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

My take on this is VATS is a decent compromise.
Click to expand...

:yuck:

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.
Click to expand...
And that is where we will have to agree to disagree I guess! Because *turn based combat, for me, is, was and will always remain a core element of Fallout! - I am well aware about the fact hat as long Bethesdas grabby paws are on Fallout this will just remain a pipe dream. But hey ... Turn Based combat can kick some serious ass! They have even power armors in Silent Storm!

*NuFallout 3 is for me a Spin-Off. Same for New Vegas. And I don't care what Bethesda or even Obsidian says. Albeit, I say it here again. I would take Obsidians work any day over Bethesda of course. Obsidian at least understands the spirit of Fallout.
 
Last edited:
I see the potential, but I think others did it much better:

*Credits to Gizmo for finding this gem.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Crni, the whole debate is pointless due to the fact that as ENGLISH speaking and writing people we use the official definition of sequel so Fallout New Vegas is a sequel as it continues the story of the West coast. How hard is it to understand that?
 
Dr Fallout said:
Crni, the whole debate is pointless due to the fact that as ENGLISH speaking and writing people we use the official definition of sequel so Fallout New Vegas is a sequel as it continues the story of the West coast. How hard is it to understand that?
Click to expand...
But is it a TRUE sequel? :wiggle:
 
Crni reminds me of a doberman who won't let go of this turn-based thing.
I get it. I really do! So it's not necessary to keep beating the point to death with sticks.
I don't really have this absolutist idea about sequels that a lot of people do. You can have a Fallout game that is partly unfaithful, just so long as it explores or expands the content in an interesting way.

Star Trek TNG and Star Trek the original are entirely different beasts like that and you'll save a lot of sanity if you don't try to reconcile the two timelines or try and make everything exactly faithful to each other.
And it's why I'm willing to forgive New Vegas's quirks in spite of its Bethesdaisms, because largely, it was expanding the story of the NCR and the Brotherhood and taking free license to actually invent new factions like House and Caesar's Legion instead of just using a bunch of hackneyed fan callouts.
New Vegas is a wonderful game, to the point that I'm impressed that it could grab a non-gamer and motivate him to go off on a tour of the Mojave on account of it alone.
 
Last edited:
F3 is a sequel by definition. It's not a good sequel, nor is it even an alright sequel, but by the actual English definition of "sequel" it is one.
 
Dr Fallout said:
Crni, the whole debate is pointless due to the fact that as ENGLISH speaking and writing people we use the official definition of sequel so Fallout New Vegas is a sequel as it continues the story of the West coast. How hard is it to understand that?
Click to expand...

Because we are talking about games. And not fucking movies or books for christs sake, where the story and tone is a lot more important, and where your precious definition works perfectly. Gameplay is important for games.

How often do I have to repeat this? Games are NOT only defined by story lines ONLY(!). Fallout was NOT(!) ONLY about the setting or the story. Go and read the fucking developer quotes and history about Fallout, they decided on the ruleset and gameplay BEFORE(!) they created the setting, the story and narrative for the game. When they coded the engine for Fallout 1, the demo as showcase to investors was made with a FUCKING(!) Knight and sword, and one idea was it to make a medieval-fantasy-type of game, before they concentrated on the 50s-vision-of-the-future-blown-to-hell concept.

I never ever (like ever!) said that the STORY(!) or the SETTING(!) of Fallout doesn't play a role in what a Sequel to Fallout 1 or 2 has to deliver to be a true Sequel to the game. - That's why Fallout Tactics is NOT(!) a Sequel to Fallout 2 either! Even though it has the correct gameplay!

EVEN IF BETHESDA MADE F4 IN TURN BASED AND TOP DOWN, IT WOULD NOT BE A FALLOUT SEQUEL, AS IT LACKS OTHER CORE ELEMENTS OF THE GAME, I AM WITH YOU ON THIS! BUT YOU CAN NOT SEPERATE GAMEPLAY FROM GAMES. IT'S IN THE FUCKING NAME, FOR CHRISTS SAKE. YOU DO MORE THAN JUST PLAYING THE STORY! THIS BECOMES EVIDENT EVERY TIME YOU ENCOUNTER A GAME WITH GREAT STORY BUT EXTREMLEY SHITY GAMEPLAY.

Many people will probably not even finish the game out of sheer frustration, if the gameplay is absolutely frustrating and not fun. They come for the story, but they stay because of the gameplay.

But a real time FPS Fallout will never ever be anything else than a spin-off. Even if it DIRECTLY continues the story of the chosen one from F2. Feargus Urquhart and Timothy Cain could tell me that NuFallout 3 is a real Sequel to Fallout, and I would tell him the same. That it's just a Spin-Off.

GAMEPLAY IN GAMES MATTERS!
​

I am sorry if you people feel like the choice of gameplay is absolutely meaningless. But I know for a fact that for MANY people here ( @Gizmojunk for example, or VD who made his own game, what surprise, in turn based and top down), it is NOT. Otherwise we could make ONLY FPS shooters of everything that exists out there and never ever bother our self with real time and turn based strategy games anymore, because all that matters for a Sequel is the story.

We should make everything in to FPS games from now on. Fuck consistency!

I want Sim City in FPS mode! Bomberman! Fuck! let us make Angry Birds, Candy Crush and Tetris in FPS! ONE OF US!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Amused-Bill-Hader-Eating-Popcorn.jpg
 
Gameplay matters, but F1/2 and NV have far more in common than not. They're both narrative-driven RPGs in the same setting with the same characters and factions, continuing the same stories and impacting the universe in the same way. Just because the gameplay is different doesn't mean NV isn't a sequel.

