Change is good, RPG's are flexible and Bethesda simply tried to freshen the series up by making it a more modern game.
Fallout 3 remake
- Thread starter IankBailey
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Actually I'd love to see the first 2 Fallout games remade in Fallout 3's style. I'd said they should have been done that way years before Fallout 3 came out.
no.
change is what makes the industry move. if we didn't change and move forward, we would be stuck with side scrolling, 2d games. When stops moving forward, it dies or becomes obsolete. As great as the 1st two games are, the third is a new game that should be judged in its own merits, not by how identical it is to the two older games.
As much fun as it might be, it should never happen because that would be a step backwards.
Look at the play style difference of Resident evil 3 vs 4. It is different but the core of the game is there: the idea of the infection, killing "zombies", and an overall good story telling. Its how it evolved that made the game good. If res evil 4 was the same as res evil 3, it would hardly be as good. look at the madden games. they keep the same formula and they aren't great. they are fun games in their own right but the next one will merely be a rehashing of old material in old packaging. not worth another game.
If you want another fallout 1/2, play it again. If you want the series to evolve, play 3.
change is what makes the industry move. if we didn't change and move forward, we would be stuck with side scrolling, 2d games. When stops moving forward, it dies or becomes obsolete. As great as the 1st two games are, the third is a new game that should be judged in its own merits, not by how identical it is to the two older games.
As much fun as it might be, it should never happen because that would be a step backwards.
Look at the play style difference of Resident evil 3 vs 4. It is different but the core of the game is there: the idea of the infection, killing "zombies", and an overall good story telling. Its how it evolved that made the game good. If res evil 4 was the same as res evil 3, it would hardly be as good. look at the madden games. they keep the same formula and they aren't great. they are fun games in their own right but the next one will merely be a rehashing of old material in old packaging. not worth another game.
If you want another fallout 1/2, play it again. If you want the series to evolve, play 3.
This has already been talked about on the Fallout 3 forums for months. The point is, that if someone did it, they would have to make the game from scratch, as you obviously can't use the Fallout 3 code, it would take longer to convert the game then to start over. That being said, I can't see why a fan or likely group of fans would do this, as they might get sued even if they offer it for free. So they could make the whole thing, get a cease and desist letter in the mail, and their hard work is down the drains. So pretty much it would NEVER happen...
That being said... would I play Fallout 3 in Fallout 1/2 style? Meh why not, but I don't know, I enjoyed that combat style but again, the Fallout 3 system is just that much better hehe. And if you like turn based combat, try XCOM or Jagged Alliance.
That being said... would I play Fallout 3 in Fallout 1/2 style? Meh why not, but I don't know, I enjoyed that combat style but again, the Fallout 3 system is just that much better hehe. And if you like turn based combat, try XCOM or Jagged Alliance.
One thing before I go on. Change does not equal progress. Things can and do change for the worse, and the topic being about Fallout 3, it's a very good example of both positive and negative changes depending on what your opinion is.
So, it got a new engine, new gameplay. As was rumbling about when F3 was released, a lot of people had a problem with VATS etc. and how it wasn't Fallout any more. And, by and large I think those people were wrong. The Fallout series as a whole was never great because of it's turn-based isometric hex system. The gameplay frankly, could have been done in the style of the semi-real time DnD isometrics and they still would have been good games.
Neither were the graphics all so great either in the old Fallouts. The aesthetics though, spot on. Fallout 3 is, imo, a run down trailer park in comparison to the Wasteland of Fallout 1 and 2.
Everything else, F3 fumbles on, atrocious dialogue, that while not as bad as Oblivion's, is frequently cringe worthy, not least of all when combined with the stiff delivery for the nth time and in the same voice. What is the point of claiming that all your NPC's are 'fully voiced' if all that boils down to is having a tiny pool of voice actors reading off pre-set lines for non-important NPC's who have nothing useful, nor interesting for that matter to say?
I won't go into the ending, (it sucked hard by the way), but why exactly does what is -supposed- to account for the 'main quest' end up feeling like just another thing you've got to do? Maybe it's just me...but in an RPG, the main plot is supposed to be epic, it's supposed to be gripping. Everything else is a sidequest. Some more interesting than others, but always tertiary to the main plot. Why here then does -everything- you do feel so insignificant?
I actually like Fallout 3 for what it was. But, they could have called it Post-Nuclear Adventure land removed all references to the Fallout series and it probably would still be the same, maybe even better without either the hype nor the name to live up to. But it is hardly a prime example of a Fallout game. IMO. Of course.
So, it got a new engine, new gameplay. As was rumbling about when F3 was released, a lot of people had a problem with VATS etc. and how it wasn't Fallout any more. And, by and large I think those people were wrong. The Fallout series as a whole was never great because of it's turn-based isometric hex system. The gameplay frankly, could have been done in the style of the semi-real time DnD isometrics and they still would have been good games.
Neither were the graphics all so great either in the old Fallouts. The aesthetics though, spot on. Fallout 3 is, imo, a run down trailer park in comparison to the Wasteland of Fallout 1 and 2.
Everything else, F3 fumbles on, atrocious dialogue, that while not as bad as Oblivion's, is frequently cringe worthy, not least of all when combined with the stiff delivery for the nth time and in the same voice. What is the point of claiming that all your NPC's are 'fully voiced' if all that boils down to is having a tiny pool of voice actors reading off pre-set lines for non-important NPC's who have nothing useful, nor interesting for that matter to say?
I won't go into the ending, (it sucked hard by the way), but why exactly does what is -supposed- to account for the 'main quest' end up feeling like just another thing you've got to do? Maybe it's just me...but in an RPG, the main plot is supposed to be epic, it's supposed to be gripping. Everything else is a sidequest. Some more interesting than others, but always tertiary to the main plot. Why here then does -everything- you do feel so insignificant?
I actually like Fallout 3 for what it was. But, they could have called it Post-Nuclear Adventure land removed all references to the Fallout series and it probably would still be the same, maybe even better without either the hype nor the name to live up to. But it is hardly a prime example of a Fallout game. IMO. Of course.