So, we've seen the huge arguments about how Fallout 3 is basically Oblivion with Guns and how it R UBER SUXXOR STOOPED!!!

Or something like that. But everyone seems pissed that it's not an overhead RPG just like the other Fallout games. So I ask, why does the gameplay have to be so strict for any one series?

What would it be like if instead of having a Fallout game, there was the Fallout setting? For a better example, look at Halo. Why not have a bunch of Halo games, some of which are FPS, others are RTS, etc.?

What if instead of having Fallout 1+2 (RPG) and Fallout 3(FPSRPG) they had Fallout 1 (RPG), Fallout 2 (FPS), and Fallout 3 (FPS)?

Am I making sense at all?

The only people who are really angry at Fallout 3 are those who either didn't like Oblivion, or those who wouldn't enjoy Fallout 3 in the first place unless Black Isle was resurrected, sold back their rights to the series, and released Van Buren in completed form. Heck, most of the people complaining about it not being a "true" sequel wouldn't mind if they had simply decided to call it a spin-off title.

Still, gamers have a right to expect consistent gameplay, especially when it's the gameplay of a title that makes it strong. Renegade might have been a decent game, but it sure as hell shouldn't be considered a staple in the Command & Conquer series continuity. I know that same feeling of violation, too, every time I hear something new about Deus Ex 3. New ideas are good, but if you're going to make a sequel to something you'd better understand what made the original good in the first place.

I uhhhhh totally thought this would be something different when i clicked it. But still it's close.

Because allow me to remind you what medium we are talking about video games. Thats what we are here for the gameplay, when someone wants a fallout sequel they aren't asking for the setting there asking for the gameplay(or both.)
When someone asks for a new halo game, again there asking for a FPS.
Gameplay is what the medium is about, thus they are the obvious focus of a game. Here lemme use an example.

If a game had tetris 2 on it, and didn't involve falling blocks. And someone said "but it uses the tetris story and setting." how silly is that?

Oh my MS must be watching cuz a Halo RTS is in the works. If you didn't know what kind of gameplay style you are getting into and just bought it because it said Fallout 3 on the box well... A fool and his money are soon parted.

On that note why bother upgrading your PC or moving into the next gen of consoles if you can't stomach evolution?

squid5580:
Oh my MS must be watching cuz a Halo RTS is in the works. If you didn't know what kind of gameplay style you are getting into and just bought it because it said Fallout 3 on the box well... A fool and his money are soon parted.

On that note why bother upgrading your PC or moving into the next gen of consoles if you can't stomach evolution?

Since the next Age of Empires was going to take place in either modern times or the future, I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft simply decided to get Ensemble to turn that Age of Empires game into Halo Wars (much to the disappointment of the rest of their fans). They're desperate to keep the brand going because they know they need strong exclusives if they want to stay ahead of Sony.

Why does the last sentence sound like a bad thing? All three need the exclusives to keep ahead of the others. Halo sells, R & C sells, Mario sells. I wouldn't be surprised to see a Resistance RTS in the near future.

This wouldn't work for games like Tetris, but it would for games that have a large setting.

What I'm suggesting is that you imagine that in an alternate universe, people make a setting first, then they make different games for it, all of which have different gameplay elements, unless they are meant to be a continuous story arc. The example with Fallout 1,2, and 3 above is somewhat confusing and not a very good example, but Fallout is what made me ask this question.

So someone would craft a sprawling setting, then they might have one game that follows the story of Joe-Bob in Wherever-town, which is being invaded by the Thingies, and it's a linear FPS filled with explosions and awesome, but another game might be on the other edge of the map, where a war rages, and that game would be an RTS with... RTS stuff. Or perhaps there's another place, where the government is filled with corruption, and there would be a open-ended RPG rife conspiracy and intrigue. Or maybe the different games could be in the same place, but at a different time.

Would this be better than our current system, in which one setting usually only has one gameplay type, or would it be worse somehow?

Personally, I think this would be much better than how it is now.

It's the same thing that happens every time someone tries to update an old series to make it more appealing to the modern market: the old fans get angry because it's not the exact same thing they're used to (how is that a bad thing), so they start throwing a tantrum.

vdgmprgrmr:
What I'm suggesting is that you imagine that in an alternate universe, people make a setting first, then they make different games for it, all of which have different gameplay elements, unless they are meant to be a continuous story arc. The example with Fallout 1,2, and 3 above is somewhat confusing and not a very good example, but Fallout is what made me ask this question.

So someone would craft a sprawling setting, then they might have one game that follows the story of Joe-Bob in Wherever-town, which is being invaded by the Thingies, and it's a linear FPS filled with explosions and awesome, but another game might be on the other edge of the map, where a war rages, and that game would be an RTS with... RTS stuff. Or perhaps there's another place, where the government is filled with corruption, and there would be a open-ended RPG rife conspiracy and intrigue. Or maybe the different games could be in the same place, but at a different time.

Look at the games set in the Forgotten Realms setting: you have the original Baldur's gate, a strategy RPG; Baldur's Gate: Dark Aliiance, a dungeon crawler; and obviously you have the original tabletop RPG.

Because what made fallout great wasn't the setting (OMFG post apocalyptic how fucking original) it was the damn awesome game play, so using pure logic, if the sequels don't have that damn awesome game play they're not sequels. simple enough? and for the record I like fallout 3.

There are already some game settings that overlap into different genres so it is not like this hasn't been done before. Some high profile games that have done it are the Warcraft universe and of course Halo when they release the RTS version of it.

As for fallout 3 which I have yet to play, As long as they got the feel of Fallout in the game and it has character(something which I felt oblivion lacked) I will more then likely enjoy it alot. A free roaming post apocalyptic shooter is appealing to me even though I enjoyed fallout 1-2 in their top down rpg format.

So change of genre for a creative property is fine as long as they don't change it mid story should the game be a series. Wouldn't be particularly cool if for example say Halo 1 was the fps but then Halo 2 became a turn based stratergy and halo 3 a hack and slash rpg with the same over arcing story it has now. As spin offs with different stories I agree it is completely viable and like I pointed out has been done before.