Just because you have a new medium, it does not mean that the story will be better, nor does it actually mean the medium is better. Sometimes older games, just need to be left alone. ANY remake should utilize a similar, engine, keeping the view point and interaction all the same.

Blasphemy, I say!

I won't even dignify that with a page-long essay on why I totally disagree...

(Seriously though, opinions are funny things - everyone has one, and rarely do they match up very well.)

Everyone seems to overlook something that I think is quite obvious:
Fallout 1 & 2 with Fallout 3 engine? It can't be done! It's not possible!
You can try... but the result will not be FO1&2.
It will be a completely different game only with some similarities on the surface.

You people honestly believe that the results of using an engine that different (such as the overall different atmosphere, the battle experience, and even the looks etc.) are so inconsequential?
It will be absolutely nothing like the original Fallout experience - could be good or great or even much better (it's beyond my point to argue potential quality ) but still... absolutely nothing like the original Fallout experience.
So, if you want to experience the classic Fallouts, your one and only viable option is to play the classic Fallouts.

You can do a hell of a lot more with the FO3 Engine than FO3.

Presently, I don't have any qualms with it, just with how it was used.

Heh, I'm picturing the dialogue with the Master or your chat with Myron done Fallout 3 style.

I doubt the lines would fit, actually.



EDIT*

Ahemm....

• Master: "So... Do you join the Unity, or do you die here." ~"Join!"~"Die"~"Join!"
  
• Vault Dweller: [Intelligence] "So, I must join the Unity or die here...Is that right?"

You can definitely do a lot more.
My point is you probably can't replicate the originals' gameplay and atmosphere successfully with it.
I don't care about FO3 but a Fallout 1 in first person or without its specific turn-based combat, is not Fallout 1.

There is no way remakes to be done, i dont think Beth would put work on it. And i asked you alredy, but you didnt answered, if you HATE so much FO3 and beth why you come here day after day to bash it?



There are great products and arts on every age. Good things should not be remade, unless as an tribute. Classicals, like cars, movies, or even fo1/2 are so, and should remain.

This cleary doesnt make new things crap. To live on an endless nostalgia is to be stucked yes, but on past.

It need not be done in First Person ~that's part of the point... There are RTS games that use Gamebryo.

~I was fiddling around (for a few hours ~So its no miracle mod) and produced this
unfinished "concept" (that I fully intend to finish ).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wf_2V7wLkI

Looks like FO1 is already remade: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4o8RrEDWXE&feature=related :lmao:

OK I see what you mean.
Though for me the atmosphere is of crucial importance in any game - For better or worse, the 'old' low res graphics and simple animations do their part towards building that atmosphere and thus you can't replicate it that easily with better technology.

Still that'd be a great approach for FO4 (though if Bethesda decide to go top-down we'll probably end up with some simplistic diablo-clone)

I don't agree with that, I can remember plenty of mediocre to just plain awful games from the 80's and 90's. Old isn't inherently better, but there does seem to be a much smaller percentage of truly great games these days. Most developers and publishers *cough EA cough* are happy with releasing average garbage with minimal effort and no soul.

I agree here. Personally I consider the FO1 graphics superior ~not on a technical level of course ('cuz they're not), but for the game, what's called for are archetypal entities (be they 2d or 3d art), that can pass for a given class of critter [recognizably classic too] and be reused indefinitely across the game world ~not unique raiders and with memorable faces ~it should be more as it is with the F3 mole rats ~its clearly just another mole rat... In F3 every other couple of raiders look alike and its jarring, but (rather amazingly I think) had they all been done just generic enough to look like raiders... they could all be identical and it would not be jarring. In my game 40/40 looked identical to one of the scavenger merchants ~and was rather annoying...

~Still I've posted on many occasions that I've never read of any member that actually preferred the 8-bit sprites... but I have now

I wouldn't be surprised if a FO1&2 remake pops up sooner or later. Look at what LucasArts is doing with Monkey Island. The spice must flow!

The sleeper hit will awaken?

Man... I didn't like that piece of news either... (and frankly I'm a bigger fan of Monkey Island's than Fallout's - it was the very first pc game I finished on my own ... good times)
I even was disappointed when I bought the cd-rom version and realized that the http://miwiki.net/The_Stump_Jokewas out!

I played Curse of Monkey Island but I got stuck somewhat early and then I quit after a week and gave the game back to my brother

I didn't vote "No" I voted "NOOO!!!"

I'm curious as to how many people who want the remake are fans of FO1/2 who genuinely want to experience their favorite games in a new light, and how many are FO3 fans who cringe at the sight of isometric turn-based games. If you are the latter, the originals are not for you and a remake wouldn't be anywhere near as true to the originals.

i disagree the problem is not in the technology but rather in the artistic direction they took, personally i prefer a more artistic and less realistic approach.
and so its not about the old res graphics is just how those new ones was done, for the most part there was nothing personal or memorable in FO3 NPC's/companions or even some incentive to care about them more than you would for a pack horse.


OFF TOPIC has anyone seen the http://www.gametrailers.com/video/exclusive-motion-wolfenstein/52340 for the upcoming new wolfenstein game

Amen for the 'more artistic and less realistic approach'.

By "more artistic and less realistic", do you both mean "stylized", or do you mean "less distinct"?
http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/Reagan-2.jpg

For myself, in a game like the Fallout series traditionally offers, I prefer more the generalized graphics that depict class as opposed to individuals ~unless that individual is considered important (and worth distinguishing).

*At it's most ridiculously extreme example... its like seeing a screen with some red dots and knowing they are bystanders, and two green dots and knowing immediately that they are the ones that really matter, and have pertinent roles or dialogs.
(alternatively: knowing the dozen or so Grey dots are minor enemies, and the two yellow dots in with them can kill you at will).

Unless the point of the game is to depict hyper realism... I find that at some point the extra details become superfluous at best or worse... needlessly distracting.


If you look at Dawn of War... Its sort of perfect in this regard. From a distance (normal play) you can tell all the entity classes by silhouette, but it still has that extra detail if you choose to examine them close up.

I'm also someone who really prefers Fallout 1 and Fallout 2's graphics style to Fallout 3's. They look more barren, more dirty and it really gives the game an atmosphere of desolation.
Fallout 3's art style does not represent that, in my opinion.



Gizmo, this is a very, very good looking UI and interface! I really love it!
I'll remember you are working on it.

That is why FO1/2 people are so resistant. You see, FO1/2 are older games where you have to put A LOT of imagination to it work, so most of the game really runs on the mind.

That is why there will be no really an sequel that appeals to old vet fanaticals, because they lived a dream of their own in the original games. If FO3 was pretty generic like you prefer, then you could fantasy your own post apocalyptic on your mind, and all would be good; but instead FO3 have lots of individual characters, and bethesda usually prefer to have fews, but distinct chars than an army of generic people.

Yes, it seems Fallout veterans wished Bethesda to grant them a sequel that would give them the same experience as they had with FO1 & 2 -- which obviously is not possible if one starts from the premise that a Fallout game must have turn-based combat and be 2D isometric in order to have the experience.

There is a over attachment on tb system. Even for the game settings, all the gore,six,child killing and other things happened the way these people want (and even they cant settle the matter among theyselfs about what they all want), TB and isometric is a must for, so as i said, you cant discuss it.

I mean, look at what is the dream of Gizmo for fo3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqzFJsmads4&feature=channel_page

Totally out of place. This wouldnt sell 1/100000 of what FO3 sold. Who would want this?