Do we think perspective is the least of Fallout's problems?

[DVL]

The thing is that paper-and-pen mechanics are just a way of arbitrating the roleplaying bit of an RPG so that you don't dissolve into:
"I hit you Tommy!"
"Nuh uh!"
"Uh huh!"

Once you have a computer I don't much care that your experience is arbitrated by a physics engine or a hexagonal wargaming map. I was invested in New Vegas even if its shooting elements were as rote as drop-down menus in a JRPG. What sold the experience was that it evolved the time line in Fallout 1 and 2 and gave multiple endings to chew on. I really did enjoy thinking why I'd prefer independent or NCR ending to House or Legion. It engaged me with the setting.

Even if New Vegas wasn't the spiritual successor to the Fallout franchise it really does succeed as an RPG.
Sure, your skill choices could've been more impactful, but the fact that it at least tired to impose structure on your skills at all was amazingly refreshing compared to FO3.

 

[DVL]

Okay, I'm also reminded of a Youtube thing called "Elders react to Last of Us" and it's a video that makes me very happy.



These are people who have never been exposed to video games, its tropes or who even have the basic knowhow to play games, but watching them get engaged with the game me feel the whole bit about "interactive storytelling" instead of just brushing it off as a trite marketing gimmick.
I think RPG's can be done in first person, because these people are really engaged with their characters and even thinking logically about the consequences of the setting they're given.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Crni...you and your true sequel shit. Fallout: New Vegas is the true sequel to Fallout 2. Get over it folks. The numbers are all a lie along with every other thing Todd Howard says.

Toront, you're an intelligent dude. But I am geting an aneurism here ... but I really really like you! So I will try to keep my blood preasure down.

But if a true sequel has to be for me made in top down view and with turn based combat, how can New Vegas be a Sequel? - Despite the fact, that I think it is an excelent game in it's own right! And it is the CLOSEST to a Fallout sequel we can get! But that's not the point! Any game, done by the original Fallout developers, would have been top down and turn based, if they had the chance to make it. Why?

Fallout Van Buren:

New Vegas:

Which one of those images looks closer to a Fallout game?

I get it! Not everyone cares so much about turn basd as I do. I understand it that some of you think that Turn Based is not part of what defines Fallout. I do. But that still doesn't change the facts!

That Fallout 1 was made in a top down view with turn based combat.
That Fallout 2 was made with a top down view and turn based combat.
And that Van Buren, the project name of Fallout 3 by Interplay a decade ago,
would have been released with a top down view and turn based combat, if it ever saw the light.

How does anyone of you apologetics explain that?

A first person shooter, no matter how well done the plot is, simply can not be a Sequel to Fallout 1 or 2, because Fallout 1 and 2 are top down turn based games. How is this so damn hard to understand? It doesn't matter if New Vegas gets 1, 2 or even almost all the points right. A Sequel has to be true in ALL respects. It has to satisfy ALL the points. Including the Setting AND(!) the gameplay. The gameplay is as important like the story, setting and tone of a game.Video games are just as much defined by their gameplay as they are by the story - If they even have one.

That's why I would not call a new Doom or Quake game, if it was made in a top down perspective and with turn based combat a true sequel to the previous games. Just as how I expect any Sequel to Command & Conquer to be a real time strategy game!

I will ask this again, no one wants to answer that question :/

HOW CAN REAL TIME FIRST PERSON COMBAT BE THE SAME LIKE TOP DOWN GAMEPLAY AND TURN BASED COMBAT.


​

I think RPG's can be done in first person, because these people are really engaged with their characters and even thinking logically about the consequences of the setting they're given.

And so do I! I never said it can't be done. Just to make this clear. New Vegas, is an RPG. A good one even. First person games CAN be true RPGs! I personaly don't enjoy FPS-RPGs as much as others. But, that doesn't change the fact that you can make first person RPGs! I do not question the quality of New Vegas as RPG.

I just say, a Fallout game that want's to stay TRUE(!) to Fallout 1 and 2, can not be made in first person. Because First person, is simply not the same like a top down view. So, if Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 havn't been real time and first person, a sequel, would have to follow the exact same formula.

But People are trying to sell me here a tofu steak as true beef ...

