3D for Fallout 3!

[Sander]

Having problems with crosshairs on the right guy? Tool Tips and Character Highlight/Outlines solve that problem.

How does that solve the problem of having someone right in your sights, shooting, and then still missing? That's...annoying, to say the least.

Someone BEHIND someone else? You prolly have no business shooting at the in the first place (because of obstructed view),

Yes you do, it's turn-based combat, and people are never really still, or, in combat at least, permanently behind someone else. You should be able to shoot *at* the guy, whether or not you hit the first guy because he's in the way is a second thing.

But just in case you try, if the cross-hairs are on two or more potential targets, show a pop-up selection to choose between the multiple targets. As you hover those over each selection in a multiple-possible-target choice pop-up, the same highlighting/outlining occurs to further clarify.

Possible, but how would you make this work well with the other keys? A mouse-click would normally fire, I would think, and it would move around the view...so what do you do with the selection?

It can be done, and not as counter-intuitive as one might think. ANY INTERFACE can be made to work smoothly as long as it is thought out. Impossible? It is never impossible, just no-one really tried it well enough yet.

Yes it is. Simply because the point of view is immediately part of the interface, and the way turn based combat works has its direct impact on the interface as well. This can create complete incompatibilities in creating a reasonably working interface.
Of course an interface can be made, but it actually has to work well enough for people not to walk away frustrated at the crappy interface.

 

[Rev. Layle]

How does that solve the problem of having someone right in your sights, shooting, and then still missing? That's...annoying, to say the least.

About as annoying as putting my crosshairs on any target in ANY view, clicking and missing. I don't see it as any more annoying as any other point, click, hit/miss combat system.

Yes you do, it's turn-based combat, and people are never really still, or, in combat at least, permanently behind someone else. You should be able to shoot *at* the guy, whether or not you hit the first guy because he's in the way is a second thing.

Yeah, thinking about that again, I will agree with that completely.

Possible, but how would you make this work well with the other keys? A mouse-click would normally fire, I would think, and it would move around the view...so what do you do with the selection?

Select targeting mode, cursor on overlapping screen targets. You click, if it is not painfully obvious what the target is - a quick pop up: target 1, target 2, etc... - select one, then it fires. If there are no "overlaps" no need for this.

Yes it is. Simply because the point of view is immediately part of the interface, and the way turn based combat works has its direct impact on the interface as well. This can create complete incompatibilities in creating a reasonably working interface.
Of course an interface can be made, but it actually has to work well enough for people not to walk away frustrated at the crappy interface.

You are assuming that this would never work no matter what is done. Of course the point of view is part of the interface, but that does not mean incompatible. It does mean different in this case (and in my opinion).

HOWEVER, in the case of Fallout. To keep a very similar spirit of the combat system in FO1 and FO2. First Person would not work just because of obstructed views. You can't see behind walls or around corners (not that I think you should be able too, but that is the way the original system works).

Having a dynamic camera view where one could alternate between a first person, third person, and overhead view would be OK... but having those options would ONLY cater to peoples tastes, and not really enhance gameplay whatsoever.

 

[Sander]

About as annoying as putting my crosshairs on any target in ANY view, clicking and missing. I don't see it as any more annoying as any other point, click, hit/miss combat system.

Except that every other first person game gives you time to wait and aim carefully before pulling the trigger - it's all fast and quick action, and almost none of them depend on your character's skill. But since this is a tun-based game, you have all the time in the world, make sure you aim at the guy, pull the trigger and....miss. This doesn't actually happen like that in any other game, Vampire: The Masquerade made it work only a bit, but that was realtime as well.

Select targeting mode, cursor on overlapping screen targets. You click, if it is not painfully obvious what the target is - a quick pop up: target 1, target 2, etc... - select one, then it fires. If there are no "overlaps" no need for this.

And you think this is comfortable and works well?

HOWEVER, in the case of Fallout. To keep a very similar spirit of the combat system in FO1 and FO2. First Person would not work just because of obstructed views. You can't see behind walls or around corners (not that I think you should be able too, but that is the way the original system works).

Which would detract a lot from the strategic part of combat.

