iFallout : Fallout Series Discussion

» Wed Nov 11, 2009 10:44 pm

I don't think this is that weird, this kind of thing happens all the time. Many games have a cheesy phone version. There were like 3 elder scrolls ones. I'm not surprised.

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 1:06 am

They already made one, it's called Fallout 3.

You fallout acolytes really get annoying. Or try to be, anyway.

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:08 am

You fallout acolytes really get annoying. Or try to be, anyway.

Oooh we're Acolytes now. Frankly it's a step up from Cultist. Soon, we'll become Champions of Fallout. The Overlord will be pleased. Did someone at NMA touch you in a bad way, Kjarista ? heh. Ah this is fun, sometimes, heh.

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:37 am

Oooh we're Acolytes now. Frankly it's a step up from Cultist. Soon, we'll become Champions of Fallout. The Overlord will be pleased. Did someone at NMA touch you in a bad way, Kjarista ? heh. Ah this is fun, sometimes, heh.

Was I talking to you? No, and I think I will continue that trend for a bit.

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:05 am

Well despite what you say, I still get the sense that you would from that statement, the caveat at the end is a bit of indicator.

I'll say again. If it's a good game, I'll buy it. If it's not, I won't. There's no caveat, there. I'm only ever going to be able to play so many games, after all. So putting Fallout in the name is going to bump it up the list of good games I'm going to be interested in buying. That's what a franchise is, after all.

I don't see why you don't understand my point, made it pretty clearly. I fail to see, other than the cash in on the name (who says living of others' work is out of style), any reason for a spin off - especially one as low end and simplistic as a game on a cellphone. It doesn't add anything to the series' name except the possibility of a second BOS. But fine, you can keep on with your "Why not?" thinking, heh.

Yeah, they're trying to cash in on the game's popularity - that's what a spin-off is. If it leads to a good game, how is that a bad thing? If it leads to a bad game, it's a bad game. But you don't need to rely on popularity to make a horrible game, either. You don't make a game at all unless you think you can a return on your investment. That's why we got Fallout 2 in the first place, it was cashing in on the popularity of Fallout 1. Are you going to tell me that was a bad move?

Putting a game out on a more limited platform isn't going to inherently make a bad game. In the art world, you can get some pretty creative results if you limit yourself. I don't see why it's inherently any different for a videogame. And it's not all that limited a platform these days. You can get was is essentially the original Civilization on your phone these days, and there have been some pretty high-quality games released for that platform besides. It's pretty close to the level of an old-school 16-bit game by this point, or a Web-based Flash game.

We don't even know what sort of game this is going to turn out to be. The Oblivion cellphone game was actually pretty good, they put some actual effort into making a good game there, actually. So there's a chance that this could turn out to be a bit of fun.

If it turns out to be lame and broken, that's another matter. But we don't have any information on that at this point.

You seem to be saying that the very concept of making a Fallout spin-off is inherently a terrible thing. I don't follow, though. Yeah, my view is basically "why not." But you still haven't said why you shouldn't. It's not inherently going to lead to a bad game. Technology isn't all that limiting a factor on the quality of a game, after all. It could bring something interesting to the franchise - the potential is there. Whether they follow through on that potential is another matter, but that's not the point. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that it's automatically a bad thing that they're even trying.

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:17 am

Was I talking to you? No, and I think I will continue that trend for a bit.

Oh I don't class as an acolyte ? Oh dear, I'll have to work harder then.

Yeah, they're trying to cash in on the game's popularity - that's what a spin-off is. If it leads to a good game, how is that a bad thing? If it leads to a bad game, it's a bad game. But you don't need to rely on popularity to make a horrible game, either. You don't make a game at all unless you think you can a return on your investment. That's why we got Fallout 2 in the first place, it was cashing in on the popularity of Fallout 1. Are you going to tell me that was a bad move?

Putting a game out on a more limited platform isn't going to inherently make a bad game. In the art world, you can get some pretty creative results if you limit yourself. I don't see why it's inherently any different for a videogame. And it's not all that limited a platform these days. You can get was is essentially the original Civilization on your phone these days, and there have been some pretty high-quality games released for that platform besides. It's pretty close to the level of an old-school 16-bit game by this point, or a Web-based Flash game.

We don't even know what sort of game this is going to turn out to be. The Oblivion cellphone game was actually pretty good, they put some actual effort into making a good game there, actually. So there's a chance that this could turn out to be a bit of fun.

If it turns out to be lame and broken, that's another matter. But we don't have any information on that at this point.

You seem to be saying that the very concept of making a Fallout spin-off is inherently a terrible thing. I don't follow, though. Yeah, my view is basically "why not." But you still haven't said why you shouldn't. It's not inherently going to lead to a bad game. Technology isn't all that limiting a factor on the quality of a game, after all. It could bring something interesting to the franchise - the potential is there. Whether they follow through on that potential is another matter, but that's not the point. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that it's automatically a bad thing that they're even trying.

Different lines of thought for Fallout 2 or Fallout 4 rather than this cheesy phone game though. One is to make a sequel which benefits from the predecessor, the other seems to be just banking in on the name rather than progressing the tale at all. And as I mentioned before, the phone as a game platform isn't going to permit a worthy game due to the interfacing and the screen size, I still have my funny vision of some Fallout Arcade which just makes wonder why the series needs this (yeah imagine that, needing a reason to do rather than moving ahead in the absence of a reason not to... heh). What exactly do you see it bringing to the, heh, franchise anyway (other than lemmings with cash) ? I doubt any new story or breakthrough will come from the phone game. Just that they should stick to the RPG realm, as that's what they're best at, I don't understand the need for spinoffs, but I guess you don't need one.

» Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:23 pm

You fallout acolytes really get annoying. Or try to be, anyway.

Heh. I thought it was funny. Short but sweet. :biglaugh:

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:12 am

Can you explain this position to me, at least? I honestly don't understand the reasoning behind it. It's not like there's some crack team of developers that were going to make the perfect Fallout RPG, and then they got pulled away to make another game - it just doesn't work like that. Putting out a Fallout game of another genre (or on a more limited platform since that's what the topic is,) doesn't have anything to do with whether or not any future Fallout games will be excellent RPGs.

Does that make sense? I don't see the connection from "We're making a Fallout game for Cellphones," to "This ruins the entire franchise, regardless of whether or not it's a quality game."

And please don't put words in my mouth. I never said I'd happily buy up anything that has the Fallout name. I will rephrase that part again, just for you - I'll buy any game on any platform if it's a good game. That it has Fallout in the title is just an extra selling point. But I don't see the connection where every Fallout game has to be a particular type of RPG - Tactics was a good game, and that was a Squad-Level Tactical game...

I'm going to give it a shot here - although I'm probably not well-suited to figuring out their motives/intentions.

If Bethesda releases it - whatever goes into iFallout will be Canon (unless specifially de-Canonized). The fear is that making a "casual-friendly game" will require certain concessions/compromises that will damage the body of "Lore" that makes up the series. They are resentful of the idea that future Fallout games will be forced to implement things put it for the sole purpose of catering to iPhone users (like an iVault-Tec store you access with the Pip-Boy to download songs and stuff). It's kinda like their arguments about say, the Fatman in Fallout 3. In their view, a weapon implemented to give console kiddies something fun to play with - and now will be appearing in future Fallout games.

Personally, I don't think it's a rational argument. I agree with your statement that the iPhone will have zero impact on the quality of future Fallout RPG's. If the developers of Fallout 4 are any good, they'll be able to easily get around stuff like this. If they aren't any good, Fallout 4 is going to be a bad game regardless of what type of Canon they base it on.

Anyhow, I'm probably way off in my understanding of the argument - that happens to me a lot. As a result, I'm limiting myself to just this one post in this thread.

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:13 am

Different lines of thought for Fallout 2 or Fallout 4 rather than this cheesy phone game though. One is to make a sequel which benefits from the predecessor, the other seems to be just banking in on the name rather than progressing the tale at all. And as I mentioned before, the phone as a game platform isn't going to permit a worthy game due to the interfacing and the screen size, I still have my funny vision of some Fallout Arcade which just makes wonder why the series needs this (yeah imagine that, needing a reason to do rather than moving ahead in the absence of a reason not to... heh). What exactly do you see it bringing to the, heh, franchise anyway (other than lemmings with cash) ? I doubt any new story or breakthrough will come from the phone game. Just that they should stick to the RPG realm, as that's what they're best at, I don't understand the need for spinoffs, but I guess you don't need one.

