not FO1/2/3/NV that make a particular fan one or the other... it's the fan.

I agree wholeheartedly, I love 3, but see the glaring faults in it,
lackluster writing, not enough of certain elements (voicing/fleshed out towns/ karma system), simplified/easy game mechanics (Survivalism should be the key element all else is based off of, because it is a wasteland, ie: rationing of food / water/ weapons etc) Lackluster consequences for actions (drugs/factions/etc)
but won't/can't comment one way or the other yet on the originals yet as I haven't finished a play through of either one.Its just that 3 fans get treated like the black sheep of the family based solely on their only exposure to the world of Fallout.


TorontRayne
ok , maybe i did take that last quote out of context. but how do you follow this...

Don't expect everyone to agree with you when you suggest something. People are nifty like that - We all have differing opinions on what makes Fallout great.

with this...

Who wants the same fucking factions over and over again? I tell you who – Uncreative people.

Isn't that a direct contradiction?
You know who?, people who haven't played the hell out of 1/2 and enjoy 3/NV, and I don't mean that in a snarky way either, I lump myself in that group, and why would you be so opposed to having new fans experience "the best fallout" in a way they feel most comfortable?

You act as if the combat in the originals is inferior to Fallout 3. I guess you prefer Raiders charging at you with poolsticks while repeating the same dialog over and over again. You can always just eat some Cram to regain health if the kamikaze Raiders do hit you, so Fallout 3 has that tactical advantage that the originals never had.

What little I have experienced of 1 is inferior in the following ways,
1. line of sight/ ability to target enemies.
Rats in vault 13 cave: with pistol in close quarters and above avg *Per I could not target a rat that i could see. sersly?
-could not target radscorpion hanging out in a doorway of shack to 1st vault (another line of sight issue)
2. Viable distance with firearms
-targeting enemies with pistol as they flee, very low percentages

not saying 3 is better aall around but it is better at those two things. Also being able change stance is a must for any game involving gunplay (albeit prone needs to be included)
I agree the enemy AI sucks in 3 other than deathclaws and Hellfire troopers with plasma rifles/ incinerators .
But they do flank and manuever/ go for cover/. I would like to see the spamming food meds /changed or greatly nerfed. Food requires 2min casting , stempacks have cooldown period 30 secs/
--also more feasable than a million stimpaks laying around is recharging stempacks, or them having charges/ before being deplated and broken.
[/quote][/b]

 

[SnapSlav]

Well I actually followed FO3's development while it was still being created, and according to the creator's their "intention" was to stress "choice" by all means. As I expressed in my "review", the heal vs radiation in almost all food items was the direct result of stressing "choice", but that failed almost utterly. Picking up quests were also supposed to be part of their "choice" design, but once that failed its purpose because "ignoring quests" had no consequences to them. For example, the quest Reilly's Rangers quest stresses time as a factor, yet if you pick up the quest and leave it be, you can come to the Rangers' aid at ANY time and they will have suffered no further casualties. Compared to the first games, where time was a factor (more so in FO1 than 2, but only in percentage since FO2 was much, MUCH larger), this means players have no incentive to quest in FO3 and no punishment for either of their choices, so where is this "emphasis on choice" that the creators purported to design the game around? It's just a failure of design, that's all.

Regarding TorontRayne's comments... I personally see no "direct contradiction". If he'd said "Because everyone has different opinions, that means NO ONE has the answers for what improves/works with Fallout games" and then said "I have an answer for what can improve the next Fallout game", he'd clearly be contradicting his own point that his answer would just be an opinion. On the other hand, he was illustrating that the RESPONSE to the games are radically diverse, as a result of differing opinions, and on the other hand, that Bethesda relied on milking fans rather than creating their own content. No real contradiction at all, from what I saw. And it's true, too. Bethesda designed much of FO3 almost entirely by means of plagarism; and pointing out that they own the rights to the game doesn't mean a damn thing, because creativity isn't something you can "own". If someone had "bought the rights" to a magnificent book series, then wrote their own continuation of the books (this actually happens, though the most common reason is that the original author dies before completing their story) but based the events of the story off of the previous works without any (or very little) original content, that IS plagarism. However, while they can't be legally sued over blatantly ripping-off established ideas, that doesn't address the fact that they did, in fact, rip-off established ideas rather than creating their own.

As far as your dilemma in FO1... I can imagine WHAT you're talking about, but I never once perceived them as problems, as you're addressing them. Since the world is divided into hexes, everything is calculated by those hexes, including range and line of sight. Pistols are THE shortest ranged firearms, so in a game that assume that lighting and distance restricts accuracy (which they do), being almost unable to shoot a fleeing target BECAUSE they're fleeing is just being realistic. The fact that you're using a pistol merely compounds your troubles. As I mentioned before, these aren't fault of the game, but from a different perspective they may be perceived as such; they're simply another of the older games' "inaccessibilities".

And Tactics had THE BEST combat system of the entire series, I would argue. It had a variation of Turn-Based Combat from the originals, as well as Real-Time Combat (though it could be cheesed fairly easily), and players, skills, and combat were affected by stances, which included "all 3": standing, crouching, and prone. From a purely functional perspective, I'd say that FOT was my favorite of the whole damn series, because the application of all skills and tactics into combat were the most seamless- yet balanced -in the entire series.