But, alright. Cling to your opinion, which is undoubtedly wrong and you've been given mounds of evidence disproving it, like a cat clings to a tree. I thought Bethesdrones were fanatical, but most of them look tame compared to you
 
One thing, Ben, is that Crni acknowledges the evidence. It's not about what solid facts people can bring up, it's about opinion now, since there has been no clear definition of sequel (the next part is important) in the context of video games. Games differ considerably from other story-telling mediums, which is why the debate has been going on for so long in the first place.

I haven't offered my view yet, but I have to say that I understand where he is coming from. New Vegas is a really good game, a really good FALLOUT game. But compare the experience to the first two, and they are very different. New Vegas, while a great game in its own right, is one part of the new series that feel like spin offs. Again, not a bad game, but just not one that translates the gameplay of the first two enough to be considered a direct sequel.
 
Last edited:
Crni, now your argument hinges on the little thing that the definition doesn't apply to games. Well, 'a literary work, movie, etc that is complete in itself but continues the narrative of a preceding work.' Do I have to spell it out? And that's the definition given by pretty much every dictionary, meaning your argument is plain wrong. Until you find some kind of actual evidence in the dictionary. And by the way, you've gone really off topic by assuming that we don't care if it's a FPS or not, because we actually do. However we also prefer if people knew what the fuck they were talking about and stopped throwing the word sequel around as if they knew what it meant, when they consistently show a failure to know what the definition is. I agree, I prefer isometric turn based games, but for the love of God I can't stand this continued ignorance of the fucking word we're arguing about! EDIT: I kind of feel like an asshole know for being too harsh...
 
Last edited:
I consider New Vegas to be a true sequel to Fallout 2, and I'm pretty sure that was the intention that Obsidian was going for in the first place, as so many elements from Van Buren made it into the game. Not considering a game a sequel because of the gameplay differences is completely subjective tbh, and it does make sense, although I don't share the same sentiment.

Fallout 3 being a sequel though? Nope, not a chance. Way too many factors I'm not going to bother to list, and it shouldn't even be considered an actual Fallout game let alone a sequel. lol
 
Dr Fallout said:
Crni, now your argument hinges on the little thing that the definition doesn't apply to games. Well, 'a literary work, movie, etc that is complete in itself but continues the narrative of a preceding work.' Do I have to spell it out? And that's the definition given by pretty much every dictionary, meaning your argument is plain wrong. Until you find some kind of actual evidence in the dictionary. And by the way, you've gone really off topic by assuming that we don't care if it's a FPS or not, because we actually do. However we also prefer if people knew what the fuck they were talking about and stopped throwing the word sequel around as if they knew what it meant, when they consistently show a failure to know what the definition is. I agree, I prefer isometric turn based games, but for the love of God I can't stand this continued ignorance of the fucking word we're arguing about! EDIT: I kind of feel like an asshole know for being too harsh...
Click to expand...

I am not so much arguing that it doesn't apply. Just that it is actually incomplete! If we are looking at games in detail! Which is what we do. There can be NO doubts, that Fallout was always meant to be a video game. You at least have to agree to that much! I mean don't you see the potential issue with it if you reduce games solely to the narrative and story ignoring the characteristics that make the medium special in the first place?


  1. a literary work, movie, etc., that is complete in itself but continues the narrative of a preceding work.
- Just as a small hint, it doesn't mention games specifically even! That alone should make you think. It's simply way to broad as a definition! Again, we are not talking about math or physics here.


The narrative and stroy alone, can never ever be the only deciding factor for a medium that is as peculiar like games. Particularly if you consider the history of games. Remember. The first game ever, Pong, didn't even had any story at all!

If we follow this, idea of yours about a sequel, to the letter, it would litteraly mean, that Bethesda, owning the Fallout franchise, could decide to release Fallout 5 only as a book, and simply sell that as ... Sequel. Solely based on the fact that it continues the narrative. The Story. As this is aparantly enough for some to be a sequel to something ... but how in gods name can a book ever be a video game? Those are two different physical objects! Apples and Oranges!

Considering what makes a game a game - the interaction! The gamplay, it is more than obvious, that this, simply can't be correct, or at the very least, not all of it! That we are missing at least some crucial part in this concept. And that this story alone dictates a Sequel, is flawed as far as video games goes. Where does a game like, Pong or Tetris fit in to this? Games that are solely based around gameplay for example. Like Snake. Those have barely any narrative, if any at all!

A video game, has clear boundaries, it is defined by SOME form of interaction, player imput if you want so, I mean what do you call a game that is made solely of cutscenes? Exactly. A movie/video! And not a game! It has clear characteristics. Just as how a book contains words, maybe illustrations, and a movie is made of moving images creating a cinematic experience.

You can not tell me with a straight face that a book could be the next Fallout game, just because Bethesda, or if you even want Timothy Cain, said so! And because it continues the narrative and storyline of the previous game ...
 
Last edited:
Ninja said:
Dr Fallout said:
DVL said:
Now you guys are just arguing semantics.
Click to expand...

I'm just arguing that by the DEFINITION New Vegas is a sequel, bad or good.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what arguing semantics is.
Click to expand...

I know, did I imply that I didn't agree with DVL? I just like to describe the very basic part of the argument, and it's been like that since we began.

Crni: Basically you're grasping for thin air here, you're trying to push your view which in this case is nothing more as opinion as the right one, when as it obviously isn't. While I can agree with the idea that it's not a game it could be sequel. Remember, we're not discussing the idea that it has to be somewhat the same, as long as it continues the narrative it's a sequel. Stupid or not it's a sequel, so can I end the argument here, because it's pretty much just became into you complaining that it can't and me complaining that you're complaining that it can. I end with that by the definition, no matter how much you disagree or dislike it states that Fallout New Vegas is a sequel. You can disagree, but that's opinion.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top