What if they did the other Fallouts ?

[naossano]

There is a controversy about a game on the fallout franchise, the game between Fallout:Brotherhood Of Steel & Fallout:New Vegas.
A game that has Fallout on its title, but barelly looks like a shadow of Fallout.
Still, that game was damn long and many of us have learnt to get used on its patterns and recognizable aspects.

So, let's say they consider the five other Fallouts as not close enough to their own Fallout, what would they do to edit them to appeal their own twisted sense of quality.

First, Fallout 1, Fallout 2, Fallout Tactics & Fallout:Brotherhood Of Steel would be in real-time, with a first-person perspective, in a continuous gameworld.
These four games and Fallout:New Vegas would have far less choices & consequences.

But what else would they do ?
I assume that the Enclave & the Unity would be always hostiles.
It wouldn't be possible to fail primary & secondary objectives, in Fallout:Tactics, thanks to many essential civilians, or the game considering success when you ignored some objectives.
In Fallout:New Vegas, you wouldn't have to kill Robert House, as he would have supported the NCR agains't the legion. (that you couldn't join)
Instead of Raul, you would have released Marcus and learned that he was the only remaining pacifist super-mutants.
In Broken Hills, Marcus would probably won't mind if you killed his fellow citizens, as long as you keep him as a follower.
In Necropolis, Set & his gang would have betrayed you instead of rewarding you if you did his quest, as it is more fun to kill ghouls.
The Master would have no backstory, would have to be fought, but he would be suddenly alone in his room. So has the Lieutenant.
The two unity stronghold couldn't be done in the order you want.
Fo1-Fo2 would be continuous gameworld, while keeping the distance, so it would be bigger map, full of useless empty locations.

So, in your opinion, what would they do on these games to cripple more the franchise ?

 

[SnapSlav]

Do not post anything related to Fallout 3 on this board.

So you're trying to create a topic, one which has been created many times before, regarding FO3 in the forum space specifically designated to NOT be about FO3? Bad idea.

If you're assuming that people will be more receptive to the discussion in this board rather than the other, you'd be mistaken, because it's all the same people. Users will gravitate towards a topic based on the TOPIC, not based on where the topic is located. The location is just an important matter of organization. Users who frequent one board aren't incapable of visiting another, after all. If your idea is that you want this discussion to focus on the topic of the NON-FO3 games but with the question of how Bethesda might potentially ruin them further, that's still effectively FO3 discussion.

The mere mention of the game is permitted in the General Fallout Discussion boards but topics that center around FO3 are not. This doesn't belong here.

 

[naossano]

Unfortunately, it is very likely that the develloper you talk about would do many other Fallout, as they are many gamers likely to buy them.
Also, FoNV was published by a company that have the same name.

At last, my very intent is to talk about other fallouts, that, fortunatly, weren't devellopped by them, how would they be if they weren't develloped by a company that is not only likely to devellop other fallout games, but other non-fallout games, that already have so much in commom that it cannot be reduced to Fo3 only.

Also, it would be off-topic to discuss the plot of Fo3, but every games except Fo3 and potentially Fo4.