Forum:Remake in 3D fallout 1. i would buy it!

hello there i would like to put the idea out there that fallout 1 should be remade in the same 3D way as fallout 3 and new vegas :) plz tell me hat you think !
 * No, it shouldn't. Ausir(talk) 00:07, December 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Caugh* It wouldn't be bad, but Bethesda could be making other games that have new content that hasn't been explored in depth yet. *Caugh*

It probably would be bad. Issues like perspective and core gameplay mechanics aren't simply cosmetic. They can't be just exchanged without changing other things. For instance, dialogue meant to be read can be very different from dialogue meant to be spoken aloud. Simple reading the written stuff aloud wouldn't necessarily be an improvement or even good. In addition, maps would make no sense ripped from the 2d world and make into 3d. Level design would have to start pretty much from scratch. Also, core questions like loot placement and frequency would have to be rethought from the ground up. Also, everything having to do with how combat plays out is figured entirely differently for 2d and 3d. So, without level/map design, loot placement and combat mechanics - what's there really to remake? The best you could hope for is a new game that stays true to the spirit and the lore. And that's what New Vegas is for a lot of people.--Gothemasticator 00:45, December 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Quite honestly, it would not produce anywhere near the same effect that the old 2d Fallout engine does. In my opinion, 3d games don't immerse the player nearly as much as more text-based games do. Fallout 1 / 2 should stay right where they are. -- Ghouly89 (Talk) 03:21, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

What's up with the vast difference in opinion between this generation of gamers and the last? And for that matter, is every admin a "Fallout 1 and 2 are the best fallouts, and fallout 3 sucks ass,"? Just asking.67SunsetStrip 03:23, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * The admins are admins because they edit a lot and edit well, not because of what they like.
 * On topic, it wouldn't be possible to recreate F1 or especially F2 because of the huge distances between places. Nitty Tok. 03:25, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I wasn't saying this as an accusation or to veer from the topic, but I'm just stating it because it seems like an issue. A hell of a lot of the admins are Fallout 1/2ers, and it may mean that they are just more devoted to Fallout than Beths. so, yeah. 67SunsetStrip 03:27, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * There are various kinds of Fallout fans among Vault admins, from Fallout 1 and 2 fans to mostly Fallout 3 fans and even fans mostly of Fallout Tactics. Ausir(talk) 03:34, December 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, I merely said 2d / text-based games are more immersible than 3d games. I never implied that Fallout 3 "sucks ass". I would be a pretty big hypocrite if I did, considering I bought the GOTY edition, and logged more than 120 hours of gameplay for it. I just prefer the originals. And, to add one more thing, I am "this" generation of gamer, considering i first discovered video games in 2002. ;) -- Ghouly89 (Talk) 04:09, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * "3D" games can be just as immersive as text-based/2D games. Devs keep taking the wrong routes and try and impress people with pretty graphics.
 * @Nitpicker, actually, they could take Dragon Age's system of set open locations. The original Fallout 1/2 and DA's travel system are similar (but not quite the same). 05:44, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Those distances could be seperate maps like the DLCs connected to Fallout 3 and New Vegas or Dragon Age. Fallout 1 and 2 look interesting even if it is old. I honestly wouldn't mind playing through it as turnedbased, it's like those card games where you think up strategies to defeat your opponents. I'm just used to non-turnedbased for Fallout is all which is what I preffer. Though, I acknowledge people have different tastes. I feel movement, attack and defense is more realistic when it isn't turnbased. I enjoyed Dragon Age mainly because of how you can create your own character, graphics and level up; the storyline, the different paths, characters and tactical slots overpowered the restriction on movement for me. Demon's Soul, Kingdom Hearts, just to name a few good games. I'm not saying that the graphics need to be totally realistic or you're specifically talking to me, but they at least need to be presentable which I think Bethesda has done a good job of remodeling already. It'd take a lot of work and it's content that's already been explored so I still think it'd be a better use of resources for Bethesda to work on something else other than a remake of Fallout 1 or 2, assuming they'll be making it. Technically, I'm both an old and a modern day gamer, but I can't say I miss choppy movements, bad controls and bad graphics (unless it's essentially meant to be a cartoon) in some other games. OFF TOPIC: I still liked Resident Evil 2 better than Resident Evil 4 because of the general storyline and you actually had to conserve ammo and figure out puzzles, lock doors. Resident Evil 5 conserved what most fans of the old games wanted, puzzles to solve, zombies to kill, the original controls but drastically improved in terms of movement, but lacked a great storyline. <- Personal opinion, Enhergeiz.


 * Fallout 1,3 and New Vegas was the ones I've played. Of all Fallout 1 was by far most interesting because you were always timed in the first half of the game which was the most interesting part, finding these hopeless civilizations on the brink of death. Fallout 1 is like one of those very good classical movies, They should stay Black and White, not get remade into color. Fallout 3 had the best atmosphere for me, I liked the use of the gray, darkness and dull colors which gave it the apocalyptic feel. New Vegas didn't capture what Fallout 3 did. See Fallout New Vegas was really a remake of Fallout 3. Like what developers do when they remake old games into new games, And the remakes are bad. If Fallout 1 was remade, It'd just be awful like alot of these remade classic games.--Mastererium 08:41, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Mastererium, Fallout New Vegas is not a remake of Fallout 3. Where did you even get that idea? It was an original title. According to the description of Fallout New Vegas, FONV is set four years after the events of FO3. That in and of itself ACKNOWLEDGES Fallout 3. And I agree with Enhergeiz. Just because the Fallout 1 and 2 are huge doesn't mean that Bethesda couldn't find a way to make it work. Each area could have it's own map. With gaming technology the way it is today, it would be possible to remake FO1 and FO2.--Ryker6106:46, May 10, 2011 (UTC)~11:45pm 5/9/2011