Op-Ed: Bethesda, Obsidian, and $6 Million for a New Fallout

[DrQuickbeam]

Hey everyone, I just stumbled across this article and wanted to bring it to the attention of Obsidian and their supporters. Its a detailed, four part essay on why Bethesda should license Obsidian to make an Isometric Fallout game. Would love to hear some comments from the developers!

 

Part 1

 

Part 2

 

Part 3

 

Part 4

 

Enjoy!

[Longknife]

If I may, since I'm an opinionated **** and don't do well reading opinions that aren't quite mine without voicing my own...

 

  I feel like I have a "duty" to speak up on the matter of the points of "isometric" and "voice-acting," since I'm in the minority (or perhaps a silent majority) on this: after FO:NV, I don't see any reason to hate on Bethesda's style of Fallout (3D open world) or voice-acting. No, of course I'm not blind to the advantages of skipping voice acting or how isometric systems could be easier, but I always hear self-proclaimed dinosaurs saying how everything should be like "the good ole days" and isometric etc. Personally? I have nothing against isometric games, and for the most part I would agree that voice-acting helps limit RPGs.

 

  However, yknow two things New Vegas accomplished for me? It was both my personal favorite Fallout title despite not being isometric and it has - hands down - the best voice acting I've personally seen from a video game. (With Chaos Wars being the obvious runner-up)

 

I personally cannot picture New Vegas as an isometric game. Some things, such as Dead Money, Old World Blues and Lonesome Road in their entirety, simply don't feel like they'd be executed as well had they been isometric. Dead Money's puzzles I often solved by using my ears to listen for speakers and static (not possible with isometric), Lonesome Road is a rare occurance where "cinematics" and scenery feel entirely needed to help build what was essentially a giant fan-service-driven finale for New Vegas fans (mean no disrespect by that as it's a fantastic DLC with a fantastic backstory provided by foreshadowing throughout the course of New Vegas, but let's be real, Lonesome Road hardly stands on it's own two feet without the support of the rest of the game and DLC) and Old World Blues, with it's enemy frequency, just feels like it'd be this nightmarish "omg I keep finding random encounters" feel reminiscent of Pokemon or Final Fantasy. (not quite the same, but still that groaning of "omg more enemies")

  My point in short is simply that any time I hear claims of isometric gameplay being superior or the like, I can't help but feel like this COMPLETELY alienates several advantages to a 3D open world that New Vegas highlighted. Ultimately it comes down to player preference of course, and there is no superior or inferior with isometric vs. 3D open world, but I can't help but feel like as far as the Fallout fanbase goes, there's this ongoing lack of respect for 3D open world gameplay despite New Vegas' success and the strengths of that very style, which I simply cannot understand. It almost feel nostalgia-driven, as if anything that diverges from 1 and 2 cannot possibly be any good or an improvement in any way. Neverthless, it should be the public that decides which style they prefer. If I were in the minority, so be it. I simply feel obligated to voice support for 3D open world style since no one else seems to be doing so.

 

 

 

And as far as voice-acting goes? As I said, normally I would be in the camp that says "yeah let's skip it." Why is this an exception? Because Obsidian did it right. OMG!!! This is a miracle I've been waiting for for ages as far as video games go. Never before have I played a game where I thought "this voice actor's really good, I wanna google and find out who it is." Whereas I can play Skyrim and absolutely grooooooooaaaaaaaan as NPCs force this faux-Skandinavian accent, pronouncing the same word 40 different ways one after the other (com-rads becomes com-raids two seconds later from the EXACT same character, because this is a totally normal thing people do) in an attempt to "sound foreign-y," all as Bethesda points and says "LOOK, We got big name voice actor #4!!!" as if that automatically validates the voice acting quality as good, New Vegas voice actors are truly a pleasure to listen to.

 

  New Vegas got it right: a wide cast of voice actors, no need for "OMG WE GOT SEAN CONNERY AREN'T WE BALLER?" while still managing to get a plaetoria of recognizable names, all with clever management that assigns unique voice actors to only the most important characters with lots of dialog while giving "no name" voice actors (no disrespect intended, these guys are just as good in their own way) to generic characters and makes sure each voice actor truly understands the scene and character. It's refreshing to know that my only criticism of New Vegas voice acting is the infamous "LATER! >:E" that's merely a case of misplaced files.