You haven't said why a Cell-Phone game couldn't bring something good to the franchise. It has as much potential as any other game. You're making assumptions about the platform that aren't true. I've played some very quality games on my Cell, and my phone svcks and can't play alot of the newer games. There's no absolute reason why Bethesda couldn't overcome the screen size and interface problems. You're just saying there's no way it can happen, when I don't follow the logic of that.

Here's a hypothetical (I don't like these, in general, but I think it might help to explain the logic here.)

Let's say someone decides to make a Fallout racing game. (I think there's room for something like that, at least.) It ends up being the best racing game ever made. If you were going to buy only one racing game in your lifetime, that would be the one to buy. It not only stays faithful to the source material, but adds some interesting twists and weaves a well-crafted story in the process (there's no reason you couldn't do all of that with any sort of game.) Since we're dealing with hypotheticals, the open-world story was even written by most of the original Fallout team. It also has everything you could ever want in a racing game - tons of customization, pretty graphics, realistic physics. It's the total package.

But it's a spin-off.

Now, the question is this: would you consider that such a bad thing? If so, why? It was of course an attempt to cash in on the franchise's popularity, but it ended up being an incredible game. Or maybe you just don't like racing games. That's fine, assume it's of any other genre that you do enjoy playing. The question remains - would an excellent game that is also a spin-off be an inherently bad thing?

If it's not, then the logic doesn't follow that making a spin-off game for a phone is inherently a bad thing. As an absolute. Frankly, I have my doubts that Bethesda is going to make the best cellphone game ever made. But it doesn't mean that there's no potential, which is what we're debating, here.

I mean frak, they could decide that the way to go was to make a turn-based RPG that was a throwback to the original games.

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:35 am

A Fallout RPG for Iphone could bring in a lot of new interest to the franchise. I think the root argument here is that the new interest will not be aligned with the old school fallout fans, and will, therefore, tend to cause FO4 to be less like FO1 and more like FO3. The logic is false, i think, because no matter what happens, Fo4 will be more like FO3 than FO1.

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:45 am

You haven't said why a Cell-Phone game couldn't bring something good to the franchise. It has as much potential as any other game. You're making assumptions about the platform that aren't true. I've played some very quality games on my Cell, and my phone svcks and can't play alot of the newer games. There's no absolute reason why Bethesda couldn't overcome the screen size and interface problems. You're just saying there's no way it can happen, when I don't follow the logic of that.

Here's a hypothetical (I don't like these, in general, but I think it might help to explain the logic here.)

Let's say someone decides to make a Fallout racing game. (I think there's room for something like that, at least.) It ends up being the best racing game ever made. If you were going to buy only one racing game in your lifetime, that would be the one to buy. It not only stays faithful to the source material, but adds some interesting twists and weaves a well-crafted story in the process (there's no reason you couldn't do all of that with any sort of game.) Since we're dealing with hypotheticals, the open-world story was even written by most of the original Fallout team. It also has everything you could ever want in a racing game - tons of customization, pretty graphics, realistic physics. It's the total package.

But it's a spin-off.

Now, the question is this: would you consider that such a bad thing? If so, why? It was of course an attempt to cash in on the franchise's popularity, but it ended up being an incredible game. Or maybe you just don't like racing games. That's fine, assume it's of any other genre that you do enjoy playing. The question remains - would an excellent game that is also a spin-off be an inherently bad thing?

If it's not, then the logic doesn't follow that making a spin-off game for a phone is inherently a bad thing. As an absolute. Frankly, I have my doubts that Bethesda is going to make the best cellphone game ever made. But it doesn't mean that there's no potential, which is what we're debating, here.

I mean frak, they could decide that the way to go was to make a turn-based RPG that was a throwback to the original games.

Well I've yet to think up anything it can add to the series' continuity, but I'll keep at it. It's not exactly continuing the saga of the CW or any other area, my suspicion is, anyway. I guess I've less, heh, faith in Bethesda than you. Everything about this really smells like some simply time-wasting arcade game, due to the interface (the touch still can't compete with a keyboard/mouse) and the screen size probably means any dialogue will be minimal at best. I'm not sure what you expect me to reply to your near fantastical hypothetical there, a racing game within Fallout's setting would require some real magic to get to fit I think - well unless you cheat and say 600 years after the war or something along those lines. I guess it's just an issue of a rather old school of "why?" camp versus this "why not?" one. We don't need tonnes of games with Fallout attached to it, you can overmilk a cow after all.

