View Single Post

Default 

February 3rd, 2007, 08:55
I guess I was a little too specific. My post was not meant to be a "copy the original down to the letter" but rather to stay true to the basis of the game. I'll be the first to say that the Fallout world is rather captivating and visiting it in a different way could be refreshing. People have adapted Fallout for tabletop gameplay. I've looked over it and changes were made to the game. For the most part though, they kept what was already established as good, added a few twists for novelty, gave the option of experiencing the world from a different point of view, and made some changes to make it playable with dice.

I'm not against change. A rehash of the first two games would be pointless, but just taking the name and slapping it on something completely different wouldn't be any better. There are certain aspects of the game that could be updated, but if you want to change practically everything then what's the point of calling it a Fallout game? I personally liked the combat system in Fallout, but a modification of the combat system wouldn't necessarily be bad. I can't realistically see a Fallout game being made first person and real time and still manage to keep its rpg elements intact though. Something along the lines of NWN might not be so bad (NWN still had a turn based element to it, it's just abstracted and put on a timer), but that's not what can be expected from FO3.

There's also the other facts that FO's original developers are all but gone. If Fallout was still in the hands of the original developers, I think the Fallout fanbase would be different. But it isn't. It's as if a novelist had created an amazing world, and then stopped writing only for someone else to come in and continue the story. Invariably, it will be different, and very likely it will miss the mark that made the original great. This holds true to a lesser extent with video games. There are additional complications in that video games are made by teams rather than individuals, but a radical change in the dev team will mean a significantly different game. In Fallout's past, this has often meant that the game didn't really fit within the Fallout universe which caused the allure of revisiting the setting you liked to not really be as strong as it should have been.

Even assuming that FO3 was to be made by someone other than Bethesda, I have really yet to hear any compelling reasons why a turn based engine could not be successful. Real time is not the "wave of the future", it's just different, not better or worse.

And for the record, I never assumed any of you thought that Bethesda would do Fallout justice, I was pointing out that they are the ones who are making the game so ultimately the get to decided what goes into the game, reguardless of what any so-called fan would prefer.

hordespawn

Guest

#58

Posts: n/a