Why fallout 3 is different then Fallout 1 and 2

D

Don Mikey

First time out of the vault
Its pretty obvious. a new version of a game like fallout 1 or 2 would never sell in todays gaming world. I personally loved fallout 3 and then played fallout 1 and 2 and loved them too. But a new game like fallout 1 or two would never sell! thats why they canceled fallout brotherhood of steel 2! because the first had terrible sales! today alot of gamers wouldnt be able to stand a game like fallout 1 or 2 (im not saying their bad its just the gaming world) you guys love the orginals because you grew up with them. my friends make fun of the fact that i play such a game as fallout 2, why? because they grew up playing games like halo, ghost recon, and call of duty.

so lets be honest here, do you really think another game like the originals have any success in today's gaming market?
 
Don Mikey said:
a new game like fallout 1 or two would never sell! thats why they canceled fallout brotherhood of steel 2! because the first had terrible sales!
Click to expand...
DJ_Logic-Zen_Of_Logic_b.jpg


Seriously though, why not? Give it a good graphical upgrade (maybe like Dragon Age. That's bird's-eye perspective, right?) and use the combat/exploration/stats and so forth from FO1+2.
I think it'd sell pretty well with some good PR.
 
without the intention to insult you or your way of how to find friends ( I dont know them for example ), but they might be the wrong people to talk with when it comes to games. From what you describe they seem to have a different expectation and taste when it comes to games. It seems very much that they prefer short action packed shooters. Not RPGs. Its not surprise that they make fun about Fallout 2.

I do not share the same oppinion. I think that a intelligent game (in the sense of Fallout 1 or Planescape for example) could indeed sell very well with the right design and marketing around it. If other pretty mediocre crap like Oblivion can sell like hotcakes then a more intelligent game should as well, with the same marketing behind it. Seriously, Oblivion was not even really good when it comes to the action (hence the many complaints about level scaling and such) and neither was its story really thight. But people still bought it thx to massive hype and promisses.

The mass of the market is a lot biger compared to how it was 10 or 15 years in the past. And you have a lot more tools on your hand to reach the costumers and suggest them that your game is the big hit.

The real reason I see why such games dont get made is, cause it takes skill, real skill. And skill is always something that takes time AND much money. You cant make a quality game with deep story, rich content and appealing visuals when you have people in charge that do not even like RPGs in the first place (in the sense of Fallout 1s way how to tell a story for example) and have as well no liking for a good concept before the work actualy starts.

One can see this with Fallout 3 perfectly, and as well where it directly hurts the game and product. Since Bethesda (you can even find quotes by Todd and Emil) wants to hold the concept phase as small as possible they somewhat develope the game "on the fly" as I call it. Some great idea? Letz do it! Another awesome gag while half of the work is already done? Letz add it! And cause of this kind of work and design you have in the end compansions that refuse to start the purifier even if it would do no damage to them and save someones life ... and yet people like Emil and Todd feel "fine" about it. cause everyone knows a (totally meaningless) sacrifice is awesome ... obviously.

I dont belive that those millions of gamers are braindead zombis that love to play the 8th game of Halo mixed with CoD 12 or Oblivion the second encounter. And even if it would be so, then it would be somewhat about damn time to change that and educate people a bit. Diversity is what the gaming market loost completely over the time, cause someone realised that it gives more profit to make mediocre crap that you sell as awesome crap instead of making high quality games that "maybe" no one will buy (quality takes time and money, crap you can get from everywhere). I dont see my self as old gamer I am "just" 24 damnit. Thus why I doubt that the average gamer which is in his 20s anyway is more stupid then I since I consider my self pretty average. Its more that you do not even have much of a choice to buy something "intelligent" cause its just not out there. What kind of "great" RPG was released the past 2 years? Maybe 1? And other games?

