krysalist:

No, I am a huge Fallout fan, but I will wait for piracy to allow me a free copy (something I do not condone under most circumstances), because Bethesda deserves my contempt for what they are doing, not my money. I may play if before then, if my brother gets a copy, but I will never buy a new copy.

I have yet to understand why Bethesda deserves anyone's contempt for making a sequel to a game which otherwise would not likely have had a sequel?

And just how many of your children did Bethesda cook and eat?

And the fact that you'll steal it doesn't really bother me. But it also displays a lack of conviction -- if you really hate the entire idea of the game, why play it at all?

I think I'd prefer it didn't have a sequel. I will play it to see if they managed to make something worthwhile, if not neccesarily desirable. Bethesda didn't eat any children that I know of, but... honest to God, if I ever meet Todd Howard, I will demand my money back for Oblivion. I don't care that he probably wouldn't give it to me, it would just give me a sense of satisfaction.

EDIT: Also, I think that shows more conviction than ripping the game apart before its release and then buying it. Oh, and no, I would not buy a new copy of the game, because as mentioned, I'm still pissed about Oblivion.

I'm so sad I was late for the Fallout train. When it first came out I was a bit young and alot into other types of games.

I downloaded the torrent recently and tryed to play it but I just couldn't get trough the uglynes of what is now times long gone in terms of computer gaming. I liked the story, I liked it alot and I realy want to play a post-apocalyptic game with an engaging storyline.

What makes me even more sad is that I did play Oblivion and even though I can't realy explain why, I just found it boring and couldn't force myself to finish it.

I can just hope that my desire for an apocalypse will eclipse some possible problems with the game to still allow me to enjoy it. (it didn't help with AutoAssault)

Oblivion? Go here, kill this, come back for your reward. Take it or leave it. Oh, and you have to do things in a specific order. When it's all done, you get the same ending no matter how you did things. Also, you're the good guy. No, you can't actually side with the Mythic Dawn, sorry. Only the aforementioned Dark Brotherhood questline lets you take the side of villains.

Tim Cain wouldn't let me be a zombie in Fallout 1.

krysalist:

Oblivion? Go here, kill this, come back for your reward. Take it or leave it. Oh, and you have to do things in a specific order. When it's all done, you get the same ending no matter how you did things. Also, you're the good guy. No, you can't actually side with the Mythic Dawn, sorry. Only the aforementioned Dark Brotherhood questline lets you take the side of villains.

Tim Cain wouldn't let me be a zombie in Fallout 1.

But he'd let you work for Gizmo and the dude under the Hub. Also, you could join the mutants, though that ending sucked.

EDIT: Oh, and you could still work with that foul-tempered ghoul in Necropolis.

But I still couldn't become a mutant.

krysalist:
But I still couldn't become a mutant.

No game can offer complete freedom. But Fallout offers a great deal, especially in comparison to Oblivion.

I find the elitist gaming phenomenon so odd -- since when does consumption of a particular entertainment product make you better than other people who consume different products? What is the philosophical basis for that?

Computer games are a popular form to pass the time. Isn't that enough?

For everybody bagging Bethesda for daring to make a new game -- there's an online project to make an open Fallout game engine... which didn't get very far last time I checked. Maybe the people who want the old Fallout with a new quest should just do some work for the free game?

Just a thought.

=====

P.S. Gormless - Guess you slipped through the cracks of your country's educational system... class is in session:

"So kicking around the interwebs for a bit, I've sensed a lot of aggro for the new fallout and I cant really see why. Seriously, I truly doubt that anybody can give me a rational argument against it that isn't based on elitism, fear or nostalgia.

God, I hate elitism. Yes, I've played the Fallouts when they first came out - I even took a swipe at Wasteland about a decade ago after playing Fallout but do i want a sodding medal?

Fear -- could Bethesda do any worse than Interplay did towards the end. Did anyone else play that godawful console game?

Nostalgia -- people, things have to move with the times. Have you played Fallout 1 recently? It's still an amazing game but it IS dated.

