Game News Original Fallouts reach #7 in NPD sales charts

[Hard Knox]

Good God. What is going on here? Everything is like so rosy... and gay.

welcome to the rpg codex.

 

[Volourn]

"Yes. Because nobody can enjoy more than one type of game...."

u dumAss

It's about expectations. Those buying FO1 based on their fun experience with FO3 are gonna be sadly dissapointed that the game plays differently. And, it has nothing to do with actual quality.

 

[Talby]

You know, I'll probably catch a lot of hate for saying this, but I do think FO3 easily has the best introduction sequence of the Fallout games.

You may not like how they portrayed Vault life, the G.O.A.T. exam, the violence-happy "Escape from the Vault!!!!" shooter sequence, etc., and that's fine. But, even with any flaws the implementation may have, the idea of playing out key moments in the childhood of your character is far more appealing than "shoot/avoid rats as you escape the Vault cave". And, well, the less said about the Temple of Trials, the better.

I remember returning to FO1 last year after playing it as a kid, and for all the hype the game had gotten over the years, I was struck by how boring the first areas was. I kept going, because I knew it got much, much better and was easily worthy of all the hype and praise it had received. But, I think it's also understandable someone might play 10 or 15 minutes into those games - especially Fallout 2 - and just give up, looking for a game that's actually entertaining right out of the box.

I love the idea of starting out in a Vault and actually doing quests there and interacting with characters, rather than just having the game begin immediately outside the vault door. Unfortunately the FO3 Vault intro is very boring and linear, and you don't get a chance to explore or do any proper quests. If it had dropped the tedious "growing up" sequence and made the vault a bit bigger, with some proper quests and given you a chance to settle in, then kicked you outside in a violent bloodbath, it would've been better.

The "growing up" sequence has got to be one of the most tedious game intros in recent memory.

 

[Azrael the cat]

Not to mention that on a typical FO1 playthrough, most players will never ever interact with the characters and quests insight the vault. You start outside, are rebuked if you try to go in, and so most players would think 'well they obviously haven't actually made a vault for the player to go there - it's just there for exposition. Few would go and check if they could get in later, at least before getting the water chip.

I simply don't think a game could crack top 10 status without some positive word of mouth, examination of screenshots or familiarity with what the game is. Many of the gamers buying FO trilogy might not even have played FO3 - they might have missed them at the time, been reminded by the FO3 hype and wanted to play some old-school stuff.

It isn't like none of them know how old the games are. Almost EVERY mainstream review has mentioned the rabid FO1 fanbase, and how the originals were turn-based, and then gone on to say how archaic they would be today and how much better FO3 is. If anything, those guys are expecting something more archaic than they're going to get.

Have some goddman confidence in your own tastes people. We like isometric because it's a good system for rpgs. We like large parties because they are fun to use. Not because we're angry bitter cunts - well not JUST because we're angry bitter cunts. Even if the buyers are mainly next-gen kiddies (and I doubt that is the case) they'll be surprised by how intuitive isometric gameplay is, and how wrong all those reviews were that told them they'd hate it and FO3 was all that is worth playing today. They aren't buying it on a wave of hype - if anything the hype is against them - they've seen all the professional reviews go on about how outdated FO1 and 2 are. They won't be expecting FO3.

And those who don't have a good picture of what FO1 is like won't be expecting FO3 from a late 90s game. They'll be expecting Baldurs Gate 2. Yes, even the kiddies know that one, and that's what they all associate with rpgs from that era. They might not have bought it, but almost all of those Mass Effect / Oblivion fans have pirated or borrowed BG2 at some stage, and have pretty much given it legend status. For them old-school is BG2. And frankly, I can't see why someone who is expecting BG2 would be put off by FO.

 

[Volourn]

"Have some goddman confidence in your own tastes people."

Don't be ignorant. It has nothing to do with having 'no confidence' in one's own taste. Just, unlike other internet dinks, I don't expect others to have the same tatse I do or like the same games I do. ie. I hate FO3, and like FO1; but I don't expect everyone to agree with that.


"Have some goddman confidence in your own tastes people. We like isometric because it's a good system for rpgs. We like large parties because they are fun to use. Not because we're angry bitter cunts - well not JUST because we're angry bitter cunts. Even if the buyers are mainly next-gen kiddies (and I doubt that is the case) they'll be surprised by how intuitive isometric gameplay is, and how wrong all those reviews were that told them they'd hate it and FO3 was all that is worth playing today. They aren't buying it on a wave of hype - if anything the hype is against them - they've seen all the professional reviews go on about how outdated FO1 and 2 are. They won't be expecting FO3."

Your problem is that you expect everyone to agree with you on what is a good game. Just because YOU or I think FO1 is a good game doesn't mean EVERYONE does.