  It's refreshing to know that Felicia Day, the voice actress who probably got advertised the most in promos to attract customers, is in my opinion one of the weakest voice actors the game has to offer.

  So look, while if you came to me right now and asked if Dark Souls II should have more voice acting, I'd give you a resounding "HELL NO" merely out of fear that'd distract from the core focus of the game and drain resources ($$$) from other parts of the game? I would 100% support Obsidian making another Fallout with voice actors. Yknow why? Cause omg they do it right. It's so rare to see a game with exceptional voice acting, so I hardly want to discourage the very company that pulled it off from ever touching the subject again. Please, by all means, encourage this company with this series to continue with voice acting. When they manage to screw up and we have random NPCs trying their hardest to "sound foreign-y!!!" and pronouncing a word like "vawl-cane-oh" one moment and "vüll-khan-noh" the next sentence? Yes, then we can ban Obsidian from voice acting. Until then though? The industry needs them to show it how to do voice acting right, in my opinion.

 

 

 

 

On that note, I hate to sound realist and pessimistic, but I simply don't think this will happen. If it would? Don't get me wrong, I'd be behind it 100%. I'm not saying "I won't play a Fallout unless it has 3D open design and voice acting!!" No no, I was merely defending two minority opinions that I believe have merit and aren't receiving the defense they deserve. That does NOT mean I find isometric design or a lack of voice acting to be terrible. But between Project Eternity, Bethesda's own projects and a presumption of mine that I highly doubt Bethesda would be willing to risk -anything- on a style of game that isn't tried and true for them NOR popular on the market (not exactly unpopular, but regardless, it's a change that could get customers loading up the game and thinking "wtf is this???" when they're accustomed to the style of FO3 and NV already), I simply don't see it happening.

  

  Something I desperately wish would happen is, and again I know this won't happen, but...:

 

Am I the only one that couldn't give two ****s about graphics? I honestly wouldn't mind seeing yet another Fallout using the exact graphics, engine, resources etc of FO3 and New Vegas. Screw wasting time developing new graphics and resources, just make another one. Hell, it kind of has it's advantages in the sense that, well, Tale of Two Wastelands mod for PC is simply astoundingly awesome; it's beyond interesting to essentially be able to link of two game worlds and truly feel like these events all occured within the same universe and world.

  I would love to simply see another spin-off from Obsidian, graphics be damned, or hell a PC mod by Obsidian for New Vegas that simply creates a new world entirely (ala Project Brazil) that has all the proper legal sanctions from Bethesda to allow Obsidian to profit from it. I would pay actual money made out of actual paper to actual Obsidian/Bethesda employees to see either of those happen.

 

Sadly though, and I hate to rain on our parade, I dunno if any of these are possible...

[Gizmo]

...after FO:NV, I don't see any reason to hate on Bethesda's style of Fallout (3D open world) or voice-acting. No, of course I'm not blind to the advantages of skipping voice acting or how isometric systems could be easier, but I always hear self-proclaimed dinosaurs saying how everything should be like "the good ole days" and isometric etc.

But I don't recall any of 'them' saying that; I know for a fact none of those I recall actually want a Fallout 2.5, and none have any misgivings about using 3D.... But then 3D is not specifically first person, it's how the data exists and is handled. There are several games out that are self described as isometric, but are actually 3D.... Pillars of Eternity is one of them (just for instance).

 

One of "the good ol' days" concepts that is better done in isometric [3d or 2d], is the bit for which Fallout was envisioned and made to provide:

Namely a PnP style experience on the PC (or as close as feasible); which they admirably did IMO.  When it comes to combat FPP doesn't cut it.

 

You might find it surprising to hear from me ~but I would be far less antagonistic about FO3's use of FPP had they simply restricted its use to exploration and not combat... favoring a more FO2/WL2 approach (as depicted below).

 

I personally cannot picture New Vegas as an isometric game.

But I can; and here it is!;(but it's not like I spent any time on it; it's just conceptual).

This screen looks [to me] like a game that would provide the kind of gameplay challenges implied (and usually afforded) by use of the name "Fallout".