As far as I've seen, Bethesda seem to be getting the setting and feeling of the Fallout games, and that, to me, IS Fallout. Not the combat. Not the viewpoint.

So to finish, I personally will remain optimistic about Bethesda's Fallout unless truly compelling evidence to the contrary is produced."

===============

Basically, to improve your writing, work on four things:

1) Spelling and punctuation (Try Mozilla Firefox for automatic spellcheck while you type)

2) Don't write your entire post as a single lump. Split it up into smaller paragraphs, each focused on a single idea.

3) Names of things should be capitalized, e.g. Bethesda, Fallout

4) Push the Preview button and read what you have written. Because editor windows are made so damn small, it is difficult to spot mistakes while you are editing your post. The preview is much easier to read.

Putting aside technical writing ability for a moment, you presented a well-reasoned argument.

I look forward to your next post!

Marco

3)

As far as I've seen, Bethesda seem to be getting the setting and feeling of the Fallout games, and that, to me, IS Fallout. Not the combat. Not the viewpoint.

I'm in your camp, sir.

krysalist:

As far as I've seen, Bethesda seem to be getting the setting and feeling of the Fallout games, and that, to me, IS Fallout. Not the combat. Not the viewpoint.

I'm in your camp, sir.

I also disagree with people who say Fallout has to be isometric and turn-based... and agree that the setting and feeling is more important. But I already see problems coming up with both of those. For one thing, anyone who's played the hell out of Fallout 2 knows very well what the vaults were meant to do, and what we do know about Fallout 3's story made me raise an eyebrow when I thought of this. It's a second Vault 13? What? Also, why is the Brotherhood of Steel, which should be on the edge of extinction and still in California, in DC (please note that Fallout Tactics is not canon... it never happened as far as Fallout 3 is concerned)? It makes little sense. Why aren't the super mutants in Fallout 3 mostly senile and/or just tired of fighting, like most of them were in Fallout 2? I don't have high hopes for a totally faithful setting.

Furthermore, they don't seem to be getting the feeling down, either. If it feels like Oblivion, it doesn't feel like Fallout, for the reasons I've already mentioned. Fallout offers lots of freedom... layers of it. Oblivion's 'freedom' is more like a house of mirrors. It doesn't matter if I'm in a retrofuturistic, bombed-out, mutant-infested city... if I have to play it THEIR way... I can't imagine it will feel like Fallout.

EDITED for spelling and grammar.

From what I know about Fallout 1 & 2 story compared to what I know about the Fallout 3 story, Fallout 3 actually seems like it should be renamed Death Lands or Outlanders (http://www.jamesaxler.com/), because that is what it reminds me of, not the games' stories I have played previously.

But will I dislike Fallout 3? I don't know, I haven't played it yet. *shrug*

CanadianWolverine:
From what I know about Fallout 1 & 2 story compared to what I know about the Fallout 3 story, Fallout 3 actually seems like it should be renamed Death Lands or Outlanders (http://www.jamesaxler.com/), because that is what it reminds me of, not the games' stories I have played previously.

But will I dislike Fallout 3? I don't know, I haven't played it yet. *shrug*

If you like Oblivion, at this point it's safe to say you'll probably like Fallout.

ComradeJim270:

Fallout might work in Windows 95 compatibility mode, but I'm not sure, you may need some kind of emulation. Fallout 2 should work fine in XP, but I don't know about Vista.

As for graphics, the old-school feel of Fallout is a good thing in my book. I love it. The games already felt a bit dated when they were released... that was deliberate. Also... oh, you said no flaming... uh... yeah, it's a turn-based, isometric RPG. Graphics shouldn't matter all that much for a game like that. If you're REALLY that much of a sucker for graphics, you might ask the folks on NMA, if you can stomach them. RPGcodex might know, too, but they may be even worse (except that they have a better sense of humor).

EDIT: Be sure to patch Fallout 2, it's got bigger bugs than the Amazon rainforest.

