Fallout 4

You keep that house on red skippy

[iup=3608282]Parksey[/iup] wrote:Why do people want Fallout 3 and NV redone? I was playing F3 a few months ago and it is still absolutely fine. Graphically it was probably a little dated on release, so you don't really notice its looks now.

I still need to get around to NV, but barring bugs, I am not sure what needs doing to it.

I am baffled by the clamour, yet again, by the desire to remake games for the new consoles, when they are more than playable on the old ones.

Does every new installment in a franchise need to be preceded by the older games being re-released?

Halo is vindicated somewhat by the fact that two of its games are older than the previous generation and all the multiplayers are now on one disc.

For Fallout, they would probably just be upping the resolution. People are also after a Skyrim remaster too - just go and play the original! I only started Skyrim in the summer and it is still amazing and absolutely fine on the 360.

We need less clamour for old games needlessly brought (somewhat) into line with the new hardware and more new titles made specifically to take advantage of them. Usually the remakes only begrudgingly bring them to speed anyway, and their previous-gen roots still remain evident.

Saying that, I do eagerly await Fallout 4 - a game that will have been designed for these new consoles and extra power.

Because they are small minded consumers who lack imagination.

The PS4 is now my main console, and, as I said above, I really want to play F3 again through properly without being a banana split to everyone. I don't actually own the game, I borrowed it the first time, and buying it again on PS3, even if it was dirt cheap, would feel like a backwards step.

Also, I dunno if you ever played any of the Fallouts on PS, but I was shocked when I saw how much smoother New Vegas looked on the 360.

If they can wazz out a remastered version of F3 and NV, bundled together for no more than £30, I'd get it.

If doing so would significantly hamper/delay the development of F4, then I'd rather they didn't bother.

The thing is, what exactly would be getting "remastered"? The visuals, obviously, though it still wouldn't really compete with modern visuals as its last gen graphics and engine would show its age. It's based on the same engine that gave us Oblivion in 2006 and no amount of jazzing up can disguise that. It wouldn't feel like a modern game, unless they really tinkered with it under the hood. I would imagine that such work would require way more effort than any remaster would warrant. It would be quite a project.

What else could they fix? The bugs, probably, though these could have been patched into the original game at any point in its life.


I just don't see what really warrants a remaster. Bar the fact that some people have new consoles under their TV and have no means of playing t anymore as they sold their PS3/360.

If Sony and MS actually came out with a decent backwards-compatibility option or a persistent online store that let you access everything that is currently on the PS3 store, then that urge to play old games would be satisfied.

Saying that, I don't think there's as much demand to replay old games as there is to shell out for these remasters. Otherwise people would just shell out the £5 the original would cost.

Fallout 4 would automatically be one of my most-wanted games as soon as it is announced. I still have New Vegas to play, though I am happy enough to play the £3 copy I downloaded from the 360 marketplace.

Skyrim and oblivion remasters is what i really want, particularly the latter, which i really enjoyed. Perhaps didn't really get into skyrim, partly due to the ps3 port. The fallout titles would be great remastered.

I agree with Parksey and I'll just state the obvious: if you've got the PC versions you wouldn't need a remaster.

The PS3 versions of Fallout 3, New Vegas and Skyrim were all broken as strawberry float. Why you would want to go through all that again 'now in 1080p' I just don't know.

[iup=3608340]Parksey[/iup] wrote:If Sony and MS actually came out with a decent backwards-compatibility option or a persistent online store that let you access everything that is currently on the PS3 store, then that urge to play old games would be satisfied.

.

Good post.

Maybe the remasters wouldn't be broken as strawberry float.

[iup=3608340]Parksey[/iup] wrote:The thing is, what exactly would be getting "remastered"? The visuals, obviously, though it still wouldn't really compete with modern visuals as its last gen graphics and engine would show its age. It's based on the same engine that gave us Oblivion in 2006 and no amount of jazzing up can disguise that. It wouldn't feel like a modern game, unless they really tinkered with it under the hood. I would imagine that such work would require way more effort than any remaster would warrant. It would be quite a project.

