Simple question. Wish I could make it a poll.
We now know enough about VanBuren to make an educated guess, so what do you think?
We now know enough about VanBuren to make an educated guess, so what do you think?
Would VanBuren have been better than FO, FO2?
- Thread starter DirtyDreamDesigner
- Start date
A guess is all you're going to get. People here have played both of the first Fallout games over and over again and come to love certain aspects of each. Without doing the same to van Buren I don't think you're going to get anything but pure opinion.
Most of what we have seen is the usual stuff you get with a game, "swag" some might call it. Sketches, a few screenshtos, descriptions... These are not what makes a game though and are mostly to win over those who look at the superficiality of a game and not the game as a whole. - Colt
Most of what we have seen is the usual stuff you get with a game, "swag" some might call it. Sketches, a few screenshtos, descriptions... These are not what makes a game though and are mostly to win over those who look at the superficiality of a game and not the game as a whole. - Colt
Better than 2, yes, better than 1, no.
Van Buren was to be quite a different game in its own kind. The heavy MCA and nu generation factor meant shedding a lot of the original Fallout feel, which is a big shame, but at the same time the CRPG ideas being played around with were brilliant. Compare it to New Reno. Brilliant CRPG town, sucky Fallout town. The same applies more-or-less to Van Buren.
Van Buren was to be quite a different game in its own kind. The heavy MCA and nu generation factor meant shedding a lot of the original Fallout feel, which is a big shame, but at the same time the CRPG ideas being played around with were brilliant. Compare it to New Reno. Brilliant CRPG town, sucky Fallout town. The same applies more-or-less to Van Buren.
Better than FO? Most likely not.
Better than FO2? Maybe.
Better than FO2? Maybe.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
YES! The answer is yes!
Allright guys, the trick is to read about the subject before stating an opinion on it. We have loads of material on the site, either interviews or concept art, not to mention posts by the devs themselves.
Ontopic, I think it'd make a great game. But better than the *original* Fallout I played for the first time back in the day as a teenager, spending nights on it and being surprised the sun rose so quickly? Nevar!
Ontopic, I think it'd make a great game. But better than the *original* Fallout I played for the first time back in the day as a teenager, spending nights on it and being surprised the sun rose so quickly? Nevar!
171 said:
Because a fully operative gambling town is not a part of the Fallout feel, nor is a gang equipped with laser rifles that they didn't pillage from an old military complex.
In fact, all of New Reno feels like an old Humphrey Bogart detective film, whereas the Fallout feel...does not.
171 said:
New Reno is a good CRPG city, not a good Fallout city.
When you look at Fallout 2, most of the minor quest cities tend to be proper Fallout locations, almost all of the major quest node locations are very, very un-Fallout, noteably Arroyo and NCR
List of Fo2 locations that are Fallout:
Modoc
The Den
Klamath
Ghost Farm
Gecko
Broken Hills
Raiders Den
Vault 15
Military Base
Sierra Army Depot
Ambiguous Fallout 2 locations:
Vault City
Navarro
Enclave Oil Tanker
List of Fo2 locations that aren't Fallout
Arroyo
Redding
NCR
San Francisco
New Reno
Vault 13
171 said:
A working, breathing, developing technological community? I think not.
171 said:
Despite being Vault-based, VC is a sign of hope and growth. Both don't fit into the Fallout world.
171 said:
Talking Deathclaws...
TALKING...DEATHCLAWS...
171 said:
Simple, all Fallout 1 locations were Fallouty. I base analysis of Fallout 2 on that.
The whole thing is kinda complex, though, I'm not going to get into that now.
171 said:
Fallout 1 was. Fallout 2 is great, but not the best (as Fallout 1 already is)
Fallout 1 was more about survival so more primitive towns were more Fallouty. Fallout 2 takes place many years after Fallout 1 so it makes perfect sense for there to be a city like New Reno. Considering the timeline, I think that it's good thinking that as more and more people popped out of wherever, there are towns that turned from primitive villages into anarchies. Whether you like it or not, it's inevitable that there would be less Fallouty places with each sequel since the world would have to develop. F1 was a great game, F2 was a great sequel that was necessarily different but remained Fallout at the same time, Van Buren would probably be a great sequel that would be even more different from F1 but would be easily recognized as a Fallout game. I liked F1 and F2 equally the same although they are different, I suspect I would like Van Buren the same.
P.S. the only place i did not like in F2, was NCR.
P.S. the only place i did not like in F2, was NCR.
Chiz, did you even say any WORDS?
My guess? No. I don't think F3 is going to be better because they're changing it. The story might be great, but since they're changing the gameplay, it's going to be utter crap compared to FO. If tehy improved the old system, it would be completely awesome. But no, I don't think it's going to be better.
My guess? No. I don't think F3 is going to be better because they're changing it. The story might be great, but since they're changing the gameplay, it's going to be utter crap compared to FO. If tehy improved the old system, it would be completely awesome. But no, I don't think it's going to be better.