The version of fallout that comes with the collection has been adapted for windows and runs fine on my computer. It does occasionally black the screen out, but 'wiping' the screen with your mouse sorts that out fine. And I'm normally not that much a sucker for graphics, I play megadrive and snes games all the time, but Fallout is just butt-ugly. I think it must have been butt-ugly when it came out too.

I've played the game a bit more and am really starting to get into it, but it's still hideous.

Strafe Mcgee:

ComradeJim270:

Fallout might work in Windows 95 compatibility mode, but I'm not sure, you may need some kind of emulation. Fallout 2 should work fine in XP, but I don't know about Vista.

As for graphics, the old-school feel of Fallout is a good thing in my book. I love it. The games already felt a bit dated when they were released... that was deliberate. Also... oh, you said no flaming... uh... yeah, it's a turn-based, isometric RPG. Graphics shouldn't matter all that much for a game like that. If you're REALLY that much of a sucker for graphics, you might ask the folks on NMA, if you can stomach them. RPGcodex might know, too, but they may be even worse (except that they have a better sense of humor).

EDIT: Be sure to patch Fallout 2, it's got bigger bugs than the Amazon rainforest.

The version of fallout that comes with the collection has been adapted for windows and runs fine on my computer. It does occasionally black the screen out, but 'wiping' the screen with your mouse sorts that out fine. And I'm normally not that much a sucker for graphics, I play megadrive and snes games all the time, but Fallout is just butt-ugly. I think it must have been butt-ugly when it came out too.

I've played the game a bit more and am really starting to get into it, but it's still hideous.

I've never once found myself thinking that, and just can't wrap my mind around the idea that Fallout is 'ugly'. Whatever. Glad to hear you're enjoying it, though, it's loved for a reason.

I'm a huge Fallout fan, and I have plenty of reservations about Fallout 3, but the things people complain about it on the NMA forums (or the RPG Codex *shudder*) make me cringe. When the first screenshots were released the most common complaints went like this:

"OMG the vault suit isn't SKINTIGHT!!!!!!111 this wile be teh worst game evarzzz!!!!"

Seriously. Most of their other complaints amount to similar nitpicks.

Grampy_bone:
I'm a huge Fallout fan, and I have plenty of reservations about Fallout 3, but the things people complain about it on the NMA forums (or the RPG Codex *shudder*) make me cringe. When the first screenshots were released the most common complaints went like this:

"OMG the vault suit isn't SKINTIGHT!!!!!!111 this wile be teh worst game evarzzz!!!!"

Seriously. Most of their other complaints amount to similar nitpicks.

I know... while the RPG Codex guys are at least funny sometimes... all of those people are hurting their own cause with their crap, making all Fallout fans seem like nutjobs.

EDIT: You should get a Sulik avatar.

I know... while the RPG Codex guys are at least funny sometimes... all of those people are hurting their own cause with their crap, making all Fallout fans seem like nutjobs.

This is my problem, ComradeJim270. I have no problem with people and their own reservations about the game. My problem begins when people start screaming about how they'll never ever ever like the game for whatever spurious reason they've come up with, spurious because it always speaks to a deviation in the design from the late 90's classics.

Those games are essential for anyone with a love of post-apocalyptic settings and story-driven RPGs. And now, almost a decade later, and with a new game on the way, they've decided to completely, blindly even, hate away at it for ad hominem reasons that seem nothing more than a cry for attention, saying, "We played the original game. These things are no longer in it. It's going to be terrible, no doubt!"

It just reads as silly to me. But then I realize that my concern is simply for the continuation of the story-based format for Fallout (as opposed to the tactical games). And Bethesda will do that, ad ad ad nauseum nauseum nauseum. And I couldn't be more thankful for that.

krysalist:

I know... while the RPG Codex guys are at least funny sometimes... all of those people are hurting their own cause with their crap, making all Fallout fans seem like nutjobs.

This is my problem, ComradeJim270. I have no problem with people and their own reservations about the game. My problem begins when people start screaming about how they'll never ever ever like the game for whatever spurious reason they've come up with, spurious because it always speaks to a deviation in the design from the late 90's classics.

