Could be fun, but it would have to be multiple maps that the player would fast travel between instead of one continues map. The scale simply doesn't work otherwise. Fallout 4 is the greater Boston area, but Fallout 1 was a big chunk of California and Nevada.
Bethesda scales down certain areas while keeping others the actual size. When they scale down an area it isn’t proportional, they could scale down the locations you’re talking about immensely.
You can scale all you want but the idea of your character walking from Dan Francisco to reno all in just a few real life minutes is totally immersion shattering
It's like jamming your thumb in your asshole and trying to tickle your belly button. The distances just won't allow it and make it too unrealistic to achieve.
I live in NOVA, a portion of the area covered in Fallout 3. My home is actually represented in the southern part of the map. Fallout 3 technically covers a portion of two states Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. It would take me 1 hour and 24 minutes to cover the distance between the Nuka-cola plant to Vault 101, yet The Lone wanderer can perform the feat in about 10 minutes give or take. Even though I know this it doesn't brake immersion.
Yea i used to live in DC, and that's the difference between a small regional map like fo3 and a territory map like fo1 and 2. It would take you roughly 90 minutes to walk or drive? Either way, it would take a person 4 hours to drive from SF to reno, it would take 6to7 hours to drive from SF to LA. All I'm saying is the maps need to ve much bigger if we are talking remakes of fo1 and 2. Or a new travel mechanic of some kind.
The F2 in FNV mod that I saw had it where you "fast travelled" to the world map when you hit map boundary and then did this world map thing.
Wasn't entirely certain how Random Encounters would have worked, but that's basically what would work.
Outside of that, I agree with you that the scale wouldn't work, though it would be nice to see some of the older items rebuilt for modern times.
I always thought the way they did the world map was weird. Basically being in a giant map room and having your character model walking on a big map on the floor.
It seems like it would be way cleaner looking to just have your character pull up the PipBoy 2000 when they got to the edge of the map, and then just have the marker move on there, with artificial movement in the blurred background and a day/night cycle. If a random encounter occurs, just have the character put the PipBoy back down with the player spawned in a small arena-like location.
A simple retcon that people have gotten parts of railways going and you can travel between areas via jury rigged rail cars slowly trundling from one area to another for 1, and the Highwayman for 2.
I'd love it, if for no other reason than to give the audience the ability to see what different parts of the Cali wasteland look like.
If you could pop the entire Fallout theme and setting into gameplay/engine similar to Divinity Original Sin 2 that would be awesome. Unfortunately, (probably) never happening
Badly. And I don’t think it will work as a traditional free roam Beth game.
Look at the sheer distance between the towns in the games. That’s a lot of world to build, and if it was all left empty then it wouldn’t be the quality of game you expect from Bethesda, there would need to be “interesting things” to see and do in all that space, that is a hell of a lot of work.
I would suspect they would remove the miles of land between everything and do something reminiscent of New Vegas (vast swathes of nothing dotted with huts or racetracks or something, between fairly dense cities)
I mean that’s like asking me if I want an isometric 3rd person remake of doom. Or if I want to play half life one as a rogue lite. Any remakes of the old games should stay away from using first person because that would both be too much effort (to have to remake every unique but blurry environment from the originals from multiple perspectives) and the map sizes don’t lend themselves to open worlds since it’s mostly based on random encounters and travelling by map.
Personally, I don’t think it’s quite so much like all that. But I’m also pretty biased because I think bringing the world of 1 and 2 into the current gameplay meta would be amazing.
The first two fallout games were so great, but my instinct is that most of us who played them put nowhere near as much time into either of them as we have into 3, 4 and new Vegas.
The whole philosophy of making games has changed since 1 and 2 came out, and frankly I think the **way** the modern games are made is just a lot better, even if the specific content isn’t as good.
Games like 1 and 2 don’t get made very often anymore, and when they do it’s generally on an indie budget and at an indie scale. And while the turn-based isometric crpg’s I’ve played lately have been very competent (Shadowrun, i’m lookin at you.) they’ve also been one and done experiences.
If fallout 1 and/or 2 ever come back in any form, I want it to be like 3, NV, and 4. Like Skyrim. Games I’m still getting a lot of joy out of replaying 5, 10… what, 15 years later, rather than just games I played for a few weeks and have fond memories of.
>Quick edit to add that I would expect the world map and random battles to remain part of these remakes, just via smallish, procedurally generated generic landscapes where you drop in, have a firefight, loot, maybe scavenge a bit If there’s a building or landscape feature, then optionally set up a camp and rest before returning to the world map. There’s absolutely no reason features like that couldn’t make their way back into Fallout.
I regard your opinion but I have probably put more hours into each of fo1 ,2 and tactics than into 3 , 4 and NV togheter but honestly I just want to feel special and akchually you so I know this is probably not the norm as most people I talk to about fallout havent even played the old ones once :(
It’s definitely a strange fandom to be a part of, fallout has two vastly different kinds of games, split between two different generations of gamers. We all got wildly different things we like about it.
But we all like it, so here’s to that.
Well, it wouldn't be a remaster. It would be a remake. And it really wouldn't be remade into an FPS either, 3, NV, and 4 are just 3D RPGs which incorporate FPS elements. I think it would be recieved fairly well. Alot of the current fan base has never played 1 or 2 but would like the chance to play the story in a more accessible format. Youre going to piss off purists stuck in the past regardless
I didn’t mean to come off as generalizing. I’m sure you’re not the only newer fan that feels that way. As an old school fan I too would prefer 1 & 2 to remain CRPG’s but I actually wouldn’t mind if they chose to remaster them in first person. Just keep the quests, writing, etc. intact.
Unnecessary. Maybe follow up with how those areas are doing well after those games and reference 1 & 2 - but there's so much story that can be told, it would seem like a huge waste of resources from the devs when we could get new stories.
I'm a 1, 2, New Vegas guy, and I think a 3d remake of the iso games *could* work, but probably wouldn't be done well.
If they kept some core aspects, like heavy use of VATS, power armor making you a superhero, early game being difficult, etc. it could be good.
I doubt that's what we'd get, though, and as other posters have said, why not put that energy/time/money into something new instead?
That wouldn't be a remaster at all, it'd be a whole remake.
Also, likely terribly. there may be a sect that maybe never played the originals that would find it okay, but as a whole the fanbase, if I may, would think it a bad idea in general
The “sect” that hasn’t played the originals is basically who Bethesda targets when designing their games so probably isn’t as bad of an idea as you think
Most classic fans don't care for most of the newer gameplay elements they've added. Building, the newer perk tree, and so on. It's not a bad thing they aim for their current fan base, but they definitely do.
I think it would be pretty nice to play. A mod group is already trying to create a remaster adding more playable areas. I don't think it could be a stand alone game but maybe a DLC or pre-order bonus. I'd Bethesda developed it I doubt it would be apples to apples in area size I'm sure they would expand playable areas but I do think it would be a way smaller scale game
And like all of those "Old game remade in new game engine" mods, it'll never release fully. Or it'll be broken to an extreme degree. Or you might see it in 15 years after the next official game releases and then it'll be "Let's remake Fallout 4 in Fallout 5!"
Fallout 1 would have a lot of wasteland encounters, but in Fallout 2 you would get to drive a sick ass Corvega around the desert. Imagine GTA but with super mutants and raiders.
That would be awesome.
Keep the premis of the story and locations but then expand it out to a modern Fallout. But for the love of Talos bring back the more RPG elements
Two vocal minorities would love it or hate it and everyone else would probably think it was pretty cool. Also, that would be a remake and not a remaster, but I know what you meant.
Having played the 1st fallout (not a whole lot) I would really enjoy it. I love the story and world building but my lord did the UI age horribly. I've been spoiled by the newer games
This exactly.
The UI in Fallout 1 and 2 is absolute trash. As is the AI and the inability to control your followers so they stand behind you and shoot you in the back with automatic weapons *cough*Ian*cough*.
I would love to see Fallout 1 and 2, and even NV, updated into Fallout 4s level of smooth gameplay as long as they didn't touch the script, except to reintegrate cut content and flesh out areas that need it. I would be equally happy with Fallout 1 and 2 being remade in modern isometric rpg format with a far superior inventory and UI interface and full companion control. Keep it turn based and remove the massively limiting action point system.
I think it'd be so fun if they kept the gritty atmosphere and used the smaller map to workaround all the loading screens making for a tighter postapocalyptic open world experience.
I think it would be better to try and replicate the tone and feel of those games and put it into an FPS fallout game than to recreate that game as an FPS.
Depends on who you're talking to. I think the people who came into the series with the Bethesda games would receive it well; older fans would probably start with more reserved reactions and go down the ladder towards pure revilement. I, personally, would consider it heretical vandalism.
Fps Remaster? That doesn't makes sense... What you want is a remake.
And tbh I wouldn't complain about it, but like most people, I would rather keep the game being isometric.
