Would you like FO1&2 for consoles? : Fallout Series Discussion

» Fri May 07, 2010 5:59 pm

Would you like see FO1&2 on Live marketplace or the PlayStation store? Would you buy them?

» Fri May 07, 2010 11:55 pm

What's the point? Probably everyone who has a console also has a PC good enough to play them.

» Fri May 07, 2010 2:20 pm

I guess I wouldn't be against it. I already own them, though, so it doesn't really matter to me.

» Fri May 07, 2010 3:46 pm

What's the point? Probably everyone who has a console also has a PC good enough to play them.

This.

» Fri May 07, 2010 1:08 pm

What's the point? Probably everyone who has a console also has a PC good enough to play them.

This.

And those that don't?

» Fri May 07, 2010 4:21 pm

How many people who own a console don't have a PC that can run a 1997 game?

» Sat May 08, 2010 2:56 am

Nearly everyone who plays video games has a PC these days, they're a household commodity now.

» Fri May 07, 2010 9:28 pm

I've yet to see a reason why this should be.

» Fri May 07, 2010 6:12 pm

How many people who own a console don't have a PC that can run a 1997 game?

Nearly everyone who plays video games has a PC these days, they're a household commodity now.

You'd be surprised

» Sat May 08, 2010 2:59 am

You'd be surprised

Fallout requires a 90MHz pentium chip and 16MB system RAM for windows 95 (or 32MB running on DOS ~Yes it shipped with a DOS executable

)

PC's made as early as 1994 should have no (hardware) problem with it ~you could probably port it to a cell phone.

It needs no accelerator, and only uses 229 colors.

Given the cost of maintaining a 1995 Pentium, (and that it might sell for less than what GOG would charge you for the game)... I think its a non-issue no?

Anyone that wanted to play could pick up a $20 PC from a thrift shop and play the regular game. :shrug:

I've done it myself with other games...

» Fri May 07, 2010 4:05 pm

You'd be surprised

Probably, but folks who own a next gen console but no PC probably don't have XBox Live or Sony Online which is how the games would be distributed. Interplay (which still retains the source code and distribution rights for all pre-Fallout 3 titles I believe) doesn't seem particularly interested in bringing Fallout 1/2 to consoles, and Bethesda is likely even less interested seeing as how they barely acknowledge Arena and Daggerfall anymore let alone another company's older titles. It's never going to happen, so Fallout 3 fans who want to play the first two might as well buy the PC versions.

» Sat May 08, 2010 4:45 am

You'd be surprised

As a matter of fact, Im using a Windows 98 with a graphics card from like 96

» Fri May 07, 2010 4:29 pm

As a matter of fact, Im using a Windows 98 with a graphics card from like 96

Should run it perfectly... 98 is ideal for old games.

» Fri May 07, 2010 10:32 pm

Should run it perfectly... 98 is ideal for old games.

Ditto - you actually have more trouble running some of these games on newer rigs than you would with an older one. (Well, at least without DOSBox, thank god for that little program...

)

» Fri May 07, 2010 3:09 pm

One must keep in mind that some people don't use their computers for games, no matter how old they are. For these people it could be something.

» Fri May 07, 2010 8:53 pm

Well... the argument that it's not 'necessary' might be valid, but then again, not many games are 'necessary' as such anyway.
So with that in mind I'm voting yes, because... why not?

I've only got a PSP that I strictly used for a time that I was away from home and my pc (well I also have an NES

), but I would have loved it if I had a good functional copy of the old Fallouts in it back then.

» Sat May 08, 2010 12:38 am

Interplay (which still retains the source code and distribution rights for all pre-Fallout 3 titles I believe) doesn't seem particularly interested in bringing Fallout 1/2 to consoles,

INterplay arent allowed to make as much as a patch without Bethesda's Approval. Much less a port

and Bethesda is likely even less interested seeing as how they barely acknowledge Arena and Daggerfall anymore let alone another company's older titles.

Considering that Arena is freely downloadable from Bethesda's website, I'm not so sure.

In any case, I'm against it. I dont think the game interface is suitable for a console Gamepad.

» Fri May 07, 2010 7:39 pm

I dont think the game interface is suitable for a console Gamepad.

It's turn-based, though. It's not like the interface needs to be terribly streamlined to get it to work well enough. You can point-and-click just fine with an anolog controller - there's been plenty of games that worked on that principle well enough. And you have plenty of buttons to hotkey most of the important functions to speed things up a bit.

» Sat May 08, 2010 12:07 am

Final Fantasy Tactics had a complicated enough interface and yet it worked like a charm on my PSP. I don't see why Fallout would be all that different from it.

» Fri May 07, 2010 2:38 pm

Final Fantasy Tactics had a complicated enough interface and yet it worked like a charm on my PSP. I don't see why Fallout would be all that different from it.

Exactly.

» Sat May 08, 2010 2:04 am

How is 'why not?' any sort of reasoning. Weird. Even if people didn't play games on their PCs but owned one and wanted to play Fallout - just use your PC for it. Oh, maybe someone will bring up the "my couch is more comfortable" reason, hah.

» Fri May 07, 2010 6:19 pm

How is 'why not?' any sort of reasoning. Weird. Even if people didn't play games on their PCs but owned one and wanted to play Fallout - just use your PC for it. Oh, maybe someone will bring up the "my couch is more comfortable" reason, hah.

If I have to choose between 'yes' and 'no' and I don't have a reason to choose 'no' then I choose 'yes' because... well because I'm such a positive guy

Always look at the bright side of life :whistle:

and all that...
In other words: 'why not?'

And frankly... I find the "my couch is more comfortable" to be a better reason than the "Fallout should be played with a mouse" one. (or something like that)

» Sat May 08, 2010 2:18 am

How is 'why not?' any sort of reasoning.

Because... that's the only reason to make a game in the first place?

Come on, it's not like the PC Fallout 1 cured the sick, solved the homeless problem, or anything like that. Why have a console in the first place? Why have a computer for any reason other than for research and work-related uses?

Because why the frak not, that's why.

» Sat May 08, 2010 2:34 am

You'd be amazed and the stupid things people decide to do all for lack of a reason to not to do it. 'Why not' is a negative focus, so to speak, remember always be sure why you're doing something, heh. Still, this is like demanding a PC port of a 360 game when I own a 360.

Why have a console in the first place? Why have a computer for any reason other than for research and work-related uses?

Got me there, there's no answer to those questions other than 'because I can!'.

» Fri May 07, 2010 8:42 pm

You'd be amazed and the stupid things people decide to do all for lack of a reason to not to do it.

Actually... the thing being 'stupid' is probably enough reason not to do it!

In this case though, I haven't seen a clear reason for a console port of FO being stupid.
Unless I misunderstood something, most people who posted against it actually argued that they don't see the need (- in other words: "why yes?")

Still, this is like demanding a PC port of a 360 game when I own a 360.

come on... saying 'why not' is hardly demanding it!