A question about Fallout (1,2,3 and NV)

[deathnoteoa]

This is my first post. A Fallout NV Lets play i have been reading here has gotten me to thinking... Everyone knows that there are some people who love Fallout 1 and 2 and hate 3 and New Vegas right? There are also people who love Fallout 3 and New Vegas but either don't like or haven't played 1 and 2. Would it be possible/useful to put the newer games into the engine of the older games and the older ones into the engine of the newer games. What translates well? What would be lost going forward/backward. Would whoever makes the next Fallout game gain by putting this option into the vanilla game?

 

[Ordinaryundone]

It wouldn't be very difficult to make Fallout 1 and 2 using the Fallout 3 engine (in fact, I'd be surprised if some of it hasn't been done by some enterprising modder out there). Playing Fallout 3 and NV in the Fallout 2 engine would be much more difficult. Interesting, but difficult.

 

[FalloutJack]

Could be fun. I'd play. Mostly, the trouble would be uhhh...that another shit-fest between Bethseda and Interplay would come up again.

 

[DustyDrB]

Actually, Fallout 3 is more of the odd one out. If you love it, it seems you're more likely to hate New Vegas and the originals. The reason being that Fallout 3 doesn't have the same spirit and does things with the lore that are either inconsistent or just plain dumb. New Vegas is very much in the spirit of the originals and respects the old lore.

 

[sb666]

I am one of the people who like Fallout 1 2 and New Vegas but hate 3.
OP it could be interesting i guess.

 

[oplinger]

I must be really messed up, I liked 1, 2, tactics, 3, NV...all of them except BoS.

However, I'd say...what get's lost in translation? A lot. Making fallout 1 and 2 not turn based would be interesting, but overall I think it would kill the flow of the game. Not to mention the overworld map? Yeah...that'd be a lot of empty nothingness. They'd have to fill it up to make it "interesting"

However in the case of 2, having a car would be pretty awesome, so in a 3D world, the map could be much larger than say...the size of a small eastern european town.

The other way around, taking Fallout 3 and NV and making them 2D adaptations? Or similar to 1 and 2? Well, if you made them turn based, VATS might make more sense again..

However you'd then have the opposite problem, the world map would be crammed full of ...things.

There's probably plenty of other things we'd miss out on, but..those 2 really stand out to me.

 

[Right Hook]

This is my first post. A Fallout NV Lets play i have been reading here has gotten me to thinking... Everyone knows that there are some people who love Fallout 1 and 2 and hate 3 and New Vegas right? There are also people who love Fallout 3 and New Vegas but either don't like or haven't played 1 and 2. Would it be possible/useful to put the newer games into the engine of the older games and the older ones into the engine of the newer games. What translates well? What would be lost going forward/backward. Would whoever makes the next Fallout game gain by putting this option into the vanilla game?

I've played all the games, starting with Fallout 3 then Fallout 1 and 2, finally New Vegas. I like them all but F3 is my favorite, I really wouldn't be too interested in the new games being put into the old engine, I'd probably play them but I don't care too much, I'd prefer a new game with the old engine. I think it would be cool to see the old games running in the new engine, they had great stories and I'd like to see them translated. Unfortunately it would be so hard to do properly I almost wouldn't want to see it happen, once again might as well work on a new game instead of trying to rehash something that was already fun.

 

[Right Hook]

However you'd then have the opposite problem, the world map would be crammed full of ...things.

Good point, they would probably have to cut out a lot of the "in-between" areas and only keep the relevant locations and towns in the 2D remakes.

 

[Yassen]

I would certainly like to see a Fallout 1 and 2 remake in the style of 3 and NV. After 3 I tried getting into the previous but I just couldn't get into the gameplay so I stopped. However if the writing and plot (which I've done a lot of reading about) was made in a modern style of 3 and NV I would definitely buy it.

And I do agree that 3 is the odd one out. My favourite is New Vegas because it's a true Fallout story with modern day gameplay, so being able to experience the old ones that way would be a welcome move.

 

[New Vegas Samurai]

It's feasible...
Kind of a clusterf*** in coding, but I agree with Ordinaryundone. Modders might be able to get it done if given enough time and devotion. Just look at all the skyrim, obli, morrowind mods out there. Not to mention the whole shebang of fallout 3 and new vegas mods.

