Progressing Fallout games as a series

[DeadHill]

I was watching some videos about Fallout as a series the other day and something came up to me - with all the grand modding scene projects and games in the series, Fallout's world is slowly getting smaller and smaller, getting more repetitive.
That's why I believe that eventually the series will have to progress. But where? I'd say, what if there was a game set in the Fallout universe, but which would be set in the aftermath of Post-Apocalyptic Wasteland we're used to. The player would be introduced to a much more rebuilt world, but still having bits and pieces of things reminding you of the fact it's after the Great War. For example, the game could take place in a single city, but one which'd be giant.
Most of the typical mutant foes would be gone with the time (albeit you could probably still find a few if you really wanted to, maybe underground?).
The idea is to emphasize much more on the politics, morals and human relationships than in other Fallout games and I think it could be a good fit with a good story.
What would your opinion be if something like this ever happened to the Fallout game series? What would your ideal Fallout spin-off be like, if you want one? If you don't, then why do you want it to stay true to the Post-Apocalypse? Tell me your opinions, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the subject.

 

[valcik]

What would your ideal Fallout spin-off be like, if you want one? If you don't, then why do you want it to stay true to the Post-Apocalypse?

The only Fallout I'm interested in has to be as close to the original in terms of gameplay and mechanics as possible, that's the most important thing for me. (So far, F2 mods serves me well.)

As for any spin-off based on completely different gameplay, mechanics, or genre, the answer to your question is I don't mind the setting and the game at all. Make it Sims: The Metropolis for all I care, it's perfectly fine by me since I'm not going to play it. What I don't understand though is why it has to be Fallout then? None post-apo, completely different gameplay, not even remote resemblance of tabletop games anymore.. Devs can do the same and more with any other intellectual property, they're just slowly killing the trademark at this point.

 

[R.Graves]

All a good fallout game has to do is:

1. Have a good grasp of the fallout universe. This means understanding tone and continuity.

2. Build upon the world built in the previous games. New Vegas did this ridiculously well whereas 3/4 just destroy what the original games built with retreading old plots, creatures and factions

3. If it must reuse an old faction it must put that factions culture to the test with a new situation (see new vegas) bottom line have something new to bring to old material.

 

[Walpknut]

Take it behind the barn and Old Yeller it.

 

[R.Graves]

The only Fallout I'm interested in has to be as close to the original in terms of gameplay and mechanics as possibl

Lawl if it doesn't have muh turn based combat then it's not fallout. Stop being ridiculous. New Vegas is more fallout than Fallout 2 even ignoring fallout 2's worst aspects.

 

[Risewild]

No one said it wouldn't be Fallout. Valcik said that he would only be interested in a Fallout that is like the first in gameplay and mechanics.
Also notice how he didn't said he would be interested in Fallout 2, but only the original Fallout (and Fallout 2 total conversions, which many people consider them closer to original Fallout than Fallout 2 was).

I love the gameplay and mechanics of Fallout, I think that if another Fallout game would be made following those things (taken from the first Fallout) and a bit of polish (like a better inventory system as an example). It would blow Fallout New Vegas out of the water.

Gamebryo really sucks and is prone to bugs and crashes, makes combat clunky and not fun, the game is super easy, Obsidian broke a lot of stuff in the game engine too while only improving/optimizing a tiny bit. I am pretty sure that if Obsidian could have used the same engine of Neverwinter Nights 2 (another game made by Obsidian, and it's not even turn based or anything like the classic games), Fallout New Vegas would have been even better in a lot more ways.

No one is ridiculous because they prefer Fallout games to be like the first one... That's their tastes and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[SomeDudeandHisDog]

A good thing to do would be to change the setting. Instead of having the next Fallout game in the US why not have it set in other countries to see the effects of the nukes on ths rest of the world and add depth to the Fallout universe.
China would be a great place since they were the the US' opposition in the War, Russia and Canada would also be pretty interesting.
A Different setting could also lead to new mutants, hazards, factions, technology and equipment; vaults, super mutants, power armor and the Pip-boy wont appear thou.
I remember hearing about Interplay creating a Fallout game where you control the BoS who will travel across Alaska and China, the game concept ended up in becoming Fallout BoS

 

[valcik]

Lawl if it doesn't have muh turn based combat then it's not fallout. Stop being ridiculous. New Vegas is more fallout than Fallout 2 even ignoring fallout 2's worst aspects.

