I'd like things such as being to visit the ruins of the Mariposa Military Base (again), but anything that directly occurs during Fallout 1/2 I won't even bother with. If I want nostalgia, I'll play Fallout 1 and Fallout 2, because I enjoy them. Only those same morons who think the "grafikz r ugly" are the ones who want to experience "nostalgia" through direct TCs - but I bet you, it won't be nostalgic at all for them, because they probably have not even played the originals.

That's not true at all. I say you should take a look at "Finally Turn-Based" a mod that incorporates TB combat into FO3. Granted it's a little buggy, but that's because it messes with alot of scripting, the game simply wasn't designed for TB. However if this was incorporated fully by a developer into a game, it would be able to work perfectly with no scripting issues. Beyond the crashes, it works very well in its execution.

I love FO1 and 2. I don't want to see them ruined in 3D. I mean, we all know what makes the originals great. Amazing story and incredible dialogue, a SPECIAL system that actually WORKS well, and exciting turn-based combat. I'd prefer the regular version anyday.

:tops:

Sums it up quite nicely.

If it was sold, I wouldn't buy it. Bethesda doesn't allow user-created mods to be bought and if they would, I personally don't support that idea.

If it'd be free, I'd download it to take a look at it, but having it in 3D wouldn't have the same feel as the 2D graphics. I prefer the original.

Okay, I have to admit I released Vault 13 and Vault 15 as explorable vaults for Fallout 3, but that doesn't mean I'm for the idea of a classic Fallout remake.

Kind of pointless though... I mean, the graphics were "just enough" to impart class distinctions; In F3 its too much information ~How do the Bump-Mapped Homeless affect my game? Fallout was HUGE (and F2 was bigger than F1); Detail is used to attract attention ~for a reason. Which would you prefer: Walking your PC into a 2 acre library to retrieve the one book among thousands that has legible text on the spine, or the same book on the same shelves (somewhere), when every single book in the building looks like a normal mapped wizard's spell book with ornate bindings and gold & silver hinges and trim?
~Yes a two acre library might be awesome to explore (especially if each and every book has a 20 pages short story in it, but not if the task is simply to find the book and return), and imagine if it were a page from an unknown spell book that your character needed :facepalm:
In Myth2, you have to go to the Great Library to retrieve such a book, and when you get there, your Journeyman (scholar/medic) enters the library while you defend the entrance from an onslaught of undead until he can return with the book ~You never even see the inside of the library (:lol: zero detail!), and its one of the best maps in the game.



Nah... The separation and dead space between establishes the setting, and should have been done the same way in F3; Fast travel could avoid it, but its still there ~(and might have had some truly weird stuff in it that few if any would ever find). Its too bad too, because they could have implemented the car in that case ..... [huge areas of flat barren wasteland with little or no vegetation and barely more than the height mapped dirt ~Talk about a mini-game... That would have made half of it a racing game that would have made it compete with RAGE and have an edge.]


Dude. you can have overhead in F3 as it is, you [someone] can certainly mod in the rest.

I would love that. Not mainly for the graphics enhancement but because I really dislike the isometric view in Fallout 1 and 2. So to make them into first person view like the other games you mention would make them much more playable for me.

Like I said, they could pull an Assassin's Creed which they did in Fallout 3 by decreasing the size of D.C. I just don't think they should. Fallout and Fallout 2 had epic scales where survival was harder and more paramount than it is in Fallout 3 because the distance between major settlements and landmarks was huge. In Fallout 1 and 2, Megaton and Rivet City (the only two major settlements in 3) wouldn't have been so close together; there are likely other major settlements outside of the game world (like the Pitt), but Fallout 3's detailed gameworld style just wouldn't feel right in a Fallout 1/2 remake since Junktown is a month from The Hub, and New Reno is a month from San Francisco.

But what I'm saying is, that "a month [away]" amounted to nothing more than three minutes or so of watching a tiny little pointer crawl across a VERY zoomed-out map, while wondering if you'd have a random encounter or two along the way. Ergo, a small amount of condensing the "overworld" map wouldn't really hurt, at least not IMO.

I think it would, it makes traveling the wasteland seem more dangerous than it does in Fallout 3.

Remake, no thank you play the orginal it's about ? 10 Including FO2 and the RTS) around here, I guess it's the seem in dollars or ponds'

[quote name='Talonfire' post='14050182' date='Mar 29 2009, 09:16 AM']I think it would, it makes traveling the wasteland seem more dangerous than it does in Fallout 3.[/quote]Agreed.