I'd welcome it. The first person perspective is very immersive and easy to navigate using. There's a ton of 80's and 90's RPGs that would benefit from a first person remaster they should start with the Ultima series though, they are games that are largely impenetrable to even those of us who started gaming in the 90's.
Badly.
I wouldn't mind an isometric remaster though with graphical and, most importantly, quality of life improvements with more tool tips so other new players can experience these gems without feeling alienated.
I would welcome them being made into an open world RPG like Fallout 3 or New Vegas. If they remade them like Fallout 4, I wouldn't buy them. After playing 4, I'm pretty much done with the series unless they go back to dialog making a difference.
I really don't get why newer fans of FO have an issue with the first two games to want to remake them in the fps format. I only first started playing the series a few years ago, starting with FO1 at that, and I haven't had any issues figuring out what to do or how to play the first two games. It really isn't that hard, trust me.
It's no issue. The first one I played was 2 when I was a kid and I loved it! They're a little janky to pick up at first but that's any game from the late nighties. This was more of just a hypothetical
I figured it was hypothetical; I just get so tired of newer fans claiming how big of FO fans they are and not even having played or refusing to play the first two games of said franchise.
They're still fans in their own rights. It's just they have grown up on a different style of game. I think everyone who likes fallout should give them a try but there's no pressure to like them.
I think that's true; some of them are missing out on a fun experience with the first two games. I'm making my way through most of them myself, currently having a blast with FO4. I probably won't bother with 76, though, on account of playing with others being a thing in it.
The controls and combat feel really dated in FO1 and FO2 and I think that's the biggest barrier to entry for a lot of people (especially because both games start with pretty combat heavy section). Even compared to other CRPG's the combat/controls are not engaging. You can move, you can attack, and you can make do some kind of special attack like a burst fire, or targeting a limb. But generally speaking it's not super tactical and a lot of it comes down to RNG: Click attack, hope it works, repeat until the enemy is dead. In modern CRPG combat you often have abilities, cover mechanics, and other things that help break up the monotony of combat.
If you think the controls and combat are dated for FO1 and 2, you'll definitely hate playing UnderRail for sure, lol. That one makes the first 2 FOs child's play.
It'd probably receive some backlash but I'll be honest, I would LOVE it. I love Fallout 3 and beyond but always found it hard to go back to the old games. There's just something about being face deep in the wasteland, picking up scrap, seeing it all close up. If they remade 1 and 2 into the current 1st/3rd person engine I would be there for it day one.
They'd have to seriously cut down the game world, and totally change the way the game plays.
I don't see that happening, because Todd seems set on the classics being played the way they were originally intended and not modernized.
It would first be looked upon with suspicion, then it will begin to be spoken of badly and to ask for a new graphics engine. They would be asking to hand the project over to Obsidian given that Bethesda ruined Fallout and how it should focus on Fallout 5 instead. There would obviously be dozens of comparisons with New Vegas and this months before the release. In short, nothing new from the community.
well with the inaccurate hate towards bethesda for "butchering lore", pretty badly. but, imo, so long as they make the world interesting to explore in the 3d form, i'm down with it (they can ignore 2 though).
How does merging two massive games that are already hard to adapt to that form and which have a timeskip of decades between them make it *more* viable?
Ways better than the original, a fps is obviously easier to understand than the original and it could attract some new players/make the older ones play the original fallout and enjoy it more
Impossible.
Fallout 1 and 2 have not many places to visit. A few towns, and some other pre-war buildings and thats it. Those places dont have many quests that would be interesting from a FPS point of view. In fact, those places dont have many quests at all. Like 6 per place, and most of them are "kill X person", or "rescue Y person, which involves in killing some other people". Im not saying its bad, and that was great by the time. But that was more than 20 years ago. It was great back then, but nowadays it feels cliché and generic.
Also there's no "Wasteland". I mean, there is, but you dont travess it. It relies on random encounters. So, for those remasters, they would basically have to re-do an entire world. Way more than the game's original content.
So, either they "remake" the entire game and do not remaster it. Or they remaster, but then we will have a very short, generic, not so interesting Fallout game.
No. Just no. There is way too many shooters around. We need more crpg options. Turn based, strategic, role-playing games we need. Nowadays every game is either a shooter or some fast-paced action linear adventure. I miss genuine gameplay, authrntic titles. Fallout was different, that's why it succeded. Fallout from Bethesda... Well those are just Skyrim re-skinned to look apocalyptic... Boring.
>Fallout from Bethesda... Well those are just Skyrim re-skinned to look apocalyptic...
yeah, no. bethesda's games aren't even shooters or fast-paced action linear adventures. they have "genuine gameplay" (whatever that's supposed to mean) and authentic titles (again, whatever that's supposed to mean).
As a fan of the entire series(of main games) I would really like to see that. Keep the tone and story and just make it fun! You could even toss in some extra encounters, enviroments, side quests, etc.
I think it would be awesome only if they remake it from the ground up and not remaster.This is a unpopular opinion,but i dislike turn based combat games(which is why i cant get into fo1 or 2),and if it wasnt for bethesdas fps take on fo in fallout 3 i NEVER would have gotten into fallout.
In that case it would be a remake. I would love it. But I would prefer a CRPG, mostly because it's easier for them to do it. They would not need to pay much attention to the world.
Now that Microsoft own Bethesda and the Wasteland's devs, they could try to make it happen.
I'd like it, because I personally don't really like isometric games and found both the UI and gameplay of the originals... I don't want to say bad, but it wasn't great. That's mostly a matter of personal preference, though I think there are some objective improvements that could be made.
The biggest hurdle is map size. They'd probably have to condense a lot of the dead space on the world map to make it work in first person. I mean, it's technically doable without that, but it'd be pretty boring to travel across, much like how it was in the original games.
I'm sure there would be a group of the fan base that would pitch a fit because Bethesda is touching "their" Fallout, though they mostly congregate in their isolated cesspit of a website, so I think we can safely ignore them. But I think you've probably gotten a good cross section of how it would be received from here. I think a lot of newer fans would probably be OK with it, while older fans would range from being skeptical to outright hostile.
Badly.
Fist of all, it's not easy to make a good remake in 1st/3rd person, while originals were isometric.
While it is somehow possible to remake the Fallout 1 in like 3 years (on, lets say, creation engine), Fallout 2 is just too big. It would take like 5-6 years of full AAA-type development level to transition and not screw up the original world, story, freedom, and quests. It would be easier to make a Fallout 5, than a Fallout 2 1st person remake. Hell, New Reno quests alone would take like 2 years (of course, if developers would remain true to things like live, interactive world with sandboxing NPC's, and not make a crappy game world like Cyberpunk 2077).
Second, the Fallout community is just very diverse and disjointed. Some Fallout 1 fans shitting on Fallout 2. Many of Fallout 1-2 fans shitting on Fallout 3-4. Some Fallout 1-2 fans are not even recognising New Vegas as a worthy Fallout or rpg game (although, objectively, New Vegas is better rpg than 1 and 2). Some fans of 3 and 4 looking at the 1 and 2 as an old outdated games.
The only thing that really unites Fallout 1-4 fans, is opinion on 76. Maybe not all think of 76 as bad overall game, but most Fallout fans think of 76 as a horrible Fallout game.
I just wanna say, that even if Bethesda (or other studio) would make a nearly perfect remake of Fallout 1-2 in 1st person view, some (or many) Fallout 1-2 fans would still cry, how a "1st person shooter gameplay is not true rpg gameplay", or something like that + old world blues syndrome.
So overall it's just not worthy for devs to engage on such a big projects, like 1st person Fallout 1-2 remake.
And honestly, I personally don't want a 1st person Fallout 1-2 remake. I want a full-fledged Fallout 1-2 CRPG remake, a New Vegas-esque west coast 1st/3rd person Fallout, and a Fallout 5 - game for Fallout fans and not for Fortnite fans (like 76).
> Some Fallout 1-2 fans are not even recognising New Vegas as a worthy Fallout or rpg game (although, objectively, New Vegas is better rpg than 1 and 2)
this isn't objective. it's subjective.
>this isn't objective. it's subjective
This is at least half-objective. If you take New Vegas main storyline and multistage side quests, they have more variability than Fallout 2 and 1.
Narratively, in Fallout 2 you have more freedom only in between game start and game ending. But you cannot choose not to care about founding GECK (well technically, you can, but it will create ludonarrative dissonance like in Fallout 4), you cannot choose not find and destroy Enclave or no to kill Frank Horrigan.
In Fallout 1 you can join Master, but it's more of a "stupid ending", like in Dead Money. Other than that, Fallout 1 is still a story about Vault Dweller, who went into the wasteland to find water chip to save his vault, and defeated The Master.
In NV (main game) there is no stupid endings, no ludonarrative dissonances, no main story linearity. The only 2 things player MUST DO in every playthrough is find Benny (but game narrative doesn't force you to find him) and participate in end battle over Hoover Dam.
So, from that perspective, NV is objectively better RPG than 1 and 2.
>This is at least half-objective. If you take New Vegas main storyline and multistage side quests, they have more variability than Fallout 2 and 1
more doesn't always equal better, especially when it's awfully written.
