New poll

Post by **Alexander** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 11:38 pm

Phallout III: A POS Nucular gameÃ¢â€žÂ¢

Cthulhugoat · Post by **Cthulhugoat** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:39 am

Killzig wrote:they're not stupid, Cliffy B designed them, they're totally awesome!

Wait, I heard John Romero was doing this!

maglalosus · Post by **maglalosus** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:08 am

IMO if its not 'iso style' turn based.. its NOT Fallout!

they could have saved themselves milions and just made a futuristic FPS (which this is) and called it Vault 101

Koki · Post by **Koki** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 10:41 am

Gears of Fallout

Thor Kaufman · Post by **Thor Kaufman** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:12 am

of fallout gears

Dreadnought · Post by **Dreadnought** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:41 am

Fallout: Source

talesfromthecrypt · Post by **talesfromthecrypt** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:00 pm

Todd Howard presents: TES V: Oblivian 2: Fallout Tictacs: Gears of Resident Evil: Piece of Shit: Attack of the Horror Mutants

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:48 pm

Enough with the subtitles already!

Post by **Dogmeatlives** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:42 pm

Fallout 3: The Search for Todd's Nuts

Mechanurgist · Post by **Mechanurgist** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 12:47 am

macksting wrote:Even Interplay themselves had every intention of making the next in the franchise a first-person 3D game with an option for realtime; why should Bethesda do any different?

Please post screenshots and/or design sketches of said first-person-perspective game that Interplay was working on as the sequel to Fallout 2.

Yeah, we all played the Van Buren demo, you dimwit.

macksting · Post by **macksting** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 5:52 am

A Van Buren alpha.

Ah well. This was from an old interview, so odds are Interplay was going to fuck it up with the previously mentioned features, and changed their minds either one way or another. I saw it on one of the major Fallout sites, but this was years ago, when the idea of Interplay actually releasing a Fallout 3 was still a remote possibility; that should say something in itself, and might go a ways to explain why I'm not going to bother siting sources at this stage. (Who knows? It's possible the site's sources had been hoaxed.)

By the way, is it remotely appropriate to use the term "jew" in a derogatory manner? I think not.

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 6:28 am

Quiet, jew.

Also, before you silence yourself, what Fallout site are you speaking of? I've NEVER heard of any intention to make Van Buren FP so I'm calling you out to verify your claim abit or else it's just bullshit. Proof or it never happened.

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 3:24 pm

Van Buren used the Jefferson engine. It was fully 3d, rotatable and J.E. Sawyer often compared it to a 2d engine. Also, if the combat emphasis was on turn-based combat, the game was hardly meant to be viewed from 1st person perspective.

Ã¢â‚¬Å“Jefferson uses an isometric viewing angle. "
Ã¢â‚¬â€œJ.E. Sawyer

Ã¢â‚¬Å“Though you can still tell the Jefferson engine (which is, even as I type this, going through the process of name selection) is a 3D engine, I've had many people walk into the office and sincerely ask me, "Oh, hey, is this [2D game name]?" It really is very nice.Ã¢â‚¬Â�
Ã¢â‚¬â€œJ.E. Sawyer

Check your facts before claiming such jewry.

Post by **Dogmeatlives** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 3:29 pm

macksting wrote: By the way, is it remotely appropriate to use the term "jew" in a derogatory manner? I think not.

Appropriate?! This is Sparta, nigga! You either ride with us or you die with us. This ain't no tea party!

Dreadnought · Post by **Dreadnought** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 5:17 pm

macksting · Post by **macksting** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 5:53 pm

You want me to dig for a years-old article in ancient archives? There were many news sites covering Fallout 3's development, and all I can recall is that it was large and well-maintained. Possibly No Mutants Allowed, possibly one of several others. You're better off calling it bullshit, because frankly, I haven't the energy to spare to verify something which was irrelevant even when it was published.

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 5:55 pm

macksting wrote:You're better off calling it bullshit, because frankly, I haven't the energy to spare to verify something which was irrelevant even when it was published.

Or because it doesn't exist.