What else could they fix? The bugs, probably, though these could have been patched into the original game at any point in its life.


I just don't see what really warrants a remaster. Bar the fact that some people have new consoles under their TV and have no means of playing t anymore as they sold their PS3/360.

If Sony and MS actually came out with a decent backwards-compatibility option or a persistent online store that let you access everything that is currently on the PS3 store, then that urge to play old games would be satisfied.

Saying that, I don't think there's as much demand to replay old games as there is to shell out for these remasters. Otherwise people would just shell out the £5 the original would cost.

I've just checked with the man, and apparently, you wouldn't have to buy it.

Fallout 3 and New Vegas don't need remastered. I re-played the PC version of Fallout 3 earlier this year and it was perfectly fine, albeit it had some threading issues with quad-core processors.

Poser wrote:

[iup=3608340]Parksey[/iup] wrote:The thing is, what exactly would be getting "remastered"? The visuals, obviously, though it still wouldn't really compete with modern visuals as its last gen graphics and engine would show its age. It's based on the same engine that gave us Oblivion in 2006 and no amount of jazzing up can disguise that. It wouldn't feel like a modern game, unless they really tinkered with it under the hood. I would imagine that such work would require way more effort than any remaster would warrant. It would be quite a project.

What else could they fix? The bugs, probably, though these could have been patched into the original game at any point in its life.


I just don't see what really warrants a remaster. Bar the fact that some people have new consoles under their TV and have no means of playing t anymore as they sold their PS3/360.

If Sony and MS actually came out with a decent backwards-compatibility option or a persistent online store that let you access everything that is currently on the PS3 store, then that urge to play old games would be satisfied.

Saying that, I don't think there's as much demand to replay old games as there is to shell out for these remasters. Otherwise people would just shell out the £5 the original would cost.

I've just checked with the man, and apparently, you wouldn't have to buy it.

Someone always replies with something like this and it is the most idiotic statement.

If the counter argument is "well you don't have to buy it", then you could never complain about anything commercial ever. Of course I don't have to buy it. How many games come out that you have to buy?

There are very few films you have to watch, or very books you have to read. It doesn't mean you can't comment on their quality, or the creative decisions behind them.

Taking the time to complain about commercial things in which you clearly have no interest strikes me as being more idiotic, TBH.


You ask what improvements could be made, for some reason dismissing the graphics, gameplay and bugs (FFS ), and admit there is a demand and a market for this. But it still shouldn't happen, apparently.

Finally, you say:

[iup=3608428]Parksey[/iup] wrote:There are very few films you have to watch, or very books you have to read. It doesn't mean you can't comment on their quality, or the creative decisions behind them.

Yeah, the world needs more people commenting on books and films that they haven't read or watched.


Yet I'm idiotic for greeting all this with a touch of sarcasm? K mate.

Parksey must have missed the Skyrim PS3 debacle.

If people are happy to spend money on a higher res and a more stable fps/general experience then that's all the understanding of the "clamour" one needs. And at least dismiss the remaster after it's been announced as you never know what they'll add. I mean most people expected GTA V remaster to just be higher res and a more stable fps.

I wasn't claiming people should argue about films they haven't watched or books they haven't read. Your counter argument was that "you don't have to buy it". You don't HAVE to watch a film or read a book but it doesn't mean you can't comment on it. Just because a purchase wasn't necessary doesn't remove your right to criticise it.

I wasn't saying you shouldn't read/watch something and comment. Just that you generally don't "have" to buy any entertainment product, so that isn't really a valid argument.

Next time someone complains about an episode of Doctor Who or finds the latest Marvel film disappointing, just answer: "well you didn't have to watch it".

And I do have an interest in this. As stated, I was a big fan of Fallout 3 and eagerly anticipate its proper sequel. Surely this gives me grounds to critique a potential remaster?

I asked what improvements could be made and mentioned the graphics and bugs before dismissing them. I gave reasons why they should be dismissed.

Graphically, the game's framework is so old it is possible that any remaster would still feel dated. As I said, the engine goes back to Oblivion so presumably was created around 2004. There's only so much paint you can slap on to make it look better with an engine that old.