 

[Talby]

It isn't like none of them know how old the games are. Almost EVERY mainstream review has mentioned the rabid FO1 fanbase, and how the originals were turn-based, and then gone on to say how archaic they would be today and how much better FO3 is. If anything, those guys are expecting something more archaic than they're going to get.

From the kind of language used in some of the FO3 reviews, I get the impression they were playing Wasteland, not FO1. Some of the reviews talk about FO1 like it had the learning curve of your average roguelike. Are they underestimating their readers or are they just idiots?

 

[Pliskin]

1) Most Casual Gamers don't read reviews --- they buy shit that has lots of adjectives on the box, and has lotsa pics of kewl graffix.

2) I've seen many the comment "There's a Fallout 1 and / or 2?" and "Fallout is a franchise?" Not to mention the continual TB vs. FPS argument, dated graphics, etc.

The rise in sales for Fallout 1/2 is nothing more than fallout (heh) from Fallout 3's shock-&-awe sales campaign. As has already been stated, most people bought 1/2 expecting some form of 3, and when they didn't get it prolly stopped playing immediately.

Of course, there is always hope for that 1% who felt the wonder for the first time, and ended FO 1 asking, "where can I get more games like this?"

 

[gc051360]

"Yes. Because nobody can enjoy more than one type of game...."

u dumAss

It's about expectations. Those buying FO1 based on their fun experience with FO3 are gonna be sadly dissapointed that the game plays differently. And, it has nothing to do with actual quality.

So you think the average consumer that purchased "Fallout Trilogy" has no knowledge of the game they are purchasing? Has no idea that it will play differently than Fallout 3?

Not only are they incapable of doing a simple google search...they are also too retarded to look at the back of the box?

Come on. I think Fallout 3 helped spark interest in it, but you can't just assume that people will hate the game because it's different than Fallout 3. That's retarded.

As has already been stated, most people bought 1/2 expecting some form of 3, and when they didn't get it prolly stopped playing immediately.

And you base this on......nothing. You pulled it out of your ass.

Not only do you claim to know why people bought it...you also claim to know what they did after they bought it.

 

[trojan pony]

I think this is down to the popularity of notebooks as much as anything else. Sure the increased name recognition that "the Bethesda thing" brought will have fed into it but if you look at any of these lists that recommend games for Notebooks, chances are the the Fallout games and Planescape are on there alongside the Popcap usual suspects.

 

[Volourn]

"Not only are they incapable of doing a simple google search...they are also too retarded to look at the back of the box?"

It's well known that most customers tend to buy base done ither a) extreme hype or b) name recoginization on the box.

ie. People who played FO3 and enjoyed it went to the game store, saw the FO collection box, and say hey, I enjoyed FO3 let me play the originals as I'm sure it's fun too.


"And you base this on......nothing. You pulled it out of your ass."

It's common sense, and logic.

FO, as much as we love it in Internet Land was not super popular with the masses when it originally cam eout. Nothing has changed since then since it is the same game.

 

[Severian Silk]

@Original Poster

I would say "Awesome", except that it revives Herve's ability to fuck everyone over again.

 

[Lumpy]

Or, rather than being faggots making assumption over assumption, you could try reading recent Gamespot user reviews.
Like this one:
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/fallout/ ... s;continue

Usually, I positively HATE!! any turn based game, no matter how good the reviews are. After playing fallout 3, i found it hard to believe that the original games could be better, especially if they were turn-based. But I still wanted both of the original games to understand the story of the game more.
[...]
I haven't finished the game yet, however from what i have played so far, I can confirm that any person who enjoys turn based RPGs or a a good action game will definately enjoy this Fallout 1.

 

[Pliskin]

As has already been stated, most people bought 1/2 expecting some form of 3, and when they didn't get it prolly stopped playing immediately.

And you base this on......nothing. You pulled it out of your ass.

Not only do you claim to know why people bought it...you also claim to know what they did after they bought it.

And you have proof that the opposite is true...?

No?

So who's projecting now?

Until you can provide evidence to the contrary, feel free to STFU.

 

[Shannow]

As has already been stated, most people bought 1/2 expecting some form of 3, and when they didn't get it prolly stopped playing immediately.

And you base this on......nothing. You pulled it out of your ass.

Not only do you claim to know why people bought it...you also claim to know what they did after they bought it.

And you have proof that the opposite is true...?

No?

So who's projecting now?

Until you can provide evidence to the contrary, feel free to STFU.

God, are you a stuck up idiot.

 

[Azrael the cat]

As has already been stated, most people bought 1/2 expecting some form of 3, and when they didn't get it prolly stopped playing immediately.

And you base this on......nothing. You pulled it out of your ass.

Not only do you claim to know why people bought it...you also claim to know what they did after they bought it.

