Well, how the past games worked, includes all the mechanics they had. Some of which we no longer have. So it's relevant. Do I want an isometric turnbased game? Not really, but what made the old Fallouts the old Fallouts wasn't just the tb, iso mechanic.

It actually seems far more like "we promised them GURPS so we have to give it to them, but we will change anything we don't like to fit the game we want."

If they really wanted the best GURPS game possible, they would have adapted it exactly as it was.... but they didn't, they changed plenty of things because they wanted to.

That is true, but we weren't talking about cutting content in general, but the shift in gameplay type.

Cut content is another matter entirely.

You can have personal opinion on everything, but that doesn't change the way things are or were.

Fallacious? Well, hey there you....

In any case, for a consolation, you don't need to bother with that for much longer from me.

I think you read it right.

It does not surprise me in the slightest. Nor do I expect anything anymore from the series. I'm just looking around how far it goes at the moment.

Your right, personal opinion doesn't change the fact that everyone defines a series from their own personal things they like of it.

I am just lucky my personal opinion agrees with that fact.

Does it? How so, and from where?

As I understand it, the GURPS concept came first; they wanted to make a GURPS title. That even pre-dates the Fallout setting itself.

Edit: I am mistaken it seems... Apparently Fallout had a very X-Com-like design prior to them getting the GURPS license; but GURPS was still a major influence on the game, and they had it on the original title of the game.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. You too.

For me, it was.

Mostly because it was so linear and filled to the brim with clichés.

1. You are the chosen one.

2. Because of the power inside of you.

3. You're saved in the nick of time because plot convenience.

4. And by none other than the antagonist of the game!

5. So you have to uncover the mystery of what you are by finding ancient mystical plot elements to further your power.

6. And travel to an isolated group dedicated to the mystery of this power.

7. And you're better than everyone else there because Mary Sue.

8. So you team up with an ancient order to fight the antagonist.

9. Which wants to end the world.

10. And you fight him in an astral realm because the realm of reality ain't cool enough.

To me it felt like the same typical hero worship I've seen so many times before.

Only interesting part was Parthunax(?) and the little bit where the civil war questline was involved.

The rest of it felt like a weak storyline that was just pieced together from typical clichés that worked for other storylines that came before Skyrim.

Hell, felt like Fallout 3 actually. Instead of creating a new interesting storyline lets just copy the work of others and piece it together.

There was no point in the main story where I felt like something unexpected happened, nothing that was thought-provoking apart from Parthunax's(?) speech, nothing that made the world feel like it was on the edge of doom even. Just, here's some dragons, shout at 'em a few times and win.

Fallout died because of Haerve(?) Caen's poor management decisions on focusing on the console market instead of the PC market when Interplay/Black Isle was pretty much a PC brand which caused them to almost go bankrupt.

Isometric (turn-based) cRPG's as whole faded into obscurity because publishers didn't want to fund those kinds of games and it's only in the past couple of years that they have gotten a resurgence, and a lot of them owe it to crowdfunding as publishers 'still' don't want to fund them or if they did fund one they would probably interfere with its development to the point that the end product would be nothing like what the studio set out to create. I think there's an exception here and there but the exception ain't the rule.

Interplay/Masthead Studios were working on Fallout Online actually as they had retained the rights to create that but because time ran out on the contract with Bethesda they entered a legal battle and at the end Interplay lost and the project was shut down. If it hadn't been then we'd probably have Fallout Online by now. Though like I said, time ran out, so the project might've been doomed from the get go. Still, it was 'something'.

You can play Fallout 1/2 on a fanmade MMO project though, here: http://fonline-reloaded.net

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_vision_statement

According to the Fallout vision statement, there were the things that were to define Fallout

It specifically says

"Just enough GURPS material to make the GURPSers happy. The game comes first."

Fallout was literally only to have as much GURPS as was needed to please the GURPS fans, beyond that, they would deviate from GURPS when they wanted/eeded to for thier idea of what would make a quality games.