 

[Rev. Layle]

Except that every other first person game gives you time to wait and aim carefully before pulling the trigger - it's all fast and quick action, and almost none of them depend on your character's skill. But since this is a tun-based game, you have all the time in the world, make sure you aim at the guy, pull the trigger and....miss. This doesn't actually happen like that in any other game, Vampire: The Masquerade made it work only a bit, but that was realtime as well.

Well, then, give the player all the time they need. It would be turn-based, after all. Just because the perspective is first person, doesn't mean it has to behave in a real-time twitch fashion. If the programmers want it turn based, they can make action freeze and some indicator saying combat mode started, and when a PCs' turn comes up, they have all the time in the world to look and select a target and issue whatever command they need. Why would a first-person perspective change that?

And you think this is comfortable and works well?

Well, this is all academic with no actual interface in place to truly test it. But if it is a turn-based mode of some sort, as long as the interface clearly shows the option that can be done, it can be comfortable. Plus there is no rush to issue a command anyways. Of course, this should not be an excuse to make a crappy interface: "oh, it's not real time, we can make the interface convoluted" - even I would agree that a cumbersome interface in real-time or turn based is always bad.

Which would detract a lot from the strategic part of combat.

Well, as said before, Fallout 1 & 2 was not really that strategic when it came to combat. But I do agree with that general statement as long as you are not going for combat realism.


(Ahh! I love a good debate!)

 

[MethidParadox]

Ok, i'll apologize for the flaming...

But I think it would seriously take away from the Fallout setting if it was all 3d. I'm also with Kharn when he says 2d goes further than 3d ever will. ANd with a world like Fallout the 2d environment that can be setup in comparison to the same thing in 3d just isnt the same... and if it is the same most people wouldnt be able to run it smoothly on their computers.

Also, the 360 turn with the camera just doesnt seem that fallouty either, I saw enough of the world as I needed to see. The developers would have to spend a lot of extra time on the world art trying to make it a very-nice visual environment in a full 360 view...

What I would rather the developers spend their time on is the plot and dialogue, not the eye-candy that simple 2d can bust out with ease.

Also, I'm down for a 2d world with 3d characters that react to real-time lighting. I think when the camera is at such a distance you dont need a high-poly character to make him look just as good as a 2d character, and with the 3d you can do realtime lighting and partical physics, all that good stuff.

Again, sorry for the flame but seriously, this topic is in an endless amount of threads and if you've read them all most true-fallout fans just want an F3 that is the same world (graphics) with a new and more extensive plot (something like fallout 1 plot extended with fallout 2 features put in)

Edit: Also, i'm saying this in the nicest way possible, stronghold 2 does suck, and there are a lot of better RTS games out there where the developers really know what an RTS game is. In opinion stronghold 2 threw together a bunch of nice graphics and ploped them into a half-assed engine.

and, these posts arent trying to increase my post-count, i really dont care about my postcount, but I do care about people wanting to ruin the world of fallout, which is what 3d would potentially do.

Edit 2: Hey look! I have a brain too

 

[Sander]

Well, then, give the player all the time they need. It would be turn-based, after all. Just because the perspective is first person, doesn't mean it has to behave in a real-time twitch fashion. If the programmers want it turn based, they can make action freeze and some indicator saying combat mode started, and when a PCs' turn comes up, they have all the time in the world to look and select a target and issue whatever command they need. Why would a first-person perspective change that?

You're still missing the point. The point is that it is plain annoying and ugly to be aiming straight at someone, knowing for sure that the gun is lined up, firing, and then not hitting the person. That's just stupid. When this happens in other games you usually don't notice it because the action progresses so quickly that you could've missed because the person moved too quickly, but in a turn-based game this is so glaringly obvious that it would be really annoying.

Well, this is all academic with no actual interface in place to truly test it. But if it is a turn-based mode of some sort, as long as the interface clearly shows the option that can be done, it can be comfortable. Plus there is no rush to issue a command anyways. Of course, this should not be an excuse to make a crappy interface: "oh, it's not real time, we can make the interface convoluted" - even I would agree that a cumbersome interface in real-time or turn based is always bad.

Exactly. Whether or not a person has all the time in the world, if he has to click away a box every other shot it gets really annoying. Especially if you just want the first character.