 

Some things, such as Dead Money, Old World Blues and Lonesome Road in their entirety, simply don't feel like they'd be executed as well had they been isometric. Dead Money's puzzles I often solved by using my ears to listen for speakers and static (not possible with isometric).

This is possible with [real] Isometric...so it's certainly possible with 3D [fake] isometric.

 

 

My point in short is simply that any time I hear claims of isometric gameplay being superior or the like, I can't help but feel like this COMPLETELY alienates several advantages to a 3D open world that New Vegas highlighted.

Name one ~(seriously); I cannot think of anything specific to RPGs that alienates ~or fails to exploit, an (available) 3D open world technolog if it's done in 3/4 top down. What did you have in mind?

 

I can think of the reverse easy enough; but then Neither Fallout 3 of NV seem to exploit it either.  In 3D there could be targeting nodes in the models that conform attack animations in real time while the target moves. That could mean that the stock punch in a 3D game could track to the face, or shoulder, neck, or groin of a moving target ~~allowing aimed strikes on par with Fallout, instead of the silly 'anywhere' punch in FO3 that affords no tactical attacks to the melee fighter.  These same nodes could be used with skills & actions... the PC could equip say... Bolt cutters (as an FPP weapon) and the animation could depict the PC cutting a lock off a door (for simply standing close enough and attacking it with bolt cutters).

 

 

it's a change that could get customers loading up the game and thinking "wtf is this???" when they're accustomed to the style of FO3 and NV already), I simply don't see it happening.

Turn-about is fair play; It's what was done to us. <_<

 

Am I the only one that couldn't give two ****s about graphics? I honestly wouldn't mind seeing yet another Fallout using the exact graphics, engine, resources etc of FO3 and New Vegas. Screw wasting time developing new graphics and resources, just make another one.

You certainly aren't aren't the only one; the resources between the games are fantastic, and more than enough; they should just add what they need that they don't have.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Gizmo

[Helz]

Fallout 1 and 2 are probably my favorite games of all time, but I liked FO:3 (gasp) and especially New Vegas a lot as well.  Personally, I don't think that being isometric or FPS can inherently make one better than the other.  Both viewpoints have different strengths, and yes, an isometric New Vegas would be a different experience than the actual one is, but I'm pretty sure I'd like both.

 

That said, I'm not a fan of making it 3D isometric.  I've been of the opinion for years that 2D games are actually prettier than their 3D counterparts, because paintings look far more detailed and unique than their 3D models.  2D artwork holds up as technology changes, whereas 3D games look dated after about 2 years.  Its also far cheaper to produce 2D games, making it seem like an obvious advantage to stick with 2D in an isometric game.  Not to mention, the cameras in 3D isometric games are always a pain in the ass.  I think Oblivion are going to prove just that when Eternity is released and blows away Wasteland 2 with their artwork (I know they've got a 2D/3D hybrid thing going, which is actually pretty cool). 

 

Mandatory voiceacting has been the bane of RPGs for a long time now.  Go play Baldur's Gate if you haven't in a while, and be blown away by the myriad of responses you have for every dialogue.  And even more amazing, almost every choice actually leads to a different response!  Voice acting is a hugely expensive part of production that is actually detrimental to the final game.  Such a waste of resources.

[Wolfenbarg]

After New Vegas, I'd rather they get another shot with a post Fallout 4 game. It'll keep the IP going strong while Bethesda works on TES VI, plus New Vegas was my favorite open world game and just one of my favorite games period. Since Fallout isn't dead, I want to see Obsidian do more with it. 

[Bryy]

I'm replaying New Vegas.

 

In the words of Ferris Bueller:

 

"If you get a chance to, I highly recommend it. It is so choice."

[HoonDing]

Sadly Bethesda won't waste money on something that won't sell millions. Even though they're swimming in it and could easily fund more lowkey projects like Ubisoft is doing.

[Undecaf]

Sadly Bethesda won't waste money on something that won't sell millions. Even though they're swimming in it and could easily fund more lowkey projects like Ubisoft is doing.