171 said:
Brotherhood of Steel was in isolated place. Like the Oil Rig sans PA mkII etc., it was about preservation of pre-war goods.
There is a distinct difference between preservation and growth. The Vaults and the Brotherhood of Fallout 1 are all about preservation, not about moving forward. Starting a base with new *post*-war technology and experimentation -> not Fallout.
171 said:
Shady Sands is also the most annoying location in Fallout. The most un-Fallouty. The Hub and Junktown are the most Fallouty
Shady Sands wasn't about hope, though. It was about rebuilding, but in a desperate manner, against the odds, not about hope.
Plus they grew off of Vault 15.
171 said:
The ghost is a small abbarition
The Master is in no way un-Fallout
Fallout established that deathclaws were kick-ass, but primitive, lizard-like creatures that could rip through people like grass. Thank Frith they were rare and shut up in one small location, where they apparently preferred to stay.
Fallout 2 made them a lot weaker, but it also made them fluffy-nice creatures that would join your side if you were good to them. Frith in the Sky, that's just bullshit.0
Simbay said:
Yip, you're dead right. Putting Fallout 2 80 years after Fallout made it necessary to show a developing world, a world being rebuilt, a world of hope even. Chaos lasts, but after 80 years at least some enclaves of strong hope and active rebuilding would pop up
But here's the catch; why set Fallout 2 80 years after Fallout? By your logic, it's necessary to set every sequel after its predecessor chronologically. If Bethesda has to add 80 years to every sequel, Fallout 3 would lack a lot of a post-apocalyptic feel and Fallout 4 would probably show a thriving world, rebuilt on the scrap of the old world. Do you really want that?
There's no need to, just because it's called a sequel, place every Fallout half a century apart from the others.
Van Buren was in fact planned to take place before Fallout 2 and on a different location. Why? Because the BIS people damn well realised the world-rebuilt was a crappy idea.
The US is a big place, you can easily dot over sequels in the Fallout series around the country without too much chronological movement. And that's what they need to do. No Fallout should be set more than 150 years after the war, and those 150 years is stretching it.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
Im sorry,but I keep reading the so-called "UN-FALLOUTY" reference, but Interplay created Fallout 1 and 2, right?! So they made the games the way they wanted too. They created the Fallout series, and if certain things are considered " UN-FALLOUTY" that's your opinion (which is cool) ,but I believe the term "UNFALLOUTY" to be the wrong word for this instance.
That's just my opinion thgough so feel free to lynch,stone,or shoot me.
That's just my opinion thgough so feel free to lynch,stone,or shoot me.
Briosafreak
Lived Through the Heat Death
The game would take place roughly ten years after FO2. It was time enough to give it a more decayed look. The attempts of coming back to more a civilized world began crumbling in the FO2 timeline, and everywhere the signs of decay would show up again, making the game visually closer to FO1. The struggle between the attempts to make a "better" world in FO1, with the Master, and FO2, with the Enclave and the obstacles that were put in the way of their projects took a toll on the thin balance of the ravaged world.
The new attempts would certainly just speed up the decay, and show that not only "war never changes", but the human hability to repeat the same mistakes from the past is tragically endless.
Van Buren would be better in some ways, like the camera panning and zooming or a few fantastic game zones, worse in others, like the Jagged Alliance type weapons skill or the way every civilian npc seemed to be described as tribal , pretty similar in others, like the eery 2D like 3d graphics. In the end we really cannot compare the three games without speculating a bit too much on the process, since we won`t be able to play the third game, yet my feeling is that while it would be a diferent fallout game fans would feel at home soon enough.
It could be a nice Fallout game, and it would be certainly a good bridge between the 2d classics and future evolutions, in the sense that it evolved in some ways, like 3d graphics and rearranged some mechanics, but was still from the same mold as the previous Fallout games.
It would be the last chance to have a game that "felt" like the originals, that´s for sure, but it`s time to move on.
The new attempts would certainly just speed up the decay, and show that not only "war never changes", but the human hability to repeat the same mistakes from the past is tragically endless.
Van Buren would be better in some ways, like the camera panning and zooming or a few fantastic game zones, worse in others, like the Jagged Alliance type weapons skill or the way every civilian npc seemed to be described as tribal , pretty similar in others, like the eery 2D like 3d graphics. In the end we really cannot compare the three games without speculating a bit too much on the process, since we won`t be able to play the third game, yet my feeling is that while it would be a diferent fallout game fans would feel at home soon enough.
It could be a nice Fallout game, and it would be certainly a good bridge between the 2d classics and future evolutions, in the sense that it evolved in some ways, like 3d graphics and rearranged some mechanics, but was still from the same mold as the previous Fallout games.
It would be the last chance to have a game that "felt" like the originals, that´s for sure, but it`s time to move on.