A Fallout RPG for Iphone could bring in a lot of new interest to the franchise. I think the root argument here is that the new interest will not be aligned with the old school fallout fans, and will, therefore, tend to cause FO4 to be less like FO1 and more like FO3. The logic is false, i think, because no matter what happens, Fo4 will be more like FO3 than FO1.

I'm not sure that "new interest" would be in line with Fallout 3's fans.

» Wed Nov 11, 2009 6:54 pm

Was I talking to you? No, and I think I will continue that trend for a bit.

The idea of a forum is that multiple people can read and respond to your posts.... If you dont like this, perhaps email is for you?

A Fallout RPG for Iphone could bring in a lot of new interest to the franchise. I think the root argument here is that the new interest will not be aligned with the old school fallout fans, and will, therefore, tend to cause FO4 to be less like FO1 and more like FO3. The logic is false, i think, because no matter what happens, Fo4 will be more like FO3 than FO1.

Actually, I think your own argument is flawed, as iFallout would be very unlikely to be an FPS it would arguably be more like FO1 - Simply due to how you use the screen.

I dont think its a good idea because Handheld gaming, and phone gaming is even more like this - Is focused on more casual gaming than story types - This is similar to the reason why (at least here in the UK) the majority of mobile TV channels contain 5-10min clips, and part of the reason why we have all seemingly forgotten about UMD Movies - Because both the format of the device, and the way people use the device is not for long term, in depth and detail gaming sessions.

iPhones are for puzzle games, driving games, and maybe a quick action game, I dont think its the appropriate forum for a deep RPG

» Wed Nov 11, 2009 6:50 pm

iPhones are for puzzle games, driving games, and maybe a quick action game, I dont think its the appropriate forum for a deep RPG

Why does it have to a deep RPG, though? If it's a good game, it's a good game.

Now yes, realistically, it's not like it's going to blow me away. It probably won't even run on the phone I'm using right now, and it probably won't be anything ground-breaking.

But it's not like there's any sort of underlying reason why it couldn't also be a decent game that's worth the $5 or so it's going to cost. I don't expect anything all that incredible out of a budget title I purchase for the PC or XBox, only that it's worth the $20 I spent on it. If you can get a couple bucks' worth of enjoyment out of the game - does it need to be all that incredibly deep?

We don't even know what sort of game it's going to be, so isn't it a little early to be saying it's not going to be a decent, cheap, RPG? That might not even be what they're going for. It might not even be an RPG (though it likely will, admittedly.)

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:01 am

Why does it have to a deep RPG, though? If it's a good game, it's a good game.

Because I come to fallout for a deep RPG experience - its what the franchise is built on; One could in theory watch the New York Yankees play Cricket - but you dont go see the Yankees to watch top class cricket, or you dont buy an iPhone because you want to just make phone calls.

If I want a casual experience, then there are great franchises that already do this - Why Dilute the franchise by trying to touch on more basis - This did a lot of damage to Xcom (Interceptor, that FPS that noone talks about).

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 7:37 am

If I want a casual experience, then there are great franchises that already do this - Why Dilute the franchise by trying to touch on more basis - This did a lot of damage to Xcom (Interceptor, that FPS that noone talks about).

I'd argue that's because the X-Com spin-offs were poor quality games. As an FPS, X-Com: Enforcer just wasn't very good. It diluted the franchise because it was a poor game, not because it was a different genre.

Also, there's comparitively little another genre game for the X-Com series could bring - FPS X-Com is just another shooter where you're killing aliens. There's not very much going in the X-Com universe beyond the gameplay. Fallout, I think is a different matter, though. Any type of game you do in the universe is going to have something of a twist to it, it's going to stand as different from the rest of the crop - by virtue of the setting and unique art direction.

Is Halo Wars going to dilute that franchise? Did Puzzle Fighter bring down Street Fighter? Or Metal Gear on the PSP, Dr. Mario, Kirby's Avalance (I'm a bit of a puzzle game nut.) Or Final Fantasy Tactics was very much a different game from the regular series, a spin-off. I don't see how it was so terrible to the FF franchise to have a couple spin-offs. Those are just a few examples off the top of my head. Is Fallout inherently somehow different than all the other series? Is it so unique in some way that the same rules don't apply?

My point is this: it's one thing if you just don't like certain types of games. I don't play fighting games, for instance. But it doesn't mean I can't appreciate that Street Fighter is a good game. If you were to say "I don't like games for phones," I'm not going to argue with you. I'm not even saying that there's any reason for me expect that this particular game is going to be any good.

