First Person Shooter or Isometric Turn Based?

Discussion in 'Future Fallout Game Discussion' started by Skelok, Feb 21, 2017.

First Person or Isometric?

Poll closed Feb 21, 2018.
  1. First Person

  2. Isometric

  3. Either

  1. Black Angel

    Black Angel Grand Inquisitor of the Ordo Hereticus

    Mar 21, 2016
    Not everyone, I think? Change of perspective definitely impacted gameplay, and I'm not just talking about Top-Down Turn-Based vs. First-Person/Third-Person Real-Time. Things like world scale and number of NPCs has to be compromised especially because of the shitty engine. And while there are some, interactions with objects/NPCs (the right-click on stuff to Look At, Use Items At etc etc) are limited to what the developers designed/scripted instead of being given full freedom for players to figure out and accomplish by themselves (For example, interact with a console, being told that you need to bring an item, you bring said item to the console and finish the job; VS figuring out which of console to look at, figuring out that you'd need to bring an item OR use Science/Repair to bypass the need of said item, get said item and finish the job if you haven't already with Science/Repair). And not to mention some verticality because I can't remember any moments in Fallout 3 or New Vegas where we use a rope to climb up or down some ruins or whatever (like we can in Vault 15 or the Glow in Fallout 1), but instead the ruins would conveniently have the upper floor that fell down forming an elevation.
  2. Alphons

    Alphons National Beholder

    Aug 9, 2017
    If they used almost anything other than Gamebryo I wouldn't have a lot of issue with first-person.
  3. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Nov 26, 2007
    I have no qualms with Gamebryo; only with how they chose to use it. Perspective issue aside, many of the systems they had in place for Oblivion, could translate nicely to a Fallout sequel. Gamebryo has been used for RTS (and even race driving) games.

    I had high hopes for the potential I saw in using their Oblivion engine for Fallout 3... until I saw the crap they did with it. I had never heard of Bethesda at the time; others who knew of them—knew better than I, just what was likely to come of it... and ultimately did. :(

    I didn't have a problem with Fallout's UI. Most developers seem to approach UI as an overlay—separate from (but perhaps thematic of) the game itself. Fallout's UI was approached as being salvaged/re-purposed machinery from within the game world. The Barter menu was made to appear as a physical table; as in, "Bring what you have to the table—to trade".

    They even drew a side profile of the dialog UI—device, in their concept art.

    The inventory/barter UI did have a linear stack for inventory; but as long as one knew that, I didn't think it was that big of a deal to people—was it really?

    I thought that was a shame too.

    I would certainly not want a reduction of "roll of the dice" aspect. Bethesda doesn't make RPGs—and that's the main reason of it. They make digital costume-sims; akin to the Delos theme park experience, as seen in the movie West World.

    FPP perspective is tricky to have in an RPG; I've seen it done well, but not by Bethesda. FPP intrinsically promotes player substitution of the PC; the player tends to consider the outcome in a very personal way. If the PC fails an action (doing their best to achieve it), players tend put themselves in the PC's position, and view the failure as something randomly inflicted upon them, rather than the result of the PC's best effort under their present circumstance.

    In an RPG, holding a weapon should be strictly for show; even in FPP. Players should be able to indicate a target (perhaps by pointing the weapon), but the exact location of the cross-hairs should only influence the PCs choice of who to attack, not the quality of that attack. Removing the impartiality of the dice-roll (in this case when at close range) would mean that the player would then control the weapon, and not the PC; that's bad, because the player can probably aim better than the PC; but also the reverse can be true—when the PC is a better shot than the player. In the first instance, the player is a crutch to help the PC make shots they shouldn't be often able to, and in the second instance, the player is the handicap... causing the PC to miss shots; out of character for an expert marksman.

    This applies to any skill, not just marksmanship.

    Fallout has stealth aspect, and real-time quests; stealth is a major path through the game. That said... The last thing I want in a sequel, is to dilute the gameplay with borrowed mechanics; FO3 is a TES-reskin. There is little to nothing of Fallout in FO3... It's more accurately —TES borrowing Fallout mechanics, and masquerading as a Fallout sequel.

    **But none of these ideas seem dependent upon recent advances in technology or game design; as Black Angel mentioned, Arcanum did allow the player to explore the continent... IRRC, I read that the player could walk from coast to coast—in the span of 48 hours of actual play time—not game time.

    I would not want the dogged exploration of the wasteland to play a major part in any Fallout game. The wasteland was just that—wasted land. Fallout New Vegas was set in the desert, and did a fine job of presenting a desert... but it was boring—because it was a desert; and had they spiced it up fantastically—it would not have been a very plausible desert then, would it?

    But I did suggest it of FO3 and FO4, before either was released; that they design a procedural system capable of creating a landscape suitable to an arbitrary map location.between towns... Fallout had.

    This was to allow encounters on the open world in FO3—without the tedious need to walk the land for weeks, to get from town to town.

    A side effect could have been that the locations streamed in the direction the PC was walking—or driving; but that otherwise, travel lead to hand crafted towns and other important locations.
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2017
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  4. Black Angel

    Black Angel Grand Inquisitor of the Ordo Hereticus

    Mar 21, 2016
    I, too, didn't have a problem with Fallout's UI. But it could've been better, for example:
    It is. Having only a linear column for inventory AND for bartering wasted way too much time. In retrospect, that's actually what I meant with "more polishing in terms of UI functionality", but inventory checking and bartering were a major part of the gameplay and having only a single column resulted in such tediousness. Granted sfall allows you to finally use mouse-scroll wheel to quickly reach the item you want to check/sell, it's not enough. Sometimes I just miss the item, and even now sfall don't have the feature that allows you to also scroll through an NPC's inventory when bartering.

    It's the one thing I highly appreciate from Arcanum's inventory system: perhaps there are people who are annoyed with the fact that now they also need to properly manage their inventory in regards to item placement, but I think it's better than Fallout's.
  5. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht For hate's sake Admin Orderite

    Aug 16, 2010
    The bartering and inventory UI of Fallout 1 and 2 was terrible, hands down. The one thing that Fallout 3 didn't make worse (well, they did make it worse by adding massive amounts of inventory clutter, but at least they didn't make the UI worse). Having to scroll down for hours is terrible.
    @Gizmojunk: I think a 3D Fallout could (and should) be like Daggerfall: A realistically sized map with handcrafted locations and procedurally generated landscape in between.