Those games are essential for anyone with a love of post-apocalyptic settings and story-driven RPGs. And now, almost a decade later, and with a new game on the way, they've decided to completely, blindly even, hate away at it for ad hominem reasons that seem nothing more than a cry for attention, saying, "We played the original game. These things are no longer in it. It's going to be terrible, no doubt!"

It just reads as silly to me. But then I realize that my concern is simply for the continuation of the story-based format for Fallout (as opposed to the tactical games). And Bethesda will do that, ad ad ad nauseum nauseum nauseum. And I couldn't be more thankful for that.

Understood... but what do you mean by 'story-based format'?

We all know this game is probably not going to be similar in game play to the original series because of the style of games bethesda makes (obviously,) and because they announced it as a shooter-RPG. but why be mad? I applaud Bethesda for reviving the old series. Bethesda deserves our admiration, not our hate. They may make a fugly games that is truely a piece of rubbish, but even so if that happens they deserve our respect for deciding to go out there and revive the greatest series in many of our eyes. and also, I reccomend playing STALKER if you would like a glimpse of a possible outcome for game design.

Portoparty:
We all know this game is probably not going to be similar in game play to the original series because of the style of games bethesda makes (obviously,) and because they announced it as a shooter-RPG. but why be mad? I applaud Bethesda for reviving the old series. Bethesda deserves our admiration, not our hate. They may make a fugly games that is truely a piece of rubbish, but even so if that happens they deserve our respect for deciding to go out there and revive the greatest series in many of our eyes. and also, I reccomend playing STALKER if you would like a glimpse of a possible outcome for game design.

Let me put it this way... do you think Dr. Frankenstein would get the hatred or the applause of the family of the dead man he reanimated? Hm, I don't think they'd ever know, but that's beside the point.

I LOVE STALKER, but it's not what Fallout 3 should be. To be honest, I would be much less upset if they called it something else. "Fallout: DC" or something... but they won't make something worthy of "Fallout 3", and I don't think they even can.

ComradeJim270:

I LOVE STALKER, but it's not what Fallout 3 should be. To be honest, I would be much less upset if they called it something else. "Fallout: DC" or something... but they won't make something worthy of "Fallout 3", and I don't think they even can.

You wouldn't mind it as Fallout:DC but a 3 instead makes it a totally different bag? How exactly?

krysalist:
But I still couldn't become a mutant.

Yes, you could. You could side with the mutants in Fallout 1 and they would drop you into a vat of FEV and you would then go and kill the overseer of Vault 13.

As for the rest: Bethesda's most recent game was Oblivion, which had very little dialogue, about 5 voice actors and only 1 path through the game (Go here kill this). Their 2nd most recent game, Morrowind, had alot of dialogue but still only 1 path through the game (Go here kill this).

The beauty of Fallout was that you could be a pacifist throughout the entire game, never needing to kill anyone. You could kill everyone in the game though, which sometimes resulted in perks (Go wipe out Vault City sometime).

The Brotherhood of Steel was on the verge of extinction after their war with the Enclave, they may have recovered but due to their isolationist attitude, probably didnt.

The start of the game sounds like the start of F1 and F2 (Thrown out of the vault to go do something).

Overall, the beauty of Fallout was that you could do things in a variety of ways (Diplomatic, stealth, Rambo). Bethesda hasn't been able to do anything like that.

My problem with Bethesda doing something like Fallout is that it is totally not their style of game. They like to create vast, pretty worlds where you can be a green lizard doing some thing or another and suddenly the urge comes upon you to become a theif and steal the elder scroll from the 3 incompetent guards charged with protecting the most important thing in the universe. Everything is possible with only one character. Strange as it may sound, but there are not enough limitations in their games. Then again (SPOILER), when the dark brotherhood decided to kill my good informer friend late in the quest series, I wanted to slaughter all their asses on the spot. But nooooo, the just go unconcious after recieveing several arrows to the face, getting up moments later with amnesia of how this giant wooden intrusion came to be. This kind of thing had better not become a habit of Bethesda's.

