Alternative Perspective

[Lumpy]

Fallout 1 and 2 had great combat, due to all the options that were available. To support that many options, the game had to be point and click, and the combat turn based.
Turn based combat is hard to do right with a non-isometric perspective. Also, the technology of that time didn't allow quality 3D graphics, so games like Fallout and Planescape Torment were much better, graphics wise, than games like Daggerfall.
Isometric graphics can only evolve so much, but First/Third person graphics have evolved a lot since. Sure, isometric graphics can still be artistic, but the angle is still fixed, and the view is still from far away.
In games like Morrowind, Gothic, Oblivion, seeing the world from different angles and positions all the time, make it get boring much slower than it would if they were isometric. Compare looking at a Google Map and moving it around, to seeing a video of someone walking around the town.
Then again, Fallout 3 should still have turn based combat, and turn based requires isometric perspective.
So how about a system where during combat, the game is point and click isometric, while outside combat, you may choose the above system, or control your character with the keyboard, from a third-first person perspective.
Unlike implementing both real time and turn based combat, as Van Buren did, I don't think this would be too hard. And it would bring all the benefits of first/third person graphics, without hurting anything.

IMO

 

[Sander]

Fallout 1 and 2 had great combat, due to all the options that were available. To support that many options, the game had to be point and click, and the combat turn based.
Turn based combat is hard to do right with a non-isometric perspective. Also, the technology of that time didn't allow quality 3D graphics, so games like Fallout and Planescape Torment were much better, graphics wise, than games like Daggerfall.

Half-Life proves you entirely wrong.

Isometric graphics can only evolve so much, but First/Third person graphics have evolved a lot since. Sure, isometric graphics can still be artistic, but the angle is still fixed, and the view is still from far away.

Yes, and First Person is still from the same position, and third person is still from a fixed position relative to the character.
Neither graphical form has evolved at all simply because there's nothing to evolve to. You can't change anything about first person being from the person's eyes. The only thing that has evolved is the quality of the graphics, but guess what, an isometric view point can utilise exactly the same quality of graphics.

In games like Morrowind, Gothic, Oblivion, seeing the world from different angles and positions all the time, make it get boring much slower than it would if they were isometric. Compare looking at a Google Map and moving it around, to seeing a video of someone walking around the town.

...
*looks at Fallout's game screen*
*sees character walking around town*
*doesn't get Lumpy's point*

Then again, Fallout 3 should still have turn based combat, and turn based requires isometric perspective.
So how about a system where during combat, the game is point and click isometric, while outside combat, you may choose the above system, or control your character with the keyboard, from a third-first person perspective.
Unlike implementing both real time and turn based combat, as Van Buren did, I don't think this would be too hard. And it would bring all the benefits of first/third person graphics, without hurting anything.

IMO

Wrong again. Besides it being somewhat annoying to constantly switch views, it does take a lot of effort to take an effective and mouse-based interface like the one Fallout had and then move it properly to a first-person perspective. Mainly because you're then using the mouse for something different.
This could be circumvented by forcing the player to push a button to pop-up the interface, but this then would make it impossible to do anything in the game world at the same time.

 

[Lumpy]

You don't use the menu too often outside combat anyway. And for the rare cases when you do, a button for bringing it up should do.

As for walking around a city, I meant actually filming from his viewpoint.

With first person, you can go into a lot of detail. With third, such detail is pointless, since you will be looking from far away anyway.

And as I said, I enjoy a first person viewpoint for exploration much more than an isometric one. Isometric views allow you to observe the architecture, the layout, but they are not as enjoyable as FP ones, at least not for a long time.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

So how about a system where during combat, the game is point and click isometric, while outside combat, you may choose the above system, or control your character with the keyboard, from a third-first person perspective.
Unlike implementing both real time and turn based combat, as Van Buren did, I don't think this would be too hard. And it would bring all the benefits of first/third person graphics, without hurting anything.

That concept was implemented before in a number of classic games, and it worked well. Off the top of my head, in Betrayal at Krondor you explore the world in first-person, but the view switches to isometric when you enter combat mode (combat itself is turn-based, of course). Then there are RPGs where you use isometric or top-down view in combat and world map navigation and first-person view in dungeons (Albion).

