The makers of a video game that even impressed the French president tell the unusual tale of its development.
While the Nintendo 64 didn’t sell the most units during its hallowed run, it did see multiple genre-defining games.
Tim Cain, one of the co-creators of the original Fallout title, has appeared in a 17-minute video on his YouTube channel talking about the potential for a Fallout remaster.
I'd take a remake in the style of Bethesda's Fallout, maybe it could be done by Obsidian while Bethesda works on TESVI and Fallout 5
No source code, and a slew of original game systems/UX concepts that wouldn’t work well today.
He’s right; this would be an entirely new game, not a remaster.
Also I think the glory days of isometric/trimetric games are over. Would be shocked if someone invested the cash to remake this nowadays
Give it the Baldur’s Gate 3 treatment. It will be costly, but Larian proved it can be done.
The key point from the vid/article: nobody knows where the source code for FO1 is. That's the only thing hampering a remaster project. Bethesda, or whoever, would be better off completely remaking Fallout from the ground up, and that's not what people are asking for.
I saw an article the other day that said someone did have the source code. Conflicting reports out there
Sandfall focused on quality over quantity, and didn't want to stuff the game just to make it larger and larger.
So the opposing viewpoint that Ubisoft has these days? Good. I'm sick of extra long, filler games, not because shorter is better, but rather because I want an exciting game all the way through, and I'd rather have less content, if that content is of higher quality (more unique scenarios or freedom to complete an objective in my own way), than repeatedly performing copy & paste boring quests throughout a massive game map. That to me is not interesting.
Edit: The credit URL is broken, it has extra text at the end, so it doesn't work, this is the correct credit URL:
https://www.gamesindustry.b...
Length to price is a stupid metric. You can play a 8 hour masterpiece and it can stay with you for years.
Or you could play a overinflated generic game for 80 hours that repeats it's gameplay loop ad nauseum while collecting 100s of items around a map with no purpose
Each game sells for full RRP what would you prefer.
Maybe it's just me but the older I get I just want games to respect my time. If a game is justifiably long great if a game bloats itself for no reason I hate it
I would prefer a game that is in between, which is what we are seeing from some of these AA studios.
8 hours, regardless of how amazing it is, is way to short for a full priced game
80 hours of repetitive copy/paste gameplay is simply not respecting my time and is not worth full price.
30 - 40 hours of quality gameplay IMO is the sweet spot.
16 hours bare minimum of great quality for full price is acceptable for sure.
GOTY