If there was going to be a remake of the original games with updated graphics and the like, I would assume that it would still have the world map and everything instead of trying to condense it all into one big map with all the key locations.

That was a key part of how the games played, having to travel over all that distance. It would be a pretty drastic change if you altered the way in which you explored the world.

Overland maps certainly have their uses. It would be financially impossible to model the vast distances of FO1/2. That's too bad, considering how boring overland travel was in FO1/2.

I find wasteland travel in FO3 much more entertaining, and for folks who don't. there is still an map travel system. If the next fallout takes place in a large area...too large to model completely, then I wouldn't mind an overland map system, as long as everything is modeled at every location, ala FO3. Random encounters shouldn't just be combat opportunities, but might also include fully modeled buildings, installations, raider camps, etc that could only be found randomly, based on a combination of stats, skills and perks.

I wouldn't say travel was 'boring' a few days travel was over in a few seconds, I think that's alot less boring than spending real-time days traveling between locations. If the originals decided to have a fully interactive wasteland, it would be a really bad system. That kindof thing is a possibility nowadays, but it's just like the argument that good graphics aren't a compromise for mediocre gameplay, in that a fully interactive wasteland isn't a compromise for an unrealistically condensed and cramped world map.

Why boring? The overland map allowed the player to see the vastness of the destruction of the world; It also let them see a days (or so) travel in nine directions (they were on a timer, and time was short). The map was topographical too, and certain terrain took longer to cross (and it was good habit to alter the course as the PC progressed from point to point to avoid tough spots). When I first played it I would often play in overland mode (scouting for settlements and the occasional random encounter). I loved the fact that you can travel to absolutely every square inch of the map whether there is a settlement or not; It meant that I could travel to within sight of the Glow and use the Rad-X and still have it in effect when I got there and took more. ~(and in F2 the car becomes a spot on the map that you can return to if you run out of fuel).

Entertaining because its rife with large insects, mammals and crustaceans throughout ~and peppered with robots. The Wasteland in Fallout 3 looks absolutely fantastic, but in practice its function reminds me of the Modron maze in Planescape .

Like Fallout 1 & 2 then....

Well, it certainly would be more boring if we were to walk around in FO1, but that didn't make overland travel any less boring. Look, FO3 has done the same thing with fast travel. Click the location and off you go. As I said previously, I think it's much more fun to WALK there then fast travel. If that means the map needs to be compressed, well, if you fast travel everywhere, who cares? It could be done more like FO1 in that fast travel enabled map markers could be added to the map when the quest starts or after you talk to someone. I'd still walk, IF I could.

Regardless, I would like to see every destination fully rendered and large enough to explore, and there needs to be SOME wasteland in there somewhere.

If it came down to overland map travel to smallish areas, or a fully rendered compressed map, I'd go with the fully rendered compressed map, because I like to explore.

As I said before... That's not really the "same thing", F3's Fast travel is to the overland map in F1 as V.A.T.S. is to TB combat ~Its not, the original is a lot deeper.


You could almost mean "Wetland" instead of "Wasteland" given the dense population. Wasteland is a wasted land...Its not really wasted land if there are people living on it.

Wasteland should have almost nothing of interest, and remarkably little of anything with value.
~In Fallout it should be this...
http://www.laurenceward.co.uk/USERIMAGES/wasteland4.jpg
http://www.laurenceward.co.uk/USERIMAGES/wasteland8.jpg
http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/Ratrod.jpg
http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/Saltflatssunset.jpg
...extending for weeks in all directions with almost zero human inhabitants and very few
large animals (what would they eat?).

I see what you're getting at with this. Some people prefer being able to explore every square inch of the world without having to travel on an overmap, some like that overmap method as a way to convey a sense of a larger area, with only being able to investigate the more interesting areas. (ie, the area one square south of Vault 13 exists - you can travel there and exit the overmap, but there's nothing interesting to see there beyond "generic random-encounter map #3.") Myself, I'm fairly ambiguous either way - if you want to have the game take place in a more limited area, then having the entire map rendered out and explorable makes sense. If you want the scope of the game to cover northern California, then I'd think Fallout 1's system would be the way to go.

Not to mention the time scale, as well. In Fallout 1 (less so in Fallout 2, but it still had time-sensitive events,) you had a finite time limit to deal with. Those days of game-time it would take to get from place to place could be a real consideration once that clock started ticking down. For myself at least, I didn't mind that it took me a couple seconds to cover a distance of a few days' worth of travel on the overland map. But it would seem wierd to me, at least, if I spent an hour physically walking from Vault 13 to the Hub and understand that it somehow took me three in-game days to get there. I would find it hard to convey a sense of scale in a world that was so condensed - the originals were supposed to take place over a large expanse of wasteland.