Why was Fallout 2 not made in first person and real time gameplay? Why was Van Buren not conceptualised as first person and real time game? Why have the developers chosen to follow Fallout 1s gameplay and view-point. Why is inxile making Planescape Numnera in top down view and not as FPS? Why?

 

[Fall Out Boy]

So the argument here is that people who think that Fallout New Vegas is/is not a true sequel?

Things like this I feel are petty and not worth arguing about. At the end of the day it is highly unlikely we will see the Fallout franchise return to the isometric perspective, so I feel that accepting the fact that Fallout NV, despite the fact that it's a first person shooter, is the closest we will ever get to a sequel to Fallout 2.

Before I spark another fire, I fully understand what you are saying and respect your points but I feel that because it's been so long since Fallout 2, I just don't care that much anymore, debating on whether an FPS can be a sequel or not seems a bit silly at this point.

 

[TorontoReign]

Crni...you and your true sequel shit. Fallout: New Vegas is the true sequel to Fallout 2. Get over it folks. The numbers are all a lie along with every other thing Todd Howard says.

Toront, you're an intelligent dude. But I am geting an aneurism here ... but I really really like you! So I will try to keep my blood preasure down.

Likewise.

But if a true sequel has to be for me made in top down view and with turn based combat, how can New Vegas be a Sequel? - Despite the fact, that I think it is an excelent game in it's own right! And it is the CLOSEST to a Fallout sequel we can get! But that's not the point! Any game, done by the original Fallout developers, would have been top down and turn based, if they had the chance to make it. Why?

This does not negate the fact that it is a sequel. Of course it should, and would have been isometric turn-based (unless they tried to pull a Tactics).

Also pictures of Van Buren are not allowed because they are too depressing. Yes, it does look more like a Fallout game. I don't think I am denying that point. Although we did speak about this once before I can see this important to you, so we should address your questions.

I get it! Not everyone cares so much about turn basd as I do. I understand it that some of you think that Turn Based is not part of what defines Fallout. I do. But that still doesn't change the facts!

That Fallout 1 was made in a top down view with turn based combat.
That Fallout 2 was made with a top down view and turn based combat.
And that Van Buren, the project name of Fallout 3 by Interplay a decade ago,
would have been released with a top down view and turn based combat, if it ever saw the light.

How does anyone of you apologetics explain that?

I wouldn't go as far to call myself a true apologist. I jut disagree with your definition of a sequel. New Vegas is a great game, I like it better than Fallout 1 in many ways, and it checks enough of the blocks off the list to be a sequel in my eyes.

A first person shooter, no matter how well done the plot is, simply can not be a Sequel to Fallout 1 or 2, because Fallout 1 and 2 are top down turn based games. How is this so damn hard to understand? It doesn't matter if New Vegas gets 1, 2 or even almost all the points right. A Sequel has to be true in ALL respects. It has to satisfy ALL the points. Including the Setting AND(!) the gameplay. The gameplay is as important like the story, setting and tone of a game.Video games are just as much defined by their gameplay as they are by the story - If they even have one.

You are fixating on certain parts of Fallout though. You act as if isometric and turn based are MOST important. It isn't the same but it still plays the same - using the same underlying mechanics to propel the story/game in the same way. New Vegas had C&C, branching dialog with skill checks, traits, proper lore, etc. The ONLY thing it didn't have was turn-based isometric. It might not be a true sequel (as in true to the roots of the series), but it is a sequel. Sure, FPS view isn't preferred. I want isometric turn-based Fallout just as much as the next Glittering Gem.

Gotta run more later.

​

 

[Moosick]

In order to fix the first-person shooting, they'd need to add much more weight to the gun-play, and if I know Fallout fans at all, that'd make the game cripplingly difficult and the weapon spread would have to be ridiculous. Which I'm fine with. Others wouldn't be.

