Think about it if FO3 was like the Classics.
Man, that game would svck. Short, lame acting...

God, you said it yourself. "Fallout 3 was some what good cause of its graphics." While Fallout 1 and 2 are still good DESPITE their graphics. Gameplay is the most important thing, if that's strong, graphics aren't that important. Maybe if they did try Fallout 3 the old way, graphics would be crappy by todays standards but they could focus more on dialogue and story, while improving the mechanics behind the game, making SPECIAL actually mean something, gameplay could be better than it is in Fallout 3 now.

Since when did the graphics of a game, ever make it more interesting...that's like saying that a John Wayne movie is horrible because its old(And yes, John Wayne's movies, are better then anything that has come out in this decade). Secondly, what "awesome technology" are you referring to(if you mean because its in 3D)...I mean this is a game that suffered from poor writing, a very poorly conceived story, and a fairly mindless plot...hmmm, maybe Vin Diesel should have had a starring role too...then it would have been a truly garbage classic. A well written story, will always beat out some flashy "3D".

Still, the Graphics Improves the Visual Affects/Effects and improve the perks more Also they wouldnt be able to VATS (I dont know if they had that in fallout 2 or 1) But still it'll be Dodge or Easy using VATS cause all it would only Make the Body Green and you will just Press Any part randomly what would lower the funness of the game Plus Better graphics will show the Armory Better and make it more sixy instead of a Pixelated Black thing on you .

Might I suggest you start playing Fallout 1 and after that Fallout 2? You don't know what you're talking about.

First of all, how do graphics even remotely improve perks? Perks are non-visible bonuses to your skills, attributes or otherwise to some statistics on your character.

Fallout 1 and 2 did not have VATS, they had Targeted Shots that cost more action points than a regular shot, you were able to shoot at the same bodyparts as Fallout 3, but with the nice additions of shooting someone in the eyes or groin (testicles and so on), and it worked better than in Fallout 3. IN FO1 and 2 if someone is shooting at you with a rifle, and you are able to cripple their arm, they can't shoot you anymore with a rifle, every crippling really meant something, but they were also much harder to accomplish.

Armor in Fallout 1 and 2 had some really distinctive visuals, you could see enough. I don't play games to see "sixy" armor, but whatever turns you on.

Graphics do NOT make a game. Secondly, VATS was an incredibly poor concept.

Remaking the original games to be just like FO3?

That would make them what..numbers 10,001 and 10,0002 in the FPS games out there.No thanks as there is a need for less shooters and not more.

Exactly!

Now that is a sensible comment!

Yes the Graphics Do, Like the Bloody Mess You need good graphics to see the Hugh Def of the exploded bodys lol

Do you even read responses to your posts? Fallout 1 and 2 had Bloody Mess, and it looked a lot better than the over the top exploding bodies in Fallout 3.

The "Bloody Mess Perk" in the "Original" games was fine. No amount of psychotic violence can make a product better.

Well to the Crazy fat man http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GABzWHuIZ_4 in that videos says it does
So why shouldn't I agree with him, cause he the Creator or the Designer i Think.
:\

Okay, what are you saying with this? I don't get it.

The above, is exactly what made Fallout 3, a less then stellar product. The total emphasis on psychotic/shooter violence, and the limited focus on the story, made the game DOOM 2, with neat new graphics.

I'm tempted to be incredibly vitriolic in my reply. But ok. First off the poster above you said "style" that doesn't mean going back to the old engine and redoing everything in it. The style can be the perspective, art direction, etc. Secondly, you're talking out of your ass a fair bit with the "retro" stuff. Really now, have you ever played a game before 2002 or something? It's a bit ugly for this day (although it looks pretty neat at its native resolution), but hardly retro.



Yeah no ability to target body parts in Fallout or Fallout 2, damn lousy games, VATS was a revolution!. I think you overly focus on visuals in games.

You know what would be a totally awesome idea? Actually playing the first two Fallout games extensively before passing judgment on them and their engine!

Oh, it is almost the Holy War here

I think if the best part of the 1&2 is storyline and the best part of the 3 is 3D-engene, then combine these two parts will be produce a great game.