 

Probably (likely) not, but seeing what kinds of games they've published... Rogue Warrior, Wet, Brink, Hunted... and seeing the current influx of old school titles, one would think they'd see a potentially better money maker and good PR right there in a decently budgeted and professionally crafted old school game with technical new school virtues and some name recognition. The market is there.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Undecaf

[mkreku]

There's a reason Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas has sold millions more copies than the old games. Look as hard as you want through your rose-tinted glasses, but there's a reality out there if you ever want to come out of your nostalgia shell, and it's not bad.

[Humanoid]

Those screenshots.... the 2D game may have been very brown for its time, but that shows it's got nothin' on how brown games are now.

[HoonDing]

IIRC both Rogue Warrior and WET were games trapped in development hell/vaporware they picked up and published with very low risk (like Cthulhu - Dark corners of the earth).

 

Hunted wasn't bad, WET wasn't either - I only resent Bethesda for not supporting a PC port of it.

 

Rogue Warrior was so terrible that it became a cult "so bad it's good" title. Many people just bought it to hear Mickey Rourke say **** a million times.

 

Of course this was all before the days where Bethesda had several internal studios of their own.

[Undecaf]

There's a reason Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas has sold millions more copies than the old games. Look as hard as you want through your rose-tinted glasses, but there's a reality out there if you ever want to come out of your nostalgia shell, and it's not bad.

I don't think anyone would dispute that (sales) for the simple fact that the intended core audiences are different. Times have changed and the market has changed as well, but I don't think it's died for these certain genres (as we can see from the current influx of more or less popular games made with these "rose-tinted glasses" on).

[Longknife]

 

 

 

My point in short is simply that any time I hear claims of isometric gameplay being superior or the like, I can't help but feel like this COMPLETELY alienates several advantages to a 3D open world that New Vegas highlighted.

Name one ~(seriously); I cannot think of anything specific to RPGs that alienates ~or fails to exploit, an (available) 3D open world technolog if it's done in 3/4 top down. What did you have in mind?

 

 

 

I did.

Look at Dead Money. How are you going to do Dead Money isometrically and still hold the same feel and abilities? As I said, I did a LOT of listening for sparks or radio white noise to pinpoint potential radio sources, and I don't see how this could be done with an isometric system. Sure you could do "if the player is within this many spaces of the radio they begin to hear the sound," but it's more sloppy in the sense that you can't determine which direction the sound is coming from without a lot of walking around and process of elimination. The same difference arise in regards to the holographic security. I can name at least one point in Dead Money where the difficulty would rise significantly with an isometric system simply because, quite ironically, a certain puzzle has not one but two ways to solve it THANKS TO the unpredictable (unreliable?) AI within the game, albeit the second one is still risky; it's simply reliably risky so that you can often get away with taking that risk. Likewise how the radios would be found and located would be entirely different. Ever play, for example, Sims 3 World Adventures? There's "puzzles" of a sort, but ultimately all of them can quickly be solved by merely scanning the room completely and clicking on any spot that happens to change your cursor. This is more or less how radios would be spotted, which isn't nearly as fun as having to actively spot them yourself. And with an overhead view of things, how the HELL are they supposed to be difficult to spot in the first place?

  For the most part the DLCs is where I simply can't see isometric gameplay doing them justice the way the FPS style presented them (and again, that's not to say isometric gameplay couldn't produce something excellent too; that's NOT my point here. I simply mean to show that FPS has it's advantages as well).  Isometry wouldn't be able to provide the scenery of the High Road (one of the few instances I'd praise scenery and presentation and regard it as vital to the experience), the fast-paced action of the Tunnelers elevator; hell I don't think it could really do the Giant Roboscorpion battle justice. The fight vs. the Think Tank would DEFINITELY require massive tweaking as they'd easily tear a player to shreds with turn-based combat. (ever been hit by them? They hit deceivingly hard)

 

 

