Blasphemy!

The Fallout Inquisition will be notified :stare:

I'd only want to see a remake if it was merely a visual overhaul, possibly with some new stuff (new quests, possible real time mode for people who for whatever reason can't live with turn based combat), and somewhat streamlined gameplay mechanics. I wouldn't want to see a remake if the developers planned on removing or changing any existing content, I also wouldn't want to see them developed in the same style as Fallout 3 and New Vegas because Fallout 1/2 weren't designed to be played as first/third person games in an open world... that just wouldn't work.

The only good remakes I've played are remakes that were basically the original game with shinier graphics, and some non-intrusive new additions. This is the only way I'd accept a Fallout 1/2 remake. Remaking them to play like Fallout 3/NV would be a disaster, and I seriously doubt that the newer generation would be any more pleased with the final products than members of the old guard like myself.

Pretty much sums up the way I feel about it. 3D gaming has a way of making you feel like you're actually a part of the game world rather than staring down at it. If Bethesda/Obsidian would make the game and keep the storyline exactly the same as the originals I would love the play them in 3D. :fallout:

Once again i doubt that you even know what you are talking about.

Cut fonline a little slack. Those guys have lives you know, its a big undertaking.

I love the freedom of the game, but really its impossible for a new/single player to even begin to learn/enjoy. New players are normally greeted to fonline by being shot and looted without a word. And if you don't have a group of guys functioning together your basically screwed, for the game is really made for factions and player groups.

Example, Why spend an hour collecting stuff to build a gun when you can just get a friend and kill some guy for one in a second?

This.

A bunch of us on the Forum got together and created a group. We we very successful, but we often ran into PKers and were cut down. There are nice people on there. I enjoyed real time play. Number one reason for it was so I could run like hell and it worked. TB I knew I was going to get gunned down but there was not a damn thing I could do about it.

The over all feeling I got was that there was/are entire factions (clans) dedicated to being total dikes and see how often they can kill other players. Which ruins it for new people. It gets so annoying getting gunned down all the damn time. Then having to start out with very low life, no weapons and have to walk all the way back to your tent or clan base. Then there are all the people that do nothing but steal from people. They stay next to the best merchants and bankers and piss everyone off. You can't attack them for then the town guards come after you.

As one of the "old guard" I assure you that I do. Shrug, grin, but I doubt you will ever see that, quote "There is nothing missing overall of content, flavour and game-play from the first two Fallouts in Fallout 3 (and NV)".

Storyline is a bit different in early Fallout but it was not astounding, mechanics were a drawback that were cured in FO3 and NV, removing the often boredom that came when becoming adept at the combat movements in first Fallouts … well it did, shrug, and that's from an old-guard who was a great fan when those first two came out.

Now the versatility in game-play is vastly improved with FO3 and NV, and no boredom.
Would a remake gain anything that we do not already have now, only a bit of a different storyline, that's about all really, and for playing an old game for old-times-sake but with improved mechanics and graphics if made as FO3 and NV.

Those who are more into the first two blend of RPG and board-game would not favour them remade as a FO3 or NV, only for the improved graphics. Some old games are real fun to go back to, not those first two though, not for me, remembering those boredom points, and that's from a great fan at the time way back who shrugged them off, for it was an all-new blend of RPG and board-game.

I think Bethesda has more productive and popular things to do though, board-game play is becoming a thing of the past really, even if mixed in wit RPG.

But why am I telling you this Makov, being one of the least likely to know what I'm talking about. Laughter.

Smile, coffee. (thinks, I must stop wasting my time, I have a life, that was meant to be a one-liner, grin).

Reasons it would not work:

Because of the world size, the technology used in NV and FO3 could not handle the giant world of Fallout 1 or especially Fallout 2, if you are talking about cramming all of the content onto a small cramped map, go to hell.

Because there wouldn't be TB, and the games were designed around TB and its accurate representation of Skills and SPECIAL, if you are talking about implementing RT and poor Stat-Special representation like FO3 or NV, go to hell.

And to Sitruc, there is plenty of content missing, the flavour was completely swapped out (at least in FO3), and gameplay was drastically changed; the newer games DO NOT do RP better, because your definition of RP fits CoD and Halo, and if you mean to say that Fallout should be more like generic FPS to improve RP, go to hell.

Sitruc, are you really trying to say that I know less about the originals than you do? If you are, go to hell.

There is no such thing as a "blend of RPG and board Game" any more than there is such a thing as a blend of "DeLorean and Car". RPGs are based on PnP mechanics - people have been playing RPGs longer than there have been home computers - they are based on board game mechanics and for combat many RPG players play on a game board!

If it doesnt have PnP RPG Mechanics, its not an RPG, pure and simple. What you have instead is an Adventure game.

(and this is from someone who sits on the fence between new and "Dinosaur" fallout - I guess that makes me some kind of bird).

Yea, the game revolves around killing/stealing/being a jerk off. Its sad really, because they give pking too much power, and put many drawbacks on the crafting system; which is naturally boring. Adding gathering/crafting timers on it just makes it feel stupid.

My suggestions? Make different level pking difficulty zones. For example, say your level 21. When you are one sqaure away from NCR, You should only be allowed to attack levels 15-21. The further away you got from the town the more levels you would be allowed to attack until it was all out pking.

For towns, Guards should shoot thieves after one warning. I find it just stupid that everyone has to run around in circles to avoid having their pockets picked. Oh yea, and guards should be put in stores to protect from the fear that your stuff is disappearing as your trying to sell.

Crafting/gathering timers should be removed/heavily lowered in order to make more people seek livings out of practical means and less off of killing noobs.