Because FO3 is a shooter. (insert eye-rolling smiley here)

You know, you FO1/FO2 purists would seem a lot less crazy if you didn't treat the OP's question like if he was asking to have intercourse with your sister. What would a remake of FO1/FO2 with the Gamebryo engine do to FO1/FO2? Nothing. You will still be able to fire up your TB/ISO games and play them all you want. The OP is not asking "What if we rounded up every copy of the original two games and burned them, and then rounded up anyone who was upset by that and forced them to play the new RT/FP version OVER 9000 times!!!11one" - so stop acting like he did.

Anyways, I don't remember FO1 all that well, but some of FO2 would be very different if it were put into the new engine. Imagine how the Horrigan fight could be implemented in RT - that could be either full of WIN or full of cheesy exploit-tastic nonsense. The Wannamingo-infested mines could be freaking amazing done in RT/FP.

You spend 80% of your time in the game interacting through the crosshairs and outside of VATS you are the one doing all the aiming and firing.I consider that very shootery.

Do i think it is a pure shooter?No.I also don't consider myself a purist and i also like the new game.

That being said if they were to remake the original games to be more like 3 then that would make them something very different than what they are and i think that is the point people are making.

Where's this intense overreaction to the OP's posts, exactly ? Or is disagreeing enough for that, heh. There's just no need for it, putting it the older games in FP and RT doesn't really add anything other than, heh, trying to make them like Fallout 3, or make them palatable for "OMG GRAPHICS" people, like Xravin there. The Horrigan fight wouldn't be "full of win" - whatever the hell that means - it'd probably play out like a Q2 boss, except with turrets and Rock as backup.

Personally I think the OP asked an interesting question. Here's some responses:

Umm, yeah.

Umm, just like no one would be forced to play the remake.

Umm, right. And then there's the bit that I was commenting on:

Anyways, back on point - you think the Horrigan fight can only work as TB/ISO? Are you saying that it couldn't be implemented as an enjoyable entertaining 3D-Real time set piece? I agree that it could be done badly, and said as much, but there's definitely the potential for a really good bit of gaming there. Look, there's some actual discussion - isn't that better than "No - leave them alone."

80%??? Are you counting moving the target reticule onto Ammo boxes and doors? Sure, you can play FO3 as run-and-gun but you can also play FO2 with 80% of your time in Combat Mode.

Seriously, do you honestly believe that any attempts to remake FO1/FO2 with a real-time first-person engine would inevitably lead to a shooter?

Well look at what we have now, heh.

I fail to see the absurdly over the top reaction you're apparently speaking out against here. The OP's question isn't interesting, it's yet another "we should remake ______" that you see all the time on forums, and almost always boils down to "it'll look better" - gee. And how exactly will the Horrigan fight be enriched by in FP and RT ? Not saying that's better in the isometric view, but first person doesn't do anything for it, unless it you mean makes gamers think "zomg awesome boss, epic win!" in which case it might as well be Generic FPS boss. As someone posted earlier, remaking the games does cheapen the originals, and it's not like the originals are lost to gamers today anyway.

First, the over-the-top reaction? I listed some quotes upthread, but there is also this feeling of the knee-jerk NO WAY! in most of those replies.

Anyways, thanks for providing another example:

Ta da, there is more to this discussion than "it'll look better" and you even pointed it out - FP and RT are different from TB/ISO. But, it's still "No way, we can't even discuss remaking FO1/FO2 because it'll obviously be a crappy product".

Anyways, about Horrigan - sure that could come out as Generic FPS Boss Fight or possibly even lamer (stand in this exact spot and he won't be able to hit you nonsense) - but even still, VATS would make it different from what's already been produced. Regardless, that does not have to come out as a lame FPS encounter - and wouldn't it be at least interesting as an intellectual exercised to figure out how it might be done well?

Also, I notice that you haven't said anything about the Uranium Mines. Wannamingo infested uranium mines. That could be absolutely amazing in an immersive RT/FP engine.

I will amend that to 80% of your time interacting with others through the crosshairs.

No not a shooter..just a shooter hybrid.I like shooters and i like variations on them but at this point the market is over saturated in them.Now turn based iso-metric view games on the otherhand...

To be serious though i don't see myself as giving the guy a hard time over his idea just stating my opinion on it.Imagine the responses i would get if i posted where alot of Xcom fans were that it would be really great if they remade the game to be more like command and conquer.

Really though,if by some chance,his dream came true it isn't going to kill anyone who owns and enjoys the original games.