And you have proof that the opposite is true...?

No?

So who's projecting now?

Until you can provide evidence to the contrary, feel free to STFU.

God, are you a stuck up idiot.

Seriously, just scroll up and follow that link the guy posted a few posts back. That should be end of topic - many many posts rating FO1 from 9 to 10, with the odd 8.5 thrown in. And quite a few who start by saying 'I heard about this from playing FO3, and normally hate TB gaming, but...'

It's like what Stardock said. The market for these kind of RPGs never went away - the industry just 'moved on', but never asked the market first. This style of game could still make money - even with all the FO3 and ME fans.

 

[gc051360]

As has already been stated, most people bought 1/2 expecting some form of 3, and when they didn't get it prolly stopped playing immediately.

And you base this on......nothing. You pulled it out of your ass.

Not only do you claim to know why people bought it...you also claim to know what they did after they bought it.

And you have proof that the opposite is true...?

No?

So who's projecting now?

Until you can provide evidence to the contrary, feel free to STFU.

You made the claim. The burden of proof is on you.

But you can't prove your claim, because it is something you pulled out of your ass.

 

[Shannow]

Seriously, just scroll up and follow that link the guy posted a few posts back. That should be end of topic - many many posts rating FO1 from 9 to 10, with the odd 8.5 thrown in. And quite a few who start by saying 'I heard about this from playing FO3, and normally hate TB gaming, but...'

It's like what Stardock said. The market for these kind of RPGs never went away - the industry just 'moved on', but never asked the market first. This style of game could still make money - even with all the FO3 and ME fans.

Which is pretty much why I called Pliskin an idiot. Not sure why you quoted me...

And another possible reason for the good sales (that is only implicit in Azrael's post) is that the Fallouts simply weren't in the shelves. They only had exposition if people actively looked for them. Stumbling over them in a shop was extremely improbable (at least from my experience).

 

[Mister Arkham]

Good, I say. It doesn't really matter in the end whether people are playing the games through to completion or not. Sales are sales, and the people that hand out funding to devs look at said sales. If a turn-based, isometric, hard-line RPG is selling well (ESPECIALLY one that is twelve years old) then the people who want to make more games like that are more likely to find publishers looking to sell games like that. End of fucking line.

 

[elander_]

I doubt publishers will start looking at making TB/isometric games just because Fallout is selling now, but they might think it's important and it helps selling more games to make crpgs with more role-playing and less combat, with more developed characters, dialog choices and multiple solutions to quests that involve other skills besides combat. At least i hope so.

Then we have Obsidean take on a Fallout game using Fallout 3 engine. Overall i think Bethesda has had a more positive than negative influence with Fallout 3.

 

[Helton]

Then we have Obsidean take on a Fallout game using Fallout 3 engine.

Wait. What?

 

[Suchy]

Then we have Obsidean take on a Fallout game using Fallout 3 engine.

Wait. What?

Obsidian does a new Fallout game for Bethesda

Anyway back to the topic - you can't assume that every single player younger than 20 will only like consolised shit games. As much as F3 was weak, it was sadly one of the best RPGs in the recent years. Some of the guys who played it and liked it because they didn't know older and better games, learned about the original Fallout. This kind of players can actually want a real RPG experience and I think that the old good Fallouts may appear to them, despite the dated graphics. Not every kid out there is a bloom addicted retard with ADD, you know...

 

[xuerebx]

It's well known that most customers tend to buy base done ither a) extreme hype or b) name recoginization on the box.

ie. People who played FO3 and enjoyed it went to the game store, saw the FO collection box, and say hey, I enjoyed FO3 let me play the originals as I'm sure it's fun too.

The Fallout Trilogy box has screenshots at the back of the box, and it also states that FO1/FO2 are isometric and turnbased games (not sure what it says about Tactics).

Also, there is no hype with regards to the previous fallout games, at least not now a days.

 

[Mister Arkham]

I doubt publishers will start looking at making TB/isometric games just because Fallout is selling now, but they might think it's important and it helps selling more games to make crpgs with more role-playing and less combat, with more developed characters, dialog choices and multiple solutions to quests that involve other skills besides combat. At least i hope so.

Then we have Obsidean take on a Fallout game using Fallout 3 engine. Overall i think Bethesda has had a more positive than negative influence with Fallout 3.

Not saying that it will make it happen, just that it will increase the chances of such a thing happening. Publishers are, increasingly, all about funding the production of what sells. If this kind of game sells and proves that there is still a viable market for it then a publisher is more likely to offer up some funding to a dev who wants to make that sort of game.

 

[Kthan75]

Interesting, this continues:

http://kotaku.com/5271081/pc-sales-charts-fallout-lingers-on

 

[entertainer]

Direct2Drive Charts May 17-23

1. Bioshock

what the fuck