Overall the point is that both have their advantages. There's no superior or inferior with FPS vs isometric. FPS simply encompasses more fast-paced action with more dependence on basic player skill within the game (I'd argue the character stats are still more important, but FPS at least makes player skill significant), whereas isometric encompasses more strategy all across the board, where there's no such thing as player skill, only player strategy and properly built character builds. You cannot simply translate something like the Legendary Bloatfly fight to isometric and have it feel completely the same: no, it'd require tweaking. What was standing above the Legendary Bloatfly with a ledge as cover and dodging any stray plasma beams as you fire back on him, with isometric gameplay would be....well, how would you do it? You'd either be safely in cover with no risk of him hitting you each turn or you'd die. Also should note, and not saying this is a bad thing, but when I try to picture an isometric New Vegas, I end up picturing Fallout Tactics far more than I do Fallout 1 or 2. The playstyle is simply more similar between the two as Tactics accounted for taking cover quite a bit more, as well as the possibility (depends on options settings, though imo it made things A LOT harder) for more fluid gameplay as opposed to a locked-in turn-based style.

  In some ways FPS is more flexible and allows for more fluid, action-packed gameplay, in other ways isometric is more logical and allows for a more logical style of play that puts a bit more stress on strategy and RPG elements. There is no superior. That's merely my point. I'm constantly hearing praise for "the good 'ole days" as these very same people will praise the ever-living hell out of New Vegas and call it a fantastic game as many entertain thoughts of an isometric New Vegas. I'm sorry, but I simply don't see it working. And I'm sorry, but I find it rather close-minded and negligent to cling to ONE style of gameplay that worked when we've now seen two different styles work. Again, I don't have a problem with either, I suppose if asked I would slightly prefer FSP style (talking 55-45 in favor of it over isometric), I just simply find it a shame that we have two perfectly valid gameplay styles and a lot of the older Fallout fans still can't stop clinging to the first one because it came first.

 

 

it's a change that could get customers loading up the game and thinking "wtf is this???" when they're accustomed to the style of FO3 and NV already), I simply don't see it happening.

Turn-about is fair play; It's what was done to us. <_<

 

 

 

 

It doesn't work like that. Try writing Bethesda and saying "turn about is fair play!" See how they respond. If anything, you're discouraging them from supporting an isometric style because you're acknowledging that an isometric game would alienate and frustrate their newer player base.

 

 You want results? Actual ones? Come up with a plan or idea that Bethesda would buy into, don't fantasize about what you want without asking if it's even plausible. I'm simply being a realist when I say that I think Bethesda would be far more likely to bite if the offer was "let Obsidian make a funded for-profit New Vegas mod" or "let Obsidian make another Fallout with the same old engine." This re-introduces their fans to things they already know and a style that EVERYONE is familiar with. Isometric? That'd be asking Bethesda to fund a project with a style they themselves are entirely unfamiliar with and have no engine for or experience with such an engine (issues with them properly overseeing the project), as well as a style that their newer fans are entirely unfamiliar with. It's not gonna happen.

  In that same sense I would never come knocking on Obsidian's door asking for a 3D open world FPSer, (not that I have any problem whatsoever with isometric gameplay, but for this example pretend I do. ) I can accept both styles as both are entirely valid experiences. And as stated, while I'm rather pessimistic any convincing can truly be done, If anyone were to actively try, then be smart about it. Don't run at Bethesda screaming about Isometry and the good ole days and how their fanbase doesn't truly know what they want and they'd love isometry! That kind of unadaptive perspective and approach won't accomplish squat.

 

 

There's a reason Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas has sold millions more copies than the old games. Look as hard as you want through your rose-tinted glasses, but there's a reality out there if you ever want to come out of your nostalgia shell, and it's not bad.

 

 

 

I honestly don't really consider this a valid argument simply because the gaming market has grown tenfold since then. Please remember, Mario himself is only 28 years old; dunno about you, but he's only about 4 years older than me. We are the first generation of gamers. We come from a time when playing games was "just for kids," but as time moves on, it's becoming more and more abundantly clear that that's not the case. We cannot prove New Vegas and FO3 sold more because FPS style is more popular, as it could very well be merely a matter of when they were released.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Longknife

[Emissary of Abion]

Just me hoping for an X:COM reskin with Fallout tactics characters? Yep, I thought so.

[Gizmo]

My point in short is simply that any time I hear claims of isometric gameplay being superior or the like, I can't help but feel like this COMPLETELY alienates several advantages to a 3D open world that New Vegas highlighted.