I didn't enjoy FNV gameplay-wise at all. Quest structure, setting, and fluff are perfectly fine by me - yes much better than F2 actually, everything else in this game suck Harold's balls. There's no way I'll play it once more or so many times as olde Fallouts, finished it just once and I'm done with it for good.

Also your men of straws are excellent ones, on par with Vuk. Shake hands with him naow.

 

[0wing]

I didn't enjoy FNV gameplay-wise at all.

It's okay, the gameplaycombat part was never good in Fallout. It's turn-based contester is hardly challenging or even competently done, FNV at least is step foward regarding combat since guns now have move stats to consider than AP cost and damage per burst/shot, enemies running around a bit more active and tiny bit smarter, maps are even meh-er than FNV. Fallout Tactics is unironically the most polished and enjoyable game in the whole franchise actually.

 

[Deleted member 98605]

A good thing to do would be to change the setting. Instead of having the next Fallout game in the US why not have it set in other countries to see the effects of the nukes on ths rest of the world and add depth to the Fallout universe.
China would be a great place since they were the the US' opposition in the War, Russia and Canada would also be pretty interesting.
A Different setting could also lead to new mutants, hazards, factions, technology and equipment; vaults, super mutants, power armor and the Pip-boy wont appear thou.
I remember hearing about Interplay creating a Fallout game where you control the BoS who will travel across Alaska and China, the game concept ended up in becoming Fallout BoS

Fallout Extreme might work. Anything else? Eh. Europe, Russia, South America, Africa, Asia-outside-China, even Australia - there's just too little on their bones. It's a China-America story, really.

 

[Black Angel]

It's okay, the gameplaycombat part was never good in Fallout. It's turn-based contester is hardly challenging or even competently done, FNV at least is step foward regarding combat since guns now have move stats to consider than AP cost and damage per burst/shot, enemies running around a bit more active and tiny bit smarter, maps are even meh-er than FNV. Fallout Tactics is unironically the most polished and enjoyable game in the whole franchise actually.

I see you've done well to kinda avoid people from questioning you if "combat = gameplay", but on a more serious note we can agree that valcik ain't just talking about the combat. See @Kohno's post in some other thread talking about moment-to-moment gameplay. If I'm allowed to elaborate succinctly, all I can say is things like walking through the wasteland, the lockpicking/hacking replaced by minigames, stealth system that's really lacking and pickpocketing that's even worse in that regard. Not to mention the best things about Fallout 1&2 (like freeform interactivity it has with its right-click to interact with stuff/NPCs) had extremely limited implementation in Gamebryo.... Personally, I find myself highly prefer Fallout 1&2 and its TC mods, by virtue of how easy it is to get back to it thanks solely to extremely fast loading screen (or even none at all).

Having said all that, we really need to stop being apologetic towards New Vegas by going "oh Fallout 1&2's turn-based combat sucks anyway, so meh". Because we all damn know well that improving upon Fallout 1&2's combat ain't gonna be any difficult. Remember that Tim Cain and co at Troika made Temple of Elemental Evil, which has been admitted to have THE best turn-based combat system ever. If not going by that standard, we can look up to Age of Decadence or Underrail's turn-based combat system because they're definitely miles above that of Fallout 1&2's.

 

[valcik]

Fallout Tactics is unironically the most polished and enjoyable game in the whole franchise actually.

As for combat system, yes it is. Finished it couple of times, including full turn-based mode run and a couple of more or less successful multiplayer attempts. Also melee combat in FNV is pure frenetic abomination.

Anyway, I never considered Fallout to be a combat game. By gameplay I meant the game as a whole - small things such as world reactivity/interactivity where you have to explore your surroundings piece by piece with binocular icon action in order to gather lot of detailed informations about objects or characters on your own pace; or that separate layer of gameplay added by world map with random events for example. All these things, delivered with amazing sprite animations and wrapped in coherent and beautiful aesthetical style, made for experience I've never found in any other Fallout.

@Black Angel
Exactly.
I'm too slow with typing my responses here, you guys beat me to the punch!

 

[0wing]

Quoting, quoting.. Ah, screw it, @valcik @Black Angel
The thing is, outside of combat, I think New Vegas is better, unironically better. Yes, skill panel is a loss, but it's only one loss. Stealth in 1-2 was still a win button. Actually, regarding stealth New Vegas is perfect continuation with the most popular OP build is guess what, grumpy sniper with stealth again.