But I'm still opposed to changing the perspective, simply because turn-based combat isn't the only reason Fallout has isometric viewpoint. Another reason is the tabletop game feel. Remember the D&D sessions with your friends, how you were hunched above a table in your room / kitchen / basement and a map was spread across it and miniature figurines representing creatures arranged on it? That's the kind of game Fallout emulates and does so successfully. While a third-person or even first-person Fallout wouldn't necessarily suck, it just wouldn't feel the same, and that should be reason enough to retain the isometric perspective.

Half-Life proves you entirely wrong.

Half Life is a year and a half older than Fallout and was ahead of its time when it came out. When Fallout was released (September 1997, I believe), Quake was the pinnacle of 3D graphics (it looked frighteningly ugly, too), 3D acceleration was expensive and supported by few titles (almost all of them crappy racers, like POD Racer, Psygnosis Formula 1, Moto Racer and a few others) and the best looking PC games were still 2D (Dungeon Keeper, Diablo, Blood). Hence Lumpy is correct in that Fallout could only be done properly in 2D.

 

[alec]

Heh. Don't shoot me for this, but my girlfriend is playing a game right now called "The Movies" (Lionhead Studios) and I wouldn't mind a system like that, where there's still isometric perspective, but you can zoom into things. It works pretty well, methinks.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

Half Life is a year and a half older than Fallout and was ahead of its time when it came out. When Fallout was released (September 1997, I believe), Quake was the pinnacle of 3D graphics

WTF?

Quake - 1996
Fallout - 1997
Half Life - 1998 (quake engine)
Fallout 2 - 1998

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Quake - 1996
Fallout - 1997
Half Life - 1998 (quake engine)
Fallout 2 - 1998

Er, I don't understand. Is that supposed to disprove something I said?

 

[Sander]

You don't use the menu too often outside combat anyway. And for the rare cases when you do, a button for bringing it up should do.

I do. I constantly examine things, use random items on other random items, steal, repair,

As for walking around a city, I meant actually filming from his viewpoint.

You know, I really wouldn't like that. It would feel more detached because I'd not be making the movements, but am walking.

With first person, you can go into a lot of detail. With third, such detail is pointless, since you will be looking from far away anyway.

And then there's the wonder of zoom. Whoa.

And as I said, I enjoy a first person viewpoint for exploration much more than an isometric one. Isometric views allow you to observe the architecture, the layout, but they are not as enjoyable as FP ones, at least not for a long time.

That's completely different from person to person. I prefer a more removed viewpoint.
Now, from a game-mechanical point of view, there's no point in adding first-person view. Since it differs a lot per person what they prefer to use, and implementing things just because some people like it better is silly, I don't see why they should add that point of view.
Of course, it would be quite easy via a mod, since it just requires you to change the camera position. It's the controls where it gets messy.

Ratty: Half-Life used the Quake engine. That's how it proves you wrong. Plus, it ran very acceptably on my old 1995 PC that at times had trouble with Fallout.

 

[Lumpy]

Half Life is a year and a half older than Fallout and was ahead of its time when it came out. When Fallout was released (September 1997, I believe), Quake was the pinnacle of 3D graphics

WTF?

Quake - 1996
Fallout - 1997
Half Life - 1998 (quake engine)
Fallout 2 - 1998

Huh?
Fallout - September 30, 1997
Half Life - November 20, 1998
So 1 year and 2 months later. Nevertheless, Half Life was a FPS, so graphics were much more important then they were in Fallout.
And Fallout 2 was almost as much of a new game as Fan Made Fallout is.

Remember the D&D sessions with your friends, how you were hunched above a table in your room / kitchen / basement and a map was spread across it and miniature figurines representing creatures arranged on it? That's the kind of game Fallout emulates and does so successfully. While a third-person or even first-person Fallout wouldn't necessarily suck, it just wouldn't feel the same, and that should be reason enough to retain the isometric perspective.

Not really, I've never played D&D, so I can't really know what you're talking about. But I see your point. Although, if they were to make isometric viewpoint available during combat, there would be no reason not to allow it outside combat as well.
And if adding two perspectives is worth it - well, it may be. Keep in mind Bethesda will try to please casual gamers, so I don't think you will get a pure Fallout game. But maybe, they will try to please both camps, by going the Van Buren way, and adding two types of combat, etc.[/quote]

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

Quake - 1996
Fallout - 1997
Half Life - 1998 (quake engine)
Fallout 2 - 1998

Er, I don't understand. Is that supposed to disprove something I said?