And I mentioned that I simply don't see it. A 3D open world is the same 3d open world whether the camera sits on the shoulder, in the eye, or above in the sky... Same assets, same engine... it's just that Iso style seems generally more intensive to render; IE it's easier to do FPP.

 

 

Look at Dead Money.

I've never played the DLCs.

 

when I try to picture an isometric New Vegas, I end up picturing Fallout Tactics far more than I do Fallout 1 or 2. The playstyle is simply more similar between the two as Tactics accounted for taking cover quite a bit more, as well as the possibility (depends on options settings, though imo it made things A LOT harder) for more fluid gameplay as opposed to a locked-in turn-based style.

Tactics improved the combat; the only thing wrong was including the RT mode... well... that and then [beyond all belief] making it the default. [Technically FO:Tactics was spin off too, so really it wasn't wrong to have RT; but it was a shame IMO, they really did improve the TB combat, and I thought the RT mode was a joke.]

 

I don't know if you played Fallout, but the combat was very fluid... so much so, that I often wondered if Mark Morgan timed the beats to the combat animations.

(I can't imagine it's true, but it often seemed so.)

 

And I'm sorry, but I find it rather close-minded and negligent to cling to ONE style of gameplay that worked when we've now seen two different styles work.

Plainly put: There are many games; many great systems; mechanics, art; stories, series... There is nothing wrong with FPS gameplay; there is nothing wrong with new games using it; or using turn based mechanics... The reason for the choice of mechanics is to provide the planned experience; and it is simply an error to provide a substitute. If I see 'Fallout' on the box, that means a GURPS derived PNP style classic RPG [HIGHLY reminiscent of Fallout, and its gameplay] regardless of whether it's 3D and demands 4 gigs of Vram and a DX11 card with 8GB system ram and a 8core CPU... A first person franken-shooter doesn't cut it ~no matter how incredible (or incredibly addictive fun!) that it is...Or even (if possible) how superior an RPG it may be because of it! It's the wrong fun; they should have called it something else. Had they, it would have been the best Fallout spinoff to date.

 

*Anything that's not Fallout should not be called Fallout ~that is the root of what you call "clinging"... but you seem to think of it as a bad thing when it's not. there is no difference at all, from buying a Chess set and the instructions seem to play like Parcheesi... it ain't chess; Chess was the name on the box.

**Or put another way: Imagine Temple of Elemental Evil 2: and it's a Bioshock clone with spells instead of guns.... Probably would be an outstanding title... but not really ToEE2 gaming material... to say that it was would be dishonest and deceptive if it was advertized as such. ToEE2 should not be a cool FPS/hybrid RPG, and [of course] neither should Fallout.

 

Fact is: FPP IS superior to Isometric when the game calls for FPP; and vice versa... What you don't get [seemingly] is that it shouldn't be "But we can't translate the experience to Isometric, it's better in FPP"... It should be "Don't include it if you cannot design it compellingly for isometric".

 

 

*And of course nobody really means true isometric (or even cavalier Oblique ~Since Fallout was not an Isometric game). The current use of the word generally means 3D but done in similar visual style; but with all the benefits of full 3D, and none of the hassles of Isometric.

 

 

It doesn't work like that. Try writing Bethesda and saying "turn about is fair play!" See how they respond.

I don't care what they'd say; it'd be PR rhetoric or nothing; there is too much money in mass market trends to ever get an appropriate Fallout title from them. They are like a Printing company that can't start the presses unless they are printing many 10's of thousand of copies; if you're printing that much these days, you should probably print pulp romance novels, not fountainhead.

(You can't sell the kind of numbers they want with a correct game, so you can't convince them to bother.)

 

You want results? Actual ones? Come up with a plan or idea that Bethesda would buy into,

There are no results to be had... The only way to buy into it is to buy them out; they are incorrigible.

 

 

Edited March 1, 2014 by Gizmo

[alanschu]

 

 

A 3D open world is the same 3d open world whether the camera sits on the shoulder, in the eye, or above in the sky... Same assets, same engine... it's just that Iso style seems generally more intensive to render; IE it's easier to do FPP.

 

I doubt that that's the case.