Overall travel speed in the wastes should be increased a lot too. It svcks that people have to focus on outdoorsman because without the skill you can't get anywhere with out a car. This would also be good for low level players who can't afford vehicles and the things needed to maintain them.

I have gone into towns and mines with very powerful gaurds all taken out by one single PKer. Or a group of them. There should be a system set up so that if you kill to many players you get booted from the game. That will never happen because I believe the game is built by Pkers or at least they get most of their funding from Pker groups.

The amount of time put on mining and crafting should be reduced significantly in order to give small groups half a chance at getting started.

As a group of forum members, we had something like 20? I am sure someone will give the right number. We did well but the over all feeling was that PKers svcked all the fun right out of it.

i think they should..but only when they get made into movies...so that people who never played the originals and people who had never played a fallout before get to play the game alongside the movie release....make's bethesda lots of mula....we get our modern playing..don't get me wrong i like playing 1 & 2 but i'd love to play them like i play 3 and NV. but i doubt they will do a remastered version of either unless a film comes out...there isn't a market for it...

on the other hand..i'd love to make the film for you guys... i asked bout and option in an email..never replied the cost..

I tried Fonline, and its just not NewB Friendly at all. As interesting as it is, I can't recommend it.

This is a map of the west coast. All of the areas covered in FO1 and FO2 have a '1' or a '2' written in the green circle representing a town. The ones with a 'V' in them are for Van Buren, not Vegas by the way.

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080606162927/fallout/images/2/29/Western_USA_v1.0.jpg

Notice how small the circles are for Vegas and Hoover Dam. Just remember that for a second, and look at this map:

http://images.wikia.com/fallout/images/2/2f/Eastern_USA_v1.1.jpg

Do you see the Capital Wasteland? Do you see how little land it covered? Do you remember how little land Vegas and Hoover Dam covered? Do you remember how much land is covered by FO1 & FO2?
Now, think about this logically. Considering the small amount of space is covered by FO3 and NV, how on Earth do you honestly think they could make an entire open world game covering all the locations from FO1 or FO2? They cant, can they? So they'd have to go back to using a map node system like the first two games, and if they did that, all the people who wanted a remake to begin with would probably complain because they cant wander around, meaninglessly exploring.

So, yeah. Probably not going to happen.

I'm probably a newbie here (started with Fallout 3 - purely because I was bored with Morrowind and Oblivion, and a guy at work said this game's made by the same people, try it) but in my opinion remakes generally don't add a lot, movies or games. Each game's a product of its time and part of the fun is playing the original, like the post above about Goldeneye on the N64. I love that game, played it at university and got it a few years ago and played it non stop for the nostalgia factor.

Why not come up with a new idea instead of rehashing old ones?

I would expect that the node system would be retained. In actual practice, with the addition of DLCs, F3 and F:NV already employ nodes and few are complaining.

In truth, I do not expect remakes will ever be done. Generally, creative types don't like to revisit their own or other's past work.
I'd still play the living hell out of them if they were released. And if they were released, they couldn't make anyone buy them.

The problem I see with the DLC "map nodes" is that they don't really have anything to do with the main game.
Sure Elijah and Christine were nice loose ends that were tied up what does the Sierra Madre has to do with the main game?
Zilch.
You go there, experience your epic adventure then you get tossed back to the actual game again.
In Fallout 1 and 2 you can skip a lot of locations and go straight to the main quest final points if you know how to do it.
But you're more likely to spend time in each town/city and do quests and find out about the relationship between towns and factions while you progress through the quest line.

Sure, the DLC's offer us a form of map nodes, but not good ones if compared to Fallout 1/2 as they don't really serve a purpose except to be epic side adventures.
While on the other hand map nodes in the earlier games served an actual purpose for the main story and the character to progress.
I guess the Ulysses thing could be considered a main story in it's own and that the DLC's leading up to it could be considered these kinds of map nodes.
Sort of like how it used to be in FO1 and FO2.
Now there's there problem that you're character is never given an incentive for going to DM other than curiosity, greed and obsessive compulsive disorder.
Even if we could consider the Ulysses story to be a map node system in it's own through the DLC's the problem is that:
In Fallout 2 you start out at Arroyo and is told to go to Klamath to find Vic.
We are not told to go to DM to find Ulysses or that Ulysses has any part in it at all.
Then we are told to go to The Den as he's there.
But we aren't told about Ulysses prior to Honest Hearts either.

Point is that the DLC's are technically a form of map nodes, but they are not the solution for the Vanilla's absence of them.

http://www.oxm.co.uk/10715/news/fuel-is-officially-the-biggest-game-of-all-time/

No.. Sick of everything being "rebooted" let the originals shine with t heir own original merits.

No, my thought was merely that as they resemble nodes, today's players who balk at classic game styles probably wouldn't be upset at nodes.
In a hypothetical [never going to happen] remake of Fallout & F2, I don't see how they could escape using nodes, but I don't see them as a deterrent to remake the games.
In the real world, the reasons would be legal.

So you are all for them remaking Fallout?

I will say playing Noire these past few days is making me wish we could get The Boneyard redone. It's so beautiful in Noire that I'd love to see with a post apocalyptic twist added to it.
Even if it was just an expansion pack or something..It'd be sweet.

Thats different. That there is a racing game where detail does not really matter.

Anyways, all Bethesda could do is they remake the games is destroy them. Bethesda would tone down the gritty aspects for sure.

I'm sure that they could alter it for their purpose's.(also one of the videos I saw the guy talked about how it would have been better if it had been something other than as a racing game)
Also have you not seen Fallout 3? That game is plenty gritty.