It was the series, though, not just that game. Many series' have kept their core values intact to deliver a familiar experience (HoMM, Civilization, TES, and so on...).

It never needed to be as succesful as it is now, and no fan should stress about that.


I wouldn't object, but it wouldn't offer anything for me. I don't play games with a phone.

But that's just it. It's not that it needed to be amazingly successful, but it needed to be successful enough. It wasn't, no matter how much you loved it. There's a reason Black Isle sold it. If it was making enough money they would've kept going.

As it happens I'm generally not a fan of most mobile games. They're usually F2P money grabbing in-app purchasing pieces of crap. Apart from the odd few games I generally just emulate older consoles; PS1, PSP, N64, etc. It's nice being able to play the classics on the go. If I could add Fallout to the list I'd be a happy camper. You can get FO1/2/T running using DosBox Turbo, but it's rather buggy from what I've heard.

Is there any chance of a dedicated thread for this topic? It keeps popping up everywhere.

PS. the Wickerman should never have been remade.

Interplay didn't go under because of Fallout. They went due to horrid mismanagement of the whole company (Van Buren was almost done when they pulled the plug - and they had already failed at what Bethesda succeeded in: turning the series into a console action title).


That they are, and generally playing anything more complex and timeconsuming than those worm games or other similiar few minute things just feels bad.

That is sad truth, many very creative companies go down because they svck at economy. I have seen great games go down because of mismanagement on distribution level or because some big company bought them and then destroyed them for profit.

I do sympathize and hate the 2nd film beyond imagining and find the third mediocre. I really like the TV series best though. I understand your point but its really been made over the over again and it would be really nice to not have the threads derailed over and over again.

Back on topic, The graphics don't have me gasping in awe like the Witcher promos did but look pretty sweet enough for me. I've disproportionately jazzed about the hair moving and not being static also in a Bethesda open world game.

I would like to think by the third such game they produced, I would just have moved on and understood the present player/fanbase likes what they're doing so probably won't swayed by my complaints. I guess you just come here to vent but wow, that's a lot of venting.

Forum purge has cut many members posts in half.

After the third game? There is FO3; NV is a spin off (just like FO3).

*No one expects a change from them; no one is asking; but it shouldn't be lived down either IMO. Fallout used to be a very special RPG series.

___

The PC (and who knows maybe the console versions) may get a careful HD overhaul that will improve the graphics quite significantly.

Toddwin's law, because ultimately no matter what side of the dichotomy you argue for, Todd decides.

The comparison of Fallout 1/2 vs Fallout 3 and the original Highlander and it's sequels is simply a horrid anology. The comparison of Fallout 1/2 to the original Highlander is acceptable (under-rated in it's time, nitch popularity and genre, etc.) but Fallout 3 is almost 180 from what the Highlander sequels were to the original. Despite Gizmo's desire for everyone to see it as a failed attempt to "milk" the original game assets for financial gain alone, the game was wildly successful, universally praised by critics and players alike and has been called a worthy successor to the originals even by the creators of the original (that thought enough of it to actually do a spin off game using the new direction Bethesda chose).

Also, this thread has played it's course....

Gizmo I'm curious, do you have the same issue with the route GTA went with their obviously giant change in gameplay? I guess that's assuming you care at all about that franchise but still, curious on your take of it. The jump to 3d changed everything about the game and really brought it to mainstream, similar to what FO3 did. The GTA series wouldn't have the following that it does if it had stayed a top down "action" game. One would say the newer installments (san andreas and 5, not sure if 4 had them) have more RPG elements to them as well. There are "skills" that affect gameplay that can be manually improved. Just spitballing and wanting to know your opinion on it as it is another gameplay evolution from a game that did have a decent following originally.

And I used to be a young beautiful woman. Alas, tis no longer true.

If only things would remain the same....

And why aren't we all talking about graphics in Fallout:4. That is what this thread is about.

Perfect. Let's roll with that.

So... yeah, the "Fallout 1 was like this and Fallout 3 was like this" thing has been going for nigh on 8 years now. It's not going to end. Ever.