You said Half-Life is a year and a half older than Fallout. It's not.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Ratty: Half-Life used the Quake engine. That's how it proves you wrong. Plus, it ran very acceptably on my old 1995 PC that at times had trouble with Fallout.

A heavily modified and improved version of Quake engine, one that was in fact at least as advanced as Quake II engine, if not moreso. In addition to this, Half Life's visuals weren't ahead of their time in terms of technical novelties, but rather in terms of excellent art and area design. Valve practically redefined first person shooters in that respect.

It's most unusual that your computer ran Half Life without problems and yet had trouble with Fallout. The only thing Fallout needed a lot of was RAM (32 MB was preferred). On the other hand, Half Life, like all 3D games, looked and ran like shit without 3D acceleration (did it even have a software renderer?), something that was neither widely available nor widely used when Fallout saw the light of day.

 

[Nova]

I wouldn't mind seeing a 3D isometric view where you could revolve the camera around the caracter.
I don't see how 3D couldn't look good from an Isometric view as it looks good from a first or third person view.

 

[Sander]

A heavily modified and improved version of Quake engine, one that was in fact at least as advanced as Quake II engine, if not moreso. In addition to this, Half Life's visuals weren't ahead of their time in terms of technical novelties, but rather in terms of excellent art and area design. Valve practically redefined first person shooters in that respect.

It's most unusual that your computer ran Half Life without problems and yet had trouble with Fallout. The only thing Fallout needed a lot of was RAM (32 MB was preferred). On the other hand, Half Life, like all 3D games, looked and ran like shit without 3D acceleration (did it even have a software renderer?), something that was neither widely available nor widely used when Fallout saw the light of day.

Actually, I used a software renderer for it, and compared to Quake and other games of its day, it was quite impressive. But that software rendering engine could just as welll have been used a year before.

 

[Kahgan]

Heh. Don't shoot me for this, but my girlfriend is playing a game right now called "The Movies" (Lionhead Studios) and I wouldn't mind a system like that, where there's still isometric perspective, but you can zoom into things. It works pretty well, methinks.

zooming and/or rotating the camera should not be any problem as long as it stays top-down isometric.

just my quarter of a bottle cap....

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

zooming and/or rotating the camera should not be any problem as long as it stays top-down isometric.

just my quarter of a bottle cap....

I agree totally. I'm sure there's lots of examples but for me Freedom Force had a nice set-up as far as the rotatable/zoomable camera. I found the RTwP comabt could get pretty sloppy at times, and would much rather have the tightness of TB.

 

[Thinkwagon]

I noticed something about these forums after lurking for so damn long, there seems to be a heavy "ISOMETRIC, TURN BASED OR WE RIOT" mentality going about unless I'm mistaken. One of the things that annoys me the most is how people say that a First Person Fallout wouldn't be "Fallouty" or in the spirit of Fallout.

But, what exactly is Fallout? It's a open-ended post-apocalyptic adventure that gives the player a sense of control over their character and a myriad of choices on how to guide him/her; basically, in my view, the perfect RPG. Choices MAKE the game, not so much the setup of combat. This is one of the things that worry me the most about Beth handling this project, not so much if it'll be a traditional top-down RPG, but rather if the player will be presented with choices and proper consequences. Let's take Oblivion for example, you could basically take one character and be the leader of all the guilds in the bloody game, which is just ridiculous. In the end, Oblivion is just a pseudo non-linear piece of horse dick.

Erm...yeah. As much as I enjoy turn based RPGs, in some aspects Fallout 3 might work even BETTER in a First Person setting, mainly because of the gun aspect of the game. I guess I'm a softy for FPRPGs, Dues Ex being one of favorites (but don't even mention Dues Ex 2, I might go into a complete psycotic rage). But hey, if they make it a turn based game I'm entirely for it.

 

[Per]

I noticed something about these forums after lurking for so damn long, there seems to be a heavy "ISOMETRIC, TURN BASED OR WE RIOT" mentality going about unless I'm mistaken.