In fallout you could have killed those self righteous, conclusion jumping bastards.

Gormless:

ComradeJim270:

I LOVE STALKER, but it's not what Fallout 3 should be. To be honest, I would be much less upset if they called it something else. "Fallout: DC" or something... but they won't make something worthy of "Fallout 3", and I don't think they even can.

You wouldn't mind it as Fallout:DC but a 3 instead makes it a totally different bag? How exactly?

I would still mind, but not as mach. Part of the reason is that "Fallout 3" means they are actually trying to make a game like Fallout 2, and like Fallout. If they called it something else, well... we've had shitty games with Fallout in the title before, that's nothing new.

Anniko:

krysalist:
But I still couldn't become a mutant.

Yes, you could. You could side with the mutants in Fallout 1 and they would drop you into a vat of FEV and you would then go and kill the overseer of Vault 13.

As for the rest: Bethesda's most recent game was Oblivion, which had very little dialogue, about 5 voice actors and only 1 path through the game (Go here kill this). Their 2nd most recent game, Morrowind, had alot of dialogue but still only 1 path through the game (Go here kill this).

The beauty of Fallout was that you could be a pacifist throughout the entire game, never needing to kill anyone. You could kill everyone in the game though, which sometimes resulted in perks (Go wipe out Vault City sometime).

The Brotherhood of Steel was on the verge of extinction after their war with the Enclave, they may have recovered but due to their isolationist attitude, probably didnt.

The start of the game sounds like the start of F1 and F2 (Thrown out of the vault to go do something).

Overall, the beauty of Fallout was that you could do things in a variety of ways (Diplomatic, stealth, Rambo). Bethesda hasn't been able to do anything like that.

You couldn't kill the Overseer except at the end. Ever tried it? It's funny. "You were critically hit for 6027 damage."

L.B. Jeffries:

end_boss:
I will say that my reservations about Fallout 3 stem from nothing more than personal taste. I am a big fan of the Fallout games, but just can't find myself able to really get into a first-person RPG. I've tried Vampire: The Masquerade, I've tried Morrowind, Ultima Underwold, World of Xeen, and none of them really captured me beyond the first day of playing. I could write an essay on each of those games for their applaudable merits and why I respect games like those, but I personally can't derive as much enjoyment from first-person RPGs as I can with a good ol' point-and-click.

Cuz in order to enjoy to really role play in a game it helps if you're looking at your character like a puppet rather than "playing" the character from a first person perspective?

Just guessing.

It's possible, but in theory, logic would predict that roleplaying should be a lot more immersive by taking on a first-person perspective so that you actually see through the eyes of your character, but for some reason, it takes out the fun for me. I think mainly because it reduces combat to action-based, and because I have no sense of direction, meaning that I often get hopelessly lost unless I'm looking down and just pointing to where I want to go. If Fallout 3 had been made with a similar engine to Neverwinter Nights or Baldur's Gate, I'd be tickled pink. I don't specifically need turn-based action, but something about turn-based RPGs just don't do it for me. Maybe it'll be different with Fallout, since I do enjoy first-person perspective for shooting games, and I liked Bioshock from what little I got to play of it, but once you throw in a full-fledged RPG into the formula, we'll see how things play out. It could go either way, as I see it. I admit that I was one of those people who were initially outraged by Metroid Prime's jump from 2D side-scroller to FPS, and although I still do prefer a good 2D side-scroller, Metroid Prime has certainly taught us that a game and premise can still lend itself well to different engines.

end_boss:
I admit that I was one of those people who were initially outraged by Metroid Prime's jump from 2D side-scroller to FPS, and although I still do prefer a good 2D side-scroller, Metroid Prime has certainly taught us that a game and premise can still lend itself well to different engines.

Damn, I was about to point out Metriod Prime.
I think I need wired reflexes or something to beat some of you buggers to a point.

