"Proper" as defined by you, right?

I guess the major publishing houses should check with you before moving ahead with their ideas.

Glad we figured that out. Now maybe we can start getting some "proper" games...

I wish they could use the license unfettered; but of course isometry is not a requirement. There is no reason not to use 3d assets when the majority of consumer desktops (and all current ones) have dedicated 3d hardware. Just look at Wasteland 2; it's fully 3D.

?

Fallout is a video game. Where does your idea of being hateful [aggressively hateful you say] of a video game come from?

And you know full well that if Chillingo (now EA) were to acquire Bethesda and make the next TES a fantasy themed Angry Birds clone... that the majority of the Elder Scrolls fanbase would be far more hateful (and post about it) than you could ever mistake me for being.

We cannot get a proper Fallout, because the market for it does not outnumber the majority of consumers. It's like TMNT (ninja turtles); the market for a proper ninja turtle comic or movie does not outweigh the mass market appeal for the Saturday morning Pizza eating goofs that sell the toddler toys.

http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/1283311541924012_zpszqhdk1dm.png

Still trying to push those same fallacious ideals on what constitutes a "proper" sequel to something, despite those ideals being contradicted by basically every series in existence?

The original format of something =/= the "proper" format for any sequel or spinoff, never has never will.

That line hasn't been true at any time in the past, why do you think it would be now?

i agree with your assesment 100%

You say that repeatedly, but you never back it up with anything, and you ignore or conveniently misunderstand any attempts to enlighten. The topic is 'Why we can't get a proper Fallout game'; I posited a reason, and a parallel example. How about you disprove my example, or post one of your own? (Though I suspect that the topic was not intended for sniping at other's reasoning.)

Now I would be interested in your opinion on that hypothetical EA/Chillingo Elderscrolls ~Angry Birds game, and how the previous format is irrelevant for a sequel; because I disagree with you on this, and I think that almost the entire forum would agree with me in this, if TES6 had that kind of open world and gameplay.

I have, numerous times in the past when we had this same argument.

Countless game, book, TV, and movie, series, ranging from Megaman to Star Trek, have undergone drastic shifts in everything from format to tone, and yet all of them have remain valid entries in the series in eyes of fans and creators alike, despite it.

And in all cases when such a thing has been pointed out, you always refuse to asnwer the post, or just claim that everyone else "misunderstands" and then shifted to responding to someone else.

Spin-offs. Frasier is not Cheers 2; Voyager is not Start Trek and Enterprise is not DS9-II, These are spin-offs; designed to come with a hook that might pull in an existing audience for a somewhat different experience. In that light, does FO3 not seem to be the perfect spin-off?

Sequels in this case are more like seasons; as in Cheers season 2; [cast changes/ additions, and minor format twists. etc..]

A good example might be Stargate season 1 and Stargate season 6... Perhaps even Stargate Atlantis (though I cannot know, as I've not seen an episode of it yet.).

As to the games, and 'proper' sequels: first I make a distinction between proper games and proper sequels. IMO FO:New Vegas is a proper Fallout game, but not a proper Fallout sequel ~It's a FO3 spin-off. Even FO3 is a decent Fallout game, but it is likewise a spin-off if compared to the core series.
(It's like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maude_%28TV_series%29 to Fallout's "All in the Family". )

Do you not think it's convenient to someone be able to misunderstand, and have it be seen as the other person's fault?
(I don't consider it the other person's fault if I misunderstand them; and for me, that includes class instructors.)

Except it is in the eyes of everyone who made the show.

No, but it was never advertised as such. They were however both advertised as Star Trek, and are considered Star Trek by everyone.

No, because a change in gameplay doesn't make something a spinoff. Megaman X is billed as a sequel to Megaman, Megaman Zero is billed as a sequel to Megaman X, Megaman ZX is billed as a sequel to Megaman Zero, and Megaman Legends is billed as a sequel to all the previous games. and throughout them they range from everything from a 2d "pick one of these bosses and go to thier stage" kind of game, all the way to a 3d open world action adventure game. The same is true for series like Metal Gear, which has gone from a stealth focus to a far more combat focus, and Final Fantasy, which has changed its gameplay in its main series drastically. MGS5 isn't a spin off due to playing basically nothing like MGS1, just like FF15 or w/e they are on now isn't a spinoff despite playing different then FF1.

I find it more convenient that everyone who doesn't share your opinion is seemingly misunderstanding something only you seem to get.

Gizmo, you say the exact same thing in every thread you post in. And every single time you disrupt and derail it as everyone tries to dispute your opinions which you latch onto as objective and universal truth which everyone must be misunderstanding because what you believe is the only thing allowed to exist in the universe.

I just don't know how to get it through to you. What you believe and think is not a universal truth. You cannot have a discussion with anyone because you cannot recognize that opinion actually exists. Its immensely frustrating, and the reason why people are so hostile to you is because of how frustrating this is. I don't want to be salty, but you have to recognize how people find it so frustrating to talk to you, and its not entirely their fault for not understanding you.

I would be very surprised if this was the case. I don't know of anyone that wants a Fallout 2 remake... But then what is one's criteria for a remake... Is Quake 2 or 3 a proper sequel to Quake? Or is it someone's idea of a remake?
Would Saints Row be a proper Quake Sequel? Or Rage ~had it been called Quake 5? I think it is a good bet that DOOM4 will be a proper sequel to DOOM; and in the precise ways that I do not think that FO3 is a proper sequel to Fallout. Time will tell.

Everything Warhammer, is advertised as Warhammer, but not every Warhammer title is a sequel.

This is fraudulent accusation. And the opinions you accuse me of, are that people interested, should go look at the original game(s) and decide.

And? Sequels are usually defined by narrative connections, not gameplay.