In Fallout 3 it's fine, because the entire game takes place in one localized area - it's as big as it is. (Sure, the DC area is physically smaller in the game than in real-life, but you're not going to notice that too much considering it's all been bombed to hell and gone.) Trying to fit Fallout 1 (especially #2) into that same size area could lead to some troubles.

Not to mention that if you open this hypothetical remake to completely changing something as fundamental as how you get around in the game, it opens it up to any number of other purely arbitrary changes. If you're going to change the travel method, then why not make it all real-time? If you're going that far, then why not have the same ruleset, skills, and attribute implementation as Fallout 3? It's kind of a slippery slope.

Because if you're going to change so much about the game, then why even bother remaking the original games? If you're going to change the entire game, then why not just make a new game from the ground up?

I mean, I could say that if I for some reason really hated how you got around the world in Fallout 3, then it's just not my type of game and I'd be better of playing something. But I could say the same thing about the orignals, as well. If the overmap and the distance travelled is such a drawback to me, then that game probably isn't what I'm looking for in the first place either.

No. Do not touch the classics. Thanks.

I really don't think this needs to be an either/or situation. An ideal game would have both.

Consider Vault City in FO2 for example. Gecko is close by to the north, the raider camp to the south. The three could all be rendered together in a continuous play area, ala FO3, with fast travel map locators for the overland map. If you want to walk to Gecko, you could, and in the process explore the wasteland surrounding VC, Gecko, and the raider base.

You would then travel, using the overland map, to get to other content clusters, like NCR/vault area, etc. A large wasteland area including SF and Navarro could be included for those of us eho enjoy the tactics of using terrain in open combat. Fast travel would include the potential for random encounters ala FO1, and walking would potentially provide the sort of random encounters found in FO3.

If you like to explore, you can. If you liket o be efficient, you can do that too.

Edit:

Not that I am not advocating the remake of FO1/2 here. A hybrid system would be workable in a game which covers large areas, and still have the detail of a small rendered area, like FO3.

Kjarista ... that is a VERY good idea!! "Content Clusters", I like it! And, that sort of approach needn't be limited solely to a remake / conversion of FO1&2, either; picture remaking FOT, using those "content clusters" you just described - each mission area might work something like O:A does, in terms of having a large static map with several objectives to accomplish. (Those'd also make great CO-OP maps, come to think of it. O_O)

I wouldn't put the "points of interest" within a single "content cluster" cheek-to-jowl though; I think it would be best if each cluster is at least 1/4 the size of the core game's Capital Wasteland, some of them might warrant being even bigger, up to 1/2 or 2/3 as large even.

I also think that would be a very good idea. Each "point of interest" in the old maps would come across as pretty darn small if you were to have them as isolated incidents - especially if we're going with a more first/third-person exploration a la F3. It would make sense to sort of group areas together and flesh out the intervening spaces with areas to explore.

But yeah - this is a lot brainstorming for something that isn't terribly likely to happen. I think I remember coming across an interview with one of the Devs where they predicted in about a year or so we'd likely see an attempt at a Fallout 3 Mod of the original games. I think that's a lot more likely than a Studio going through all the trouble of re-interpreting the original games.

I still stand by my original position - when it comes right down to it, it wouldn't really matter to me what they did with a hypthetical remake. I still have the original games in all their (debatable) "glory." They could remake Fallout 1 as a squad-based FPS for all I really care. I wouldn't buy a remake of the originals that changed things up too much, but it's not like it would somehow magically take away the copies I already own of the originals.

I'd rather play something new...because it's new.

Well yeah, that's the other side of the coin. It would have to be a pretty amazing remake to get me to buy another copy of something I already own.

I recently put down $10 on the package deal of the X-Com games over on Steam, but that's only because I'd lost the old discs and felt enough time had passed that I felt like playing them again. For me to do the same for the originals... I don't know if updated graphics would be enough of a consideration to get me to buy it.

I mean, that's why I was excited about Fallout 3 - I'd already played all the older games, I was interested to see what new elements Bethesda was going to bring to the table. I think if anyone was going to go through the effort of remaking one of the originals they'd be better off coming up with an entirely new story with the old gameplay, interface, and improved graphics - or a different story and entirely new gameplay; or even a new story with all of the gameplay and visuals of Fallout 3.

Any of those 3 hypothetical games, I'd be more likely to pay money for.