I, for one, am glad that Interplay didn't make the third fallout. Why? Because they didn't innovate. Fallout 1 and 2 had almost excactly the same engine and from what I have seen the other fallout spin-offs had it to. Van Buren, the codename for fallout 3 (it was in the making) weren't supposed to innovate anything either. Bethesda will at least make a new engine, and will try giving it a new spin. What I have seen looks good.

And who knows, maybe they even balance that ridiculously imbalanced SPECIAL system. I mean, it was an original - and good - idea but there was only about three skills that were worth having, plenty of skills that were practically useless, and any character with less than 7 agi sucked (agility was action points). This is the hallmark of bad game design, and I was sincerely disappointed when I saw that they had done nothing to fix this in fallout 2. Fallout 3 may be bad but Interplay had for some time suffered from severe creativity shortage so I don't think Bethesda would make this game any worse than it woulda been.

Stunningly, I like both the Fallout Franchise and Morrowind.
Oblivion? Not so much. And this is going to be for one extremely simple reason...
If I cannot make a character that is less than twice my own age, the game is no fun.

Seriously. Everyone who has oblivion, boot it up now. Okay, now...Make a character.
Now make that character look less than 50 fucking years old. I dare you, I double-dare you and I swear to god you will not succeed because it is FUCKING. IMPOSSIBLE.

And frankly, in Fallout, I don't wanna play a 40 year old guy who goes looking for my 80 year old dad. I really don't. I'd prefer to be 20 and go looking for my 40-ish dad.
There. That's the entire reason I feel a bit worried. Right there.

This thread is beyond hilarious to me.

Wow, you care about how a character you'll look at a total of 10 times looks?

Anyway, as someone who dabbled in Fallout and liked Bloodlines and Torment a lot more, liked both Morrowind and Oblivion, and has actually seen Fallout 3 in person, it looks pretty cool. However, I do agree the build I saw didn't quite get its arms around the Fallout vibe, but since that's mostly a content issue (I've never really associated gameplay with what made me like an RPG) and they were more than a year out of release, they've had plenty of time to perfect that. At the time, though, I thought BioShock was more in line with the old Fallout games.

Onto the Oblivion hate, I'm not sure I get it. But then again, I took one look at the story quest and said the same thing I said about Morrowind's story quest: "Not gonna do it." Then I ran around, became an assassin, a master thief and explored some pretty cool dungeons in the process. It wasn't a rousing, epic storytelling experience, but it was an engaging way to kill an hour or three. I will say I'd have enjoyed Morrowind in Oblivion's engine quite a bit more, but nothing in Oblivion made me think Bethesda would screw up Fallout.

But I also have it on good authority that the same person can make two games that are different from each other.

The thing that really interests me is the perceived emotional investment in the fallout franchise. I understand that people want to play a good game that fits in with a fictional universe they enjoy to dabble in, but I also don't see how a poorly thought out and developed sequel detracts from previous enjoyment of games nor do I think people should obligate themselves to playing such a sequel simply because it is named fallout 3.

It seems to me that way too many of these people are blindly going to buy fallout 3 AND complain about it because it isnt going to be like previous iterations. You're not under any obligation to buy the game and it isnt going to ruin fallout for you is it?

Anyway, I really enjoyed Bioshock and if it is similar to that in some ways then i'm ready!

krysalist:

As far as I've seen, Bethesda seem to be getting the setting and feeling of the Fallout games, and that, to me, IS Fallout. Not the combat. Not the viewpoint.

I'm in your camp, sir.

I'd have to agree too, Fallout one and two are some of the best games i have had the pleasure to play but I also enjoyed Oblivion, while it did not exactly set my world alight it was a amusing distraction for (more than) a few hours. I will save all judgement for Fallout 3 until i've had a chance to play it myself...then again I'm an ex wow addict so what do I know? ;)

This thread is beyond hilarious to me.

YOU'RE beyond hilarious : P

I find the elitist gaming phenomenon so odd -- since when does consumption of a particular entertainment product make you better than other people who consume different products? What is the philosophical basis for that?

