Possibly...

NO! No remake of originals. Bethesda have already sodomised the Fallout series as it is.

Leave.The Lore.Alone ?_?

I beg to differ.

Beg, then

Please sir, can I have some more?

Oh, wait.

I beg you to let me differ!

I think I've just realised that being begged to is a very awkward scenario >_<

This has crossed a boundary I'm not comfortable with

Ok I'll elaborate. If Bethesda remade FO1 & 2 they would be stripped to such a degree that they wouldn't have any of their original magic. I see first hand what has been done to gameplay and Lore in FO3, and for previous titles to suffer that would be an even bigger insult to the franchise.

Well duh! No re-make has the magic of an original.

Ditto.

Having never played the original two, id like to finally play them, but i know anyone on a pc who played them would be jealous that they had to share with the console users! :shrug:

Same here.

Arx Fatalis was not an Ultima UW remake, but was a very good sequel (intended as such ~but ultimately an unlicensed one.)

I wasn't talking about sequels though.

It could still have some of that magic, though, anything to keep the series feeling like it's still the same series. Even keeping the special system, the unique and effective method of damage calculation, things that would have enhanced the game without requiring any extra input of skill from the gamer, but everything from previous games was altered or removed, Bethesda kept nothing that made previous games truly unique against other games. S.P.E.C.I.A.L was created by Chris Taylor, he owned the rights to it, no other developer could use that system without his permission, it was unique to Fallout, and it worked incredibly well. Bethesda had a chance to use that system in all its glory, but they diluted it, and for who? S.P.E.C.I.A.L as it was would have worked even for Bethesdas fanbase, it hindered nothing, but they made it impotent and useless. It is things like that Bethesda has done, that they could have avoided and still got great feedback from their fans. FO3 is nothing compared to its predecesors, the only thing that binds them is a title and a shadow of a gameplay system that makes little impact in its current state.


Hm? I'm a PC user and I'm not sure what you're saying? I'm definitely not jealous for 'sharing' a game with console users, though Fallout will always be a better experience on the PC, because it's always been great with a mouse, and now FO3 as an FPS really benefits from keyboard and mouse setups. And all the other perks PC players get, G.E.C.K editor, DLC (unlike PS3), command console, mods. I don't mind sharing anything :/

don't know if consolize is a word but it should be!! and remakes do work some times the resident evil 1 remake on the gamecube improved the game massivley. but yeah perhaps a remake would be a wrong thing to do for bethesda a prequel where you play a character who hooks up with james and doctor li before project purity would be good

Actually, as a point of fact, Fallout 3 has not done well. It shipped 4.7 million units in November, and has not sold all of them. The most it sold was at it's release, where it's lead platform sold 370k units. Dropped to ~250k in December, and < 140k in January(Also dropped off the charts). It's probably still an easy 1.5 million units away from selling out their first shipment.

Which means Bethseda thought they would sell 4.7 million units quickly, and instead run the very real risk of never selling out their initial shipment.

So they had less revenue than expected, their 2 sister studios have no major cash stream, one's working on an MMO. So Bethseda has to bank-roll 3 studios for their development cycles on less money than expected. One of those studios is doing an MMO, which is very well known for being incredibly expensive. There's a very real risk that money is going to run short.

Zenimax apparently expected more than 4.7 million in sales, they would've budgeted advertising as such. The massive F3 media blitz would not have been at all cheap. Especially if they, as I suspect, paid Best Buy and Gamestop for those "Midnight sales", since a sequel to a 10 year old game generally doesn't warrant "Midnight sales". Zenimax probably planned their budget for significantly more revenue than they got.

So what's most likely to happen is Zenimax finds cash getting low, pushes Bethseda to release TES V earlier than expected, and then there's lots of room for problems.

Well, FO3 is too complicated for an FPS, too simplified for an RPG (Diablo 2 comes to mind, but in D2 at least your stats matter), and too much of a travesty for a sequel to FO1&2. So... who's the secondary fanbase? E.g. who's the friend you're gonna recommend it to?

where are your figures coming from?

My PC gamer magazine sitting next to me says its 6th in the charts, months after release.

