Well that's constructive.

But here's the thing, Fallout was built around turned based combat. Your character died alot easier and he was no different than the NPCs except in terms of gear. Also too, you did things in Fallout that would be intense in today's standard. You took on your first deathclaw at level 5 with only a hunting rifle and a 10mm SMG wearing metal armour in a typical run though. Also too speaking of I can think one reason why it wouldn't work:

You encounter: a pack of Deathclaws.

Here's another

You encounter: an Enclave Patrol

You encounter: a pack of fire geckos

You encounter: some Aliens

In Fallout 2 you had a bunch of really tough enemies slapped at you in random encounters that wouldn't work with Fallout 3 and NVs system.

Ah ok I see your point mate. It's been quite a while since I played the origionals so I'm kind of vague on the details of the endings

Its my job to be constructive in that way.

No thank you. FO1 and 2 take me back to a time when the US wasn't in the toilet, the 90's.

...I think Obsidian, not Beth, would have to handle the remake/continuation of the first two fallouts if it was done,

I alsothink it could be done if say the map was done like AC 2, where you had the central locations, than either pay to travel to other central locations, or exit onto pre-determined paths which could miss parts of land space out, keeping the larger map size, and making sure people could still explore, kind of

The games would be rated A or whatever advlt only is. They delve way deeper in dark subject matter.... and there is actually more gore than the newer titles. I could see a possible 3rd person perspective download only versions made, since retailers may boycott them. But, I do not see anyone making full-scale blockbusters out of the originals.

There was certainly less combat than there was in Fallout 3. By the end of Fallout 1/2 I've usually killed a little over a hundred enemies total at most. By the end of Fallout 3 my kill count tends to be in the thousands.



I just don't think it could be done adequately, at least not in the current setup. As I've said before Fallout 1/2 have much larger scopes, Fallout 3 and New Vegas' game world would be the equivalent of one or two squares on the Fallout 1/2 world maps. The only way I could see a Fallout 1/2 remake being done justice in the Bethesda open world style is if they get rid of the wasteland exploration and use a world map node system.

If you're talking about just transitioning Fallout 1/2 to a 3D engine and keeping the original format in tact, that's another story. I just don't think either game could be remade well in Fallout 3/NV's full open world format.

Since they wouldn't be able to pull it off without adding quests, removing quests, changing NPC's, changing items, changing towns/cities, making it FPS primarily before making it Isometric TB and not getting the measurements right then I'd say no.
IF they were able to create a complete replica without adding stupid new things or removing things then maybe.
But IF they were to do it it would certainly be either an FPS or it would be a simplified TB games.

So no.
The classics are fine just the way they are, and future fallout games should aspire to be more like them.

As long as they don't change any content, I think it would breath some fresh air into those old titles and allow a new generation to enjoy them. If that were the case my answer would be a resounding yes!

For God's sake NO. Already did a shoddy enough job with FO3.

At the very least, I wish I could get the original F1 and 2 on PSN so I can D/L and play it on the PS3

It's a PC game.

Why?
They're not exactly games that require good computer specs.
Basically, you have a computer? Then you can play the fallout games.
Unless you have a computer from like the 80's.

Would I like to revist the old game with the new style of game play... yes.

Do I actually want them to remake the first two games... no.

Why? Each game would take out say 2 years of there time working on it. That would make it 6 years before we got a game that actually furthered the story line. Do not want!

That story has been told. If I wanted the lore, but did not want to play with the old graphics then I can read the lore on the net. However I can't make up new lore on my own (well okay I can, but trust me it svcks). I don't want these guys waisting there time on something that has already been done when we could have new games that gave us new lore, and we can see the story progress.

To be honest, those games have terrible graphics compared to Fallout 3. Look at Half-Life (1998), it came out in the same time period they made it a 3D game. The Elder Scrolls: Redguard was also 3D. How hard would it have been really? Even in Van Buren, Interplay was still planning on using the same old graphics. Fallout 3 would have not been so enjoyable had that happened. Bethesda took Fallout and made it better. sorry if that's controversial.

*fixed.

That's just your opinion. If you judge games soley on graphics alone then you don't have very good tastes in games and should probably stick to games like CoD. That's my opinion.

When the graphics make the game less enjoyable, I judge them. 3D games have been there for a long time, there was no need for that ugly 2D overhead view. It's not like I was there playing the game around that time, I didn't care about Fallout until Fallout 3 (I don't care about admitting this).

What I am trying to say is that few people who were introduced to Fallout with Fallout 3 will care about playing the old games because of the terrible graphics. That seems to be the only reason for a remake, anyway.

I'm not for remaking the games, btw.

The isometric view is what made Fallout was it was and no one had any problems with Van Buren keeping it isometric. I had no problems with the graphics and still don't. Remaking the old games would be a joke (especially with gamebyro). If you want to experience what happened in Fallout 1 and 2 then just play the originals. No need for a remake just to keep the 'new generation' of video gamers happy who like everything nice and shiny to keep their attention.

What? Fallout 1 was relased in 1997, and 2 in 1998

Half-Life by that time, was actually praised for the upcoming graphics and engine. It was (literally) the Crysis of 1998. Or maybe it was Turok? :biggrin:

Comparing a corridor shooter(where graphics is not much of an issue to render, since it's not a big-ass open-worlded RPG like Fallout) to a turn based full-blown RPG, and then judging it solely on the graphics is like demanding every current game(indie, sports, max payne shooter, tractor simulator...) to look like Crysis 2 and everything below is a garbage.

No offense intended, and I deeply apologize if I caused some but what kind of logic is that if I may ask? :whistling:

I don't care why they didn't put the effort in to make a 3D game. It just sounds like excuses. The late '90s were not a time when 3D was the cutting edge of technology on the PC. That is just ridiculous.

The bird's eye view graphics aren't the only problem. There's also the turn-based combat, and the weird zig-zag movements of the character.

Interplay is trying to steal back Fallout with their project Fallout Online. It probably will have the same isometric graphics too. lmao. they're just lazy.

Here's the problem.
Fallout fans LIKE 3rd person isometric turn based combat games. That WAS Fallout, and if you're not fond of it, it's not your kind of game. Doesn't make them bad, that's just their style.

*hits with newspaper* If this is the case, Bethesda is the laziest company there is, All they did was COMPLETELY [censored] RIP OFF THE STORY of the first two, So instead of Interplay focusing on graphics and gameplay (Which is fine, If you think it svcks then thats your problem.) they focus on A DECENT story.

Your trolling is becoming more and more obvious now.