I know they used the HD patches, but did they use any other mods? It would good to get a definitive list.

I agree. I have these already in my library, and while I'm a bit annoyed that we won't get the promo being offered right now, I'm more annoyed by the fact that when I went to look at the new listings for the games being offered for sale now that it did NOT show that I own them already.

This leads me to suspect that these games aren't the same version I was sold back when. Which ... is actually super annoying. Because now I know that I don't have the latest version offered by GOG even though I paid for that.

So.. yeah, what he said. What are we missing out on here and, more to the point, why aren't we being offered the same version?

GOG - Hopefully this was something you all planned to reconcile anyway, but if not, please take the fly out of my ointment. Thank you!

If you already have them in your library, then you have the latest version at hand: just re-download them. The original GOG Fallout installer was called 'setup_fallout.exe' and came in at 495,471 KB. The current Fallout installer is called 'Setup_fallout_2.1.0.18.exe' and comes in at 502,009 KB, plus the titles have changed in your shelf, so clearly they have been updated.

Good Guy GoG - making everything go smoothly when you least expect them to.

A legible note on that change would've been welcome, though.

From what I understand (I may be off), Bethesda uses the "white label" version, which removes the children and makes many quests unable to be finished.

Personally, I'm glad I still have the version from before GOG had to pull it down.

Irrespective of which version one has, with the vast amounts of fan-made patches/mods out there, I assume it will be possible to turn any version into "the most stable current build".

I for one won't bother downloading another version unless it's been amazingly improved somehow.

To be honest, I'm still attempting to grasp the reality that Bethesda has actually agreed to put these games back on GOG. It's something I never expected.

It also means we'll have to tone down our Bethesda-bashing somewhat....

Nah. If they were decent they'd stop developing 4, divest themselves of Fallout, and sell it to someone who actually understand and respects the name. Until that happens their crimes continue.

In all seriousness, I'd rank Bethesda as being probably the least awful AAA publisher out there. Maybe. That whole experiment with paid Skyrim mods clearly had some shameless corporate greed behind it. I agree that in a perfect world, Obsidian would have the rights to the FO franchise, but you can honestly do a lot worse than Bethesda... (for instance, there's EA, Konami - and even Interplay, as evidenced by that awful PS2 spin-off which they cancelled the original FO3 over.)

Anyway, I was just posting here to see if anyone can confirm if the Bethesda re-release of FO1 is uncut (ie, the children aren't removed, the word "drug" isn't replaced with "chem"). When the rights were still with Interplay, the version on GOG was in fact the censored UK release, whilst for some reason Fallout 2 remained uncut.

Here here! Give it back to Brian Fargo!

I thought the change from "drug" to "chem" occurred across all versions? It was censorship-related, but I'm pretty sure there isn't a version out there where they call drugs "drugs". At least not in the inventory/status descriptions.

Despite the bugginness of F:NV, that game gave me hope that they were heading back towards the light (plot/characters didn't suck, had some of the original designers - too bad the combat was effectively an FPS with the lameoid VATS added, and we could only have up to two companions at once).

To be "decent" they don't need to divest themselves of the franchise - they just need to bring people on board who understand and respect it, and give them as much free reign as possible to add more hard-core RPG features. As opposed to creating a great-looking FPS-base-building game (which might end up a good game, but probably won't be an RPG in the Fallout vein).

Also they should quit with the DLC already, unless it's as good as the rest of the game and significantly expands it. As opposed to a "weapons pack" or other crap.


-------
On a semi-aside note, while Fallout 1 is only a little bit bigger than it used to be, last time I grabbed Fallout 2 (2.0.0.12) it was around 562MB, but now the "classic" version (2.0.0.17) is 721MB!! Did they add the RP and/or other mods to it or something?

So the day before yesterday I linked my original install with GOG Galaxy. It did the necessary behind the scenes magic, added some Galaxy-related files to my Fallout (now with 'Classic' appended) directory, and all was good. Now after the release of the Bethesda versions, Galaxy is telling me there is a Version 1.2 update and I'm worried about applying it. I know I could test the new Rollback feature, or reinstall from my original setup.exe, but more importantly I'm wondering what is this update about? There is no release notes about it at all.

Anyone else know anything about this? Would this turn it into the Beth version?

At this stage I'm not even sure if anyone actually knows what the "Beth version" actually means. Is it basically the same with an extra patch or two? A Bethesda credits/title page? Stuff added? Stuff removed?

Even stranger is the update for Fallout 2, since that adds around 200 MB to the previous "version".

Yeah, that additional 200 megs really makes me curious. Would be nice to get some official word about it. I'm used to always having change logs every time a dev releases a patch like the good ole days, and it's been nice to see that tradition kept up fairly well in the digital distribution age as well. Always having change logs for this many years has made me a bit neurotic when it comes to extra bits.

IMO change logs should be par for the course whenever any update or patch is released.

Lately it seems that devs have been getting a bit tardy with this though. Sometimes change logs are only found on a dev forum after Google searching, and not even found in the game directory after installation, let alone on the download site.

Well, hopefully someone tries this out eventually and lets us know. I'd do it but need to save bandwidth for what I suspect will be many updates to a couple of games that have recently come out.