GURPS was effectively token, and only a rough base to build the game off of, not some unshakeable thing to followed.

Most of those are problems I had with NV's story honestly.

You just love to "prove people wrong" don't you? Even with misconcepted and -construed evidence.

You are amazing, I tell you! Amazing!

Aside from that, the logic hoops you pull here, I've not seen nothing like that anywhere else. You are the master of certain type of discussion for sure. And that's a sincere compliment.

Irony.

I appreciate citing your source, but that source is disappointing. Of course I've read it 30 times by now.
Tim Cain has stated that GURPS was a major influence on the game, and you must of course know that that vision statement you cite was written to convince the marketing purse.

Oh, don't pull that on me you ironic piece of work you.

I can see that, partially at least.

1. You're shot in the head but survive because plot convenience and you're special because you're the player.

2. You're helped by a character that turns out that they have a connection with someone important later on in the plot.

3. Legion and NCR both want your help because you're just so darn cute, I mean because you're the player character and you're important because you're you. You're awesome.

4. Platinum chip is plot element which is only there for a convoluted part of the backstory.

It also has some clichés, I agree. Though a story can have clichés and still be good, it's when I feel like it is just a string of clichés that I find it unbearable.

Never denied that.

However, that doesn't change the fact GURPS was a influence and a base, for the game, not the thing the game was always meant to strictly/rigidly follow. TES was inspired and gained its base from stuff like Ultima, doesn't mean they followed it exactly, or that it had to be like Ultima forever.

Irrelevant, unless you can provide some evidence that management hated GURPS, and that it was all some big ploy to make the game secretly in GURPS form behind management's back.

Even Todd has to give stuff to the CEOs at Zenimax, doesn't mean what he says isn't true, or his honest opinion.

You forgot the

-"Big epic quest through dangerous land searching for clues about your attacker"

-"Everyone who has clues to your attacker's whereabouts also has some major problem of their own they need you to solve for them, and you actually do it despite being logically unskilled for the task"

-"Cast of unique companion characters each of whom has a major life problem they seemingly show no desire to solve until the special/magical PC comes along and fixes their lives for them"

-"All the things every major faction wants you do have nothing to do with your skillset, and which would logically be done by someone else in their faction who has been trained for this"

cliches.

How about no?

If I am unhappy about something I will voice my concern. I will not be told to shut up.

Yeah.

It's a forum. It's a place meant for discussion.

Doesn't matter if some only have negative criticism.

So long as it is criticism and not bashing, of course.

https://youtu.be/Xa5IzHhAdi4?t=14m44s

*Trivial note. The prototype video seen here is mine. I made the map and recorded the gameplay myself.

This video as a whole, should answer more questions than any of us were discussing, and we should probably leave it at that. I cannot quite see what's on topic or not from the OP; but Fallout 1 probably isn't it.

I recommend watching the video from the beginning.

Indeed, and in the face of imminent fanboyism you voice it twice the louder.

It really doesn't suggest anything like that Tim and Chris Taylor were being untruthful about the GURPS part of the vision statement.

Only that they made the vision statement to help explain it to marketing.

If anything, it suggests marketing and management though they still had a big GURPs obsession, when they didn't, and that they were trying to point that out.

For people wanting something that is congruent with the original ethos, that NV at least attempted to build upon then Fallout 4 looks less than fine...

You mean this stuff?

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_vision_statement

Fallout 3 had that, Fo4 seems to look the same.

Possum, I have to ask, have you played the games you criticising? It always seems to me that you're only criticisng them because you read the wiki and like the new games? Which would explain your poor, well not poor but fabricated, knowledge on them and their experience.

I do not believe you've actually played the games you're so insistent on talking against, because you sound more like a wikimonitor than anything else.

You've read tenets 2,3,4 and 12?

Yes, I played them sometime shortly after Bethesda announced its Fo3, before I even really knew anything about it. Well, except BoS, because I read to stay away from that game.

Yes.

Well that's worrying...