I mean, since Fallout 3 came out I've married, had a child, moved 4 times, and held about half a dozen jobs - the one constant in my life (apparently) is that people still like to play compare and contrast with the Fallout games. I try to kind of keep out of them, to be honest (because, 8 years of talking about it...) but every once in a while I get the urge to weigh in again.

My latest pet anology (and if you haven't noticed by now, you're not allowed in the Fallout Versus Club if you don't have an anology) is Batman.

It's late, and I won't even bother trying to count them off the top of my head, but there's been quite a lot of Batman movies by now. And they're all fairly different takes on the same character and setting. And that's not even getting into all the TV shows, animated movies, and oh yeah - all the different Batmans (Batmen?) from the comics.

Me, I grew up with the Tim Burton Batman. Loved that movie (and I still maintain that's one of the best movie soundtracks ever.) Batman Returns was pretty good too, but didn't quite strike lightning in a bottle like the first film managed to. So, if I liked Tim Burton's Batman then what I would have wanted in the next Batman movie would be something kind of like that. Instead we end up with Joel Schumacher's Batman.

Not what I wanted. Just did not like those movies. I like Batman - he's one of my favorite superheroes. I went to school to learn how to make comic books in part because of Batman. But I did not like Batman Forever or Batman & Robin. This does not mean I dislike anything that's not Tim Burton's vision of Batman (and if we really want to get down to it, "my" Batman is always going to be from the Animated Series.) Just that I didn't particularly like that instance of the character. I very much enjoyed Christopher Nolan's Batman, for example.

Fallout is... well, as far as I see it it's the exact same thing. I was in High School when Fallout 1 came out and instantly fell in love. I dropped a class in College when Fallout 2 came out. If you travel back in time to 2001 and ask me what I want from a Fallout 3 game my answer is not going to be what Bethesda came out with. This doesn't mean I dislike anything that doesn't fit my definition for the series - just that I have my particular tastes.

Now I happened to luck out - if Fallout 1 and 2 were Tim Burton's Batman to me, then Bethesda's Fallout is more like Christopher Nolan's Batman than Schumacher's. For other people, it's going to be the opposite.

I don't know - I think it's just that simple. Some people have loved every Batman movie that's ever been made, and others haven't. A lot of it depends on what you grew up with, I'd imagine. Bethesda has their own take on the series (I still think it's unfortunate they went with Fallout 3 and not something else, but that's kind of in-line with Todd Howard's... particular view on what a sequel is "supposed" to be.) It's just different from Interplay/Black Isle's original take on it.

The thing with the batman series is that they're not following an apparent number scheme. They aren't labeled as Batman 1,2,3,4,5,etc. Each one offers a different take on the Batman super hero while retaining some of the core traits of batman (to some extent at least). The Michael Keaton Batman didn't hesitate to kill a villain by pulling the pins on his grenade, and throwing him down a shaft. Compared to say, Nolan's Batman, who absolutely refused to kill people. There are some differences, but they tend to nail the caped crusader motif.

Part of the issue with Fallout 3 is that people are hung up on the semantics of Fallout 3 being called Fallout 3, and the association that because it is following the previous two iterations, it should mimic their gameplay traits and qualities. It ultimately boils down to: "if Fallout 3 had just been called something else, we wouldn't have an issue with it."

Well sure, there's the number thing. Like I said, Bethesda has a particular philosophy regarding videogame sequels. Todd Howard probably also refers to Batman Begins as "Batman 5."

But that's just semantics...

That's true. And it also holds water in that a name implies continuity of the experience. Fallout 3 was a misleading moniker because it implied and promised something it did not deliver in the slightest; and a bad one since it ruled out the proper sequels. With Fallout 4 the name is already less of an issue (although, it would be fitting to call it Fallout 3 2) for the game being to Fallout 3 what Fallout 3 should've been to Fallout 2.

If he thinks that Batman Begins is five he just might be crazy. Each story is its own evolution a different take on a familiar setting.

This is how I see Fallout and I enjoyed Fallout 3 and New Vegas this is why I am so excited for Fallout 4. I enjoy things for what they are that does not mean to say I openly embrace every new feature given to us. I dislike the removal of skills I think they could have been tuned in with the perks to add even more diversity to character development but that's a topic for another discussion.

Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever and Batman & Robin were considered the same film series. *Checks Google* Yep, Tim Burton was producer of Batman Forever (but it looks like he got out before the truly abysmal Batman and Robin).

And as much I liked Tim Burton's version, even that wasn't the real Batman I watched as a kid:

https://vimeo.com/91815457

Batman is the central character of the IP, and the world revolves around him; it is the same for any character-centric IP; [Mario, Robocop, Duke, Croft, Superman/Spiderman/IronMan, SeriousSam]...

The flipside of these are setting-centric IPs like Warhammer, W40k, Myth[1&2], Warcraft ,Baldur's Gate*, Planescape*; Lands of Lore; Eye of the Beholder, The Bard's Tale(s), The Elder Scrolls, and Fallout. These IPs do not orbit a central figure. Any game featuring Duke Nukem or Robocop is a Duke Nukem or Robocop game, but not every game featuring Warhammer or Warcraft, is a "Dawn of War" or a "World of Warcraft" game.

FO:Tactics and FOBOS and New Vegas were not Fallout sequels. They were set in the Fallout Universe.

*And aside: they were not beholden to the series gameplay like a Fallout sequel should be; like a 'dawn of war' sequel should be; like a Myth sequel should be; like a Warcraft or Disciples sequel should be... and in the case of the last four of those ~they did just that, as should be.

*(Granted these are arguably about the main PC; but I don't think a BG3 would have to be about a specific child of Bhall, or that Nameless would have to appear in a Planescape 2.)

as long they do novk the pc version at 30 fps i pretty happy with how the game looks

I think there are always exceptions to the rule. The Grand Theft Auto series is not central to a single character and has evolved from http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101227143153/gta/pl/images/6/6b/Bank_(GTA1).jpg into http://dailynewsdig.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Grand-Theft-Auto-5-review-5.jpg.

I don't agree that games should be bound by a predecessor's gameplay. It's preferable for a developer to do so, no doubt; but, when it comes to a franchise changing hands (like Fallout), it's also preferable for the new owner to re-envision the title with the mechanics and gameplay they do best.

So where does Angry Birds 2 fit into all this?

Seriously, I would welcome a 'Fallout 4 is not really Fallout' thread to avoid the debate cropping up in every other thread.

Lol except it will no matter what.

I don't see that example as a problem. That IS evolution. The core game is http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/Gizmojunk001/Postal_series_zpsxpbxf2ln.jpg; you can see this in Postal as well. The real offenders are when the core premise of the game is discarded and the IP assets used merely to decorate some other game. Like as happened with Wasteland, and Fallout.

Seriously

It is not always (or often?) preferable to the player when a game's direct sequel is an entirely unrelated game. I have never understood a serious desire for a series game that merely draqes the graphical/fictional trappings of the IP onto some wholly unrelated activity. Gameplay premise matters in a series.

Imagine for a moment (following your ~very popular opinion), if say... Mortal Kombat 1-10 didn't just remap the moves (which I hate with a passion), but that the actual game mechanics were changed every time or with each new studio; or even each new team that develops it... Imagine if among the sequels there was an MK 'Typing of the Dead' clone [typing words to throw punches!], or another one that had Tetris blocks falling, and each player has to

http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/Gizmojunk001/MKTetris001_zpsvl9hb2gy.gif.

I see people here all of the time, demanding that "of course it must change every time! It's [insert current year] for goodness sake!", but in their head they are unconsciously thinking "within reason", and they lash out at any who would expect or suggest something they personally would not like or be comfortable with ~even if what they like is the unreasonable change; and this goes http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/01/fallout-3-producer-finds-diablo-3-design-conservative/.

Ask yourself if a Tetris maniac wouldn't like MK_Tetris; but would you like it as the official Mortal Kombat 11? (and then how about the Typing of the Dead one as MK12?) Would any WoW players here be pleased with a 'WoW 2' that was highly reminiscent of Warcraft 4? And how about the reverse? [If Blizzard released Warcraft 5, and it played very like World of Warcraft... in the same way FO3 plays very like Oblivion.]

Graphics only go so far, and they all generally improve every few months across the industry... but graphics are not often the heart of a game... They are usually just presentation. Gameplay is the heart, and the story leads into the gameplay.