Yes, Tim made Fallout and ToEE, but it doesn't suddenly make Fallout a ToEE, not even half of vanilla ToEE, combat in Fallout can be improved but never was since Black Isle ran out of time, we all know it. But Micro Forte did, we all know it.
I'm not sure why you guys brought this one, to prove me even more right? Thanks, I'll take it, it's more prestigious than pinpointing that myself.

Welp, navigating in a well crafted actual world and putting pieces together and enjoying desert landscapes in person is also quite and experience. And disregarding the main Fallout's RPG core part of gameplay (yes I consider dialogues and checks a gameplay, after all creating a character is also a vital part of RPG) as fluff is, well... impolite and quite Bethesdian, If You Know What I Mean.

I would consider Nevada to be the definitive Fallout game, but right now it's a bit hard to play in English.

 

[Black Angel]

Yes, skill panel is a loss, but it's only one loss.

It may have been only one loss, but it's a damn huge one to bear. Fallout 1&2's gameplay definitely had much, much more freedom and provide much more player agency thanks to it. And in turn, New Vegas's gameplay were much, much more limited and restricted when it comes to something like that.

Yes, Tim made Fallout and ToEE, but it doesn't suddenly make Fallout a ToEE, not even half of vanilla ToEE. Quite the opposite, look how Tim progressed since Fallout in a mere six years. I'm not sure why you guys brought this one, to prove me even more right? Thanks, I'll take it, it's more prestigious than pinpointing that myself.

You're completely missing my point here. In no way I'm suggesting to turn Fallout to ToEE or whatsoever. Going by that argument you're STILL being apologetic toward New Vegas by going "Fallout 1&2's combat are meh", with an addition of, "just because the maker of Fallout improved their TB combat system for later games doesn't mean they can improve Fallout's TB combat with it!". I guess in that regard you're more of being realistic, knowing where Fallout IP lies, but do we really have to go there? Knowing full well Beth's direction for the IP is full-fledged shooting games with less and less and even less RPG elements?

Again, I'll elaborate more clearly and in a different way. Nowadays we've seen really good, easy-to-learn-but-hard-to-master turn-based combat gameplay (See: Age of Decadence/Dungeon Rats and Underrail). Hell, we've seen how the progenitor of Fallout managed to implement THE best turn-based combat system to date. So it's not like learning a thing or two from those games to improve turn-based combat for a Fallout game would make it any less Fallout or something.

 

[0wing]

You're completely missing my point here. In no way I'm suggesting to turn Fallout to ToEE or whatsoever. Going by that argument you're STILL being apologetic toward New Vegas by going "Fallout 1&2's combat are meh", with an addition of, "just because the maker of Fallout improved their TB combat system for later games doesn't mean they can improve Fallout's TB combat with it!". I guess in that regard you're more of being realistic, knowing where Fallout IP lies, but do we really have to go there? Knowing full well Beth's direction for the IP is full-fledged shooting games with less and less and even less RPG elements?

Again, I'll elaborate more clearly and in a different way. Nowadays we've seen really good, easy-to-learn-but-hard-to-master turn-based combat gameplay (See: Age of Decadence/Dungeon Rats and Underrail). Hell, we've seen how the progenitor of Fallout managed to implement THE best turn-based combat system to date. So it's not like learning a thing or two from those games to improve turn-based combat for a Fallout game would make it any less Fallout or something.

Nah, I'm not. And not realistic at all, see why - I see Fallout as highly customizable game with control schemes for all kinds of perversions or prestigious taste. Yes, like The Witcher and that demo Troika put together to find investors but failed (despair intensifies) but with dicerolls for isometric camera and more of Brigade E5/7.62/Maradeur style of gameplay. We don't need 2D and fixed camera shit, Fallout Van Buren damn this. And vanilla Fallout 1 and 2 are faaaaaaaaaaaaaaar from this and with available games I'd take first person with better roleplay or Tactics than playing worse chess. Besides, with all available mods, Vegas lacks free camera with cursor now. Oh yes, and Panel. Yeah, there's also a mod for it but it's abandoned and not even in English. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It may have been only one loss, but it's a damn huge one to bear. Fallout 1&2's gameplay definitely had much, much more freedom and provide much more player agency thanks to it. And in turn, New Vegas's gameplay were much, much more limited and restricted when it comes to something like that.

