I'm all for an XBL and PSN release of these classic games but I don't think that they woould really be able to translate well into the fallout 3 engine, as the first two titles focused mainly upon the different towns in the game where as fallout 3 while having some nice locations really lack the detail that made the towns in the first two titles feel like real places I'm just not sure that this isue could be worked around, also I think it would be better to work on new titles od dlc most remakes don't work either they follow the original too closely killing any creative freedom or they stray too far from the source material pissing off fans and most of the time ruining what made the game great.

that TBS is a dieing bread, it was born out of software/hardware requirements in early years of the computer industry.
today turn based is a design choice only for board games or juts over simplified crap that should be flash game rather
than a real game, none tactical and strategical should feature it any more (unlike iso like perspectives)

good examples, Company of heroes as tactical game and the soon coming latest hearts of Iron 3 as strategic Game.





yeah football. (chess is board game, thous both comparison are :facepalm: )

as for Civilization (RTS) the whole franchise sold about 9 million copys while fallout 3 sold already about 5 million copy
starcraft sold 11 millions, sims sold some 16 millions and mario franchise sold 200, so what does that all means? nothing.

Well firstly I should speak on the topic at hand:
I do not believe that Fallout 1-2 should be remade in any form of modern format or "consolified", unless by consolified it means releasing the original games as is for consoles. I do not think the originals need to be updated or changed, I take them as they are with what I like and don't like about them. Maybe the Fallout Trilogy could be ported to consoles but no don't mess with the originals.

Gizmo: I understand your sentiment, really I do. And I have never meant to imply the original games are bad at all, in fact I enjoy them very much! You are not wrong in being disappointed that Fallout 3 isn't in the same format of gameplay as its predecessors because I understand that for gamers such as you, Ausir, Talonfire and nu_clear_day it is important to follow a continuity that maintains through the series. I also share with you disappointment over Bethesda's admitted focus on actioneering as opposed to storytelling which in my opinion forms the foundation of everything that is an RPG.

I can mention several examples of games which have changed dramatically their gameplay between episodes within a series but its later games are hailed just as good if not better than the earlier games. For example is Resident Evil; the original games featured a static camera which changed angles whenever the character walked from a certain point to another, the games also featured auto-lock on targets (Needed a lot because of the static cameras). The 4th installation of the series introduced a third person perspective and manual targetting mechanic, which as you can imagine is considerably different. The 4th and 5th games in RE have been recognized at least as good as previous games in the series if not better.

I'll give you an example of a game I do like; I love the original KotOR and I can honestly say I wouldn't mind at all if the gameplay had been changed to open world first person perspective, as long as it was still an RPG and the story and characters were given their due attention.

I also think that Fallout 3 is more of a successor to Fallout 1 and 2 more than a proper sequel as this isn't following directly the deeds or descendant of the Vault Dweller, it merely recognizes those events within the existence of the timeline. Frankly Fallout 3 is a title and I would have had no difference in my judgment of the game had it been called Fallout: DC; but since it does continue to venture in the timeline set forth by the previous 2 games, I find it well enough to be recognized as a sequel, independent of the gameplay mechanic. I do not feel that gameplay continuity needs to be maintained in order to create a proper or good sequel/followup; as long as it is faithful to the spirit of the predecessors and that it stays within the same genre, in this case RPG, then I can enjoy the game for what it offers as opposed to what the previous games offered instead and is missing here.

Malcador: I'll keep it brief. It's unfairly bashed because many times the game isn't being judged by the flaws of the product itself but by the expectations in gamers heads that were not met because the game wasn't mechanically similar to its predecessors. You want to insult the game's story, its lackluster VATS system, its inability to recognize when you draw a weapon on an npc or the consequences of your actions not acknowledged fine but criticizing the game simply because it doesn't play like the ones that came before is unfair.

That's kind of my view. I think it's one thing to just port games to modern PCs and consoles; and maybe even adding a bit of polish to it (like they used to do back in the day with the old Sierra games, actually.) But I think that if you're going to go through the effort of taking an old game and then changing it into what is pretty much a different game - then you're probably better off just making a new game. It's not like you really need to have played Fallout 1 and 2 to know what's going on in Fallout 3, after all.

And that's a redo of Fallout 1 with 3D graphics and realtime gameplay - a totally new game. It just seems to me like you'd just as well to go all the way and come up with a new plot and characters.

This tired old argument again, huh? You may want to recheck your facts or cite some sources, because I think you're quite mistaken on a woefully common misconception that turn-based games were born out of some mythical technical limitation.