PlanHex said:
...
Seriously though, why not? Give it a good graphical upgrade (maybe like Dragon Age. That's bird's-eye perspective, right?) and use the combat/exploration/stats and so forth from FO1+2.
I think it'd sell pretty well with some good PR.
Click to expand...
Indeed, quite a lot of things (with games anyway!) are only about the right PR and advertising. I say stuff some horsesh** in a glass, print some awesome sticker on it and give it perfect PR and people will still buy it like crazy and call those "outmoded" purrists that say "but its just shit in a glass!".
 
I don't believe today's market requires terrible plot lines and dialogue, an inconsistent setting and a cast of horrible cliches. Even if the mechanics of Fallout wouldn't sell today (and that's very debatable in itself, aside from, possibly, turned base combat, I think everything in the originals would sell just fine today) there's no reason that the setting and canon had to be almost totally discarded, replaced with a high fantasy 'epic' adventure with terrible writing.

Also, Brotherhood of Steel failed because it wasn't enough like Fallout if anything, not because it was too much like it.

And I didn't grow up with Fallout either, I'm 18, I was 7 when it came out.
 
Don Mikey said:
Its pretty obvious. a new version of a game like fallout 1 or 2 would never sell in todays gaming world.
Click to expand...
On what data do you assume that?

I personally loved fallout 3 and then played fallout 1 and 2 and loved them too. But a new game like fallout 1 or two would never sell!
Click to expand...
Again, where is the data backing this up?

thats why they canceled fallout brotherhood of steel 2! because the first had terrible sales!
Click to expand...
No, it was canceled because Fallout : BOS(known as POS for piece of shit) was an awful game, it got low scores on every review it had.

today alot of gamers wouldnt be able to stand a game like fallout 1 or 2 (im not saying their bad its just the gaming world)
Click to expand...
The Data, where is it?

you guys love the orginals because you grew up with them.
Click to expand...
Not actually, I found out about Fallout by the massive hype around the third installment, in 2007. I liked it because it is a good game, and it tried to emulate Pen & Paper RPGs,and before you ask how do I know it, there is an article about it somewhere in the site(Help me Mikael!)

my friends make fun of the fact that i play such a game as fallout 2, why? because they grew up playing games like halo, ghost recon, and call of duty.
Click to expand...
Show them around Fallout(kill someone with burst fire or just get the bloody mess trait for a gruesome death), and they will probably like it, or at least "be OK" with it.

so lets be honest here, do you really think another game like the originals have any success in today's gaming market?
Click to expand...
Why not? Ever thought of Diablo 3?
 
I'm not one to talk since I'm a total turn based masochist, but I think the turn based system in Fallout 1/2 can easily be improved and adapted to modern tastes. Basically I would concern myself with speed, most people hate turn based because it turns a 10 second fight into a 2 minute encounter. If you make it so that it jumps around quickly between characters and you can perform your actions with ease, having a lot of it done by "default" unless you want to change it for this circumstance then people would tolerate it like they tolerate JRPG's turn based stuff.

Still I love exploring 3 in first person and while I would not mind a "hit enter, watch it go into 3rd person turn based" feature well that would just be a bonus.

As for dialog, depth and options a lot gets blown out of proportion here and even the best games where full of flaws, one of my alltime favorites is Vampire Bloodlines which is also FPS oriented RPG, it responds extremely well to a variety of characters and play styles but it was buggy as hell.

I expect great games in the future, there will always be shallow gamers who equate depth with how many things you can kill or fuck but in the meantime games that push emotional and conceptual borders (like the upcoming Heavy Rain) will keep the artform growing, just not in the direction some would like.
 
lugaru said:
I'm not one to talk since I'm a total turn based masochist, but I think the turn based system in Fallout 1/2 can easily be improved and adapted to modern tastes. Basically I would concern myself with speed, most people hate turn based because it turns a 10 second fight into a 2 minute encounter. If you make it so that it jumps around quickly between characters and you can perform your actions with ease, having a lot of it done by "default" unless you want to change it for this circumstance then people would tolerate it like they tolerate JRPG's turn based stuff.
Click to expand...