Panel can also be returned, a matter of heavy scripting.

 

[Black Angel]

I see Fallout as highly customizable game with control schemes for all kinds of perversions or prestigious taste.

That's one way to put it. Personally, I see Fallout's main attraction lies not only the lore and setting, but also the freedom it gave to the player on what to do with the information from the lore and what to do in such settings. However, these "things to do" are heavily tied to the gameplay mechanics of being a (properly working) RPG. Barring 'prestigious taste', we all know not all control schemes for all kinds of perversions would work to convey Fallout's greatest potential (see: Fallout 3, Fallout 4, and Fallout Shelter). And while New Vegas does a lot of things better than the originals, it couldn't compensate for things it does on average or even worse.

And vanilla Fallout 1 and 2 are faaaaaaaaaaaaaaar from this and with available games I'd take first person with better roleplay

But did we get that 'first person with better roleplay'? Because New Vegas ain't a better RPG than 1&2. First-person RT combat alone took away that from being a proper RPG, on top of lockpicking and hacking minigames. What are we left with? Things that pretty much other games can do (like setting, quest-structure and narrative designs, and pretty much other kind of fluff). Like you admitted, Nevada is your definitive Fallout game. Imagine what can official devs with true devotion to make full-fledged, non-TC Fallout game using a better engine to emulate P&P RPG gameplay (or whatever fits the bill with a purpose to produce a properly working RPG mechanics). Of course, it's always a moot point because we can always compare this to improving first-person gameplay mechanics like what happened in the discussion between me and Kohno in this thread.

 

[0wing]

And while New Vegas does a lot of things better than the originals, it couldn't compensate for things it does on average or even worse.

See, this is the point where we will never understand each other since it's a preferencial point. I value RP part of Fallout over PnP feelingz sim. (does FNV hurt your PnP feelings, dear reader of this shitty engrish text?)

we all know not all control schemes for all kinds of perversions would work to convey Fallout's greatest potential

Standard set of 1st/3rd person+free rotate isometric covers it all for a real roleplaying game, f2p spin-offs need not apply.

But did we get that 'first person with better roleplay'? Because New Vegas ain't a better RPG than 1&2.

Yes & Yes it is.

First-person RT combat alone took away that from being a proper RPG, on top of lockpicking and hacking minigames.

Nah, it's debatable. We already know that combat is not really a Fallout's strong side, RT or not, first person or not. But if character's build still matters, I'm fine with it, and fine with F:NV since numbers still matter here even in RT, yet F:NV makes little things like weapon unholster duration or weapon's weight or weapon's rate of fire or bigger things like different ammo types matter. More like a tradeoff than taking away unless you suffer from holier than thou regarding RT vs TB question. Lockpicking I already stated somewhere would be fine if it wasn't locked behind "tiers" rather being easier to perform gradually with higher skill number by messing with "sweet spot" parameter dependent on the lock. No actual need to outright remove them. Hacking... Yeeeeeah it's crap, realistic or not. There are mods for both so fixable I guess.

Things that pretty much other games can do (like setting, quest-structure and narrative designs, and pretty much other kind of fluff).

Then why only Nevada and New Vegas succeeded at utilizing SPECIAL for the said things and nailed the Fallout-like quest design and structure then while 1-2 stucked with useless skills, underused stats, boring quests featuring dungeon clearing/stealthing (holy shit what a decline and casualization

/s) and Toddouts didn't even try? (and a big "?")
You still press on PnP simulation and diceroll-driven combat but totally forget how the games begins. New Vegas has no defined character background (unless you installed Lonesome Road, but that's another holywar for another time) and Nevada has a nice plot-twist for this. And in 2D realm they begin with a character with already set in stone background, less in 1, more like throwing a stone in F2 but still, hampers roleplaying if even more than less dicerolls for combat. If you say it's not important, then I only can send you back more propsers.

Imagine what can official devs with true devotion to make full-fledged, non-TC Fallout game using a better engine to emulate P&P RPG gameplay (or whatever fits the bill with a purpose to produce a properly working RPG mechanics).