The first videogames were realtime. There's never been any technical limitation - you've always been able to do real-time games just as easily as a turn-based one. Originally, it was actually easier to code a real-time game (still is, and always has been, actually) - there's a reason that Space Invaders, Pong, and Pac-Men were real-time. This follows all through the entire history of videogame design. You first started seeing turn-based games when the computing power was enough to catch up with the tabletop games that people were playing. A lot of fans of wargames very much liked the concept of a computer to handle all of the complicated math that was involved in resolving a round on a tabletop. That's where turn-based gaming comes from. History supports this.

I still have fond memories of playing TSR's Interceptor on my computer, for example. Which was a 100% faithful translation of the original tabletop rules. And was even designed so that you could optionally play it alongside your regular tabletop campaign.

For example, it can take me all day (or even an entire weekend) to resolve a single combat with miniatures. A large portion of that time is spent adding up die rolls, comparing charts, bickering over the rules, and doing lots of math in your head or on a calculator. Not to mention the tedium of trying to fit a tape measure and protractor to work out your movement without knocking over your pieces or your little plastic trees. Putting that game wholesale into a computer drastically cuts that time down. I know this for fact. I have a number of Napoleonics games that run on the same rulesets I've used on tabletop for many years. I can play quite a few battles in the amount of time it takes me to work it out on a table.

Fallout 1 could very well have been real-time, had they so wished. The first Diablo came out (I think it was that year, but at the very least within a year of Fallout's release.) There was no technical limitation that "forced" the first game to be turn-based. That was the game they wanted to make.

There's also no inherent reason why turn-based is over-simplified. I cite Civilization, X-Com, Jagged Alliance, and any number of Napoleonic simulations. They've also very recently released Blood Bowl, which is a faithful recreation of the classic Game Workshop miniatures game. There's nothing "simple" about any of these games - their entire purpose is to be played turn-based; and I find it laughable to think that Civilization remains turn-based after all these years because of some hypothetical technical limitation (which is patently false to begin with.)

You might not like it - it's not for everyone. Not everyone likes Chess, Go, or Succession Wars, either. These days (and throughout the entire course of videogame history) a game is turn-based because that's the way it's intended to play. It's an ends to a means, and for those who are fans of it a major part of the fun to be had is in the system by which it is played. I could more easily argue that real-time is the old and outdated way to play - because that was the default and only way to play a game until computers were able to catch up with the complex calculations required for a good turn-based game.

In short - you've got it backwards. Real-time was a result of technological limitations. And it was only with increased computing power that game designers were able to overcome the technical limitations that had previously prevented them from making turn-based games.

what does it matter who came the first ? it was the time of experimentation and i said it was Hardware and Software limitation, their attempts at AI is total joke and even today game AI design takes in account the latest HW specs.



who is not fond of his child hood games TB games and still those TB games that was designed to simulate their non computer counterparts and to make the transition to computer gaming easier for the masses back then, now war games are simluating wars not board games and wars are not TB.



what does it has to do with chess?? chess is a board game.

bla bla bla you are just to hang up on TB games and make your argument fit your predisposition, i would have explained why you are wrong i further details but i find to annoying to write all those long arguments considering that English is only my third language (to much work).

again go check out Hearts of iron 3 to see how a deep strategic War game should look like.

TB combat is not a thing of the past. The masses today still seem to enjoy TB combat, it seems -> Empire: Total War is a very recent game featuring turn-based combat. Other good example: Heroes of Might & Magic.

Actually, the combat is real time, but the strategy phase is turn-based.

Civilization, as mentioned, is turn-based, and that series sells like crazy. Even the recent console version, Civilization: Revolution, sold very well and above expectations.

Console RPGs have been turn-based forever, like Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest and what-have-you... even the newest Final Fantasy, coming next year, is turn-based.

I don't think Fallout 3 is real-time because turn-based games don't sell on consoles... they do... I think it is real-time because Bethesda makes real-time games. They said from the start they are trying to do Fallout as close to its origins as possible, but at the same time a game they are good at making... this meant a real-time open-world Action/RPG.

i enjoy a lot of stuff, so? that has nothing to do with the argument.

and i loved Heores and warlords and many, many other games

p.s. Empire total war is a piece of ***, their worst game in the series, beside the battles its again oversimplified but very shiny graphics and much of useless not working mechanics, their AI is a joke and it seems that each game they are working extra time add new features instead of makeing old ones work , i cant wait for some normal mode to come out.

this is why i like HOI because the game built around AI and a good game mechanics (or in other words chakage not a time spender) its not about shiny stuff that will sell a lot of copys for kids.
this is why most of the comparison to other games you will make are flawed as they are based on other factors that has nothing to do with the TB vs RT

The point was in response to a direct claim that Fo3 was more popular than every TB games.... Ever. Not that TB games are more popular than Real time.

but he does (you count sales count for civ as franchise not as per title) still this has no meaning at all (i think that poke mon is a turn based and i bet one of its titles can win this)

Civilization IV sold 3 million on the PC alone, while Fallout 3's sales are for all platforms. If we compare the PC sales only, Civ4 would definitely win, and it's not really fair to compare FO3 sales on all platforms with Civ4's sales on its only platform.

