Just because Todd Howard says pigs can fly doesn't make it tr...

[img]http://maxcdn.thedesigninspiration.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/flying-pig-l.jpg[/img]

Well damn...

No. FO1 and FO2 are awesome games...maybe extremely difficult to the point of almost resorting to using a save game editor to pass(but I didn't) but they're still awesome and give a huge amount of satisfaction when you see the endings or kill the final bosses. Don't change FO1 and FO2. Rockstar never remade GTA 1 and GTA 2, they serve as to what the GTA series was. And with the new era of Fallout, FO1 and FO2 will provide what Fallout once was.

However...if they make FO1 and FO2 with exactly the same gameplay and change a few things like actually being able to get the hidden Followers of the Apocalypse ending, I'd be so happy.

Screw the dinosaurs. If they did it, I would play em. I have no desire to play an archaic, turn based, POS. Give me something I can sink my teeth into.

Agreed. Though I must say nothing is wrong with the original 2, i still think they deserve a remake.

I had never even heard of Fallout and Fallout 2 until I found the Wiki and this board. I assumed there was such games due to there being a Fallout 3.

PoS? You're calling the original Fallouts PoS's?

This thread needs to die.

http://www.coolstuffexpress.com/store/p/289-Flying-Pig.html

Actually that's more correct than you seem to think; Its a lot harder to make a quality turn based RPG than a real time one.

Really.... Archaic... I take it you do not know that the realtime (and even realtime first person) games preceded most turn based RPGs

As for TB being archaic ~its not, its just a method; A good one, and one that RT game play cannot usually compete with on its own merits (and vice versa). Either you have reasons to make a turn based game or reasons to make a realtime game. Fallout had reasons to be turn based ~the series is in part about the combat system.

I also suppose you did not know that three years before they made Fallout, Interplay made a first person/ realtime RPG called Stonekeep; with dual wielded melee weapons, HtH, and runic spell casting, and up to four NPC companions.
Fallout was made as it was, deliberately, because it suited their design, not some fictional archaism.

This came out last year >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH1f_kn48Bw ** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhgZafujAqo
(And I truly wish that the creators of FO3 had managed to be as faithful to the core series as that one was to its own. )

Double post, please delete.

Must be a slow night ~Two double posts... Please delete this one also.

(Both posts are merged with the one above)

I'd rather they did a new Fallout similar to the old ones. Not Fallout 4, but something else

Yeah a spinoff in the style of the originals would be okay in my book.

Same here, I always just figured there was a Fallout 2 for the 360/PS3 and a Fallout 1 for the normal xbox/PS2.

But say if they did so happen to make remakes, would you either not buy it and complain about it, or buy it anyways just cause it says Fallout on the title and then complain about it days later?

Oh, him, no argument there... he's a pretty bad voice actor.

No remake of Fallout or Fallout 2. Leave them alone. If you want to play them go out and play them. Pretty much any computer can play them. With windows seven you need to get patchs.

The originals got away with things that Bethesda will not or can not do. The locations are several miles apart and having them crammed into a space the size of Fallout 3/NV would be stupid.

Just say no to remaking Fallout and Fallout 2. I would not even call it a remake so much as a reboot because like I said so much content would be cut from them, it would become a very different games. That and I don't trust Bethesda to keep the rest of the content as it was.

You're correct -- what I meant was that gamers today expect much more detail in their object-textures, and that Bethesda likely wouldn't stick by the old, zoomed-out, 2-D overhead view when they could deliver the level of extreme textural quality that is capable of being done today.


If you look back in my post, I mentioned that it's the Gamebryo engine itself (not necessarily direct programming fiat) which implements a very internalized version of turn-based combat, in order to properly govern each separate, minute action being taken onscreen by each individual character. It's still very numbers- and initiative-driven, but is done by the engine proper. It has to have some logical way of making sense of the beat-by-beat onscreen action, is what I was getting at, there.


Agreed. Has this guy ever actually played 'em? You can get them for $10 or less on places like Steam.

You know how much ignorance I see when people say that Turn Based is archaic?, when some games still use it?

Anyway, not going to happen, Bethesda is not even interested, to redo someone else work, you wanna play it, do it, with the originals, if not, then, sorry

Also, The Fallout wikia existed even before Fallout 3 was announced, just saying

There's nothing wrong with turn based games. People must have little patience to wait their turn in combat.

okay we already know Hello Kitty Online is better than FO1 & 2 and Assassins Creed has a more established lore than Fallout. why argue?

Sad

Not a single post I've read has ever suggested or or requested a 2D game
Both http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph0vrrGOjeY and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzYmQyHl2bc game were 3D, as anyone would expect for Fallout 3. IMO (In Many Opinions), Bethesda should have stayed with the series proper and created a top down 3D/ISO strategic combat RPG, with refined Turn Based combat (preferably based on FO:Tactics combat), and created a new setting with new enemies on the East Coast's as yet undiscovered setting; and leave all of the past local factions behind; or they should have done a game in some other series instead.

Van Buren was a good reference design, along with the original games; All they had to do was follow the form. Gamebryo was a fine choice for a faithful Fallout sequel.
(Except that they made a shooter with it instead.)

**Also look to Witcher 1 as a prime example of how it should have been made. Also... The resolution bit is IMO irrelevant really; If you look at Witcher 1, Troika's demo, and even Dawn of War... the engines could display close up views, and this could have been implemented in a Fallout 3 when the PC was examining an item or area... Very much as it was done in Kotor 2.

**Another thing about the details (that certainly annoyed me)... If they had retained the series dialog interface, they could have implemented Talking heads on par with the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIGWAYS5uRw.
(And I wish they had. Imagine a legitimate / official version of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wf_2V7wLkI, using Fallout 1 caliber head designs rendered in Nvidia head demo quality graphics.)

Okay but I'm quite confident that no engine in the world, Gamebryo included has internalized turn-based combat built in from the get-go. That's not how engines work. Gamebryo was used to create the 2004 remake of Sid Meier's Pirates which most certainly did not have turn-based combat running under the hood.

Yes presumably the engine has to have some logical way of dividing up actions in order to keep track of what's going on but that doesn't make it turn-based. Again, no Elder Scrolls game, and neither Fallout 3 or New Vegas has something even approaching turn-based combat. It's just not the case.

I looked it up just cause, and wikipedia says Gamebryo was first used in 2001 for a game called dark age of camelot.

Which was an MMORPG that was also not turn-based insofar as my quick research has revealed.

but it was also used in Civilization 4.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40mSWjY23LI
http://www.gamebryo.com/Clients--Titles/Strategy/Sid-Meiers-Civilization-IV/

~and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVR1tJwiKyw, and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk9rWzYrhrI
( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6thkG0KGlTk and even http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYck6Jb2qDs ~Hows that for "engine don't support it" )

**Actually this says it best http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HHkhKiBHBE
Its not so much the engine, as how its used.