Devs would ditch this "let's simulate PnP even though actual PnP players don't need this shit on an inferior to their imagination computer" shit and make a proper RPG nailing all other things F1-2 devs failed. And yes it would be glorious game of the century like Arcanum. Arcanum was the shit, and still kinda is.

Of course, it's always a moot point because we can always compare this to improving first-person gameplay mechanics like what happened in the discussion between me and Kohno in this thread.

Kohno is not the law abide to.

it's always a moot point because we can always compare this to improving first-person gameplay mechanics

Tradeoff is a better word, again. Obsidian still saved that "your build matters" thing that is vital part of RPG in F:NV, the reason I still consider this as a better game than 3-4.

Besides, we all secretly know that older games are better because of that sweet Speech skill letting us talk through the entire game, basically "driving through the mountain" in a VN mode and NV is worse because it expects us to take action and play the goddamn game, what an insult! Games should be accessible to everyone, amirite? Same with Nevada but too few people here or on the 'Dex actually played it to stirr the hornet's nest enough.

 

[SomeDudeandHisDog]

See, this is the point where we will never understand each other since it's a preferencial point. I value RP part of Fallout over PnP feelingz sim. (does FNV hurt your PnP feelings, dear reader of this shitty engrish text?)

Standard set of 1st/3rd person+free rotate isometric covers it all for a real roleplaying game, f2p spin-offs need not apply.

Yes & Yes it is.

Nah, it's debatable. We already know that combat is not really a Fallout's strong side, RT or not, first person or not. But if character's build still matters, I'm fine with it, and fine with F:NV since numbers still matter here even in RT, yet F:NV makes little things like weapon unholster duration or weapon's weight or weapon's rate of fire or bigger things like different ammo types matter. More like a tradeoff than taking away unless you suffer from holier than thou regarding RT vs TB question. Lockpicking I already stated somewhere would be fine if it wasn't locked behind "tiers" rather being easier to perform gradually with higher skill number by messing with "sweet spot" parameter dependent on the lock. No actual need to outright remove them. Hacking... Yeeeeeah it's crap, realistic or not. There are mods for both so fixable I guess.

Then why only Nevada and New Vegas succeeded at utilizing SPECIAL for the said things and nailed the Fallout-like quest design and structure then while 1-2 stucked with useless skills, underused stats, boring quests featuring dungeon clearing/stealthing (holy shit what a decline and casualization

/s) and Toddouts didn't even try? (and a big "?")
You still press on PnP simulation and diceroll-driven combat but totally forget how the games begins. New Vegas has no defined character background (unless you installed Lonesome Road, but that's another holywar for another time) and Nevada has a nice plot-twist for this. And in 2D realm they begin with a character with already set in stone background, less in 1, more like throwing a stone in F2 but still, hampers roleplaying if even more than less dicerolls for combat. If you say it's not important, then I only can send you back more propsers.

Devs would ditch this "let's simulate PnP even though actual PnP players don't need this shit on an inferior to their imagination computer" shit and make a proper RPG nailing all other things F1-2 devs failed. And yes it would be glorious game of the century like Arcanum. Arcanum was the shit, and still kinda is.

Kohno is not the law abide to.

Also, Most RPGs that didnt follow PnP had more RP in them thanks to the lack of focus on minimal shit like tactical gameplay, rulesets or cinematics/text.
Mount and Blade offered more role-playing than NVN or ME thanks to its focus on giving the player a system-based world where the player is free to live and role-play any character that suits the setting.
I'd even argue that stuff like Minecraft and 4X games are better RPGs thanks to their sandbox nature and character focused stories.

 

[Joe17]

Eh, Fallout doesn't need to change.

I only play it for the story.

 

[valcik]

F4 rating on STEAM sits on Mixed, only 68% positive reviews, clear failure in comparison with F3. What's going on? "Better" combat system based on player's skill instead of obsolete randomly generated dice rolls, with superior physics thanks to id Software acquisition, yet hardcore TES fans sticking with these games rated F4 worse. @0wing explain this to me pl0x, what happened? Any theory?

Also you're overestimating FNV a lot, character build doesn't matter that much as you make it sounds. Actually I ended with character sporting all skills maxed out long before reaching max level.. And you can avoid most of the fights in main quest line with Speech skill just as easily as in olde Fallouts btw, at least that's what I did in No Gods No Masters questline.

edit:
I do agree that skill utilization in F1 leaves a lot to be desired. That's not systems' fault though.