I feel like their options would be to up the resolution and draw distance a little, which would still make the game look dated. Or rework the engine, which then increases the strain on the developers and the project could impact on other games.

For bugs, as I said, these could have patched at any point in the game's development. Wanting them in a remaster is a bit odd, as the developers never had any desire to fix them before once the game has been released.

As Dual mentions, anything achieved in a remake could be dealt with by owning the PC Version. Is that what counts as a remaster these days? Is that what we want? A needless "Remaster" that is merely a few pixels sharper?

The areas that could really be improved by next-gen power - more involved quests, less robotic dialogue and NPCs and a more dynamic, adaptive game world - would only really been seen in a game designed from the ground up for that extra oomph. A remaster wouldn't fix Fallout's lifeless, static towns, it's slightly basic quests or it questionable design choices (the Metro, and how awkward downtown D.C is to navigate at times).

Most of the flaws with Fallout 3 are design choices or drawbacks and I don't feel like making the game any sharper would help. For people who want to play it again, I would argue that you should just play it again on the older systems. You'll be playing the same game as any remaster.

[iup=3608469]Parksey[/iup] wrote:I wasn't claiming people should argue about films they haven't watched or books they haven't read. Your counter argument was that "you don't have to buy it". You don't HAVE to watch a film or read a book but it doesn't mean you can't comment on it. Just because a purchase wasn't necessary doesn't remove your right to criticise it.

I wasn't saying you shouldn't read/watch something and comment. Just that you generally don't "have" to buy any entertainment product, so that isn't really a valid argument.

I have literally no idea what you're going on about here. I've read it several times and I can't see what your point is.

I was simply having a (succinct) pop at you for being apparently so annoyed about something you clearly had no intention of purchasing/playing. You seem to be turning that point around to... something. But honestly, it's bizarre. You've homed in on the imperative element of my post, and gone, frankly, strawberry floating mental over it.


There's a Majora's Mask thread started over there *points*. I have no intention of playing the 3ds version of this. I could go in there and bang on about whether or not this version was necessary, but it's honestly got strawberry float all to do with me and I'd consider myself to be a bit idiotic if I did so.

And, of course, there's that ^^^

Well, I was hardly "going mental", simply because I disagree with something on a gaming forum.

Firstly, I zoomed in on the imperative, as initially that was your sole argument. Your rebuke of my point was simply: "you don't have to play it". If me commenting on a remake I have no intention of playing is pointless, saying that people don't have to play it is up there too.

Indeed, it isn't that I have no intention of playing it that is the problem. I was arguing against it under the assumption that it could possibly divert development time away from something else and also arguing against the General clamour in gaming to remake games that are barely five years old (I have seen people after a Gears of War Collection, the final game of that trilogy being four years old).

So me not having an interest in playing it doesn't really mean anything.

Regardless, being a fan of Fallout 3,of Bethseda's output in general and a fan of gaming, gives me enough ground to comment on a remaster, I reckon.

Indeed, I don't think I said I wouldn't play it? Just that the whole enterprise is a bit pointless. I wouldn't be averse to picking it up if it was a drastic remaster, though my argument was based around the claim that it wouldn't be. I was arguing that the improvements made to the game wouldn't be worth the effort and price of releasing it again.

I even said why I thought any remaster would be pointless, and how the game possibly wouldn't benefit a great deal, or be improved in areas that could probably do with the most fixing up.

I thought my posts were fairly clear and level headed. Clearer than "you don't have to play it" anyway. Ironically, if the Fallout Collection did make me have to physically play it, then that would be quite a drastic addition that wasn't in the 360, but there you go.

And of course you could argue the merits of the Majora's Mask remake in the Majora's Mask thread. Just like I, as a Fallout 3 fan who has poured hours into the game and awaits Fallout 4, could argue the merits of a rumored remaster in a thread about Fallout 4 and, erm, a rumoured remaster. My opinion isn't only warranted if I support what's in the thread already.

Anyway, you will no doubt love reading this reply and probably find it as baffling as all the others.

Words and words and words.

I agree with... Parksey.