While I don't consider the calling of a sequel "true" or not based on its formal elements alone to be a good justification of denying a work's canonicity - as with all forms of hard formalism, it is a mindless way of critiquing even pure entertainment - it in the wider sense pulls a thread which usually just keeps unravelling and fraying. While I consider plot, philosophical motifs, characterisation and the like to be FAR more significant, the "feel" of a series may need balancing, and if you have, say, a skin suit of said series in a typical FPS, then it's going to fall flat, and hard. If you flesh out that suit and give it depth but don't fix the mechanical problems in the FPSRPG, then it similarly will not balance as well as the originals might, as there is always more and more to be desired. The formal elements of a work (be they aesthetics or mechanics) should be a framework that support the larger message or essence of a work, not the other way round. With something like the RPG, certain perspectives and systems are simply less suited to the genre, and as such they are still a significant worry in the grand scheme.

Right now Fallout is in the hands of toddlers so frankly I think that still worrying about it is a little naive.

 

[Crni Vuk]

A first person shooter, no matter how well done the plot is, simply can not be a Sequel to Fallout 1 or 2, because Fallout 1 and 2 are top down turn based games. How is this so damn hard to understand? It doesn't matter if New Vegas gets 1, 2 or even almost all the points right. A Sequel has to be true in ALL respects. It has to satisfy ALL the points. Including the Setting AND(!) the gameplay. The gameplay is as important like the story, setting and tone of a game.Video games are just as much defined by their gameplay as they are by the story - If they even have one.

You are fixating on certain parts of Fallout though. You act as if isometric and turn based are MOST important. It isn't the same but it still plays the same - using the same underlying mechanics to propel the story/game in the same way. New Vegas had C&C, branching dialog with skill checks, traits, proper lore, etc. The ONLY thing it didn't have was turn-based isometric. It might not be a true sequel (as in true to the roots of the series), but it is a sequel. Sure, FPS view isn't preferred. I want isometric turn-based Fallout just as much as the next Glittering Gem.

Gotta run more later.

​

It might seem like that. But to be honest, the gameplay is for me equall to the story, setting and tone. I would not accept NuFallout 3 as true Sequel either, even if Bethesda made it with the best possible turn based combat and with a top down view, simply because it's not a terrible RPG.

The reason for the gameplay and why I argue, is, beacause we are talking about a very specific medium. And that's video games. No one can deny that gameplay is a very important part of what makes a video game a video game and what seperates it from other forms of entertainment, like books, which feature almost no interaction. A mediocre stroy and setting can work with very great gameplay, but not even the best story can save shitty and bugged gameplay - I am not talking about any game in particular.

I do not even denny that I am extremly strict here. And I like New Vegas a lot. But New Vegas simply can not give me the same experience that I had with Fallout 1, 2 or games that follow a similar gameplay. Like I said, I would be here and argue the same way, if we talked about Deus Ex for example, and if they decided to create the next Deus Ex game as top down turn based game, following the style of no clue, Jagged Alliance or Underrail.

I wish I could summon Roshambo right now ... or at least Gizmo.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Crni, you can argue as much as you like, and you're great at that but for the love of God where in the fucking hell did you get your bloody definition of sequel? From your head? From your view of a sequel? Your entire argument collapses at the definition, THE WORD SEQUEL which you use a lot, in the wrong context.

 

[Ninja]

Just for some clarity:
(from the Merriam-Webster dictionary)
sequel
noun se·quel \ˈsē-kwəl also -ˌkwel\
Simple Definition of sequel
: a book, movie, etc., that continues a story begun in another book, movie, etc.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Just for some clarity:
(from the Merriam-Webster dictionary)
sequel
noun se·quel \ˈsē-kwəl also -ˌkwel\
Simple Definition of sequel
: a book, movie, etc., that continues a story begun in another book, movie, etc.

New Vegas doesn't or does continue the story, if you count the story of the NCR and the West Coast applicable.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Crni, you can argue as much as you like, and you're great at that but for the love of God where in the fucking hell did you get your bloody definition of sequel? From your head? From your view of a sequel? Your entire argument collapses at the definition, THE WORD SEQUEL which you use a lot, in the wrong context.

There is no clear scientific definition I guess, hence why I decide from case to case. What counts for a book doesn't have necessarily to be true for movies or games. For example, what Ninja posted is to generic in my opinion.

It ignores every other perception about what a movie, book or video game is, and what defines them as their respective medium. Video games are not books or movies, and it would be absolutely crazy to sell someone a comic as video game or a movie as book. Because this generic definition falls apart the moment we come to something like Pong that has no story that you can continue, Pong as game, is completely and solely defined by the gameplay.