It's that some products take more effort to consume, similarly to how it's harder to learn a foreign language than to read another comic book. The concept of "better" is at stake here! Where do we draw the line? Is a guy who spends all his time eating chips and playing Halo 3 just as good as someone who is studying to become a doctor and reads the heavy classics in his free time? ^^

The word "better", like the word "evil" doesn't quite belong in reality, because it's so relative. Better can only be used in context, because the Halo player would undoubtedly whoop the students ass in Halo : P

Personally I prefer something that challenges my analytical capabilities. Bring on the symbolism, the double standards and the high-class writing! Fallout was an annoying game, because regardless if you were Achillles or just a fragment of skin peeled from his heel it took forever to get anywhere? Oh, a room filled to the rim with rats, great... ~~

While I agree that any concept needs modernizing sometimes I don't understand why people in general seem to think that real-time = improvement. It's not that I mind really, but I quite liked some of the turn-based battles in Fallout, because with some sneaky moves and AI-abuse you could win battles against huge odds. I don't think that will be as possible in real-time.
This, however, isn't really what I'm afraid Bethesda will cock up. Battle has always been okay in their games. These are the two things I fear:

1. Console Retardedness: From the glorious master race character creation system in Daggerfall we're now left with so little in Oblivion that you might as well roll a random character. Who knew an Axe was blunt for example? Since this is already coming to consoles it means that things will be dumbed down; perhaps even more than in Oblivion, who knows?

2. Script Retardedness: I'm not sure how many chimps with typewriters Bethesda has in their basement, but it's clearly not enough. Unless they've hired someone new to do the writing for Fallout we're in for a painful ride past a collection of Captain Blands, Evil-Because... Villans and other limp-armed, language-and-act censored creatures of the deserts. This is all neatly delivered by half-decent actors with no sense of what situation the line is spoken in and even when lines are traded between two NPC-characters they are still record separately to ensure that you get no immersion whatsoever. I doubt there will be any body-language, because as we all know it's 60% of the impression. What if it actually feels like an actual conversation? The horror! (or if there is body language it will be limited to say 5 different movements, none of them anything a human would ever do, making any conversation a puppet theater more than anything else).

How come they cannot just adapt a similar set of "gameworld rules" from the original fallout games into this new one?

Surely the original fallout games had some underlying structure, independant to the 3rd person interface, that gave the original games their heart and soul so to speak.
Can't they apply those mechanics to the new game and still be able to place the player behind the eyes of the ingame character?

Although I will admit, games these days from an isometric 3rd person perspective do seem to lack the fluidity of blending the visuals between environments and action/effects. It really would be a triumph to see a company truly pull this off with the visual power of todays graphic technology.

Fallout 2 seemed as though every visual was on the same level of detail. Many of todays 3rd person isometric games seem to have incredibly sharp effects over a much less detailed environment, or certain parts of the environment (ie interactive segments) much more stunning than the overall average terrain.

Perhaps this is all still a technology limitation in hardware capability and/or software development. But I still think that a game that runs in real time but looks like the old computer generated low-res cut-scenes is possible. Everyone seems to be rushing towards higher definition these days, which always means certain parts of the game need to be of lower detail to allow for smooth framerates.

I personally wouldnt mind playing in lower resolutions if it meant the gameplay looks pre-rendered, but is actually running real-time. I think that would rock. Perhaps that is just me....

No doubt I've veered well off topic......but I still have a low-res, high-detail dream.....

ReepNeep:

ilves7:
I've never played the originals, but from everything I've heard, I'd like to give them a shot before fallout 3 comes out (which i'm planning on getting). Are they available anywhere for download?

I don't think they are available for sale anymore, either physically or digitally.

A torrent is acceptable in this case.

If you find them, be aware that high cpu speeds screw up portions of the game so its best to use an old computer if you have one (P2/P3/early P4 should be fine).

Yes they are, you can look it up on ebay. There's a the Fallout Collection that has 1, 2 and Tactics (NOT FBOS) published by White Label.