Would make for a couple of nice next-gen games, make sure no original content get left out and also maybe add some new content to it as well. Except for the time limit, that should be gotten rid of.

No. Fallout 4 needs to be made first

They can't make Fallout 1 or 2 again... same as they can't remake Blazing Saddles.

Sure they can, it's called a reboot.

Well... Either it isn't [reboot], or it is [not a reboot]... but if it is, then they lose the mainstream audience, and the mainstream retail channels.

If it's a reboot, then why bother(?)... that's not Fallout 1 & 2; that's some loosely derived retcon.

Why on earth would they want to do that? Hardly anyone plays 3D games, there would be no money in it for them at all. The whole 3D craze the past few years has turned out to be a total flop.

I would expect that any Fallout fan would appreciate a 3D engine. The developers of Fallout originally intended to use a 3D engine, but could not get the performance they wanted from the target hardware. 3D is not the contention; never has been.

I wouldn't. I don't have a 3D rig and I have no intention of doing so. The technology has to improve drastically before I'll ever consider it. I wear glasses, so unless they develop a on-screen technology with good results, I'll never be able to use it. And they're a long way from being able to do that yet.


Sure it is, it's called market share. Since almost no one plays 3D games, there isn't any. So redoing it do in that format would be nothing but a money loser for them. And game companies never do things that will lose them money.

I don't mean to speak for what he meant when he posted this thread but I think he meant as in 3-dimensional objects, not as in like, say, a 3D movie with glasses and such.

By 3D I mean like Fallout 3 and New Vegas, as opposed to the 2D Fallout 1 and 2.

There is not a PC on the market for the last decade without 3D hardware. If you have a computer without a GPU... its pre-2004.

"3D" does not mean 'First Person'... And 3D is arguably ~cheaper~ for a large and deep RPG. Fallout ~to this day~ chugs every time it loads a map because of the crazy amount of 2D sprite data it must load to display that map; and all of the action animations for all of the actors. That is the reason that not everyone in the game can use every weapon... for some, those 2D sprite sheets don't exist.

With a 3D engine those load times and sprite sheets become a thing of the past... Animations become realtime renderings on the fly... and quite a lot smoother too.


I would certainly not was a First Person Fallout [reboot or remake... 1, 2, 3, or 4].

Technically Fallout 1 & 2 assets were 3D, but ~for the game, they rendered out the work as 2D sprites for performance reasons. They even reduced the 16 bit color to 8-bit [less 27 colors for palette animation].

There is nothing stopping a studio from making a 3D Fallout 1 or 2 ~engine. The https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ke9mit5i5hA is that.

I see, my mistake. That's different then, you should have been a bit more specific. It's still never going to happen as that would essentially mean the same thing as creating a new game from scratch. They'll make more money coming out with something brand new rather than simply rehashing an old title. And even if they did a good job of it, there would be purists complaining that they ruined the flavour of the originals. There's no pleasing some people.


The GPU isn't the issue, the monitor is. I recently spent about $600 CAN on a new 27" widescreen, I'm not about to hand over any extra money in order to play the odd 3D game that might exist. And there's next to none of those.

When you say 'almost no one plays 3D games'... almost no one would take that to mean '3D screen technology'.

They should remake Fallout 3 into a Fallout game.

That'd be a complete rewrite ~gameplay aside.

Thats silly. I think there could be a few minor tweaks here or there to make combat a little less rough (as in better UI and controlling your followers targeting) also with how companions can block you behind things such as beds. These minor tweaks doesn't forbid a remake from actually being a remake. If what you say is true then there is no such thing as a remake or reboot. If what you say is true, then XCOM and Wasteland would have had no sales. However, the sales numbers are sufficient for a reboot (as in a remake). You don't need a Bethesda budget to remake it either. Bethesda has probably more than 100 million behind there games at this point. I'd wager they could do the entire project for million.

Wasteland was not a remake... Wasteland 2 was not a remake of Wasteland; if anything WL2 is about as close a thing to a Fallout sequel as we've seen since Fallout 2. [Haven't played Xcom or the new one.]

The tweaks you might mean, and some not... are possibly some aspects that make Fallout, and that would be removed. This is a matter of policy for them... Their idea of what's right is in some cases polar opposite to those that designed Fallout. Game mechanics, and player experience. For [just one] instance: Fallout reveals that one's actions can have unintended consequences... but Bethesda strives to make outcomes clear and predictable... just as the player intends them to be. Pete makes a point of that in an interview ~some time back. With Fallout there were players that would play the game again [choosing differently] to have a clear conscience ~no joke... Won't happen in a Bethesda title, because they ensure that your choice is a willing one.

I would wager that they cannot afford to only spend a million.

Yes, I see my confusion now. I've come to take 3D graphics so much for granted that I don't really consider the term. They're just graphics to me. Had he said they should redo the game with modern graphics, it would have made more sense to me. It was just a communication breakdown.