Making it a FPP inherently makes it an "action" game because it's you personally that propel the characters actions if you go by the standards of the last games. when you still have personal twitch skills as a factor and minigames for actions you will always have a "action" game.

Why don't you answer my very simple question? I think I asked you it once before in the past and you ignored it then as well.

Here is the question again: Do you feel everything from Fallout and Fallout 2 should be ignored and forgotten? Or are you just talking about the dated graphics and play style (top down isometric turned based)?

Keep in mind since you keep ignoring the question I am just going to assume you think Fallout and Fallout 2 should be completely ignored and thrown out the window. In which case I will respond to a comment you made that I should get out more. If you feel Fallout and Fallout 2 should no longer be counted as canon. Then why do you pop up every couple months and spam the forum this the same old crap? That we are all stupid for being fans of the older games and Fallout 3 is the future.

I think its pretty obvious its the dated graphics and gameplay i dislike. There was a time when i liked them, but games have moved on.

I just wanted to make sure. You still feel that the everything else about the games besides the turn based, top down isometrics is good and still canon.

I can live with your dislike of the older graphics and turn based. I am not asking for future games to be made in that way, and I don't think Bethesda or anyone they contract out will ever make it like that again. Only thing I want back is the map node system.

I just don't get why the topic such as this always end up with this debate. People don't need to have played Fallout and Fallout 2 to be fans of the Fallout Universe. But they should have respect for the canon of those games.

When I say the Originals are better than Fallout 3. I am not counting the graphics and the turned based game play. I am counting everything else, mainly the writing.

What? An action RPG is a distinct subset of RPG not just any RPG wherein there is combat.

fair enough
But graphics and gameplay are just as important as the writing or dialogue. maybe even more so
I just dont like how people expect younger gamers to play or like FO1 or 2 to be considered a FO fan.
The gap between the games is just too big

Well I am. Fallout's turn based combat could be bland and boring as all hell but it's still better than the tedious and easily exploitable combat found in Fallout 3 and New Vegas. As for graphics Fallout's may be dated but they had a good, interesting style to them that's held up a lot better than Fallout 3's will in a decade. The talking heads in particular were great. You can't tell me that Set or the Master still don't look more awesome than anything in the new games. Or just compare the death animations.

are you being serious? surely not??

nah you could do much more with the originals combat then ou coudl with FO3 combat.

Well we agree to disagree on the importance of graphics and gameplay. I fully understand that to many new games, graphics and gameplay are very important. I would like them to play the originals. I encourage people to play them. Really what do they have to loose besides a couple bucks? I don't see why people should be discourage (not that you are discouraging people to play them).

@ Okie, I love the turn based and the graphics of the orginals. I would love to see a Fallout with turned based as an option. But I do have to agree with auld scad that to expect Bethesda to do it, is a little much. I personally put my attention into getting Bethesda to make a real RPG like Fallout New Vegas and the Orginals and for them to improve their damn writing.

I would love the map node system and I don't think that's to much to ask. But again making a better RPG with great writing are my top priorities. If they can do those things for Fallout 4. Then I might start getting on them about putting in a turned based option.

Yes.


Yup. The AI was a lot more competent, you could die a lot more easily, there was no stupid godmode to fall back on and it just felt a whole lot more satisfying.

Even if you don't like the original's combat you have to admit that combat in the new games is nothing to write home about either.

When it comes to an RPG I'd actually say that writing and dialogue are more important. That's not to say that graphics(less so) and gameplay(more so) aren't important, just not as important as what makes it an RPG.
None of us are saying that you need to play the originals to be a fan of this series, you just need to have a knowledge and respect for them.
He has a different opinion, shock and awe.

As for the graphics do people seriously think that this: [img]http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101229215018/fallout/images/thumb/8/85/Gob.jpg/240px-Gob.jpg[/img]

looks better than this? [img]http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101028051910/fallout/images/thumb/4/40/FO01_NPC_Set_N.png/240px-FO01_NPC_Set_N.png[/img]

Or just compare the normal super mutant models from the originals with the new ones. The guys from Fallout 1/2 look awesome. Like hulking monsters that could rip you apart in a second without even exerting themselves. The new ones in Fallout 3 just looked like discolored generic orcs.

To me this is a different issue. The ghouls and super mutants in Fallout 3 and New Vegas, I am sure could have been made to look like they did in the orginals. But Bethesda didn't want to put the effort into it with Fallout 3 and Obsidian didn't have the time to make the changes when working on New Vegas.

Yes
The difference being one is an animated head shot, whereas the other is an actual walking talking NPC

Oh so it looks the originals do have better graphics in some areas. But okay. Compare the actual ghoul models if that makes you feel better. One looks like nothing more than a burn victim and its painfully obvious that it's just a regular human model with some minor changes. The other looks like a horrifically mutated person whose skin rotted away and that actually limps when it walks because it's so so degraded.