Megaman 1-9(?) are the Wily Wars

Megaman X 1-8 are the Maverick wars

Megaman Zero 1-4 are the 2nd Maverick wars

Megaman ZX are the 3rd Maverick wars

And within each of those narrative arcs, the games in them had many small and large gameplay changes, but were still part of their respective sub-series despite it.

Similarly, what makes Metal Gear Solid 1-5 the main games, and not spin offs like Peace Walker or Revengence, is their importance to the plot, not their gameplay. As is the Final Fantasy series, though in FF's case its more about the continuation of the themes of crystals, airships, Cid, etc. etc. in a new universe.

Why qualify with "usually", if you don't believe it; or didn't before I mentioned Warhammer?

A novel does not have gameplay; and fans return to the series for (among many reasons) the setting, and the characters, and the narrative style.
Games have gameplay, and gameplay equates to 'narrative style' in novels.

*A curious thought has come to mind. I read a lot of posts that claim that story telling and writing are not Bethesda's forte... and yet they have a tremendous fanbase. Is it not the style of their games that draws them in?
I think it is. And I know that their style of game is not the style of Fallout, but they have certainly forced it upon the IP; and so that style has become what most expect as Fallout.
(But I still cannot consider it proper, because I know the series; and I know where Bethesda's designs appear polar opposite to the core series.)

Because it wouldn't sell as well as Bethesda's current interpretation of Fallout. ~shrug~

How does the use of the word usually somehow mean I don't believe it? Balloons usually go up when they are filled, as they are usually filled with something that lets them float. However, sometimes they fall because they are filled with something that doesn't allow them to float. Admitting that doesn't mean I don't believe the original statement is true.

And novels, like games, are not just made up of one singular component. They are, as you yourself stated, made up of several, such as setting, characters, and the narrative style. And book series often have changes, both large and small, to their narrative style, and yet remain direct sequels to the previous books in the series because of the setting and characters being the same. Similarly, games can changes their gameplay, and yet still remain numbered sequels to the series due to sharing the same setting and characters. As in the case of Fallout, Metal Gear, and Final Fantasy.

Your anology would hold merit if talking about board games like chess, or checkers, or early games like Pong or Tetris, which existed as nothing but gameplay, and thus any change to them would change them entirely because they are definable by only one thing. However, games have evolved over time to add narratives, which changes the equation entirely, just like how early movies changed from just slides of animals running an the like, to what they are today, thus trying to hold today's movies to the same standard as those early ones is wrong, as they are not the same thing.

Changing a part does not change the whole. Changing gameplay doesn't somehow make it not Fallout anymore.

Redguard played nothing like the other Elder Scrolls games, yet remains one still despite it. Why? Because of its lore and setting. The most devout of TES fans came for the gameplay, but have remained loyal over the years because of TES's rich and wacky lore.

And don't you mean you can't accept it because it doesn't follow what you believe is the core series? Many of the original creators of the series have voiced their approval of Fallout 3/NV as Fallout games, despite their changes in gameplay. Who are any of us to say they are wrong?

Meh, same tired old thread, same tired old players.

Jim Sterling interrupted his usual Jimquistion schedule (he had another one made) for a special Jimquistion on Fallout 4. That never bodes well, and rarely turns out good. What did you do now Bethesda? What did you do to Fallout? To yourselves? *sigh* All we can hope for is good news, but hope is the first step on the path to disappointment. Our only hope now is CD Project Red. 8am EST folks. We'll know it all then. I still haven't redeemed my gmg key. I might refund it depending on tomorrows verdict.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_BjAb9o0NA#t=10m6s

Food for thought. BGS has been developing Fallout games now longer than Black Isle ever did. Thus, it's more appropriate to suggest BGS has created the "proper" Fallout experience as they have been honing and defining it the longest. Also, Fallout is far more popular under BGS' leadership than it ever was under Black Isle. Yes, the original games are PC-only, but BGS made Fallout accessible and popular on all platforms.

Who's Jim Sterling and precisely why should I place some sort of credence on the opinion of some random on the internet?

He's one of the few fighting for your rights as a human and a gamer. He fights the real good fight. Not the virtual one. He calls out publishers and developers on their stupidity and or greedy nature. How they try and trick and manipulate all of us or cut content from games. He is funded by us the gamers, for us the gamers. He is the only successful video game critic to be sustained by Patreon meaning he has no ties to the publishers in any way shape or form.

He is an honest man, and honesty hurts. People don't like it, but it doesn't change the truth. A bad game wouldn't warrant a Jimquistion. Just a fair score as he sees it and a review. A jimquistion is more in depth and really gets to the meat how badly they're trying to [censored] us over or how bad they messed up. A Jimquisition is something few developers and or publishers earn, and none want.

So at the end of the day, he's still just a dude with an opinion.

If you want to cancel a game over some random's opinion, feel free. Me, I'd sooner rely on my opinion.

Did it occur to you I share his opinion on this? Hence why I am sharing it? That I made up my own mind to share his opinion? It's a thing.

He hasn't even published it yet, so how do you know you share his opinion?

Prescience?

Some people like Pepsi, others Coca Cola...

This is what this is about

Yea, I could have worded it better. What I meant to say is that I suspect the OP wants a game that is as similar to FO1 and 2 as possible, which is why he doesn't consider even NV as a sequel. But, NV is a full-blown RPG, set in the Fallout universe, in a location inspired by Wasteland, from which Fallout derives. How can he possibly not consider it a sequel when the only thing that is radically different is the lack of turn-based combat? Who's to say that, if at the time of Fallout's conception advanced 3D graphics was a thing, the devs would not have chosen a first-person real-time solution? Only the original devs can answer that.

I personally am willing to accept radical changes in sequels, if I think they better the game, and if the spirit of the base game is left intact.

Sounds amusing. I'll check it out.