Im going to say something that is going to be widely unpopular with a lot of people and say yes I would like to see a port of the old games. I think it can be done and it can be done right if Beth wants to. Of course thats the question isn't it? Heres the thing. Their not going to do it ....period. Its a shame too. The only reason they woujld do it is to give the old fallout fans something. So if they were inclined to do that they would stick more to the original games and original intent. Hopwever they know that most of the fans of the old games are not satisfied with the existing game and these same fans regard the old games as holy or something. By the way Im one of the old fans going all the way back to the original game "wasteland". So its not going to happen and no one should worry about it. The rest of us who think its worth a try wont ever see it unless someone wants to put together a team themselves and its a very very diffecult undertaking. Most of these projects never even get off the ground.

Thanks. As an X-Com fan, I think I understand what you mean. Sorta like a remake of the Oregon Trail as a casual "resource-management" flash game. Nevertheless, I think a C&C version of X-Com (much fewer, more detailed units - more focus on tactical battles - separate resource gathering engine based on funding/sell alien tech - deep tech trees where discoveries aren't made until at least a couple battles have been completed - etc) has the potential to be quite a good game.

Anyways, I generally agree that the OP's dream is a dead duck, the volumne of work in order to do this is staggering - and I suspect that there isn't any money in it either. But it does raise some intersting topics - such as, are there any set-pieces, questlines, locations, etc. in FO1/FO2 that can work well in a FP/RT engine?

edit: I guess I can change my response to the OP again (now my third answer) - Theoretically: yes, such a port is possible. Practically: no, at least not without a very deep-pocketed fan/group of fans who is/are determined to see such a thing happen.

Well I also didn't go through every minute place in the game and how it would be in first person view. It's not a knee-jerk refusal, I'm generally against remakes as it seems to imply something about the originals is deficient or inadequate for the current day. Horrigan would most likely end up as a generic FPS boss fight, as it's pretty much just you trying to kill him anyway. In the original it's nothing epic or exciting, just a loose end more or less, and in a redone Fallout 2, it'd be pretty much the same as a generic FPS fight, not really "immersive" unless giving a high-polygon model of Horrigan blasting away at you meets that. Likewise with the mines, Vault 15, you see prettier and more detailed models of things trying to kill you.

All I can honestly see that moving Fallout 2, or Fallout for that matter, to a first person view would do is make the combat "cooler" for some. Sure it'd be cool to walk through The Den and see it in all its corrupted splendor I suppose, but that's about it, not any more "immersive"

I don't think it's about the combat. I think FP is more immersive because you move through the landscape, not over it.

That said, I'd prefer a different game with new plots, etc. incorporating better dialogue and more complex character stat dynamics.

Bethesda will not even update and rerelease Daggerfall despite a high interest level in it.

I think its safe to say that FO1 FO2 are safe.

Well, if they did an update to F1/2 that kept everything essentially the same apart from some bug fixes and updated 3D graphics, I'd play it. If I they took the storylines and essentially made a Fallout 3 mod out of it, I wouldn't buy it. That's just how I feel about it, and it's not about knocking the OP or completely hating the idea.

I'd rather enjoy playing Fallout 1 if I could explore it in 3D, maybe even with a free cam, or a toggleable first/third-person perspective as an option. Given the choice, I suppose I'd rather do the exploration bits in a manner quite similar to Fallout 3.

And I'd certainly like to play a very pretty turn-based game with current-gen graphics. That's been on my wishlist for some years now. So if that's what they were going to do with this hypothetical remake, I'd definately be behind it. Like what they did with Sid Meier's Pirates! a few years back. Updated graphics and some new gameplay elements but essentially the same game.

But if we're talking about going real-time with a remake of Fallout 1, I just wouldn't be able to get behind. It wouldn't be Fallout 1, it would be a different game. It certainly wouldn't be an improvement over the original game at that point. Wouldn't objectively make it worse, either (though I wouldn't approve it subjectively.) But a totally different game. You'd basically be making a completely different game and copy/pasting Fallout 1's story over it. IMHO, if you're going through all that work, you'd be better off coming up with your own story as well.

