Yes.
Let's just say there's a POD allowing the true Fallout 3 to be released to the public.
What will happen next?
Let's just say there's a POD allowing the true Fallout 3 to be released to the public.
What will happen next?
VideogameWI: Fallout 3:Van Buren
- Thread starter AudieonAHCom
- Start date
This is the respond I expected.the true Fallout 3 is the one that Bethesda released.
Yes.
No,really.
All..
Hail..
Black Isle..
But yeah..with the game still like that,what will happen..
Would the series ever go to the East Coast if Van Buren were released? Fallout New Vegas took a lot of plot and setting ideas from Van Buren. Also, no first-person shooter format for the later games if the series continues along the Fallout 1 and 2 route.
(Full disclosure: New Vegas is my favorite Fallout gameplay wise, but I like Fallout 2's lines best: "You know, there are decaffeinated brands that taste as good as the real thing!")
It's a half-finished glitchy mess with a lot of content missing that everybody hates until the company gets sold off and a decent game is made, then everyone loves it and talks about how amazing it is in comparison to something different. In other words,it's Fallout 2 all over again.
Black Isle did good things when they had the Fallout label, but they also didn't get finished with Fallout 2, and I see no reason to believe they are going to get more than that this time around. Interplay is still going bankrupt and they will probably still have to sell the franchise, and either Bethesda or someone similar will still buy it. Ultimate change is that the Fallout franchise will be put off from popularity by a year or two, and will likely be damaged by some of the bad ideas van burden had, the likely destruction of the NCR for instance.
Black Isle did good things when they had the Fallout label, but they also didn't get finished with Fallout 2, and I see no reason to believe they are going to get more than that this time around. Interplay is still going bankrupt and they will probably still have to sell the franchise, and either Bethesda or someone similar will still buy it. Ultimate change is that the Fallout franchise will be put off from popularity by a year or two, and will likely be damaged by some of the bad ideas van burden had, the likely destruction of the NCR for instance.
Perhaps,it will go Diablo?
LOOK! Its a tech demo. Remember.
Remember Diablo? How it still looks the same?
Asami
Banned
Interplay / Black Isle had no chance in God of ever creating a good Fallout 3. Their staff was so radically different from the Fallout 1 team, and they were going down faster than the Titanic after a certain point with Cain as CEO.
If Van Buren did grasp its way out of development and into stores, It would more than likely spectacularly flop, and Fallout would be devastated for years to come. Eventually, a reboot would sneak its way into stores made by a developer that bought the rights.
We could see the potential reboot of Fallout 1 as a game like FO3 is today, made by the same Bethesda.
But no, Van Buren being a success is too much of a stretch.
If Van Buren did grasp its way out of development and into stores, It would more than likely spectacularly flop, and Fallout would be devastated for years to come. Eventually, a reboot would sneak its way into stores made by a developer that bought the rights.
We could see the potential reboot of Fallout 1 as a game like FO3 is today, made by the same Bethesda.
But no, Van Buren being a success is too much of a stretch.
Your asking us to speculate on something which was never made and to ignore the only bit of reference we have. :/
If we assume Van Buren was released, it is probably going to be rushed and very buggy. If the tech demo is ANY point of reference, it was not going to end well for the franchise. They needed a new studio, new money and new ideas.
Last edited:
I don't know about the history of Diablo, but Blizzard isn't a sinking ship, and I don't think it was then either. Van Buren was almost finished (such as it was) and what information we have looks like it was going to be horrible. If we go by history and what information we have the setting was going to be horribly mangled and the story looks like it would have been incredibly stupid. This is in addition to the bad decisions like having the NCR get completely cut off and possibly destroyed. It was trying to increase the spectacle of the game, but this came at the expanse of the game as a whole.
Combine this with Interplay falling into bankruptcy and almost certainly rushing the game out to try to avoid if (something which almost certainly would have failed) van Buren being good is hard to see. To get it out well you need a much earlier POD in Interplay's history so it isn't a sinking ship, and you have to make Fallout 2 actually work/be a decent game rather than a broken and buggy mess.
Bethesda's Fallout 3, while not perfect, gave us fresh air for the game, an interesting (if a bit cliche) story, interesting characters and setting, and a far better control scheme. God knows I've complained about how buggy their games are at launch, but they are a hell of a lot better than Fallout 2 ended up, and almost certainly better than van Buren would have been when launched,
I agree with 100% on new vegas. It was just too small of a map. I've be lucky though 3 and NV only ever gave me problems after the 3rd time through.
What would happen if when Bethesda takes control of the franchise they create a version of Van Buren rather than creating a new story in DC? Basically a game polishing, refining and debugging the Van Buren storyline, or at least one like it, is one of the easiest ways that Van Buren can succeed.