I pretty much believe, that the idea everything is permitted, makes for no good definition. Like how a vegetable could be a Sequel to a movie, simply because ... the makers of the movie say so? That would be ludicrous. Like playing Bomberman in first person ...



So for me, it is important that a sequel to a game, stays also true to the gameplay that was chosen for the game. Like let's say with, Jagged Alliance 1 and 2, Commandos 1,2,3, Fallout 1,2, Command & Conquer 1,2,3 etc.

All of those games saw updates. In some cases a change from 2D sprites/pre-rendered backrounds to complete 3D engines. But they always continued the game/franchise as whole, not just cherry picking one aspect, like the setting or the story, and ignoring the gameplay. There was no shift in the gameplay.

Since we are talking right now about games, as far as Sequels go, I am comparing them directly to each other to decide if something is a true sequel or a Spin Off. Like Fallout 2 is a true sequel to Fallout 1, New Vegas is not a true Sequel to Fallout 2, but an excelent Spin Off!

I will say this here again, obviously for a story driven game like Fallout 1, there is more to it than JUST the gameplay! Fallout, is more than just the gameplay or just the setting or the story. Just because a game is turn based and called Fallout, doesn't mean it's a sequel to the previous Fallout games!

This makes Fallout tactics a spin-off as well, but for different reasons! Here it is not the gameplay, but the fact that tactics does not continue in what made Fallout 1 and 2 RPGs.

 

[DVL]

One of the major online guides I've read for Fallout 1 and 2 laid out a strong case that snipers were too strong.
They are the build. And it's hard to dispute. Because even if you're talking about turn-based isometric, Fallout 1/2 were primarily combat games and it's not like roleplaying a "doctor" character got to see more or different content than a guy who maxed guns and energy weapons. You didn't have to, but if you're doing the standard blind playthrough it's very difficult to beat the games without killing things or cheesing the mechanics. It's not something that just emerged when Bethesda got ahold of the franchise.

Just put a bullet between the eyes of that deathclaw already.

 

[TorontoReign]

I am not saying it gives the same experience Crni. I am saying it is similar enough to be a sequel and feel like Fallout (however different it might be, and note I am speaking of New Vegas). Fallout 3 didn't nail that down but New Vegas did because Obsidian actually knew what the hell they were doing.

You act as if I don't want what you want. Your definition of sequel is not correct. You can say it is not a sequel to you, in your own opinion, but that does not make your assertion correct.

It is also important to me that a sequel stay similar if not the same to it's origins. It just doesn't always work like that which is why you get sequels to movies and games that suck, or are so drastically different from their predecessors that the fanbase revolts. You have mentioned Bomberman to make your point before. As before I revert to mentioning Super Mario Brothers.

Did changing the series from 2D to 3D change the game? Is Super Mario 64 a spinoff or the next entry in the series? How about Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island? It was a sequel to Super Mario World but technically a prequel. Your definition is very loose as in you pick and choose when it applies.

Tactics is focused on the combat aspect of the game, which is why it is considered spinoff. You go and do missions then you return to your base. Fallout 3 is more of a RPG than Tactics in the sense that you can define your character through actions other than combat. That doesn't change the fact that the combat in Tactics is better, or Tactics feels closer to what the series should be.

By your definition Resident Evil 4 isn't a sequel because it doesn't have fixed camera angles and it switched to a behind the back third person view. Or Final Fantasy 12 isn't a sequel because it changed to RTWP instead of ATB and it doesn't have a world map. Of course I like ATB better but they just had to change it.

 

[Zerginfestor]

http://imgur.com/HB7fsfn When you have mongrels like this running about, there's definitely worst things to think about than the perspective. Seriously, there's a lot of issues to fix on the series before we can even begin to focus on the camera view (despite me wishing for a isometric game of a new fallout, would look really spiffy).

AI definitely needs improvement, crafting, storytelling, enemies, just about everything needs to be worked on ever since Fallout 4 reared it's head.

 

[Ben Soto]

Fallout Van Buren:

New Vegas:

Which one of those images looks closer to a Fallout game?

The bottom one. That's what I think of when I think "Fallout." My first experiences with the series were playing FNV. It's my favorite game of all time for good reason.