Thank you. Isn't that a much better reply then "No, just no." or "Why don't you play FO1 and then FO2 instead?" or what was that line about cultrual destruction?

I agree that an RT/FP version of FO1/FO2 would be totally different games - but if the story and writing in those games is so absolutely stellar (and I agree with that) why not keep them? To expand on what one of the "NO" camp said earlier in this thread - the original games were good despite their graphics but not because of them.

I would say that, for me at least, I look at videogames as an art form - just a different medium of storytelling. Now, the quality of said storytelling is often debatable (I may enjoy Quake or Tetris, but I don't usually play them for the story.) But like any medium, the purpose can be simply for entertainment. Like a big action movie, for example.

Now, I say that because in art, each element adds up to a greater whole (this is called gestalt in art circles.) Change one element, and it's something else entirely. The brush strokes, composition, or the use of color, is just as important to the work as what it is that you're painting.

If you take Fallout 1 as an example, it's made up of the combat system, the dialogue, the story, the character sheet, the way in which you approach the game (top-down or first-person, whether you point-and-click or control directly with the keyboard,) and so forth. Each of those is integral to the whole of the work, which is the game itself. Change any one of those, and you have a different game.

The question is, "if the story and writing in those games is so absolutely steller why not keep them?" if you were going to make a very different game with some of the trappings of the original. But to my eye, that would be changing one of the intrinsic elements of the game. Taking the same story and putting it in a different game would be the same thing as keeping everything about Fallout 1 the same and putting a new story in it. It wouldn't be the same game to the very same degree that keeping it and making it real-time would be.

Let's say we did both. We'd have two games that both claimed to take the best of Fallout 1. One is a real-time 3D action game with RPG elements that follows the same storyline as Fallout 1. The other is exactly like Fallout 1 in gameplay and design, but a completely different story. Neither would be any closer to Fallout 1, however, because all elements are of equal importance. The story is just as intrinsic to that game as the gameplay.

Again, thank you for the well reasoned response. The idea that there are some things where you can't just look at the individual parts - that you can't really separate the FO1 experience from FO1 - that it's the combination, the whole package that contributes to the unique awesomeness that are the first two games (or at least FO1). That's an important idea, and we should bear it mind. FO1 with different gameplay is not FO1. I totally agree.

But my point is that the new and different game isn't by necessity worse than the original. Personally, I was interested in exploring what aspects of such a hypothetical remake would be good.

And, the OP's question was even less related to this tangent. He wasn't asking if this was a good idea, he was just asking if it was possible.

It is possible. If a modder wanted to have a go at recreating Fallout 1 and 2 using the Fallout 3 engine, then by all means, I say go for it. If it was a really good interpretation, then I'd sure as hell download it.

But as an official release from Bethesda, I say no. They have more resources at their disposable than any modder. And being the current owners of the franchise, I'd rather that those resources be put to use creating new stories that take place in new locations.

One modder already has started remaikng Vaults 13 and 15 so weather the whole game will happen remains to be seen.

I love the originals but after looking into those 3d vaults i am kinda curious what it would be like to play 1/2 in 3d.

I love you. You hit the nail right on the head. Have an Iguana-on-a-Stick.

Speaking of game engines, isometric 2D graphics are completely fine with me. I prefer 3D of course, but I prefer stability and good performance more, which the first two games definitely have over Fallout 3.

Beth, please ditch GameBryo!

The only people in recorded human history who actually use that engine WELL are Sid Meier and his games.

What engine do you think would better handle Fallout?

Not a snarky question because i really don't know that much about different engines,but i can say that this one probably wasn't the best one to use.They did a good job with it but its lacking for the type of combat taking place.

As an FPS/RPG, I vote for Unreal Engine. (Unreal Tournament, Gears of War, Bioshock, Mass Effect).

As an updated version of the original ISO style, I vote Aurora (Neverwinter Nights), or whatever updated version of Aurora they have now.