What I do find quite illogical is the knee-jerk reaction that any spin-off of the Fallout series is inherently a bad move. If you just have a subjective dislike, that's one thing. What I contest is that there's some objective reason why a spin-off can't work for Fallout.

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:05 am

I'd argue that's because the X-Com spin-offs were poor quality games. As an FPS, X-Com: Enforcer just wasn't very good. It diluted the franchise because it was a poor game, not because it was a different genre.

Also, there's comparitively little another genre game for the X-Com series could bring - FPS X-Com is just another shooter where you're killing aliens. There's not very much going in the X-Com universe beyond the gameplay. Fallout, I think is a different matter, though. Any type of game you do in the universe is going to have something of a twist to it, it's going to stand as different from the rest of the crop - by virtue of the setting and unique art direction.

Is Halo Wars going to dilute that franchise? Did Puzzle Fighter bring down Street Fighter? Or Metal Gear on the PSP, Dr. Mario, Kirby's Avalance (I'm a bit of a puzzle game nut.) Or Final Fantasy Tactics was very much a different game from the regular series, a spin-off. I don't see how it was so terrible to the FF franchise to have a couple spin-offs. Those are just a few examples off the top of my head. Is Fallout inherently somehow different than all the other series? Is it so unique in some way that the same rules don't apply?

My point is this: it's one thing if you just don't like certain types of games. I don't play fighting games, for instance. But it doesn't mean I can't appreciate that Street Fighter is a good game. If you were to say "I don't like games for phones," I'm not going to argue with you. I'm not even saying that there's any reason for me expect that this particular game is going to be any good.

What I do find quite illogical is the knee-jerk reaction that any spin-off of the Fallout series is inherently a bad move. If you just have a subjective dislike, that's one thing. What I contest is that there's some objective reason why a spin-off can't work for Fallout.

You could say the same for Fallout. as X-COM. I don't think an FPS, RTS, Diablo-clone in the Fallout setting would bring anything interesting or new to the series. And those spinoffs you've mentioned would at least be on a comparably capable platform for one, not so with these phone games that we apparently need and should be ecstatic to have, heh. It's not illogical to not automatically think this would be a good thing, as you do, I've yet to see why it should be done and I can think up a good many reasons why not as I've mentioned. It can serve as good tool to svck people into Fallout 3 I suppose, but that's still not good enough. But I guess "why not" is a better stance to have.

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:35 am

This is getting stale. I'm going to restate this one last time, and then I'm done because we just aren't getting anywhere and it's getting a little old seeing you put words into my mouth.

I'm not saying this is automatically a good choice. I am not saying that. I'm not, not, not. I'm also not saying I'll buy anything you can slap a Fallout label on. That is not what I'm saying, here. I am not saying that. I am not saying that this is inherently a good thing, a natural progression, that this game we know nothing about is going to rock, blow my socks off, and completely change the world. This is not what I'm saying. I am not saying that. I am not.

That's not what I'm saying.

Okay. Clear on that?

This might not even be a good game. It might be frakking awful. It might not be your cup of tea, it might not be mine.

With me so far?

It might also be quite good for what it is, which is a budget title on a lmited platform (that actually has some real potential for growth - the medium never defines quality.)

What I contest is the viewpoint that there is an obective, inherent reasoning behind why this game is a bad idea. If you just don't like cellphone games - I have no problem with that. What I don't understand, and I don't see how anyone has tried to explain - is why these arguments are being phrased as absolutes.

It's one thing to say you don't like comic books, for example. That's an opinion, and while I may disagree, there's no grounds for me to debate on. That's a matter of taste and personal preference. But it would be another thing entirely to say all comic books are for kids.

This is what I seem to be seeing on this thread - not that you personally don't like cell games, or are only interested in a tunnel-vision view of the franchise. I feel differently, but that's fine. We can agree to disagree on that. What I contest is the view that there is an inherent value towards making a spin-off one way or another. A spin-off is not automatically so terrible, in an objective viewpoint. It's also not necessarily good. It just is. You can subjectively dislike it, but that's not what I have a problem with.

Okay, I'm done.

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 1:16 am

As I've said I have no reason why it should be done. And I've not heard one from you. Well aside from the fact it might be this hypothetical God game. As I said, I guess you're in the "why not?" camp, and I'm in the "why?" one. I can't see it adding anything to the series other than making it lose focus.