This. Think Jagged Alliance 2 but made to be fast-paced without losing any complexity or tactics. My perfect Fallout game would be a mix of Jagged Alliance 2 and Fallout 2, but fixing the errors of Fallout 2 and building upon the old titles.
 
I haven't played (but have watched a playing of) Fallout 3.

While I don't think it's the worst game ever, I do wonder about it in it's comparison to the first two. Just as Fallout 1 and 2 had glaring differences (as stated in previous posts), Fallout 3 had these differences in comparison to it's predecessor.

When going from Fallout one to two, transition from one to the other is much easier (for obvious reasons like having the same game engine, similar items and weapons, etc.).

When I did watch it, there were some similarities in comparison to one and two. But, most of them were integral to keeping the game a Fallout game. For instance, the nuclear wasteland.

However, for me, this is where the similarities end. The rest of the game feels "separate" from the rest of the series. It's not necessarily a bad thing, just not what I am used to.

Overall, not a bad game... just not what I was hoping for.
 
gamers have gotten more and more lazy. fps' sell more because they are easy and require less thought. back in the 90's people who played games were a smaller set. fps have mass market appeal and rake in cash by the bucket because the majority of people don't want smart games and are satisfied with the same generic stuff over and over again. while most of the people who loved fallout enjoyed it not because of nonstop action but its brilliant story telling and how it felt like you in game decisions mattered. plus shooting a peasant point blank with a minigun was pretty fun.
 
radioactive_penguin said:
gamers have gotten more and more lazy. fps' sell more because they are easy and require less thought. back in the 90's people who played games were a smaller set. fps have mass market appeal and rake in cash by the bucket because the majority of people don't want smart games and are satisfied with the same generic stuff over and over again. while most of the people who loved fallout enjoyed it not because of nonstop action but its brilliant story telling and how it felt like you in game decisions mattered. plus shooting a peasant point blank with a minigun was pretty fun.
Click to expand...

A bigger problem yet is that many of today's gamers are satisfied with the same tired and shoddily skinned-over crap because they really don't know any better. The game developers, and worse yet producers have gotten far more lazy than the gamers have, and what's even worse, they've (mostly) settled into a very tired routine whereby they don't want to take any risks.

They figure why bother trying something fresh and innovative and spend a fortune on production and marketing when they've proven time and time again that they can just make a few tweaks to a proven concept and shove it back out the door at full sticker price.

While there's plenty of gamers still out here hungry for something better, they still sell plenty of the trash, because really, what choice do we have? If we want any new games at all, there's a very high probability that we'll be buying at least as much garbage as even barely passable games these days, and forget about real gems. Those are all but extinct now.

So while I agree that today's average gamer is probably more lazy, and easier to spoon-feed garbage than those of yesterday, it's also not entirely their fault. (Most of) the game companies wanted it that way, and have continued to steer the market in that direction all along. After all, why spend tons of money hiring talented and creative individuals to work tirelessly for perhaps even several years on a single fresh and innovative idea when you've found a way to crank out a shiny new box full of yesterday's crap (and a nifty bobble-head) that cost you virtually nothing 3 or 4 times a year which you can market for the same price and almost total profit?

Not the best business model perhaps if you want to be praised and remembered for decades like the guys of Black Isle studios perhaps, but certainly adequate if all you really care about is lining your pockets with gold.

All that said though, trust me... There's plenty of gamers still out here practically chewing on their keyboards in anticipation that perhaps someday, someone with some guts might come along again and release something worth playing, let alone worth buying.

Hey... it could happen. :P

-Wraith
 
Don Mikey said:
Its pretty obvious. a new version of a game like fallout 1 or 2 would never sell in todays gaming world.
Click to expand...
that's probably why the Fallout Trilogy pack currently on sale is entering the sales charts so easily, with little publicity to back it up.

Don Mikey said:
I personally loved fallout 3 and then played fallout 1 and 2 and loved them too. But a new game like fallout 1 or two would never sell! thats why they canceled fallout brotherhood of steel 2!
Click to expand...
probably more because it was utter crap? dont lob games like Fallout 1 & 2 together with Fallout: Piece of Shit. thank you.