Not just about ghouls and super mutants. Compare this:[img]http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20060523223359/fallout/images/c/cf/Combatguy.gif[/img] to this: [img]http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120115053046/fallout/images/thumb/d/d5/Combat_armor.png/714px-Combat_armor.png[/img]

One looks sleek awesome and imposing. The other just looks like a badly padded sweater. Some people seem to have seized on this idea that more realistic=better graphics and that's just wildly untrue.

Again that is because Bethesda didn't put the effort into making them look like they did in the originals. They could have if they wanted to, and Obsidian didn't have the time to do it for New Vegas.

The ghouls, super mutants, robots the armours, all of it could have been made to look really close to what they did in the orginals, only with modern graphics. Bethesda didn't want to put the effort into it. Maybe limitations with the engine and they didn't have forever to be obsessed about it. For Fallout 4 maybe they can be more detailed and make things look more like the orginals. I hope they do.

The rangers in New Vegas looked great and I liked the Power Armours.

Put it this way. New Vegas far better than Fallout 3 right? So lets just hope Fallout 4 will be more like New Vegas, only better. That's what I am going for, what I am hoping for. I hope they include more things from the originals. But I doubt turned based, top down isometrics will be done.

Don't get me wrong I would like that, but I am being realistic here. Getting great writers to work on Fallout 4 seems like it could be to extreme for Bethesda. So asking them to make a game like the orginals (turn based isometric) with modern tech is just unthinkable that they would do it.

I can understand being annoyed about the inconsistencies in the animations, but why compare the graphics of the originals and the new ones? They're completely different styles, neither of which are the best or the worst in their class. I personally like both.

I agree. I'm not trying to turn this into a [censored]fest about how Bethesda ruined all these things or something like that. I'm just trying to bring forward examples of graphics from the originals that still look good in comparison to the ones today. Making models 3d and more detailed doesn't make them inherently better which is what many people seem to have assumed. The originals had limitations that the new games don't have but they worked within those limitations to create a unique and memorable style that really isn't worse than the new ones and that can surpass them in some ways (see the talking heads). it's just different as you point out.

No. In Fallout 3 you had a huge set of optable and negligable stuff minor in scale that made no difference in anything what so ever. There was no focus in things that actually mattered, and due to the huge amount of designed randomness with no interconnections to anywhere and the general philosophy of "everyone must get everything", the game overall ended up shallow and lacking of substance. You can say that hey, repair skill had this and that, and it's true, but the rest of the game didn't support it properly so it was - despite the good intention - left as a torso and a shadow of what it could've been.



That's just your preference. It doesn't, in anyway, make TB outdated. And the way your word your stuff, it seems that you're just saying it because you want it to be true, and you've never given a single thought about what that style of gameplay stands for and what it could offer. I'm not bothering going further than this because the above quote of yours is so full of ignorance that I wouldn't know where to start to explain.

Those darn beforius Fallouts! Also: I suppose if by "substance" you mean like a cancerous tumor on the legacy of the franchise, sure.


I read this as: "I don't like TB because I'm not good at it, I need shiny graphics gratification and death to PC gaming!"


Sure, yeah. Doesn't matter too much to me as long as the game itself is quality (see FO:NV) but I suppose I would prefer a TB/ISO Fallout game, yes. Very excited that Wasteland 2 will be this type of game!


Surely? It is? Why, because hiking simulation equates with a better gaming experience? All it equates to me is a better hiking simulation.


Oh crap! I better warn Brian Fargo before he launches that Kickstarter campaign!!


Surely not? My aren't you unwilling to believe other people don't share your predictable view of gaming.

Well that random word game is more complicated and fun than old fallouts "just click" stuff.

Quests and dialog were better in old fallouts, but characters were better in fallout 3, like Moira, Jerico etc.

Yes, exactly. "empire" strategy games. Ofcourse it works in those games because there are lots to command in huge empire. But in solo and small group control games turn based is useless and slows down the gameplay unnesessarily and not gaining anything meaningful. Lets keep turnbased system in master of orions, heroes 3, civilization, but other games real time.

Hey man, at least pretend you are defending your points instead of saying "it's just better. lalalala can't hear you".

I know you are just trying to bait people here.... but seriously?

Well in old fallouts there are only few good characters others are quite forgottable. Goods in old games were only sulik and mike tyson in the basemant and maybe few others.

Im not baiting people. New fallouts are just in many ways far superior to older games.

The Orginals have many great characters.

Harold
Tycho
The Master
Killian Darkwater
Vic
Ian
Myron

And those are just of the top of my head. You seriously think Moira is better than all of them? "How are those little hot potatoes?" lady is better that them? Give me a break.

Hell Fallout Tactics has better Characters than Fallout 3. The only interesting Character in Fallout 3 IMO is James.