I see. When we reach 2077, when there will be holgraphics or something like, a whole new generation of Fallout 1/2 fans will still be playing on their dos box machines.

That is funny. "hey people i said something for fo3, but dont miss, im one of yours vets!!! I hate it too!!"

I really don't understand that whole turn based vs. real time argument.
It's obvious that each approach allows the player to do very different things.
Turn based doesn't have the potentials of real time and vice versa - which means one can not adequately replace the other.

Which means that the old FO games featured turn based combat because that was the better way to achieve the desired effects and NOT because Turn Based was more popular or hip back then!
Real time has been around since... Space Invaders -- and first person real time games where extremely popular back in the nineties as well!
So if FO1&2 would benefit from first person/real time mechanics they would be first person real time - I see no reason why not.

As I see no reason for people to want them to change into irst person/real time games now, after all these years...
If I agree that 'turn based is a thing of the past' then things become really simple: just play one of the countless great games with real time combat that come out today.
Honestly I see no reason to distort a 10 year old game because 'it's old' -- of course it's old! It's a 10 year old game! And that's what it is and that's how it plays.
I mean... if we lived in a world where 3rd person/turn-based games that where as popular how would you like the idea of a 3rd person - turn based remake of the first Doom?

FO1 and 2 do not require DOSBox. They run fine on any version of Windows from 95 to Windows 7.

I think it's fair to assume that in 2077 they'll require some sort of OS simulation though

The argument is just a way more to bash Bethesda/Fallout3; there is no way to make people stop crying. I think old vets should start something like AA (alcoolic anonymous), like FA (Old fallout anonymous) where an group of fans will help themselfs to live the life without new turn based fo games. Ow wait there is already this place, its called NMA, but unfortunally that place doesnt heal anyone, it just is a hate breeding ground.

It is? How did I do that now?

No worry it already demands a lot of "mental simulation" (aka imagination) to be imersive. Maybe they will return to real pen an paper at 2077.

I even suspect that if a fan of old fallout plays at pen and paper will say "bah this is just a spin off! This is not fallout"

Ah... I always admired things that provoke my imagination.
Unfortunately at some point having an imagination became a bad thing. Now it's little more than an insult it seems.


Naturally! Fallout is not pen and paper it's a crpg... what's your point?

Nothing. Just to point how illogical and fanatical are old veteran fans.

EDIT

What really makes me happy is the amount of FO3 haters/deslikers/enemies. Its said that you know a great man because of their enemies.
A good or great think always raise a lot of jealosy.

And that is what FO3 is. An immense success. A huge success, on a few months, more than FO2 in 10 years. I recognize the 2 first games to be good. What is impossible is for people to accept new. Ok, all the hate and jealosy is their way to say "its good too". If it was so bad why people need to constantly point things? An bad product would "reveals itself" without the need to for constantly pointing "hey remember its bad! No No its not good the way it should as i imaginated"

Right, and where have you seen the latter ? Certainly not here in any quantity to label the game 'unfairly bashed'.



I don't think you came anywhere close to that. You might have done it for the fancy men you've invented for your purpose though, heh. Faulty reasoning to assume something's really great because of the amount of dislike it gets. There's a thing called justification, I think people use it, unless Headgames was the greatest publisher, heh.

i think you are mixing few things or maybe i missed some argument before, i didnt said anything about FP perspective or made a point about the remake of FO1&2
thou i would like FO1&2 to be moded/remake in to the new engine so i can play FO in the original settings but i dont have any delusion that it will pale in comparison to the classics which was perfect.

neither there is a connection between "first person/real time mechanics" its going to take a long time before FP mechanics can achieve its full potential and RPG's just like strategy games benefit more from a "top down" look, while TB should be a thing of the past.

Point taken.
I was actually replying to the 'TB is a thing of the past' vs. 'no it's not because TB games still sell a lot' arguments that I saw above.
I explained why I think that TB isn't a thing of the past + and why I think that sales has little to do with TB not being a thing of the past.
I used the Fallout remake as an example (which I think it was a good idea because it's what the thread is about)


So the FO3 haters/deslikers/enemies are great men because they have such successful an enemy as FO3?