 

[Rev. Layle]

You're still missing the point. The point is that it is plain annoying and ugly to be aiming straight at someone, knowing for sure that the gun is lined up, firing, and then not hitting the person. That's just stupid. When this happens in other games you usually don't notice it because the action progresses so quickly that you could've missed because the person moved too quickly, but in a turn-based game this is so glaringly obvious that it would be really annoying.

No, I got your point several posts ago hehehe....

However, why is that more annoying than pointing the crosshairs/targeting cursor at a target in a 2D game (like, Fallout), clicking the mouse button, then missing?

Also, who said your gun arm would be out and aiming at targets? The target cursor, yes, that doesn't mean the weapon is pointing yet. Maybe the gun is only pointed at the genreal direction of the target and fired after you select a target (again... like Fallout).

Maybe that wouldn't annoy me as much as someone else as long as I understood the context of the interface and how that particular interface was implemented.

 

[Sander]

No, I got your point several posts ago hehehe....

However, why is that more annoying than pointing the crosshairs/targeting cursor at a target in a 2D game (like, Fallout), clicking the mouse button, then missing?

Because you don't actually aim the gun, you just click and tell your character to aim and don't see any visual support in how he aims.

Also, who said your gun arm would be out and aiming at targets? The target cursor, yes, that doesn't mean the weapon is pointing yet. Maybe the gun is only pointed at the genreal direction of the target and fired after you select a target (again... like Fallout).

There will be a target cursor at least, which is enough.

 

[Rev. Layle]

Because you don't actually aim the gun, you just click and tell your character to aim and don't see any visual support in how he aims.

You have a targeting cursor.

There will be a target cursor at least, which is enough.

Yes, and 2D games like Fallout, have a targeting cursor also.

 

[Sander]

You have a targeting cursor.

Yes, but isn't actually a visual support for how the character aims, you only use it to tell the character to aim at the other character. You don't actually see him take perfect aim, knowing that he should hit if he holds the gun like that, but then missing, which is the problem I'm talking about.

 

[Rev. Layle]

Yes, but isn't actually a visual support for how the character aims, you only use it to tell the character to aim at the other character. You don't actually see him take perfect aim, knowing that he should hit if he holds the gun like that, but then missing, which is the problem I'm talking about.

I don't see how that is different form have a different perspective where you do the same exact thing.... My vision of the interface wouldn't have the character actually taking perfect or even aim at all.

In fact, if this was in a Fallout context - I can see the cursor turning red (indicating the target can be attacked) and a percentage change to hit would appear next to the cursor. You click the mouse, the arm would rise, a shot fired, then feedback is given whether a hit was made and how much damage was done.

Personally though if a FP-like perspective is done, I would rather a see a third-person, with the camera behind the main character anyways. Sort first person, but not seen "through the eyes" of the PC - which I rarely like anyways.

However, I think we a now getting down to nitty gritty debating about targeting and maybe personal preference and exeprience, perchance?

How about we agree to disagree? Of course, I am always willing to continue discussing this further

 

[Sander]

I don't see how that is different form have a different perspective where you do the same exact thing.... My vision of the interface wouldn't have the character actually taking perfect or even aim at all.

Whether or not you see a hand at all is completely irrelevant. You would be looking with your mouse, and since you would, it is reasonable to assume that the character is looking, and the targeting cursor would be the point where the gun is aiming. Whether or not the game explains it like this, that would be how the game would feel.
Now, the only way to fix this would be to not have the mouse make you look around. But then one is left with the question: how do you look around without making the interface uncomfortable?

Personally though if a FP-like perspective is done, I would rather a see a third-person, with the camera behind the main character anyways. Sort first person, but not seen "through the eyes" of the PC - which I rarely like anyways.

And why not the isometric perspective that belongs to Fallout?

 

[Rev. Layle]

Whether or not you see a hand at all is completely irrelevant. You would be looking with your mouse, and since you would, it is reasonable to assume that the character is looking, and the targeting cursor would be the point where the gun is aiming. Whether or not the game explains it like this, that would be how the game would feel.
Now, the only way to fix this would be to not have the mouse make you look around. But then one is left with the question: how do you look around without making the interface uncomfortable?

Seems to be a perception of use issue. If I knew what my cursor was for, then I don't care how the view is. That's my thought. Interface is not locked by view or design. It is locked by implementation.