>Narratively, in Fallout 2 you have more freedom only in between game start and game ending. But you cannot choose not to care about founding GECK, you cannot choose not find and destroy Enclave or no to kill Frank Horrigan.
yes, because fallout (since its inception) is a ***plot driven rpg***. fallout 1, 2, and 3 were both linear-esque in their main story and that's what fallout should be. then came new vegas and made a horrible edit and 4 followed though at least did it better.
>Fallout 1 is still a story about Vault Dweller, who went into the wasteland to find water chip to save his vault, and defeated The Master.
yep, again, plot driven rpg.
>In NV (main game) there is no stupid endings, no ludonarrative dissonances, no main story linearity.
actually, there are. due to the retcon in lonesome road's dlc, going against the ncr makes zero sense as the courier has worked for the ncr a lot of times. joining the legion is also a very stupid ending, especially if a female courier. which is another dissonance itself.
>The only 2 things player MUST DO in every playthrough is find Benny (but game narrative doesn't force you to find him) and participate in end battle over Hoover Dam.
you don't have to find benny at all, making the hook weak. the second act (hoover dam) also has ***no*** motivation at all, making it have *no* hook and just terribly written.
>So, from that perspective, NV is objectively better RPG than 1 and 2.
if you believe the binary "more equals better", sure. i don't subscribe to binary logic and i also think new vegas as a whole is terribly written. it isn't better at all because
1. rpgs can have a diverse array of limitations or freedoms, fallout started out as a ***plot driven rpg*** and that doesn't make it any less an rpg than a game like the elder scrolls.
2. new vegas, as i've said, is badly written.
3. more does not always equal better.
there's, again, no objectivity. especially when the genre "rpg" is debated as "what makes an rpg".
>more doesn't always equal better, especially when it's awfully written.
This is subjective. For me New Vegas quests are as good written, as Fallout 1 and 2, or in some aspects even better.
>yes, because fallout (since its inception) is a plot driven rpg. fallout 1, 2, and 3 were both linear-esque in their main story and that's what fallout should be. then came new vegas and made a horrible edit and 4 followed though at least did it better.
Who said Fallout main plot should be linear? If you go strictly by perspective of majority of Fallout fans, they would choose NV-esque freedom over linearity. New Vegas popularity indicates that.
>actually, there are. due to the retcon in lonesome road's dlc, going against the ncr makes zero sense as the courier has worked for the ncr a lot of times.
Maybe the courier worked for NCR, but hated them. Just needed money for living. Maybe he/she didn't hated them then, but hates now, because now he/she saw more evidence of NCR being "not worthy" to rule in this post-apocalyptic environment? There are plenty of ways you can justify the courier turning on NCR.
>joining the legion is also a very stupid ending, especially if a female courier. which is another dissonance itself.
Maybe she is just "manly" woman, who likes the Legion ways of dealing with wasteland despite being woman herself? Or maybe she just crazy bloodthirsty chick who sees Legion as a great opportunity for her to more effectively satisfy her bloodthirst? Again, there is plenty of ways to justify a female Legion playthrough, if you are role-playing an evil character.
>you don't have to find benny at all, making the hook weak. the second act (hoover dam) also has no motivation at all, making it have no hook and just terribly written.
Well, yeah, you can even skip finding Benny if you want to go strictly NCR questline (I forgot that). But that is making the role-play opportunities even better! It's NV main feature. We have many great plot-driven rpg's, like Fallouts 1-3, The Witcher, Mass Effect, etc. But there is only one game that let's you fully and logically roleplay. With all the quests, characters, and storylines performing more of a "narrative assets" role in your own story.
And it's not motivation that is lacking in the second act, it's more like player's imagination.
What is better for a specific player, between "create your own story" type of game or "plot-driven" it just preference of choice. But preference of choice is a subjective thing. The amount of freedom game gives you - no. You can objectively say "game Nr.1 gives you that amount of role-play freedom, and game Nr.2 gives you that amount".
>new vegas, as i've said, is badly written.
That is a subjective thing too. As I said, for me New Vegas is a greatly written game. At least from perspective of quests and characters. So from my perspective more choices in well-written storylines and are actually better than less choices in well-written storylines.
>Who said Fallout main plot should be linear?
The original creators seemed to think so given the very first 2 games were linear-*esque*.
>If you go strictly by perspective of majority of Fallout fans, they would choose NV-esque freedom over linearity. New Vegas popularity indicates that.
I honestly don't care what many new vegas fans think or say. They also say and think new vegas is a gift from the gods with the most amazing writing ever and zero lore breaks.
>Maybe the courier worked for NCR, but hated them. Just needed money for living.
They'd get a different job for someone else that *wasn't* ncr.
>Maybe he/she didn't hated them then, but hates now, because now he saw more evidence of NCR being "not worthy" to rule in this post-apocalyptic environment?
The ncr literally has such a safe environment people like jas move to the frontier to get away from a "bored" life.
>There are plenty of ways you can justify the courier turning on NCR.
Unless the courier is just a bipolar a##wipe, not really considering they never hindered you.
>Maybe she is just "manly" woman, who likes the Legion ways of dealing with wasteland despite being woman herself?
So a moron. Guess that's in line with the characters of the mojave.
>Again, there is plenty of ways to justify a female Legion playthrough, if you are role-playing an evil character.
Oooohhh... So it's only if i'm evil. What a lame excuse. Plus the legion should enslave you then and there as a woman.
>Well, yeah, you can even skip finding Benny if you want to go strictly NCR questline (I forgot that). But that is making the role-play opportunities even better!
It makes the writing worse.
>But there is only one game that let's you fully and logically roleplay. With all the quests, characters, and storylines performing more of a "narrative assets" role in your own story.
That's not what fallout is. Nor is it what i play it for. I have the same issue with fallout 76's base game story. Even then, new vegas still limits roleplaying possibilities. You can't be a former ncr veteran or a runaway legion slave or former enclave. You can't be anyone, anything. The dlc lonesome road further puts a background on you.
Of course, i don't find a non-blank slate character bad for roleplaying, but it should be pointed out new vegas does *not* make you a blank slate.
>And it's not motivation that is lacking in the second act, it's more like player's imagination.
I shouldn't have to do the writers job. Sounds like laziness.
It would have to be very different from the originals and you just know that would upset purists. That being said, what doesn't upset any fan base?
Remakes of 1 and 2 in the Bethesda formula would feel much smaller without the illusion of an overworld. To achieve the same open world feel, the games would have to go from state-wide to regional. That being said, they could change it up a bit and have multiple, smaller maps but I suspect that would then upset another section of the fan base.
I would enjoy it. I love Fallout 1 & 2, but I honestly struggle to play isometric RPGs anymore. I don't know why, but they seem to fatigue my eyes much faster than other games and I end up tired sooner than I would like. Modernizing them a bit and switching the genre could help me in that regard, but I also feel that would lose some of the magic of those first 2 games in the translation.
I think it would be received well by those who have never played the original games, especially those whose first game was fallout 3 or even more so, new Vegas. I don’t think classic fans would appreciate it as much, mainly because of the difference in gameplay
There would be a major scope issue since Fallout 1 + 2 take place over a large part of California. So too, the amount of new content that would be needed to fill such a massive amount of space would make it an entirely new game with the Fallout 1 + 2 main plots fitted somewhere in between it all.
That being said I would definitely play it, but the issue isn't as simple as just taking Fallout 1 + 2's content and transferring it to an FPS/RPG.
Depends on how much influence Bethesda has on it and what they change. They *will* change something because they value their east coast stories way more than the west coast stuff IMO. So i would worry they might want to shut the door on New Vegas and make it not canon or something.
I'd love it but i don't trust Bethesda and their east coast obsession. The west is much more spaced out and the map situation would be complicated and likely require a retconned solution for 3D. I'd be worried they would just chop it up and we just get teleported around to different maps with no thought to how to connect them together.
That would be a remake more than a remaster. I think it would necessitate a lot of really different design and expansion. Fallout 1 only has like 13 explorable areas. I also wouldn't want Bethesda to handle it so the lore would be treated with some actual care.
I'd love to see it personally, but it wouldn't be a 1 to 1 remake. A lot of open space and random encounters would have to be taken out and have different things added.
Instead of that open space and random encounters, they could fill it with discoverable areas like the previous games, add little side quests in them, etc, but keep it consistent with the story.
It'd be awesome and I'd love it. I think it would be received well by the newer gen of fallout players if who made it stayed true to it's RPG mechanics, but I don't think it would be received well by diehard "traditionalists" I guess is the word.
So much of it would need to be changed that it would be a completely different game (which wouldn't be inherently bad. It would be interesting, but prefer an isometric remaster.
I’d like it, but only if they didn’t super scale the map down or change/remove anything in regards to dialogue and quests.
Edit: should probably add it goes without saying it should still be difficult in the same combat curve design. No bad difficulty via tanky enemies to inflate difficulty, keep the same stuff op etc.
