And what exactly is preventing them from playing it on their computers?

(The older games' play-style ain't exactly suited for console controllers. How would a 'remake' solve this?)

Some of us spending 10-12 hours a day in front of a PC. The last thing I want to do when I get home is pickup a key board.

For that reason alone I choose to play on a console with all their issues.

EDIT: I have zero interest in the whole PC gaming nostalgia thing. I am only interested in additional story and lore.

If the older games in the FO series were brought up to FO3 lvl game style or even updated to a XCOM type of turnbase they would sell like hot cakes

to the console players. This in no way would affect the PC gamers because they would still have there floppies to play with.

I do disagree with the philosophy of not trying to improve something because there isn't an evident problem to solve, just look at PC technology and the leaps it has made since the 90's or even 5 years ago.There wasn't X problem to solve but PC's have improved exponentially and have became quicker,more versatile and more convenient with a larger range of functions.

Same logic applies to games consoles, technology could have stopped improving with the playstation 1 as it's not really solving a problem but think of how limited gaming would be compared to today.

So they should divert money and resources towards remaking three games that already work fully well on any computer now a days onto platforms that are not suited for that kind of play-style solely for people that refuse to play them on the PC where they work just fine instead of using said money and resources towards developing a new niche cRPG that us long-time fans have been longing for?

If you choose out of your own volition to refuse to play something on PC simply because "you don't want to" then that is a choice 'you' make. It does not warrant the 'necessity' of remaking three entire games.

Well, it differs depending on what the subject at hand is. What I generally meant with that post was this idea that some (especially web designers) hold that instead of improving something because they feel like they actually have a good idea of how to improve it they instead are obligated by the people who pay their salary to improve 'something' lest they want to lose their jobs. Forcing "improvement" is not going to cause improvement, allowing those with ideas and ambition to work on those to help better a product could very well be improvement.

With PC there were people that had ideas that could help make computers run faster or handle more programs or fit more data in their hard-drive, they had ideas of how to improve something and was given the room to work on it which in turn has helped a lot of technology progress.

But then we have things like websites where some of them just keep getting update after update that just makes the website worse every time. And why? My guess is that it is people in top that say that they need something new and flashy, they need improvement and then force their employees to work out an improvement.

Listening to those who have ideas about how to make something better and giving them the resources to do it is good.

Forcing people to make something better just because is not necessarily going to make it better.

That's what I meant about it.

And again, like I said, this would require a lot of money and resources, why would that money and resources not be better spent on a new game rather than a game we already have and which works on just about any PC?

And if you want FO3 or even XCOM then you don't want Fallout 1 or Fallout 2, you want Fallout 3 and XCOM.

If you are interested only in the story and lore and don't give a crap about the gameplay then you have the wiki at your disposal.

No I want them to hire/expand their companies with all the money they made selling to the console players.

If the whole FO series was brought up to todays console gaming standard it would be a guaranted winner.

I understand there would be no interest to the PC gamers but lets face it DEVs make far more money selling to console players.

I don't think that Fallout 1 and 2 would sell in a next gen market today. Simply put, they wouldn't be considered entertaining by the majority of gamers.

1. That's the thing, Fallout 1 and 2 were not meant to be "todays console gaming standard" and forcing them to "adapt" to it wouldn't work without gutting the very things that made the games successful, memorable, replayable and most of all 'fun' in the first place.

2. Yes, because all that matter in the end is money. Funnily enough if Bethesda decided to budget a niche game by hiring a third party they would still earn cashmoney, and they could probably squeeze out a Fallout 1/2-esque game every 2 years and a Tactics game every 2 years which means they could earn money from a new Fallout game every year while they work on their triple-A titles at their main studio.

What is wrong with DEVs making money? They have house payment, car payment, they have to feed their families.

What is wrong with taking known winners and expanding them to the console world. They would flop in their current state

so major overhauls would be required but the story and lore is there. ZeniMax Media knows what console players want Skyrim and NV

has proven that.

1. Nothing wrong about it, however, they 'are' already making that money with the main games. Their future does not hinge on Fallout 1/2/T being remade, it hinges on their next triple-A title being successful enough to provide a profit or at least so that they can make enough money to earn back what they spent on making Fallout 4.

2. But they're not flopping... That's the point... Fallout 1 has been sold for what? 15 years? 16? And they still sell copies, even after GOG had a week where you could get them all for free. Hell, I'm thinking of buying Fallout 1/2/T again on Steam just so I have yet another alternative in case I lose my other copies.

3. And? Not every game has to be a console game to succeed. It's not like Fallout 1/2/T are being held at ransom by someone and Bethesda has to make 30 million in the next 3 years to earn them back. The games have succeeded, they are still succeeding and they will continue to succeed so long as computers can run them. When computers reach a stage where they just aren't compatible for the older games anymore 'then' I could see the need for a proper remake. (And by proper remake I mean a turb-based isometric cRPG)

At Steam prices no one is making any money its just a courtesy to the PC players.

I see no reason to continue arguing with you we just have different ideas and I am fine with that.

I don't know if ZeniMax reads these forums anymore but my idea is out there.

What's wrong with paving over a profitless playground, for a parking lot & strip mall?

(The same thing actually.)

It takes a money pit property and creates jobs and a marketplace for cheap food, hair supplies, computer repair, and a dollar store; and jobs for people who work there.

Who could be against that?

