So I'm just wondering if anyone out there liked the graphics or gameplay of Van Buren over those of Fallout 3? I mean Van Buren was cancelled in 2003 which gave them 5 years to work on it and from the pictures I've seen it was almost exactly the same as Fallout 2, and while it was good when it came out I dont think it could compete with games of 2003. What do you think?

I can't get the damn game to work so I don't know

Is this even a question? Van Buren was 2D, Fallout 3 is 3D. WTF.

This doesnt even belong here. Anyways, 2d and 3d cant be compared. Fallout 3 obviously has better graphics because its 3d and had the time to have good graphics.

Let dead games where they are, no need to bring up a huge flame war on "This would've been better" "This would've svcked"

Just leave well enough alone, ok?

Yes it could be. Not all 2D is better than 3D.

2d doesnt have much on 3d. Personally, 3d is better in my opinion.

I will never understand why people believe that!
Late 90's: everything was going swimmingly with the evolution of 2D graphics (come on... wasn't BG2 a gorgeous RPG?) and then suddenly 3D became so popular that everything had to be so.
And every circle turned into a hexagon... and I had to spend half my time trying to readjust that stupid camera that never seemed to get to a convenient angle.
Of course huge improvements have been made since but still... not quite there yet...
And why not 2D... ok, not in a first person game obviously, but otherwise... why on earth not?

(and all this is kind of irrelevant because... Van Buren was 3D )

I just dont like 2d games. I dont even know what Van Buren is, so I assumed it was 2d as everyone else stated. Anyways, 2d isnt better then 3d in my opinion.

I don't know anyone that prefers VanBuren's graphics, but most that would prefer VB to FO3 don't really care about the graphics that much (myself included).

I played it and saw the potential. I liked it, but I didn't really look forward to it that much (and the combat mechanics had not been implemented yet ~and never were).
Given the choice between both titles fully completed and finished to the developers vision of what they wanted to make...
(I can't fully know what the devs wished to make... but) based on what I can see and surmise, I'd likely choose Van Buren over FO3.
Given the same choice but between VB and Troika's demo (both fully completed and ready to ship), I'd pick Troika's RPG (even though I know less about it ~again, based on what I've seen. read, and can surmise.)

The Troika demo is the first link in my SIG.

I'd say that's irrelevant to the quality of a game.
*And as they've said... VB was 3d.

Of course I'd definitely prefer Van Buren's gameplay style. As for the screenshots, keep in mind that they were from an early pre-alpha tech demo and the graphics in the final game would have been much better.



No, Van Buren was 3D, with top-down view and zoomable, rotatable camera.

And Van Buren was vastly superior in terms of story, writing, quest design and choices and consequences. Even if it were 2D these would easily top Bethesda's FO3 in my eyes.

I'd kind of like to have them both, actually.

Well, it's not like it wouldn't be impossible. Even if Van Buren had been published and had been successful, Interplay would still have been in a very bad financial situation and might have needed to sell Fallout to Bethesda.

Sure, I was very impressed with Fallout 3's aesthetics. For me, it's always been less about visual fidelity, and more about what you do with the tools available. I've been more impressed with the art style in a number of old-school 8-bit adventure games than a lot of modern games, when you get right down to it. That said - I that's actually one of the high points of Fallout 3. They really nailed the art direction in that game, I think. They could have done just as good a job with that with 2D graphics as 3D - a good art director will be able to do quality work regardless of what they're working with.

So anyway, yeah - I liked the "graphics" of Fallout 3 better than what I've seen of Van Buren.

But from what I've seen of VB, I think I'd still rather have played that than Fallout 3; all things considered. Aesthetics are a nice bonus, but I play a videogame for the gameplay. And Van Buren was simply more of what I was looking for in a Fallout game.

That's not a knock against Fallout 3 - but hey, you asked; I answered.

You know this is the first time I've clicked that. I would've bought still bought Fallout 3 if it was like that. That looked good.

Van Buren had a superior story to that of Bethesda's "Fallout: District of Columbia". Personally I would like to see Van Buren published one day, without any deviation from it's original story or characters.

Sure, if it gets released now i wouldn't mind giving it a go, but if Bethesda never released there own interpretation of Fallout 3 i would of probably even never played the Van Buren version.

No. Reading the story and location stuff on the vault, I'm not convinced I'd be happy with that purchase.

Read the actual design documents, The Vault only has a very brief summary that doesn't really do the story justice. Just like just reading the summary of FO1 wouldn't be that impressive.