I for one liked all of the games in the fallout series, but my love for fallout 3 is a tricky one XD

 

[DeadYorick]

Nearly impossible unless they have really good team management, or bethesda does it.

What your talking about is making a brand new game inspired by two titles that are rendered in 2d.

now if Bethesda did a remake then we're talking. But i wouldnt get excited about such a mod until some really big progress is established

 

[Rad Party God]

I played the first Fallout right after I finished FO3 and I thought it was simply amazing. I also loved New Vegas, but I still can't get myself to finish FO2, I'll eventually do.

I've never, ever, had the faintest thought of trying to translate either games to their respective engines. Now that you mention it, it could be quite interesting, to say the least.

I think it could be possible to translate each games to the other engine doing some changes into the core gameplay, trying to retain as much as possible, although, storywise, I can see FO3 as the weakest of the bunch as a 2D isometric RPG, but New Vegas would certainly be toe to toe with it's older siblings.

As for translating FO1 & 2 to the newer engine, I think it's entirely possible to translate the entire gameworld on it, but I can also see a lot of empty space in the first game, so it could be filled with whatever you can come up with to fill that gap, if the changes make sense of course. In fact, I think it would be better to build entirely new places altogether, having the first two games as a foundation. "Reimagine" them, as some would say. Others would call it a remake entirely.

So yeah, to summarize, it could be possible, but some changes would certainly be needed to accomplish such a ginormous task.

Also, I don't think FO3 ruined the lore in any sense, I still played it after the first game and I could still appreciate the game even more than before, now that I got a bit more of backstory. So yeah, FO3 is my favorite and my only reason to still having GFWL installed, but I still love the series as a whole. Tactics is still sitting there in my Steam library, collecting virtual dust. I didn't liked it.

 

[Klaflefalumpf]

One of my biggest problems with Fallout 3 & NV was in fact the engine of the damned things. (Also Oblivion and to an extent Skyrim)

Immersion killing and clunky and the shooting combat was shoehorned in and for me simply didn't work.

I much preferred the turn based combat of the earlier games too, admittedly it was a lot more drawn out and time-consuming but also made the experience a lot more tactical and rewarding.

 

[Vault101]

Actually, Fallout 3 is more of the odd one out. If you love it, it seems you're more likely to hate New Vegas and the originals. The reason being that Fallout 3 doesn't have the same spirit and does things with the lore that are either inconsistent or just plain dumb. New Vegas is very much in the spirit of the originals and respects the old lore.

just because somone loves one thing doesnt mean they automatically hate another thing thats slightly different

Ive only played VERY little of fallout 1..I actually felt that fallout 3 had more of a fallout "feel" than new vegas (as in the visual style)

New vegas handled certain things better of coarse (but fallout 3 felt like more of a "go in this direction and see what you find" game)

thing with the lore

Fallout 3 didnt screw up the lore (hear me out) from what I understand they just changed a few things to suit the story (as in shoe horn everything to black and white) they didnt just go "THIS IS WHAT THE BROTHERHOOD OF STEEL IS AND WAS LIKE"

 

[Vault101]

One of my biggest problems with Fallout 3 & NV was in fact the engine of the damned things. (Also Oblivion and to an extent Skyrim)

Immersion killing and clunky and the shooting combat was shoehorned in and for me simply didn't work.

I much preferred the turn based combat of the earlier games too, admittedly it was a lot more drawn out and time-consuming but also made the experience a lot more tactical and rewarding.

Im just imagining a fallout game with at least a skyrim level of change/polish....*drools*

what I found annoying was at the time Fallout:NV came out people were saying "expansion pack" and "like Fallout 3"

WHHAAT?

seriously, I think the games are structured different, looking back Im almost amazed at the level of "bioware-eque" storytelling with free roaming..slightly glitchy and flawed mabye but impressive

 

[dills2]

Actually, Fallout 3 is more of the odd one out. If you love it, it seems you're more likely to hate New Vegas and the originals. The reason being that Fallout 3 doesn't have the same spirit and does things with the lore that are either inconsistent or just plain dumb. New Vegas is very much in the spirit of the originals and respects the old lore.

Hey! I enjoyed both New Vegas and Fallout 3. And the first two. Kinda.

OT: From what I have played of the first two games, they wouldnt translate into the whole first person thing well at all.

i liked fallout3 and nv i dont understand how you could love nv but hate 3