And why not the isometric perspective that belongs to Fallout?

Indeed, why NOT that? In fact, I agree it should be an over-head view (i really hate the word isometric... simply a 3D engine with a pseudo-locked camera angle in the sky at about.... 30-40% angle from the ground sounds good.. maybe allow rotation of the view, change the angle about +/- 15% - maybe a *bit* of zoom in or out - but not the style of view).

Also, I was never arguing the fact a new Fallout game should NOT have a similar "traditional" view. I'm just debating the fact other views COULD work if they happened to be developed that way. Which, of course we have no control over... that is all in Bethesda's hands.

 

[Sander]

Seems to be a perception of use issue. If I knew what my cursor was for, then I don't care how the view is.[/quote]
You're one of the very few. If you look through the eyes of a character, and then move around wiuth the mouse, it stands to reason you're moving the character's point of view. And intuitively, this means the character will be shooting in the way that you're aiming.

That's my thought. Interface is not locked by view or design. It is locked by implementation.

Which has...what to do with the question at hand?

 

[Rev. Layle]

That's my thought. Interface is not locked by view or design. It is locked by implementation.

Which has...what to do with the question at hand?

Well, it appears that part of the debate earlier cetnered a bit around the idea of "well, turn based won't work with first person view"... of course, my argument was yeah, I think it can be done. That quote was just a way of saying that any interface can be made to work and be made to work well with proper pre-production design, implementation, testing, and tweaking.

There seems to be a thought that just because a particular view is given, the interface options are limited. That is not so (well to a point, it's not LIMITLESS across all boundaries, obviously) in my opinion. In the world of gaming as well as general application design, there are always interface innovations that someone never thought... and perhaps turn-based first-person view is one of those interface that no one has really tried and made it work and where the end users say "wow... THAT'S how it's done! Why didn't I think of that?"

Of course... this thread is 3D in Fallout. Yeah sure... make it 3D, i don't care, just make the camera angle so it looks somewhat like the traditional Fallout view (doesn't have to be exact - just a close approximation and look good).

 

[Sander]

There seems to be a thought that just because a particular view is given, the interface options are limited. That is not so (well to a point, it's not LIMITLESS across all boundaries, obviously) in my opinion. In the world of gaming as well as general application design, there are always interface innovations that someone never thought... and perhaps turn-based first-person view is one of those interface that no one has really tried and made it work and where the end users say "wow... THAT'S how it's done! Why didn't I think of that?"

Of course innovations are possible, but saying that the view does not limit the interface is....incomprehensible. The view practically defines the interface, because that defines what you get to see on the screen. Not adjusting the interface to a view will almost always lead to a very poor interface.
But besides that, an interface is also limited by the means of interaction a player has with the game, by the minimum possibilites input devices (mouse & keyboard, or possibly even just a gamepad (let's hope not, though, that would be a blow for the interface..)), by the demands the game has, by the technology and by other things.

 

[Rev. Layle]

Ok I see your point there - the view is PART of the interface. I was solely thinking on terms of handling input and separating the two, when the visual does provide and is necessary for defining how the overall input experience is done.

At least we both agree that innovations are possible. Just neither of agree on that FP/TB would work. You might be right, but I believe it can be done quite sanely.

Just... let someone make it sane for some other game than Fallout right now.

 

[Ripper]

FP and TB will never work period.

Plus there is a chance you get whiny kids who think this is another "Oh Gom 13337 g4m3Z with a G4u55 M1n1gun." FPS game. Once they realised its turn based, hundreds, nay thousands and thousands of kiddos will scream "Fo3 is the suck, I cant strafe and shoot my minigun at the same time !!!22"

I would prefer if that was no such bad publicity for Fo3, so don't confuse the game market especially with so many FPS kiddies around. Stick to a view that reminds people of an RPG aka isometric which works for a decade. Leave FP for FPS.


As for graphic wise, 2D and 3D doesn't matter to me much though as long the game interface and view doesn't change. Heck the FoT graphics engine is decent enough at places, they could have used that for FO3.

 

[Briosafreak]

For once a good discussion on this forum regarding combat and perspective, finally...

 

[Sina]

Is it over already? I went to take a nap while theyre at it.