Don Mikey said:
because the first had terrible sales!
Click to expand...
you mean the first Fallout: Piece of Shit, or Fallout 1?

in the first case is probably because it was utter shite and buggy on top of that. as for Fallout 1, well, salesfigures were low compared to today, but back then it did ok for a title like that. hell, if you view it as a niche GURPS game, it was actually very succesful. you must also know that FO1 continued to sell steadily for years & years. who's buying old games like Red Faction nowadays?

well, seems like people are still buying Fallout 1, 2 & Tictacs.

hell, i own 4 copies of FO1 & 2, each... i know many gamers who have more than one copy. how's that for a loyal consumer base?

Don Mikey said:
today alot of gamers wouldnt be able to stand a game like fallout 1 or 2 (im not saying their bad its just the gaming world) you guys love the orginals because you grew up with them. my friends make fun of the fact that i play such a game as fallout 2, why? because they grew up playing games like halo, ghost recon, and call of duty.
Click to expand...
euhm... i play Team Fortress 2, Counterstrike, and so on and so forth. but i also love Fallout. it's not an exclusive thing, you know. even glittering gems of hatred are capable of loving other games. even non-RPG games! wow!

also, your friends are brainless dicks. get rid of them.

anyhow, you're forgetting that quite a portion of the current game market are people between 35 and 20 years old. some of these people were gamers when Fallout 1 came out. most remember what gaming meant back then. many are even nostalgic like us.

these people can represent a primary market for a good & deep RPG, à la Fallout. but i'm certain that younger (or older) gamers can also grow to love these games.
Don Mikey said:
so lets be honest here, do you really think another game like the originals have any success in today's gaming market?
Click to expand...
well, commercial success, sure. maybe not top of the pops, but still profitable unless you plan on undertaking a Duke Nukem ForNever development scheme.

i think the main reasons for not producing such games are:
- you need to take a moderate (perceived) risk in taking another path than the current industry.
- you'll probably have less return on investment than with generic Call of Duty 20 clone release.
- you require a lot of talented people for this.

but regardless... there is a market for this.
 
I personally am not a big fan of Fallout 3. However, F2 is quite possibly my favorite RPG (at least on PC). I absolutely loved it.

On topic though, I believe F3 is different than the original two because of a few factors. I'd love to give the "time changes things" route, but even today the old Fallout games are selling (hell, I bought the trilogy recently). I think the biggest difference though is the company. F1 and 2 were made by a totally different company than F3.

Overall though, I think F3 is different from the first two because of how the new developers at Bethesda interpreted the original games (as opposed to the first two, which WERE a completely original idea).

Also, the demographic. Fallout one and two felt like they were for a somewhat specific group of people (I've heard people hating the first two games because they were "turn-based". Losers). But with F3, Bethesda was trying to appeal to ALL gamers it seems. It's not funny how many people are into F3 and have NEVER played the first two.

Finally, I'd have to agree with an earlier post about the standards of games: They're dropping off like never before. A mere decade ago the quality was immensely better.

Now, I just don't know.
 
Danilh said:
No, but we only remember the greatest games, not any double dragon clone or generic space shoot 'em up
Click to expand...

Do you feel that the number of occasional quality game have decreased since the 90's?
 
Danilh said:
A mere decade ago the quality was immensely better.
Click to expand...

No, but we only remember the greatest games, not any double dragon clone or generic space shoot 'em up
Click to expand...

This I will give you. Sure, there will always be bad games. However, it feels like the amount of quality games (as few as they were even back then) were more in numbers. I can name plenty of games from the nineties I enjoyed. I can think of very few this decade that are really that good.

Maybe it's just my opinion. But whatever.
 
There is no denying that nowadays games offer less content and much less hours than they did merely 5-6 years ago.
 
When reading this thread I got a déjà-vu experience...

I love when people come to this place and tell why a Fallout like the originals would suck on sales.
 
This thread needs more mentions of "rose-tinted glasses".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top