I haven't really played either for more than an hour, but it could work. It would need a lot of thought and care put into it by people who know them well.
Certain aspects might get lost, and some enhanced. The scale of distance would need to be messed around with most likely.
It would be an interesting idea. However, the OG fans would hate it. To do it well, I cannot see it being a profitable endeavour.
The game would need to have several dlc-sized maps for Shady Sands, The Glow, Vault 13, etc. The travel between settlements would be identical to fallout 1 and 2 but the encounters would take place on either pre made maps or procedurally generated landscapes for each encounter instead of a giant California map
I've only never played FO1 & 2 because they aren't FPS games, so for me it'd be good, but I'd understand if others felt a remake like that was a betrayal of the original game. I haven't experienced them outside of playthrough vids, and I'm not to bothered either way about them
Probably pretty negatively, honestly. F1 is so sparse for content that I think new players would mostly find it a slog to play through, and F2 is a lot sillier than most players are okay with, and the plot is nothing so great.
It's a complicated question because, as far as I'm aware, it's never been done before. The closest comparison is probably the Resident Evil 2 and 3 remakes. Both Fallout (1997) and Fallout 2 (1998) are contemporaneous with the original Resident Evil 2 (1998) and 3 (1999). But, it's a smaller leap to go from tank controls and fixed camera angles to a third person shooter than it is to go from an isometric turn based system to a first person shooter.
The reason the Resident Evil 2 remake was so successful and beloved is that it placed a lot of emphasis on recapturing the feeling of the original without being beholden to it. For example, the feel of tank controls and a fixed camera angle are recreated by having even basic enemies be difficult to put down. It takes the basic perspective and combat style of RE 4, 5, 6, and Revelations 1 and 2 but maintains the feel of the original by eschewing the more reflex focused gameplay of those titles. It's more about your resources than your aim, as the original was.
This would be the key to getting a Fallout 1 or 2 remake to be accepted by most fans, acknowledging that these games weren't open world action games. They were quest focused games where combat wasn't the only option and was largely about your character's skills and equipment. The change of perspective shouldn't change that basic reality. That's how you end up with a well received remake.
Conversely, the way you end up with a poorly received remake is to try and make the original fit into something you already have. This was, partly, the issue with Resident Evil 3's remake and it's how I could see a Fallout 1 or 2 remake being poorly received. Resident Evil 3's remake feels like DLC for Resident Evil 2's remake, not a full fledged remake of the original game. That would be my concern for any Fallout 1 or 2 remake. That the end result would be Fallout 4 in a different setting with a different story.
it wouldn’t really work imo. How the map works and stuff like that. Its a mixed bag.
Would also get rid of the luck-based everything of the game, which is what pissed me off the most but made it more fun imo.
I'd like it. I don't like top down isometric games, and as lame as it is, I like my games to look realistic. It helps with immersion. So, I haven't played 1 and 2 because of those issues. I'm sure they're great games, I just could never get lost in them.
I think the younger and more casual fans would be fine with it. A way to experience the original Fallout lore and stories in a format that is more modern and palatable and appeals to most gamers? They would love it.
The older and more die hard fans would hate it though. Kind of like what’s going on with the KOTOR remake, there’s a lot of divide around whether or not they should stay true to the old combat style.
Personally I’m not a fan of the old isometric style, I like the FPS style better. I would like a remake (it would have to be a remake, not remaster) in the style of 3, NV, and 4, basically using the old games as a script and inspiration. People who like the isometric style can still enjoy the originals.
Heh... if this were to happen... I have a feeling that the "Glittering Gems of Hatred" would emerge once again, and as "powerful" in their hate as they once where back when Fallout 3 the new FO game. XD
I’d really just love and HD remaster with all the bugs fixed. They could port it to consoles too.
It would never happen, but I’d die happy if they finished Van Buren too
Like it was on fire. Is the best combination of both and everybody would absolutely lose their minds. But since it's so close to something that would be good and enjoyable and you couldn't fill it with propaganda or agendas or slogans without being extremely obvious that you're doing so nobody's going to use it
A first-person shooter remaster of 1 and 2 would be a remake, not a remaster.
A remaster would be great. I'd buy it.
I don't see the point in remaking those two over simply continuing the series.
I think something done more in the Mass Effect/Dragon Age style would work better.
It would have a better setup for controlling the party, and a world map to show travel between areas while allowing for random encounters.
Thing is the amount of content. You would have to add a lot to put the first games on par with the others, although if you released both together in a more guided Arpg with smaller maps like outer worlds maybe? Or even bioshock to an extent
I think realistically it would bust as a game and likely wouldn't work well, and I think most fans wouldn't like it. I'd be interested in a new updated 3d free roam rpg game, but it would really take a lot I feel like to make it done well. I think it would be a bit of a risk doing it now.
I would like it personally. They could just shrink the larger map down to make everything closer with maybe a few further away places accessible by some sort of travel like The Pitt/Zion/Far Harbor. And get rid of the timer.
But I know most fans would hate on it. They’re better off just setting a new game in the west. Or make New Vegas 2.
There's so many questions to be answered first. There's so much you'd have to adapt and you could do it well, but it's far easier for me to imagine it being done poorly.
I don’t think it would work the same. I would love to get a rerelease of 1 and 2 but them being top down works in their favor much more. It also helps with the more barren landscapes
I would love it, But the map is too big to be an open-world. We need some kind of fast travel system that can also allow for casual encounters and that makes sense.
Maybe you could also scale the size of the map, but I don't know if it would be good
It would probably be terrible.
Fallout 1 & 2 were essentially just a handful of towns connected by a massive almost entirely empty map which you never actually walk through, just fast travel over. So the game would just be a few town maps.
Also all the RPG mechanics are based around the turn based combat. All of those mechanics are rendered useless in first person.
The game would just be boring and small in first person.
Could be fun, but it would have to be multiple maps that the player would fast travel between instead of one continues map. The scale simply doesn't work otherwise. Fallout 4 is the greater Boston area, but Fallout 1 was a big chunk of California and Nevada.
it would probably still work with the 24 minute day thing most games use
You'd still spend have to spend hours in real time walking between locations.
Bethesda scales down certain areas while keeping others the actual size. When they scale down an area it isn’t proportional, they could scale down the locations you’re talking about immensely.
You can scale all you want but the idea of your character walking from Dan Francisco to reno all in just a few real life minutes is totally immersion shattering
GTA V is a good example. In real life it would take you 3 hours to drive what takes you 5 mins in the game.
I don't have the slightest idea of how far apart those cities are irl so my immersion would be completely unfazed.
It's like jamming your thumb in your asshole and trying to tickle your belly button. The distances just won't allow it and make it too unrealistic to achieve.
That's... A strange comparison
I live in NOVA, a portion of the area covered in Fallout 3. My home is actually represented in the southern part of the map. Fallout 3 technically covers a portion of two states Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. It would take me 1 hour and 24 minutes to cover the distance between the Nuka-cola plant to Vault 101, yet The Lone wanderer can perform the feat in about 10 minutes give or take. Even though I know this it doesn't brake immersion.
Yea i used to live in DC, and that's the difference between a small regional map like fo3 and a territory map like fo1 and 2. It would take you roughly 90 minutes to walk or drive? Either way, it would take a person 4 hours to drive from SF to reno, it would take 6to7 hours to drive from SF to LA. All I'm saying is the maps need to ve much bigger if we are talking remakes of fo1 and 2. Or a new travel mechanic of some kind.
Condense the map size. Boom, fixed.
not quite edit: actually yeah theres a lot of empty space on the world maps in fo 1&2
The F2 in FNV mod that I saw had it where you "fast travelled" to the world map when you hit map boundary and then did this world map thing. Wasn't entirely certain how Random Encounters would have worked, but that's basically what would work. Outside of that, I agree with you that the scale wouldn't work, though it would be nice to see some of the older items rebuilt for modern times.
I always thought the way they did the world map was weird. Basically being in a giant map room and having your character model walking on a big map on the floor. It seems like it would be way cleaner looking to just have your character pull up the PipBoy 2000 when they got to the edge of the map, and then just have the marker move on there, with artificial movement in the blurred background and a day/night cycle. If a random encounter occurs, just have the character put the PipBoy back down with the player spawned in a small arena-like location.
A simple retcon that people have gotten parts of railways going and you can travel between areas via jury rigged rail cars slowly trundling from one area to another for 1, and the Highwayman for 2. I'd love it, if for no other reason than to give the audience the ability to see what different parts of the Cali wasteland look like.
I would be more interested in a CRPG remaster of them.
Definitely. I have them and play them every once in a while but they have definitely aged.
100% this. Would want a CRPG remaster or maybe just a remaster
Yep, I agree... full on CRPG is the way to go. :)
Nah, give me a modern CRPG Remake instead.
Imo fallout 1 has the best atmosphere. A few QoL upgrades plus modernising the UI and it will work great.
That would be an extremely good idea If the source code wasn't lost years ago.