If you'd been lurking for so damn long you'd know that accusing us of being rioters is #3 on the Top List of Unoriginal Things to Do.

But, what exactly is Fallout? It's a open-ended post-apocalyptic adventure that gives the player a sense of control over their character and a myriad of choices on how to guide him/her; basically, in my view, the perfect RPG. Choices MAKE the game, not so much the setup of combat.

Telling us that some thing or other is Fallout and that the other things we may or may not care about don't really matter: #2 on the list.

Erm...yeah. As much as I enjoy turn based RPGs, in some aspects Fallout 3 might work even BETTER in a First Person setting, mainly because of the gun aspect of the game.

Championing 1st person perspective... well, not exactly #1 on the list. Maybe #12.

You will now proceed to be flamed.

 

[zioburosky13]

Erm...yeah. As much as I enjoy turn based RPGs, in some aspects Fallout 3 might work even BETTER in a First Person setting

It makes sense because you can aim wherever you want. Head, eye, groin, ear, torso, arm, finger.

But that will take away your weapon skill and rely on your fast clicking skill and we don't want to see the 'master level' of small firearm, heavy firearm gives "50%stun, 2x damage" things like it.

 

[Thinkwagon]

Telling us that some thing or other is Fallout and that the other things we may or may not care about don't really matter: #2 on the list.
.

Ah, the "if it aint broke, don't fix it" mentality at it's best. I'm simply saying that as a role playing gamer in general, you should be more open-minded. Humor me, what do you view as the perfect Fallout sequel?

Championing 1st person perspective... well, not exactly #1 on the list. Maybe #12.

Ok Ok, you got me there mate. What I meant was aside from GUNS~!, the first person perspective is, IMO, more immersive. From a graphical standpoint, Fallout's setting of bleak blown out cities and miles of wasteland fit well with FP. You feel as if you're actually there, witnessing the horrors of the wastes up close and personal. Something about just being God overseeing his little puppets like in most RPGs ruins that slightly. You don't get the whole experience.

You will now proceed to be flamed.

Ooo, fire makes me all tingly inside.

 

[Roshambo]

Ah, the "if it aint broke, don't fix it" mentality at it's best.

No, you fucking moron, it's "how the game was intended to be designed", as the developers have said themselves (on the site if you don't believe me), as we keep having to say for the benefit of every two-bit fuckwit like yourself who lies about having lurked, yet still is utterly fucking clueless.

I'm simply saying that as a role playing gamer in general, you should be more open-minded. Humor me, what do you view as the perfect Fallout sequel?

Explain this "open-minded" bullshit to me, kid. Exactly which RPG series has fared well after a drastic change to the style of gameplay?

...

I'm waiting, and I'll continue to wait, because there ISN'T ANY. Not in my 25 years of experience with this industry, and not ever. In fact, they tend to DIE OFF when they are changed to what the fans don't want, kind of like how FOS was pirated more than it was legitimately bought. If you had bothered to lurk as you had claimed, then you would have known this.

Now I'll wait awhile for the relevance of that to dawn upon you.

In addition, as a role-playing gamer, I don't care to have ACTION bullshit replace more of what is supposed to be a role-playing game. That kind of defeats the point of calling it a role-playing game if it's going to use the player's abilities instead of the character's stats. Even Bloodlines was action-based, and was a hybrid due to its construction. Fallout was designed as a return to P&P RPG style gameplay, when more "trendy" shit like Diablo was released in the same year.

Again, that we have to note this for your benefit means you lied about having lurked.

Ok Ok, you got me there mate. What I meant was aside from GUNS~!, the first person perspective is, IMO, more immersive.

And yet you presume to tell people this shit, when you have earlier claimed to have lurked. You have been caught at your lie twice now. Fallout is not about "immersive", it is about P&P RPG gameplay and the depth such a construct on a computer may provide.

From a graphical standpoint, Fallout's setting of bleak blown out cities and miles of wasteland fit well with FP. You feel as if you're actually there, witnessing the horrors of the wastes up close and personal. Something about just being God overseeing his little puppets like in most RPGs ruins that slightly. You don't get the whole experience.

Yeah, and Ultima 8 would have drawn the console Action crowd into the Ultima franchise.

That foolish marketing wet dream didn't quite work either then, Corky.