Sorry about being in the wrong spot, I didnt realise and this was an innocent question that had no intention of starting a "flame war" A few people who answered kinda misunderstood the question. In the first half of my question I wasnt saying 2D was better or worse than 3D I was asking what people would have prefered if they had a choice between Van Buren and FO3 and the second part of my question was did anybody think that Black Isle studios was a little misguided with their design choices when comparing Van Buren with other games of the time when it was being developed.

'Misguided'?
Why?
Is it because of the good old conception that turn based/isometric games are not popular?
(Neverwinter Nights was out around that time wasn't it?)



And hey... discussion is not a flame war!

Misguided isn't a word I'd use either; just because you don't agree with their design decisions doesn't mean they were "misguided". Comparing your games to others on the market (as long as they're in the same genre) happens all the time in the industry.



Neverwinter Nights was released around that time, yes.

Which choices?

FO3 as it shipped, would not be my choice of the two (or three) contenders. However, had FO3 had the very same graphic assets and engine, but used them more in keeping with the established series [as both Van Buren & Troika's demo did with theirs], it would have scored slightly higher in my book than it did. Had the player dialog, and NPC [dialog tree] scripts been par with Fallout, it would have added yet more to its score; While had it additionally [and at least minimally] offered a true TB option (non-default even), as Tactics did it would have been perfect in all ways unrelated to the main story ~which can't be helped, but would have only been a minor annoyance in an otherwise fantastic sequel (IMO). Had it had a less "cookin' with leftovers" feel, and not focused on [mostly] dead enemies from the past and the "holy order" of wasteland knighthood... Had it perhaps used remnants of the old, but focused entirely on a new and unexpected enemy and a new and unexpected plot (but with light jabs and ironic ties to the previous games)... Is there anyone not happy now with FO3 that would not be happy then?

This is certainly what I wanted in a FO3... and I'd have been more than happy if it had looked a lot more like a fully 3D modeled http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzYmQyHl2bc than a post apoc NOLF2 clone with dialogs and Stats.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02qx8V-VduA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AH14zu3j4xg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqNwTccqqBI&feature=related

When you ask us if we think they were misguided... I have to ask in what way? > misguided how?

I finished reading the Van Buren design documents yesterday and from what I learned about the games and characters I would have liked to have seen it very much. In complete honesty I wasn't very impressed with the main story arc of the mad scientist wanting to nuke everyone to create his own utopia as I feel that story has been a bit overdone already. I did like very much however city specific storyines/questlines and the outcomes of them in the epilogue; in particular I really liked Hoover Dam and the Reservation. I really liked New Canaan and the concept of the Twin Mothers; I didn't really like Jericho too much though, was that a competition with New Canaan seeing as both are listed as document 10 and can obviosuly not exist in the game at the same time due to their respective stories?

I found it funny how the prisoner could impregnate or romance half the wasteland

I liked the multiple approaches to resolve the finale in Bomb-001, particularly convincing Gen Coleridge of Presper's deception and I liked Measels' hidden agenda. I also liked that in a big way the NCR are the villains; or parts of them at least.

The design documents didn't have Grand Canyon however, unless it was called something else and I missed it, was this one not released? Plenty of other areas and quests mention the Prisoner's travels to Grand Canyon and how what he/she does there affects other stuff so I was curious.

@Gizmo: I have to say that Van Buren very much felt like it was using the past for its own storyline; I think that the NCR vs BoS war is at the forefront of the game's setting, even though it is not related to Presper's plan itself. Sure they didn't recycle the Enclave like F3 did but the enemy in VB was by no means a totally original enemy either. But I guess I get that VB supporters don't much mind if settings/factions were repeated in VB as you see it as a true sequel while in F3 is unoriginal because it is on the other side of the continent. Also outside of the Circle of Steel, I very much got the impression that the BoS were more good guy-like than the interpretations many have complained when comparing East Coast BoS. I

In any case I simply don't understand why some argue that one the one hand Beth using the BoS is bad and unoriginal but then other hand when they actually decide to change things within the BoS and add meat to them by having the East Coast faction different from the West in a natural progression of what was already happening to the BoS (Especially with Tactics' BoS) then you scream bloody murder at the changes and just want them to be a copy/paste of the BoS of F1. But I digress...

Back to the main topic, I think Van Buren would have been an excellent game; in fact from what I read of the design documents I would have liked its story and quests much. much better than Fallout and Fallout 2. It's a shame that it will not get to the light of day but seeing as any attempt to revive the project would likely not be with its original incarnation (Gameplay, story, npcs, etc) and any deviation from this in the slightest would only be received with hostility and despise, I think Van Buren should be just kept as what it is...a great idea that never came to be

My two cents...