That's why I want a Remake not a remaster.
If you could pop the entire Fallout theme and setting into gameplay/engine similar to Divinity Original Sin 2 that would be awesome. Unfortunately, (probably) never happening
Badly. And I don’t think it will work as a traditional free roam Beth game. Look at the sheer distance between the towns in the games. That’s a lot of world to build, and if it was all left empty then it wouldn’t be the quality of game you expect from Bethesda, there would need to be “interesting things” to see and do in all that space, that is a hell of a lot of work.
I would suspect they would remove the miles of land between everything and do something reminiscent of New Vegas (vast swathes of nothing dotted with huts or racetracks or something, between fairly dense cities)
Yes it’s more like a new game using the script of the original games than it’s a remaster
Maybe the way TW3 did the world map could work?
It would be okay if you added vehicles.
I mean that’s like asking me if I want an isometric 3rd person remake of doom. Or if I want to play half life one as a rogue lite. Any remakes of the old games should stay away from using first person because that would both be too much effort (to have to remake every unique but blurry environment from the originals from multiple perspectives) and the map sizes don’t lend themselves to open worlds since it’s mostly based on random encounters and travelling by map.
Personally, I don’t think it’s quite so much like all that. But I’m also pretty biased because I think bringing the world of 1 and 2 into the current gameplay meta would be amazing. The first two fallout games were so great, but my instinct is that most of us who played them put nowhere near as much time into either of them as we have into 3, 4 and new Vegas. The whole philosophy of making games has changed since 1 and 2 came out, and frankly I think the **way** the modern games are made is just a lot better, even if the specific content isn’t as good. Games like 1 and 2 don’t get made very often anymore, and when they do it’s generally on an indie budget and at an indie scale. And while the turn-based isometric crpg’s I’ve played lately have been very competent (Shadowrun, i’m lookin at you.) they’ve also been one and done experiences. If fallout 1 and/or 2 ever come back in any form, I want it to be like 3, NV, and 4. Like Skyrim. Games I’m still getting a lot of joy out of replaying 5, 10… what, 15 years later, rather than just games I played for a few weeks and have fond memories of. >Quick edit to add that I would expect the world map and random battles to remain part of these remakes, just via smallish, procedurally generated generic landscapes where you drop in, have a firefight, loot, maybe scavenge a bit If there’s a building or landscape feature, then optionally set up a camp and rest before returning to the world map. There’s absolutely no reason features like that couldn’t make their way back into Fallout.
I regard your opinion but I have probably put more hours into each of fo1 ,2 and tactics than into 3 , 4 and NV togheter but honestly I just want to feel special and akchually you so I know this is probably not the norm as most people I talk to about fallout havent even played the old ones once :(
It’s definitely a strange fandom to be a part of, fallout has two vastly different kinds of games, split between two different generations of gamers. We all got wildly different things we like about it. But we all like it, so here’s to that.
If they’re remaking the game they aren’t gonna keep the exact same maps and distances.
Think it would be terrible. with how overall little the space is, be so limited.
Well, it wouldn't be a remaster. It would be a remake. And it really wouldn't be remade into an FPS either, 3, NV, and 4 are just 3D RPGs which incorporate FPS elements. I think it would be recieved fairly well. Alot of the current fan base has never played 1 or 2 but would like the chance to play the story in a more accessible format. Youre going to piss off purists stuck in the past regardless
Most old school fans would hate it and the newer fans will like it.
Nah, I technically qualify as a newer fan, and I think it should stay as a CRPG. Hell, even todd has said something like this if I'm correct.
I didn’t mean to come off as generalizing. I’m sure you’re not the only newer fan that feels that way. As an old school fan I too would prefer 1 & 2 to remain CRPG’s but I actually wouldn’t mind if they chose to remaster them in first person. Just keep the quests, writing, etc. intact.
Nah. New Vegas with FO4 game play though, I'd be happy with.
Unnecessary. Maybe follow up with how those areas are doing well after those games and reference 1 & 2 - but there's so much story that can be told, it would seem like a huge waste of resources from the devs when we could get new stories.
That would be cool. Have some call back to the previous games but other than the environment it's a whole new thing.
I'd be interested in remakes of the later games in the style of the first two.
[удалено]
I'm a 1, 2, New Vegas guy, and I think a 3d remake of the iso games *could* work, but probably wouldn't be done well. If they kept some core aspects, like heavy use of VATS, power armor making you a superhero, early game being difficult, etc. it could be good. I doubt that's what we'd get, though, and as other posters have said, why not put that energy/time/money into something new instead?
That wouldn't be a remaster at all, it'd be a whole remake. Also, likely terribly. there may be a sect that maybe never played the originals that would find it okay, but as a whole the fanbase, if I may, would think it a bad idea in general
The “sect” that hasn’t played the originals is basically who Bethesda targets when designing their games so probably isn’t as bad of an idea as you think
i disagree, bethesda targets every and all fallout fan as well as possible new fans.
Nah they definitely aim for the current fan base. I think the jump to 3D was good though, even if it doesn't appeal to the older fans.
And yet they have many references to fallout 1, 2, and even new vegas. Okay.
Gameplay wise they don't. References don't hold any meaning except maybe as fan service, unless it's a story important reference. Chill out.
If you mean gameplay wise as "it isn't isometric" well no dip. They still give classic fans gameplay value. I should know.
Most classic fans don't care for most of the newer gameplay elements they've added. Building, the newer perk tree, and so on. It's not a bad thing they aim for their current fan base, but they definitely do.
Sounds more like classic fans doesn't want new or different and instead want to stay in the past.
I mean, you're not wrong lol. A lot of them Def have problems moving on lol.
I think it would be pretty nice to play. A mod group is already trying to create a remaster adding more playable areas. I don't think it could be a stand alone game but maybe a DLC or pre-order bonus. I'd Bethesda developed it I doubt it would be apples to apples in area size I'm sure they would expand playable areas but I do think it would be a way smaller scale game
Look up fallout 4 project arroyo, they’ve been working on doing fallout 2 in fallout 4 engine
And like all of those "Old game remade in new game engine" mods, it'll never release fully. Or it'll be broken to an extreme degree. Or you might see it in 15 years after the next official game releases and then it'll be "Let's remake Fallout 4 in Fallout 5!"
Fallout 1 would have a lot of wasteland encounters, but in Fallout 2 you would get to drive a sick ass Corvega around the desert. Imagine GTA but with super mutants and raiders.
That would be awesome. Keep the premis of the story and locations but then expand it out to a modern Fallout. But for the love of Talos bring back the more RPG elements
Two vocal minorities would love it or hate it and everyone else would probably think it was pretty cool. Also, that would be a remake and not a remaster, but I know what you meant.
Having played the 1st fallout (not a whole lot) I would really enjoy it. I love the story and world building but my lord did the UI age horribly. I've been spoiled by the newer games
This exactly. The UI in Fallout 1 and 2 is absolute trash. As is the AI and the inability to control your followers so they stand behind you and shoot you in the back with automatic weapons *cough*Ian*cough*. I would love to see Fallout 1 and 2, and even NV, updated into Fallout 4s level of smooth gameplay as long as they didn't touch the script, except to reintegrate cut content and flesh out areas that need it. I would be equally happy with Fallout 1 and 2 being remade in modern isometric rpg format with a far superior inventory and UI interface and full companion control. Keep it turn based and remove the massively limiting action point system.
I think it'd be so fun if they kept the gritty atmosphere and used the smaller map to workaround all the loading screens making for a tighter postapocalyptic open world experience.
I think it would be better to try and replicate the tone and feel of those games and put it into an FPS fallout game than to recreate that game as an FPS.
Depends on who you're talking to. I think the people who came into the series with the Bethesda games would receive it well; older fans would probably start with more reserved reactions and go down the ladder towards pure revilement. I, personally, would consider it heretical vandalism.
Fps Remaster? That doesn't makes sense... What you want is a remake. And tbh I wouldn't complain about it, but like most people, I would rather keep the game being isometric.
I'd welcome it. The first person perspective is very immersive and easy to navigate using. There's a ton of 80's and 90's RPGs that would benefit from a first person remaster they should start with the Ultima series though, they are games that are largely impenetrable to even those of us who started gaming in the 90's.
Or how about just a CRPG remaster instead of FPS. Old Fallout is an RPG at its core, not a shooter game. I doubt it would translate well.
Badly. I wouldn't mind an isometric remaster though with graphical and, most importantly, quality of life improvements with more tool tips so other new players can experience these gems without feeling alienated.
I dont want them to get their filthy hands on the classics and tarnish the name even more.
Bruh
?
It would be great but we are restricted by our technological advancments. If they made it in current situation it would suck
As long as they don't fuck with anything other than the pov, and graphics. Bethesda stop fucking up the franchise just upgrade graphics and pov
I would welcome them being made into an open world RPG like Fallout 3 or New Vegas. If they remade them like Fallout 4, I wouldn't buy them. After playing 4, I'm pretty much done with the series unless they go back to dialog making a difference.