And BTW, a sequel is just anything that continues the story set forth by a previous piece of media, no matter the quality or similar/dissimilar elements. FNV is a sequel, FT is a sequel, and sadly, F3 is a sequel. Now, that doesn't mean they're all *good* sequels, but they're sequels nonetheless.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Actually Fallout 3 isn't a sequel, because a sequel has to continue the STORY, which Fallout 3 in no way does.

 

[Ben Soto]

Actually Fallout 3 isn't a sequel, because a sequel has to continue the STORY, which Fallout 3 in no way does.

I respectfully disagree. It continues the story... In the most asinine and incompetent way possible. It's a very technical direct sequel to F2, but it's really bad.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Actually Fallout 3 isn't a sequel, because a sequel has to continue the STORY, which Fallout 3 in no way does.

I respectfully disagree. It continues the story... In the most asinine and incompetent way possible. It's a very technical direct sequel to F2, but it's really bad.

How does it continue the story of Fallout especially as it's on the other side of main setting?

 

[Crni Vuk]

It is also important to me that a sequel stay similar if not the same to it's origins.

Except, that we are talking about games, and not movies. You can't tell me that gameplay isn't an important factor for video games. You like MGS, as far as I can tell. Would Metal Gear Solid be as fun, if it was, let us say, exactly done like Angry Birds? Keep all the writing and story. Just a simple change in gameplay. Or Quake done with the gameplay of Candy Crush?

A change from top down and turn based gameplay to a first person real time combat really is hardly a negligible change!

And you can easily see that when comparing the gameplay of New Vegas directly to Fallout 1/2, like the combat. This change can be so heavy, that some people can't even play the game! Just ask someone (Alec mentioned that once I think?) suffering from motion sickness, and actually can't get into FPS games due tue some condition that makes them nauseous, because FPS games, including F:NV, contain fast paced combat. And now you're telling me, it's similar for you ... which is not what I argue, I do NOT argue against your perception, I am just arguing that for the definition of Fallout, the GAMEPLAY is AT LEAST(!) as IMPORTANT like the story and the setting. For you and a couple others here, it might be enough for a game to do what F:NV did. But for me, and aparantly the original developers of Fallout 1, it isnt. Which is shown by the fact that they decided for top down/TB combat very early in the design process.

The transition from turn based/top down to real time/FPS, it's not just a small thing, like merging doctor with first aid. It is a pretty heavy change. At least as heavy like what Tactics is to Fallout 1 and 2. Tactics is neither a true Sequel, despite the fact that it is in many ways similar to Fallout 1 and 2. But it simply doesn't continue the game where it counts.

[TABLE="width: 800"]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Fallout 1[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Fallout 2[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]New Vegas[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

​

To say gameplay doesn't matter is akin to say that story/setting doesnt matter!
​

Obsidian has done the same thing Bethesda did. Has Obsidian done a much better job with it? Absolutely! They created a splendid game in those 18 months of development, worthy to be called a FALLOUT game. But it is nonetheless a shift in gameplay.

A game in first person, simply can never ever be a true sequel to Fallout. The reason for this is very simple. It's not the same gameplay. A gameplay that was chosen for a reason. I don't get it why people, including you, always dodge this. Why have the developers of Fallout 1 chosen turn based and top down and not first person and real time combat? And why have they chosen to follow this with Fallout 2, and Van Buren? Why going trough all of that. Simple. Because with video games, gameplay is NOT a negligible thing.

Take Fallout 2 as example. Fallout 2 is a true sequel to Fallout 1, as it follows ALL the characteristics of Fallout 1 and THEN some. If Fallout 2 looked like this, with FPS and real time combat,

It could never ever be a true sequel to Fallout 1, even if it had the exact same writing, story, quests, characters, that Fallout 2 has now. It's simply not the same gameplay. And how can gameplay not matter in a video game. - Seriously, it's part of the name. One strong characterisation of a video game is the interactivity.

A first person shooter can not be a real sequel to Fallout 1 and 2, just as how a turn based/top down game can not be a true sequel to a first person shooter with real time combat, as it works both ways!

Would really anyone here accept this:

as a sequel to this?