That's like taking a known baseball player [for the name] and building a hockey around him.

This is all that matters, but it shouldn't be worth dirt. It's abusive, and destructive of established properties. Are you not suggesting that they brand entirely unrelated games with famous names?

Profit should not be the end-all-be-all of game design... game design should be.

**I can't help but the "What is wrong with [it]" notion brings to mind... "Citizen Kane Too", starring Billy Zane and Megan Fox; written & directed by Michael Bay.

Personally, I wouldn't mind its release but I probably wouldn't play it. Just because I already played the games, updated graphics or not its still the same game.

Disagree with that, would they have blockbuster success on a scale similar to the new Fallout games?Probably not, but there is loads of turn-based games that are commercially and critically successful.The Disgaea series is about as niche as it gets but it still has success so Fallout 1 and 2 with probably a larger appeal being part of a series that contained fallout 3 and fallout new vegas would pique people's interests.

Then you thrown in the console friendly optimizations, trophies and visual improvements and I think there would be potential for a million or 2 sales on ps4, ps3, xbox 360 and xbox one.

Depends. Divinity Orginal Sin is getting some very good press and has been a Steam top seller for almost 2 weeks straight (since its release); and it's mechanically very similiar to Fallout's 1 and 2. The few sour graqes are people who lament that they either don't know how to play the game (too much to read, too much to consider, too little handholding) or that it isn't like Diablo.

Now I don't endorse remakes, that's one of the most pointless things I know, but - for a sidenote - a game like Fallout (1 or 2) with the name Fallout and with proper budget and design values, could well be a success and considered "entertaining". Not by "firebrigade" Fallout 3/TES enthusiasts, obviously, but there is clearly a market for these types of games.

That an isometric TB fallout would sell well is granted on pc.

On other plateforms like PS4, i am not sure.

Anyway, considering the incresing number of RT Fallout, it would be too naive to think they would suddenly all become TB again.

But investing sometimes on a classic Fallout. (classic gameplay, classic team), would blow the pc sells for months considering the billions of player that are still waiting for it for so much time.

Some complain about waiting four years. Many already have waited 17 years for a new true Fallout. They might even sell their car to buy it.

I hope they will consider alternating the two kind of games.

i don't know about any of you but a remake would be cool, just as a purely texture update. I got the games a long time after they were released in a combo pack and I was too young to get tactics at it's height but if they do a remake for ioS and phone. I still remember going to new reno trying to figure out how to pimp my wife at the cats paw. but I want my falche editors for all three so I can hack my characters. at my discretion no one else's just for the joy of having a character that laughs at frank horrigan so hard he kills him with an un-augmented fist without even knuckles.

No. The games are perfectly fine as is.

ok....glossing over the horse corpse. as a hypothetical? yes remake it. as a gonna happen? no its not likely ever. cool idea sure but that's it.

I don't think it would be a good idea. Those only pleased with graphical improvements would not be pleased with the rest of the game.

Also: Fallout got away with things that FO3 could not have ~precisely because it did not depict them with photo-realistic imagery; a side effect... not the point of it.

Does anyone here think that Blizzard could re-release Diablo with an HD update ~unchanged? How about depicting the Butcher's lair? Those games were far more disturbing and even impactful than what we have commonly today... because [in part] that they showed the impression of disturbed imagery ~which can potentially be more disturbing that photo-realism.

But also ~with more and more detail, you run the risk of drawing the ire of parent groups and moralist nanny cults. So I ask you all... could Blizzard get away (in this modern day) with a 1920x1080 depiction of bleeding, carved up, naked women and men, on pikes and meat hooks? (Of course these days they would also have to be animated... so with several writhing, screaming victims still half alive.)

I doubt it; and I doubt we'd see anything close to an HD version of the Butcher's lair, or something that would evoke even a fraction of what the original could.

when I say graphic update I mean more like a washing of the textures make it look a little cleaner like say...re-painting the colors on the tiles on the gone with the wind negatives. nothing crazy like I've seen discussed through this thread. you guys are talking new house new game. I am talking about a fresh coat of paint on the old house nothing else.

That is a lot of work. Those are not single pictures for backgrounds. That might be more work than the others' suggestions you mentioned.



What you suggest could probably be done a with a scaler/shader that filtered the entire game screen frame by frame as it played.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperEagle
But it comes with down sides, and a loss of fidelity in some cases ~perhaps most cases. Not really what most would think from the term 'HD'.

**BTW: For anyone who wants to see what that would look like, you can ~if you have the original Fallout CD, as you can run the DOS version of Fallout in DOSBox, and use any scaler that it supports. It does work.

I get that but its a hypothetical thread not a "what do you want from it" thread the core question is "wouldn't it be cool?". I get it would all take time and we would lose impact and art no matter the decision done "if" they did it.

I think it would be cool if they did it ~right; but I cannot imagine they would; (not and release it publicly. I don't think they could get away with it.)

me either. cool? yes, but highly unlikely. and true hd for fo1,2,tactics makes me think of the wizard of oz in hd. /cringe and shudder you could see the wicked witches real nose and thumbprints in the old make up.

It really depend of what you mean by clean. If there is some unintended sprite that feel unfinished, finishing it could be great. But i am not fond of a sprite that looked dirty suddenly becoming far too clean. It is one of my complains with the WL1 new graphics, they feel far too clean, not wastelandish enough. I don't imagine a post-apocalyptic world being too clean.