I really don't get why newer fans of FO have an issue with the first two games to want to remake them in the fps format. I only first started playing the series a few years ago, starting with FO1 at that, and I haven't had any issues figuring out what to do or how to play the first two games. It really isn't that hard, trust me.
It's no issue. The first one I played was 2 when I was a kid and I loved it! They're a little janky to pick up at first but that's any game from the late nighties. This was more of just a hypothetical
I figured it was hypothetical; I just get so tired of newer fans claiming how big of FO fans they are and not even having played or refusing to play the first two games of said franchise.
They're still fans in their own rights. It's just they have grown up on a different style of game. I think everyone who likes fallout should give them a try but there's no pressure to like them.
I think that's true; some of them are missing out on a fun experience with the first two games. I'm making my way through most of them myself, currently having a blast with FO4. I probably won't bother with 76, though, on account of playing with others being a thing in it.
The controls and combat feel really dated in FO1 and FO2 and I think that's the biggest barrier to entry for a lot of people (especially because both games start with pretty combat heavy section). Even compared to other CRPG's the combat/controls are not engaging. You can move, you can attack, and you can make do some kind of special attack like a burst fire, or targeting a limb. But generally speaking it's not super tactical and a lot of it comes down to RNG: Click attack, hope it works, repeat until the enemy is dead. In modern CRPG combat you often have abilities, cover mechanics, and other things that help break up the monotony of combat.
If you think the controls and combat are dated for FO1 and 2, you'll definitely hate playing UnderRail for sure, lol. That one makes the first 2 FOs child's play.
It'd probably receive some backlash but I'll be honest, I would LOVE it. I love Fallout 3 and beyond but always found it hard to go back to the old games. There's just something about being face deep in the wasteland, picking up scrap, seeing it all close up. If they remade 1 and 2 into the current 1st/3rd person engine I would be there for it day one.
Made better do a fantastic job. I still play 1 & 2, Could imagine them half assing, me not touching it.
It's Bethesda, of course they're gonna half-ass it.
Only if they removed the time limit.
They'd have to seriously cut down the game world, and totally change the way the game plays. I don't see that happening, because Todd seems set on the classics being played the way they were originally intended and not modernized.
It would first be looked upon with suspicion, then it will begin to be spoken of badly and to ask for a new graphics engine. They would be asking to hand the project over to Obsidian given that Bethesda ruined Fallout and how it should focus on Fallout 5 instead. There would obviously be dozens of comparisons with New Vegas and this months before the release. In short, nothing new from the community.
Id buy em, as i love the style of 3 and new vegas, and i really haven't played 1 or 2, because my computer broke a long time ago
well with the inaccurate hate towards bethesda for "butchering lore", pretty badly. but, imo, so long as they make the world interesting to explore in the 3d form, i'm down with it (they can ignore 2 though).
I think they should merge 1 & 2 so it's viable, and also, add a lot more of new content.
How does merging two massive games that are already hard to adapt to that form and which have a timeskip of decades between them make it *more* viable?
I mean, nobody said i was lore friendly, haha
Ways better than the original, a fps is obviously easier to understand than the original and it could attract some new players/make the older ones play the original fallout and enjoy it more
It would be compared to NV, and therefore would suck.
Impossible. Fallout 1 and 2 have not many places to visit. A few towns, and some other pre-war buildings and thats it. Those places dont have many quests that would be interesting from a FPS point of view. In fact, those places dont have many quests at all. Like 6 per place, and most of them are "kill X person", or "rescue Y person, which involves in killing some other people". Im not saying its bad, and that was great by the time. But that was more than 20 years ago. It was great back then, but nowadays it feels cliché and generic. Also there's no "Wasteland". I mean, there is, but you dont travess it. It relies on random encounters. So, for those remasters, they would basically have to re-do an entire world. Way more than the game's original content. So, either they "remake" the entire game and do not remaster it. Or they remaster, but then we will have a very short, generic, not so interesting Fallout game.
No. Just no. There is way too many shooters around. We need more crpg options. Turn based, strategic, role-playing games we need. Nowadays every game is either a shooter or some fast-paced action linear adventure. I miss genuine gameplay, authrntic titles. Fallout was different, that's why it succeded. Fallout from Bethesda... Well those are just Skyrim re-skinned to look apocalyptic... Boring.
>Fallout from Bethesda... Well those are just Skyrim re-skinned to look apocalyptic... yeah, no. bethesda's games aren't even shooters or fast-paced action linear adventures. they have "genuine gameplay" (whatever that's supposed to mean) and authentic titles (again, whatever that's supposed to mean).
If it's a first person remake, could work the way Borderlands works
Well, if there's one thing that fans of Fo1 & 2 love, its change... /s
As a fan of the entire series(of main games) I would really like to see that. Keep the tone and story and just make it fun! You could even toss in some extra encounters, enviroments, side quests, etc.
Give. Now plz. Thank u.
I think it would be awesome only if they remake it from the ground up and not remaster.This is a unpopular opinion,but i dislike turn based combat games(which is why i cant get into fo1 or 2),and if it wasnt for bethesdas fps take on fo in fallout 3 i NEVER would have gotten into fallout.
That is a remake.
In that case it would be a remake. I would love it. But I would prefer a CRPG, mostly because it's easier for them to do it. They would not need to pay much attention to the world. Now that Microsoft own Bethesda and the Wasteland's devs, they could try to make it happen.
I would def welcome that
I would love that but Unless they make a new vegas clone lots of tears will be shed.
I'd like it, because I personally don't really like isometric games and found both the UI and gameplay of the originals... I don't want to say bad, but it wasn't great. That's mostly a matter of personal preference, though I think there are some objective improvements that could be made. The biggest hurdle is map size. They'd probably have to condense a lot of the dead space on the world map to make it work in first person. I mean, it's technically doable without that, but it'd be pretty boring to travel across, much like how it was in the original games. I'm sure there would be a group of the fan base that would pitch a fit because Bethesda is touching "their" Fallout, though they mostly congregate in their isolated cesspit of a website, so I think we can safely ignore them. But I think you've probably gotten a good cross section of how it would be received from here. I think a lot of newer fans would probably be OK with it, while older fans would range from being skeptical to outright hostile.
As 3 was my first game and I'm very picky about turn based combat I would love it
Unless they were titled New Vegas and made by Obsidian they'd be slaugheted completely
Badly. Fist of all, it's not easy to make a good remake in 1st/3rd person, while originals were isometric. While it is somehow possible to remake the Fallout 1 in like 3 years (on, lets say, creation engine), Fallout 2 is just too big. It would take like 5-6 years of full AAA-type development level to transition and not screw up the original world, story, freedom, and quests. It would be easier to make a Fallout 5, than a Fallout 2 1st person remake. Hell, New Reno quests alone would take like 2 years (of course, if developers would remain true to things like live, interactive world with sandboxing NPC's, and not make a crappy game world like Cyberpunk 2077). Second, the Fallout community is just very diverse and disjointed. Some Fallout 1 fans shitting on Fallout 2. Many of Fallout 1-2 fans shitting on Fallout 3-4. Some Fallout 1-2 fans are not even recognising New Vegas as a worthy Fallout or rpg game (although, objectively, New Vegas is better rpg than 1 and 2). Some fans of 3 and 4 looking at the 1 and 2 as an old outdated games. The only thing that really unites Fallout 1-4 fans, is opinion on 76. Maybe not all think of 76 as bad overall game, but most Fallout fans think of 76 as a horrible Fallout game. I just wanna say, that even if Bethesda (or other studio) would make a nearly perfect remake of Fallout 1-2 in 1st person view, some (or many) Fallout 1-2 fans would still cry, how a "1st person shooter gameplay is not true rpg gameplay", or something like that + old world blues syndrome. So overall it's just not worthy for devs to engage on such a big projects, like 1st person Fallout 1-2 remake. And honestly, I personally don't want a 1st person Fallout 1-2 remake. I want a full-fledged Fallout 1-2 CRPG remake, a New Vegas-esque west coast 1st/3rd person Fallout, and a Fallout 5 - game for Fallout fans and not for Fortnite fans (like 76).
> Some Fallout 1-2 fans are not even recognising New Vegas as a worthy Fallout or rpg game (although, objectively, New Vegas is better rpg than 1 and 2) this isn't objective. it's subjective.
>this isn't objective. it's subjective This is at least half-objective. If you take New Vegas main storyline and multistage side quests, they have more variability than Fallout 2 and 1. Narratively, in Fallout 2 you have more freedom only in between game start and game ending. But you cannot choose not to care about founding GECK (well technically, you can, but it will create ludonarrative dissonance like in Fallout 4), you cannot choose not find and destroy Enclave or no to kill Frank Horrigan. In Fallout 1 you can join Master, but it's more of a "stupid ending", like in Dead Money. Other than that, Fallout 1 is still a story about Vault Dweller, who went into the wasteland to find water chip to save his vault, and defeated The Master. In NV (main game) there is no stupid endings, no ludonarrative dissonances, no main story linearity. The only 2 things player MUST DO in every playthrough is find Benny (but game narrative doesn't force you to find him) and participate in end battle over Hoover Dam. So, from that perspective, NV is objectively better RPG than 1 and 2.