If I had a game in the top 10 6 months on, I'd go as far as to call that a success. But, you know, you dont have to sell games to get in the charts... Oh Wait.

But then again, A google search shows this, I guess that means that both Oblivion, and the previous fallouts are true flops:
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2008/11/04/fallout-3-outsells-all-previous-fallout-games/1

Hmm, let's see.. "Fallout 3 sold more units in its first week of release then ALL previous Fallout games combined". And still in the top 10 on the sales chart 6 months after initial release. Yep, svcking pretty bad I guess.. :rolleyes: And on top of all that, Bethesda SHIPPED 4.7 million units to vendors. That means they sold 4.7 million units; vendors don't get shipments for free. Whether the vendors have sold all their copies yet is irrelevant; Bethesda got their money. So I'm thinking Bethesda has PLENTY of operating capital to make more games...

That was an interesting article. I had suspected that FO3 has outsold the rest of the franchise, but now I have a bit of proof. Most interesting, however was this:



That answers quite a few design questions we see on this forum.

As in, it sold better on the consoles because it was a type of game more targeted at console gamers?

Keep on topic guys, if you want to talk about sales figures you can start the respective topic yourselves

As for a prequel, a prequel to what exactly? FO2 was a continuation of FO1 and was relative to what happened in FO1. FO3 was completely detached from the story and events of FO1 & 2, the only reference being the BoS from the west coast. And everything else doesn't add up. So with this in mind Bethesda would be free to bounce around the timeline as much as they like if the chronology and events of other locations aren't relative to their big picture.

Maybe it'd be nice to replay Fallout 1 and 2 with the same gameplay, but updated graphics and a few other improvements, but I also highly doubt Bethesda is terribly interesting in doing something like that.

If we're talking about pulling the story and quests from Fallout 1 and 2 and making it with Fallout 3's gameplay - then I wouldn't be interested. The primary reason I played the originals was how the game played, so I wouldn't be interested in seeing it translated into a gameplay format I like less than that. (Relatively speaking so no one jumps down my throat about this - I can enjoy an Action RPG just fine, but I like a Traditional RPG even better.)

As far as something like a prequel - might be interesting to see like what happened immediately after the War, or what it was like trying to initially form some of these settlements. But that's also something that could be covered with DLC and spin-off games as well.

ie, a game that deals with what it's like to seek shelter inside of a Vault while knowing the world above is being destroyed - and coming to terms with the sort of life you and your descendants will be living - might be a good Adventure (point and click or something) Game, or even a Vault Management game that played something like one of the Tycoon games or Dungeon Master. Or the struggle to gather a group of people to band together and make a go at building a new settlement from scrap, growing it and defending it from influences outside and in - might be a good take on a City Building, or even a 4X-type of game.

As in if a AAA game is to be successful, it must be successful on console.

Could be something like having to leave the vault rather quickly...5 years, maybe...10 years? People are still dying all over the place and everything is thoroughly destroyed. Desperate people are doing desperate things. Plenty of gray area decisions to make...who to help, which settlement to support, and living through the repercussions of the decisions you make.

In that case, it might be interesting to go back to Cali, and tie the story to FO1 lore. I think I'd rather see somewhere else, though.

Yeah, I couild see that working. You're in a Vault that wasn't properly constructed and have to leave soon afterwards because the power goes out, for example. Or it could even just be a part of the experiment, as well - that your particular Vault is only designed to stay contained for a year or so.

Or, if the idea is just to discover what's going on immediately after the War, you could even play as someone who was able to take shelter somewhere other than Vaults and manage to stay alive. Play could begin almost immediately after the bombs stop falling, for example. Survival would be incredibly difficult to manage, even compared to the standard Fallout setting - but it would also be an interesting take on the series, as well.

Yeah, if we're doing a prequel, I'd just as soon leave California out of it. We've already seen it in two Fallout games now, there's not all much room for more suprises at that point, at least compared to doing it anywhere else in the world.

Plus, if there's any sort of open-endedness with the game you're going to run into problems - because you can't really affect things too much when you already know what the end result is going to be. I'm sure you could get creative with the variation in endings, and the suprise at the end would be in how things in Fallout 1 came to be. But I'd still just as soon have it somewhere totally new.