As before I revert to mentioning Super Mario Brothers.
(...)
Did changing the series from 2D to 3D change the game? Is Super Mario 64 a spinoff or the next entry in the series? How about Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island? It was a sequel to Super Mario World but technically a prequel. Your definition is very loose as in you pick and choose when it applies.

Ever heard about “The exception [that] proves the rule”? We are after all, not talking about something like math or physics here.

Hence why I said, that I decide from case to case. But only very very few franchises are as broad like Super Mario or if you want Sonic. I agree with you, that it can get really wonky sometimes. But this kind of transition we are talking about in particular, is very rare with games! You have to give me that much. Like what happend from Commandos 3 to Commandos 4, where ALL the previous Commandos games have been top down games and Commandos 4 a first person shooter.

Remember the bitter sobs that moved trough this community when the first X-Com videos have been released, with FPS combat? And what relief it was when the developers/publisher thankfully decided to follow a more traditional X-Com approach? - Which actually ended up as a rather succesfull game after all. Succesfull enough to get some DLC/addon and a sequel even!

It just doesn't always work like that which is why you get sequels to movies and games that suck, or are so drastically different from their predecessors that the fanbase revolts.

Why? Why doesn't it work like that. It aparantly worked pretty fine for Fallout 2! Is there some law of science that says a developer can't create a Fallout 3 that is not top down and turn based? Or that Obsidian could not have done it with New Vegas, if Bethesda wasn't forcing it down their throat? They decided to follow a different approach with Pillars of Eternity after all. Of course! You can not sell a game like Fallout 2 to 30 million gamers, I guess. But we are not talking about such considerations here anyway!

 

[TorontoReign]

Except, that we are talking about games, and not movies. You can't tell me that gameplay isn't an important factor for video games. You like MGS, as far as I can tell. Would Metal Gear Solid be as fun, if it was, let us say, exactly done like Angry Birds? Keep all the writing and story. Just a simple change in gameplay. Or Quake done with the gameplay of Candy Crush?

But those aren't simple changes. They are drastic. I'm glad you mentioned Metal Gear Solid because it was one of my examples I thought of using. MGS V is a sequel to MGS 4 but it strayed from the roots of MGS. Whereas MGS was always about large self-contained bases like Shadow Moses in MGS 1 and linear level design, MGSV is an open world sandbox with repeatable missions that are often short, repetitive and padded out with fluff content - straying far from the originals. Yet it is still a sequel. Fallout 3 isn't as big a jump as you are claiming. Hyperbole weakens the argument. I feel it is an unfair representation of what we are actually talking about.

A change from top down and turn based gameplay to a first person real time combat really is hardly a negligible change!

And you can easily see that when comparing the gameplay of New Vegas directly to Fallout 1/2, like the combat. This change can be so heavy, that some people can't even play the game! Just ask someone (Alec mentioned that once I think?) suffering from motion sickness, and actually can't get into FPS games due tue some condition that makes them nauseous, because FPS games, including F:NV, contain fast paced combat. And now you're telling me, it's similar for you ... which is not what I argue, I do NOT argue against your perception, I am just arguing that for the definition of Fallout, the GAMEPLAY is AT LEAST(!) as IMPORTANT like the story and the setting. For you and a couple others here, it might be enough for a game to do what F:NV did. But for me, and aparantly the original developers of Fallout 1, it isnt. Which is shown by the fact that they decided for top down/TB combat very early in the design process.

The transition from turn based/top down to real time/FPS, it's not just a small thing, like merging doctor with first aid. It is a pretty heavy change. At least as heavy like what Tactics is to Fallout 1 and 2. Tactics is neither a true Sequel, despite the fact that it is in many ways similar to Fallout 1 and 2. But it simply doesn't continue the game where it counts.

My take on this is VATS is a decent compromise. The combat in Fallout was never the strong point. The change to VATS wasn't as big a deal as the simplification of story, dialog, RPG mechanics, C&C...you get the point. While I would prefer it to stay turn-based isometric the combat is satisfying enough for me. Sure, it isn't perfect and some might not like that style of game. I'm not one of them though since I always played a lot of FPS games along with everything else. I understand fans have been left behind by the series due to the changes.

Obsidian has done the same thing Bethesda did. Has Obsidian done a much better job with it? Absolutely! They created a splendid game in those 18 months of development, worthy to be called a FALLOUT game. But it is nonetheless a shift in gameplay.