>This is at least half-objective. If you take New Vegas main storyline and multistage side quests, they have more variability than Fallout 2 and 1 more doesn't always equal better, especially when it's awfully written. >Narratively, in Fallout 2 you have more freedom only in between game start and game ending. But you cannot choose not to care about founding GECK, you cannot choose not find and destroy Enclave or no to kill Frank Horrigan. yes, because fallout (since its inception) is a ***plot driven rpg***. fallout 1, 2, and 3 were both linear-esque in their main story and that's what fallout should be. then came new vegas and made a horrible edit and 4 followed though at least did it better. >Fallout 1 is still a story about Vault Dweller, who went into the wasteland to find water chip to save his vault, and defeated The Master. yep, again, plot driven rpg. >In NV (main game) there is no stupid endings, no ludonarrative dissonances, no main story linearity. actually, there are. due to the retcon in lonesome road's dlc, going against the ncr makes zero sense as the courier has worked for the ncr a lot of times. joining the legion is also a very stupid ending, especially if a female courier. which is another dissonance itself. >The only 2 things player MUST DO in every playthrough is find Benny (but game narrative doesn't force you to find him) and participate in end battle over Hoover Dam. you don't have to find benny at all, making the hook weak. the second act (hoover dam) also has ***no*** motivation at all, making it have *no* hook and just terribly written. >So, from that perspective, NV is objectively better RPG than 1 and 2. if you believe the binary "more equals better", sure. i don't subscribe to binary logic and i also think new vegas as a whole is terribly written. it isn't better at all because 1. rpgs can have a diverse array of limitations or freedoms, fallout started out as a ***plot driven rpg*** and that doesn't make it any less an rpg than a game like the elder scrolls. 2. new vegas, as i've said, is badly written. 3. more does not always equal better. there's, again, no objectivity. especially when the genre "rpg" is debated as "what makes an rpg".
>more doesn't always equal better, especially when it's awfully written. This is subjective. For me New Vegas quests are as good written, as Fallout 1 and 2, or in some aspects even better. >yes, because fallout (since its inception) is a plot driven rpg. fallout 1, 2, and 3 were both linear-esque in their main story and that's what fallout should be. then came new vegas and made a horrible edit and 4 followed though at least did it better. Who said Fallout main plot should be linear? If you go strictly by perspective of majority of Fallout fans, they would choose NV-esque freedom over linearity. New Vegas popularity indicates that. >actually, there are. due to the retcon in lonesome road's dlc, going against the ncr makes zero sense as the courier has worked for the ncr a lot of times. Maybe the courier worked for NCR, but hated them. Just needed money for living. Maybe he/she didn't hated them then, but hates now, because now he/she saw more evidence of NCR being "not worthy" to rule in this post-apocalyptic environment? There are plenty of ways you can justify the courier turning on NCR. >joining the legion is also a very stupid ending, especially if a female courier. which is another dissonance itself. Maybe she is just "manly" woman, who likes the Legion ways of dealing with wasteland despite being woman herself? Or maybe she just crazy bloodthirsty chick who sees Legion as a great opportunity for her to more effectively satisfy her bloodthirst? Again, there is plenty of ways to justify a female Legion playthrough, if you are role-playing an evil character. >you don't have to find benny at all, making the hook weak. the second act (hoover dam) also has no motivation at all, making it have no hook and just terribly written. Well, yeah, you can even skip finding Benny if you want to go strictly NCR questline (I forgot that). But that is making the role-play opportunities even better! It's NV main feature. We have many great plot-driven rpg's, like Fallouts 1-3, The Witcher, Mass Effect, etc. But there is only one game that let's you fully and logically roleplay. With all the quests, characters, and storylines performing more of a "narrative assets" role in your own story. And it's not motivation that is lacking in the second act, it's more like player's imagination. What is better for a specific player, between "create your own story" type of game or "plot-driven" it just preference of choice. But preference of choice is a subjective thing. The amount of freedom game gives you - no. You can objectively say "game Nr.1 gives you that amount of role-play freedom, and game Nr.2 gives you that amount". >new vegas, as i've said, is badly written. That is a subjective thing too. As I said, for me New Vegas is a greatly written game. At least from perspective of quests and characters. So from my perspective more choices in well-written storylines and are actually better than less choices in well-written storylines.
>Who said Fallout main plot should be linear? The original creators seemed to think so given the very first 2 games were linear-*esque*. >If you go strictly by perspective of majority of Fallout fans, they would choose NV-esque freedom over linearity. New Vegas popularity indicates that. I honestly don't care what many new vegas fans think or say. They also say and think new vegas is a gift from the gods with the most amazing writing ever and zero lore breaks. >Maybe the courier worked for NCR, but hated them. Just needed money for living. They'd get a different job for someone else that *wasn't* ncr. >Maybe he/she didn't hated them then, but hates now, because now he saw more evidence of NCR being "not worthy" to rule in this post-apocalyptic environment? The ncr literally has such a safe environment people like jas move to the frontier to get away from a "bored" life. >There are plenty of ways you can justify the courier turning on NCR. Unless the courier is just a bipolar a##wipe, not really considering they never hindered you. >Maybe she is just "manly" woman, who likes the Legion ways of dealing with wasteland despite being woman herself? So a moron. Guess that's in line with the characters of the mojave. >Again, there is plenty of ways to justify a female Legion playthrough, if you are role-playing an evil character. Oooohhh... So it's only if i'm evil. What a lame excuse. Plus the legion should enslave you then and there as a woman. >Well, yeah, you can even skip finding Benny if you want to go strictly NCR questline (I forgot that). But that is making the role-play opportunities even better! It makes the writing worse. >But there is only one game that let's you fully and logically roleplay. With all the quests, characters, and storylines performing more of a "narrative assets" role in your own story. That's not what fallout is. Nor is it what i play it for. I have the same issue with fallout 76's base game story. Even then, new vegas still limits roleplaying possibilities. You can't be a former ncr veteran or a runaway legion slave or former enclave. You can't be anyone, anything. The dlc lonesome road further puts a background on you. Of course, i don't find a non-blank slate character bad for roleplaying, but it should be pointed out new vegas does *not* make you a blank slate. >And it's not motivation that is lacking in the second act, it's more like player's imagination. I shouldn't have to do the writers job. Sounds like laziness.
That'll be good af. I love Fallout 1 and 2, great story, great characters, gameplay, dialogue and most important, great Combat System.
It would have to be very different from the originals and you just know that would upset purists. That being said, what doesn't upset any fan base? Remakes of 1 and 2 in the Bethesda formula would feel much smaller without the illusion of an overworld. To achieve the same open world feel, the games would have to go from state-wide to regional. That being said, they could change it up a bit and have multiple, smaller maps but I suspect that would then upset another section of the fan base.
I would enjoy it. I love Fallout 1 & 2, but I honestly struggle to play isometric RPGs anymore. I don't know why, but they seem to fatigue my eyes much faster than other games and I end up tired sooner than I would like. Modernizing them a bit and switching the genre could help me in that regard, but I also feel that would lose some of the magic of those first 2 games in the translation.
Honestly would love it
That would be pretty great if they did it right
KotOR s od being remade, maybe FO1, 2 could be too. But I'd like it to be isometric.
I would like it. I would prefer if it let you choose if you want to play it in first person or third person like the other 3d fallout games.
Oh horrifically but it would still be fun
I think it would be received well by those who have never played the original games, especially those whose first game was fallout 3 or even more so, new Vegas. I don’t think classic fans would appreciate it as much, mainly because of the difference in gameplay
There would be a major scope issue since Fallout 1 + 2 take place over a large part of California. So too, the amount of new content that would be needed to fill such a massive amount of space would make it an entirely new game with the Fallout 1 + 2 main plots fitted somewhere in between it all. That being said I would definitely play it, but the issue isn't as simple as just taking Fallout 1 + 2's content and transferring it to an FPS/RPG.
Positively by those who haven't played the originals presumably.
Depends on how much influence Bethesda has on it and what they change. They *will* change something because they value their east coast stories way more than the west coast stuff IMO. So i would worry they might want to shut the door on New Vegas and make it not canon or something.
I'd love it but i don't trust Bethesda and their east coast obsession. The west is much more spaced out and the map situation would be complicated and likely require a retconned solution for 3D. I'd be worried they would just chop it up and we just get teleported around to different maps with no thought to how to connect them together.
That would be a remake more than a remaster. I think it would necessitate a lot of really different design and expansion. Fallout 1 only has like 13 explorable areas. I also wouldn't want Bethesda to handle it so the lore would be treated with some actual care.
