minngarm Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 Why bother? All the Fallout 3 fanboys would hate it anyways. "hurr wuts dis? water chip ansd enclave dis is just ripping off fo3" Well this is just ignorant of you. Dont generalize it just ends up making you look like an ass. I started on FO3, love it more than the others yes, but I still went back and played FO1 and 2 and enjoyed them. Feel foolish yet? Dont bother, just come to accept that its all Fallout and everyone has their own personal favorites. You should politely encourage others to try the ones you like rather than insult what they like instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopher Posted October 11, 2011 Author Share Posted October 11, 2011 Why bother? All the Fallout 3 fanboys would hate it anyways. "hurr wuts dis? water chip ansd enclave dis is just ripping off fo3" I am a 'Fallout 3 Fanboi', and yet I am the one suggesting it. There seems to be something wrong with your theory. Perhaps if you were to concentrate on trying to be less offensive you might avoid making a fool of yourself. Kill two birds with one stone so to speak. And yes, before you ask, I played Fallout 1 first, when it was first released, and so yes I have been a long time dedicated fan. And yes, I am a 'real' fan and the whole 'no true scotsman' fallacy thing wont work on me. Not all 'fans' enjoyed Fallout 1 for the same reasons as you, and so some will feel FO3 came closer to FO1 than FNV did. You are free to think the opposite, and that is perfectly normal because it just means you got different things out of the original game than did I. Now feel free to stay and chat about my idea, but do try to behave. We are having a grown up conversation about a game we all enjoy. We are not 'a feudin' over wether Spong Bob could take down Tinky Winky in a fair fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brraven Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I for one think it would be a very nice idea to see the start of the series updated to the FO3 engine.It would never 'replace' the original (and I think that FO2's Highwayman might be difficult to port), butit would be 'neat'. Of course, that begs the question, would we port Tactics? I know that the grand vizier's say it's non-cannon. But as someone who played a LOT of Tactics I say *thumbs nose at naysayers* PS: Bethesda owns the Fallout series, not Obsidian. So Bethesda would be making the profit :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minngarm Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Who says its none-cannon? Of those who actually develop the cannon that is. I thought from the backstory in FO3 it cemented it as cannon due to Lyon coming through with that group? Or is that incorrect? I havent played tactics yet only read about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) I would buy it. Some people who started with FO3 would not like FO1 or FO2 because they wouldn't find them serious enough imo. Edited October 13, 2011 by marharth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delikatessen Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 That would be the most awesome thing in the history of remakes. I don't think it wouldn't be entirely illegal to remake Fallout 1 and 2 for the New Vegas engine, as long as you used pre-existing or custom materials and uploaded it as a mod for New Vegas, thereby requiring you to have bought New Vegas to have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanlyKubrick Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I would buy it. Some people who started with FO3 would not like FO1 or FO2 because they wouldn't find them serious enough imo. I think you got that backwards, the first 2 games are way more serious then Fallout 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shantih Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) Fallout 2 contained many cultural references (Monty Python's, Blues Brothers, Elton John's Rocketman...) whereas Fallout 1 was serious albeit funny at times (but in a sensible way). There were parts in Fallout 3 that didn't really make sense (Colonel Autumn's miracle getaway for instance). It's not the case with the first Fallout games so you coul probably say that they were more "serious" in that respect. Edited October 13, 2011 by Shantih Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frakle Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) "hurr wuts dis? water chip ansd enclave dis is just ripping off fo3" http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/2110/226139-ironhide_facepalm.jpg Edited October 13, 2011 by frakle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huntsman2310 Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 I haven't played the first three games (Fallout, Fallout 2 and Fallout tactics) I have tried, I really have. But they end being just so....bland compared to Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas. Sure they have excellent voice acting and story, and it would be awesome to have them revived in GLORIOUS 3D. But I think the problems is they are just that now. Classics. Classics are only that because we remember them fondly, and the great times spent playing them. The problem is, when you play it again like 5 or 10 years later. It suddenly pales in comparison to later games. I'm not trying to say that FO, FO2 and FOT are long dead, its just that why play an Isometric game with fuzzy graphics when you can play a fully 3d game with the choice of turn based? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts