I dont think Fallout 1 and 2 was just about gameplay, storyline, style etc.
I personally loved to look at the art. I mean, it was great! The animations were awesome, and everything in the game were illustrated with great style and post-apocalyptic beauty, so fallout was not only an extremely intelligent game, but also amazingly pretty.

Now, Van Buren disappointed me form the start. I know it was just a tech demo and was not nearly finnished, but the direction the game was taking just reeked of Brotherhood of Steel that came out on xbox and ps2 mixed with a bit of tactics and very little real 'fallout'. I did not like the 3d characters. They looked way too refined, and then some of the hair choices and such just made me want to puke. The combat was way too brotherhood-of-steelish, and it seemed to me more like an action game than anything else. The art was very poor, and I blame that on 3d animation. 3d animation can really svck sometimes, but hey, I know the game was still in production and details to art would perhaps come later, but still, I did not like the direction Van Buren was taking, and I am much more excited about Fallout 3 from Bethesda than anything I have seen in Van Buren, even though we dont really know much about Beth's Fallout 3 yet.

I think most people liked Van Buren and wished that could have been the real Fallout 3.
Would be nice to find out what everyone else thought of Van Buren and how they compare it to past Fallout games as well as the up and coming Fallout3.

Well, in all Fairness, Van Buren was in the Alpha stage.

@Topic
then why is it that I'd like to play finished Van Buren than finished beth's 'Fallout 3' ?

Well, we can never say for sure, as Van Buren was never, and never will be completed.


So for all we know they might've kept it the same thing, or a complete overhaul. We can never say for 100% certain.

So it's really sad that you can tell the difference (huge one) by looking at VB alpha demo and GI article, eh?

I can be sure of few things
Van Buren was isometric
Van Buren would be turn-based and real-time
Dialogue (or at least part of it) was still awesome- there was part of dialogue that clearly stated that you can cure some guy or give him some drugs... After you give him drugs you could of course make him your 'slave'

Van Buren was like, PRE-Alpha stage actualy...
Just the very beggining that was seposed to be seen only by the board of directors...

Back then games where about story and gameplay. The Graphics where always the last thing to be touched up. Van Buren would have rock your world so hard your granmama would have felt it. You won't make any friends bash Van Buren.

The thing is, they made it better by adding 3d aniamtion. Sure there are more pixels and its the new age of 3d, but what I was trying to say with my blabbering, is that Fallout 1 and 2 looked much better both in animation and still art as well as style. And um, I'm not really trying to make friends or enemies, I'm just stating my opinion and trying to learn the opinions of others. Thanks for yours.

Oh yeah, and I disagree with you that the graphics were the last thing they handled, thats just not true.
I believe they spent a hell of a lot of time trying to get the perfect feel, atmosphere and style through their art.
And they did a hell of a good job with it!

Perhaps because F1 and F2 were finished (well, not really but...) and Van Buren was barely started.

Yes, perhaps. We will never know how it would have turned out.
I just didn't like the direction it was going in, as I stated before.

I've never had an interest in playing it. It never got finished. Who cares? Has anyone ever asked themselves why they bothered with Tactics before Fallout 3? It was probably intended as a holdover between sequels to keep the franchise fresh. I suspect they were having problems with FO3 development that go beyond Interplay simply crapping out in its final years.

There's a new game coming. At this point I'm convinced it's more good than bad because I can see beyond whether a game emulates every single element of a predecessor. I'm worried about dialogue but otherwise they do seem committed to the things that are actually at the core of Fallout (TB is just a trapping, IMO).

In wich parallel universe do you live in?

:) In the one where people have different opinions.
I think in your universe, everyone loved Van Buren and wishes it was the next Fallout3.

Agree, I am especially worried about dialogue. TB is not what made Fallout great. Intelligence is.

Okaythen....



"Fallout 3" has 3D characters too. Do you mean refined? or unfinished?


Hair choices..... Seriously? Thats pretty gamebreaking! Again, unfinished.



Thats because it was in real time mode, it also was going to have a TB mode. "Fallout 3" is only real time, so that is even more POSish, right?



Of course it was poor! Pre-Alpha! Yes it would have been improved later! Fallout 3, i may point out, also has 3D!


What makes you think this will be better?
I understand that you had some issues with the VB tech demo, but have you read the design docs for it? What did you think of them?
I thought they seemed promising.

You know the ol' saying about opinions, right?

Besides, I'm curious to ear WHY in his opinion Beth's Teh Nucular Scrolls :Falblivion looks promising, cause if so, sure as hell I've missed something lately


For what I've seen, it looks ok.

...And several thousand times more "fallouty" than anything beth has showed so far

Hey I liked Stephen King's Dark Tower series...but I think Dean Koontz' continuation of the series will be better!

Probably the one where we didn't get the completed Van Buren. It is more promising from the possibility of it being finished...

Yeah and a valid way of doing that is to start a thread and call it: "Van Buren looked like crap!"?


I tought Van Buren looked good, it looked more like an FO-title than "Fallout 3" ever will.
It's not just about one thing like TB, or isometric-view or the art-style, or the location, the dialoge system and so on and so forth, it's all of those things and then some that "Fallout 3" is missing and Van Buren still had.

Sure, chances are that Van Bure would have been the worst game of the 3. But it would have kept most of what made Fallout whereas "Fallout 3" will keep som of what is Fallout and fill the gaps with Oblivion.

Well, in all Fairness: Fallout 3 seems promising. What developers say about themselves, being Fallout Fans, staying true to the original feel and so on...it all sounds very promising. And what I've seen of Fallout 3 so far does certainly not lool like oblivion with guns.

Maybe Van Buren would have been good, may be not. And do the desing plans for F3 not look promising? Does not design for most games look promising? If it did not, would the game even be worth trying to make it? Comparing that ist not fair.

And another note on graphics: They are important, Fallout looked good, when it came out, and it was pretty hard on the hardware. Especially on harddiskspace and RAM.

No, it all sounds very PR bullcrap

All too true.

What else would they say? "We just want to cash in on an established franchise!", "We didn't really like the settings or the game mechanics, but we got the IP really cheap!"

Yep, oblivion was a good example that bethesda says many things.

But I liked Morrowind. There is a chance of Bethesda making a good game.

Where is the difference between credible PR Crap and uncredible PR Crap?

I liked Morrowind, too.
But I know that 'morrowinding' Fallout won't do Fallout any good.
And I'm not worried because they're not morrowinding Fallout
They're oblivioniting it, which is even worse.