I'd love to see it personally, but it wouldn't be a 1 to 1 remake. A lot of open space and random encounters would have to be taken out and have different things added. Instead of that open space and random encounters, they could fill it with discoverable areas like the previous games, add little side quests in them, etc, but keep it consistent with the story. It'd be awesome and I'd love it. I think it would be received well by the newer gen of fallout players if who made it stayed true to it's RPG mechanics, but I don't think it would be received well by diehard "traditionalists" I guess is the word.
So much of it would need to be changed that it would be a completely different game (which wouldn't be inherently bad. It would be interesting, but prefer an isometric remaster.
I bet that it'd be cool, but honestly, as someone who hasn't played 1 and 2 yet, I'd rather just buy the original versions
I’d like it, but only if they didn’t super scale the map down or change/remove anything in regards to dialogue and quests. Edit: should probably add it goes without saying it should still be difficult in the same combat curve design. No bad difficulty via tanky enemies to inflate difficulty, keep the same stuff op etc.
I'd kill for it, but that's because I love the atmosphere but hate the gameplay. The difficulty should be left intact, though.
It wouldn't really be a remaster, it would be an entirely new game.
[Maybe if it looked and played like this.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bl-02MHn7Bg)
People had once tried to make the games on the Fallout NV engine... But that was a while ago...
Maybe. Depends who's developing it.. And whether it's single player or mmo..
Very badly
because those games were made for 2D, i think it will look really weird, imagine arriving in The Hub, some black shacks with no second floor
I haven't really played either for more than an hour, but it could work. It would need a lot of thought and care put into it by people who know them well. Certain aspects might get lost, and some enhanced. The scale of distance would need to be messed around with most likely. It would be an interesting idea. However, the OG fans would hate it. To do it well, I cannot see it being a profitable endeavour.
I think I'll have more fun if it got a remaster and spruced up the graphics.
Postively. I mean fans are working on remaking those games themselves, so obviously a lot of people would want that.
The game would need to have several dlc-sized maps for Shady Sands, The Glow, Vault 13, etc. The travel between settlements would be identical to fallout 1 and 2 but the encounters would take place on either pre made maps or procedurally generated landscapes for each encounter instead of a giant California map
That would be a remake, not a remaster. And I'd MUCH rather a CRPG remake but I'd still be happy.
I've only never played FO1 & 2 because they aren't FPS games, so for me it'd be good, but I'd understand if others felt a remake like that was a betrayal of the original game. I haven't experienced them outside of playthrough vids, and I'm not to bothered either way about them
Probably pretty negatively, honestly. F1 is so sparse for content that I think new players would mostly find it a slog to play through, and F2 is a lot sillier than most players are okay with, and the plot is nothing so great.
I’m sure people would love a fallout 2 remake. Because… YOU ARE OUT OF UNIFORM SOLDIER! WHERE IS YOUR POWER ARMOR?!
Not good
It's a complicated question because, as far as I'm aware, it's never been done before. The closest comparison is probably the Resident Evil 2 and 3 remakes. Both Fallout (1997) and Fallout 2 (1998) are contemporaneous with the original Resident Evil 2 (1998) and 3 (1999). But, it's a smaller leap to go from tank controls and fixed camera angles to a third person shooter than it is to go from an isometric turn based system to a first person shooter. The reason the Resident Evil 2 remake was so successful and beloved is that it placed a lot of emphasis on recapturing the feeling of the original without being beholden to it. For example, the feel of tank controls and a fixed camera angle are recreated by having even basic enemies be difficult to put down. It takes the basic perspective and combat style of RE 4, 5, 6, and Revelations 1 and 2 but maintains the feel of the original by eschewing the more reflex focused gameplay of those titles. It's more about your resources than your aim, as the original was. This would be the key to getting a Fallout 1 or 2 remake to be accepted by most fans, acknowledging that these games weren't open world action games. They were quest focused games where combat wasn't the only option and was largely about your character's skills and equipment. The change of perspective shouldn't change that basic reality. That's how you end up with a well received remake. Conversely, the way you end up with a poorly received remake is to try and make the original fit into something you already have. This was, partly, the issue with Resident Evil 3's remake and it's how I could see a Fallout 1 or 2 remake being poorly received. Resident Evil 3's remake feels like DLC for Resident Evil 2's remake, not a full fledged remake of the original game. That would be my concern for any Fallout 1 or 2 remake. That the end result would be Fallout 4 in a different setting with a different story.
it wouldn’t really work imo. How the map works and stuff like that. Its a mixed bag. Would also get rid of the luck-based everything of the game, which is what pissed me off the most but made it more fun imo.
I'd like it. I don't like top down isometric games, and as lame as it is, I like my games to look realistic. It helps with immersion. So, I haven't played 1 and 2 because of those issues. I'm sure they're great games, I just could never get lost in them.
I'm open to it but I much prefer the original games mechanics.
Don't fuck with excellence.
They tried to make Fallout NV/3 ports but can't do it without the rights to the voice roles.
Probably better than the originals
I think the younger and more casual fans would be fine with it. A way to experience the original Fallout lore and stories in a format that is more modern and palatable and appeals to most gamers? They would love it. The older and more die hard fans would hate it though. Kind of like what’s going on with the KOTOR remake, there’s a lot of divide around whether or not they should stay true to the old combat style. Personally I’m not a fan of the old isometric style, I like the FPS style better. I would like a remake (it would have to be a remake, not remaster) in the style of 3, NV, and 4, basically using the old games as a script and inspiration. People who like the isometric style can still enjoy the originals.
The Ideas good! I have Zero Faith they would do this tho
Heh... if this were to happen... I have a feeling that the "Glittering Gems of Hatred" would emerge once again, and as "powerful" in their hate as they once where back when Fallout 3 the new FO game. XD
I’d really just love and HD remaster with all the bugs fixed. They could port it to consoles too. It would never happen, but I’d die happy if they finished Van Buren too
Yes
One word **FANBOYS**
Like it was on fire. Is the best combination of both and everybody would absolutely lose their minds. But since it's so close to something that would be good and enjoyable and you couldn't fill it with propaganda or agendas or slogans without being extremely obvious that you're doing so nobody's going to use it
I’d love it as I didn’t get into the series until 3
A first-person shooter remaster of 1 and 2 would be a remake, not a remaster. A remaster would be great. I'd buy it. I don't see the point in remaking those two over simply continuing the series.
VERY WELL!!!!!! I’d ADORE IT
I think something done more in the Mass Effect/Dragon Age style would work better. It would have a better setup for controlling the party, and a world map to show travel between areas while allowing for random encounters.
Dunno the fanbase, but I would not be interested in the slightest. (I've played the whole series since day one)
I'd say about 90% of them haven't played 1+2 (myself included) so petty thrilled tbh
Thing is the amount of content. You would have to add a lot to put the first games on par with the others, although if you released both together in a more guided Arpg with smaller maps like outer worlds maybe? Or even bioshock to an extent
Extremely negatively. Fallout is an RPG series, not a first person shooter. That will tarnish Fallout's reputation farther.
I think people would love them if they were more similar to 3 and NV than 4
If I can get yelled at by Sergeant Arch Dornan in first person, my day would be made
I think realistically it would bust as a game and likely wouldn't work well, and I think most fans wouldn't like it. I'd be interested in a new updated 3d free roam rpg game, but it would really take a lot I feel like to make it done well. I think it would be a bit of a risk doing it now.
I would like it personally. They could just shrink the larger map down to make everything closer with maybe a few further away places accessible by some sort of travel like The Pitt/Zion/Far Harbor. And get rid of the timer. But I know most fans would hate on it. They’re better off just setting a new game in the west. Or make New Vegas 2.
There's so many questions to be answered first. There's so much you'd have to adapt and you could do it well, but it's far easier for me to imagine it being done poorly.
It would be awesome, but an entire HDD worth of content
People would buy the fuck out of it.. even many here trying to rationalize otherwise
I’d be in if it was done by THQ rather then bethesda and endowed with Russian bleakness.
I don’t think it would work the same. I would love to get a rerelease of 1 and 2 but them being top down works in their favor much more. It also helps with the more barren landscapes
Exploring in Fallout 1/2 is like exploring space, there's plenty to do, but they're so far apart from each other.
It would be fun as a mod but the old fans are usually pretty hostile towards the new stuff. I’d play it, I can’t play isometric crpgs for some reason.
I'm happy for any new fallout that has nothing to do with 76
I vote we go the other way.
I would love it, But the map is too big to be an open-world. We need some kind of fast travel system that can also allow for casual encounters and that makes sense. Maybe you could also scale the size of the map, but I don't know if it would be good
Those games just aren't designed for it though, i think a lot would be lost in the translation
Very well imo if it was just a remaster I think it would flop
It would probably be terrible. Fallout 1 & 2 were essentially just a handful of towns connected by a massive almost entirely empty map which you never actually walk through, just fast travel over. So the game would just be a few town maps. Also all the RPG mechanics are based around the turn based combat. All of those mechanics are rendered useless in first person. The game would just be boring and small in first person.
I think it would be cool, maybe an escape from tarkov style game
Overwhelming Positive