 

First person perspective may let you save on asset creation because the camera's viewpoint may mean you can skip out on things like rooftops and the like.  But I wouldn't say that a top down perspective would be more intensive.  Depending on draw distance, it could be less intensive.

[Bos_hybrid]

2D,3D,4D,10D, isometric, third person,first person it doesn't matter. Just give me another Fallout from Obsidian and we are good Bethesda.

[Undecaf]

2D,3D,4D,10D, isometric, third person,first person it doesn't matter. Just give me another Fallout from Obsidian and we are good Bethesda.

 

I would agree in principle; although, I would (strongly) prefer different gameplay from the Bethesdian featherweight shooter in a miniaturized sandbox world.

[AGX-17]

Hey everyone, I just stumbled across this article and wanted to bring it to the attention of Obsidian and their supporters. Its a detailed, four part essay on why Bethesda should license Obsidian to make an Isometric Fallout game. Would love to hear some comments from the developers!

Enjoy!

DrQuickbeam

1 posts

 

 

I seriously can't believe you guys are spewing out walls of text when this is just a guy promoting his blog already preaching to the choir.

[Oerwinde]

Bethesda trowing 10 million at remaking Fallout 1 and 2 in a modern engine like Unity, with some of the modern aesthetic (NCR Rangers using New Vegas armor) and releasing both in a Fallout Origins pack might just make some decent cash. Build an interface thats usable with controllers and you could sell them digitally on PSN and Xbox Live as well to maximize profit. Could be a good way to get modern fans into the classics. If it does well I could see them possibly investing in a Fallout Origins franchise, doing smaller budget 3rd person games in different parts of the world. I would be all over that.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Oerwinde

[Gizmo]

Bethesda trowing 10 million at remaking Fallout 1 and 2 in a modern engine like Unity, with some of the modern aesthetic (NCR Rangers using New Vegas armor) and releasing both in a Fallout Origins pack might just make some decent cash. Build an interface thats usable with controllers and you could sell them digitally on PSN and Xbox Live as well to maximize profit. Could be a good way to get modern fans into the classics. If it does well I could see them possibly investing in a Fallout Origins franchise, doing smaller budget 3rd person games in different parts of the world. I would be all over that.

The option I'd prefer, is a Total conversion mod of whatever their most recent Fallout game is, and convert it to Fallout series gameplay, and optionally rewrite the entire thing from scratch, and cannibalize the recorded voice work, mixed with 'over dub' voice impressions.

 

It's pointless for them to remake the originals; impossible in today's messed up global culture... It'd be like Disney doing an animated remake of Schindler's List.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Gizmo

[Valsuelm]

There's a reason Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas has sold millions more copies than the old games. Look as hard as you want through your rose-tinted glasses, but there's a reality out there if you ever want to come out of your nostalgia shell, and it's not bad.

 

Yea.. that reason is tens of millions of more people are playing computer games nowadays than when the older games came out.

[alanschu]

 

There's a reason Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas has sold millions more copies than the old games. Look as hard as you want through your rose-tinted glasses, but there's a reality out there if you ever want to come out of your nostalgia shell, and it's not bad.

 

Yea.. that reason is tens of millions of more people are playing computer games nowadays than when the older games came out.

 

It's non-trivial to conclude that those same people would have also picked up the original Fallout games (which still weren't barn burners compared to other games that became higher profile). We'd have to look at what it is about gaming that has made tens of million more people playing games now compared to back then.

 

But yes, comparing the sales of Fallout 1 with Fallout 3 is going to be a simplistic way of looking at it. I would be skeptical if Fallout 1 would have been as successful as Fallout 3 was, though, if it was released today (complete with better graphics)

Edited March 6, 2014 by alanschu

[babaganoosh13]

When it finally gets released, Wasteland 2 might give us a more accurate reflection of how an isometric Fallout game would have done. In this argument though, the 61,290 backers is more important than the $2.9M they raised.

 

Also, there is Wasteland now for our isometric post-apocalyptic game needs (plus other indies.) Hopefully they release more than just Wasteland 2.

Edited March 6, 2014 by babaganoosh13

[alanschu]

Good point regarding Wasteland 2's success.  Nice thing about Kickstarter is he can leverage it again if sales aren't particularly great, but the contributors are mostly happy.