A game in first person, simply can never ever be a true sequel to Fallout. The reason for this is very simple. It's not the same gameplay. A gameplay that was chosen for a reason. I don't get it why people, including you, always dodge this. Why have the developers of Fallout 1 chosen turn based and top down and not first person and real time combat? And why have they chosen to follow this with Fallout 2, and Van Buren? Why going trough all of that. Simple. Because with video games, gameplay is NOT a negligible thing.

The developers chose turn-based to emulate PnP. It allows you time to make tactical decisions while taking enemy movement into consideration. In a FPS you don't have time to stop and examine the battlefield thus creating the split in gameplay that you claim negates Fallout 3 and/or New Vegas as sequels. They might not be the exact same, they might not be as good, but they are sequels regardless. VATS is similar enough to scrape by and keep the descriptor.

You say movie comparisons are not the same but take a look at one of your favorite series which is Aliens. Was Alien Resurrection a sequel despite it's drastic change in tone from the previous movies? It was treated as one. Sure, it will be discarded now with the upcoming movie. Maybe that will happen with Fallout. The atmosphere, tone, and genre of movies is just as important as gameplay in video games. It may not be the best comparison, but I think you understand what I am going for. If you turn a horror/sci fi movie into a cheesy action movie, you get a split, where it feels like the sequel isn't quite what the series was all about. Even Aliens had that problem. It felt like the dudebro version of Alien. This is what you are claiming is stopping the NuFallout games from being sequels.

Until someone comes and says "these games aren't canon anymore" they will continue to be treated as sequels. It doesn't mean we have to like it, or can't say it isn't a true Fallout. But it is a sequel by the very definition of the word. Now your interpretation of the word might be different but that does not make it a valid argument when used as definitive proof.

Take Fallout 2 as example. Fallout 2 is a true sequel to Fallout 1, as it follows ALL the characteristics of Fallout 1 and THEN some. If Fallout 2 looked like this, with FPS and real time combat,

It could never ever be a true sequel to Fallout 1, even if it had the exact same writing, story, quests, characters, that Fallout 2 has now. It's simply not the same gameplay. And how can gameplay not matter in a video game. - Seriously, it's part of the name. One strong characterization of a video game is the interactivity.

Take a look at Doom 3 then. It changed the design of the game but is treated as a sequel. Quake 3 Arena didn't even have a story at all yet...


You keep mentioning true sequel but I am not claiming it is. I'm claiming it is just a sequel.

A first person shooter can not be a real sequel to Fallout 1 and 2, just as how a turn based/top down game can not be a true sequel to a first person shooter with real time combat, as it works both ways!

Would really anyone here accept this:

Actually a FPS version of Diablo would be a pretty cool as a spin-off. Hellgate: London did something like that. All I am claiming is a numbered entry in a franchise is a continuation of the series if it contains enough of the core elements.

Fallout 3, New Vegas, and Fallout 4 didn't outright change genres. They changed certain mechanics of the game. I would argue that Fallout 3 and 4 aren't true sequels too. Even New Vegas is guilty of this. It isn't the opriginal idea for Fallout 3/Van Buren but it as the best of a bad situation. Ultimately it converted a lot of Fallout 3 fans to our mindset.

If they turned Fallout 5 into a dune buggy racing game we would have a problem but we are talking the same genre. Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas aren't JUST FPS games. They are ALSO RPG's. VATS is a decent alternative. If they removed that then we have a serious problem because they removed skills, different character builds, long dialog trees, etc, with Fallout 4. If they remove much more - like SPECIAL and dialog choice - it will outright change genres.

Hence why I said, that I decide from case to case. But only very very few franchises are as broad like Super Mario or if you want Sonic. I agree with you, that it can get really wonky sometimes. But this kind of transition we are talking about in particular, is very rare with games! You have to give me that much. Like what happened from Commandos 3 to Commandos 4, where ALL the previous Commandos games have been top down games and Commandos 4 a first person shooter.

Fallout is like that. So is Final Fantasy for that matter. I agree it is very rare and they screwed up bad with Commandos. It is difficult to think of games that have done this. I understand you interpret this all differently, so it is just a...difference in perspective!!!