Do we think perspective is the least of Fallout's problems?

[Crni Vuk]

^I agree.^

I do prefer the isometric + turn based system, but I don't care about the specifics if the game is good. What I don't understand about the new FO titles is why did Bethesda dumped those things that made Fallout work so damn well? I bet they would have cashed in pretty well even without getting rid of the "old" style mechanics.... But I guess that wouldn't been enough for them when there's even more profit to be made.

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with 1st person action oriented RPG on itself, but I think the big mistake was to NOT take advantage of the good sides of the "old" and "dated" system, the things that worked. The 1st person real time mechanic fucks up the skill system pretty badly. I remember when I started playing Fallout 3 and at some point I started to think, what the hell do these numbers matter anyway? Its me doing the aiming, not my character... And VATS, lol, the glossed over cheat system. It felt cool for a while and then I noticed that I'm overusing VATS to make difficult fights easier. Soon after I started to avoid VATS all together as it made things way too easy. /end partial offtopic.

I can only guess. But most likely? Because they have good business man working for them. Very skilled people in their marketing departments. I have to admit from an entertainment and marketing point of view Todd Howard and his direct subordinates, like Pete, really know what they do very well! In othe words, they know how to sell a product to the masses. This is a skill on it's own! And not every person or developer can do that.

Howard knows probably pretty well what Fallout is about and I am sure they have spend time with the concepts behind it, going trough the design documents and so on. Not to mention, they have grown up with those games as well, even if not all of them played it, they sure heard about it one way or another. They know Fallout, but decided to go against it and adapt Fallout to the Elder Scrolls formula - Oblivion at that time.

They know what sells. And each Bethesda games increased in sales, from Morrowind with 2-3 million games. To Oblivion with almost 10 milion. And it was again almost doubled with Skyrim. It's no coinsidence that each new Beth game was made closer to a shooter over the years ... including their Elder Scroll games.

 

[ZigzagPX4]

^I agree.^

I do prefer the isometric + turn based system, but I don't care about the specifics if the game is good. What I don't understand about the new FO titles is why did Bethesda dumped those things that made Fallout work so damn well? I bet they would have cashed in pretty well even without getting rid of the "old" style mechanics.... But I guess that wouldn't been enough for them when there's even more profit to be made.

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with 1st person action oriented RPG on itself, but I think the big mistake was to NOT take advantage of the good sides of the "old" and "dated" system, the things that worked. The 1st person real time mechanic fucks up the skill system pretty badly. I remember when I started playing Fallout 3 and at some point I started to think, what the hell do these numbers matter anyway? Its me doing the aiming, not my character... And VATS, lol, the glossed over cheat system. It felt cool for a while and then I noticed that I'm overusing VATS to make difficult fights easier. Soon after I started to avoid VATS all together as it made things way too easy. /end partial offtopic.

I can only guess. But most likely? Because they have good business man working for them. Very skilled people in their marketing departments. I have to admit from an entertainment and marketing point of view Todd Howard and his direct subordinates, like Pete, really know what they do very well! In othe words, they know how to sell a product to the masses. This is a skill on it's own! And not every person or developer can do that.

Howard knows probably pretty well what Fallout is about and I am sure they have spend time with the concepts behind it, going trough the design documents and so on. Not to mention, they have grown up with those games as well, even if not all of them played it, they sure heard about it one way or another. They know Fallout, but decided to go against it and adapt Fallout to the Elder Scrolls formula - Oblivion at that time.

They know what sells. And each Bethesda games increased in sales, from Morrowind with 2-3 million games. To Oblivion with almost 10 milion. And it was again almost doubled with Skyrim. It's no coinsidence that each new Beth game was made closer to a shooter over the years ... including their Elder Scroll games.

"Bethesda are good marketers, good designers, and good at selling games a lot. We, however, do not like them, simply because they have taken a franchise we love and turned it into something it is not."

Does this sound about right? For the opinion of NMA's majority?

 

[Gizmojunk]

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with 1st person action oriented RPG on itself, but I think the big mistake was to NOT take advantage of the good sides of the "old" and "dated" system, the things that worked.

Agreed; but... I don't see it as a dated system; I just see it as a system; and in this case I see it as the Fallout series system, and I see Bethesda ignoring the Fallout series system to sell their game [on name alone], to a non-Fallout series fanbase, who just want another TES series spin-off that uses the Fallout setting instead of Tamriel.

**Personally, I cannot acknowledge any numbered sequel that plays unrelated to the series proper [no matter how good of a game it is on its own merits]. Spin-offs are wonderful ~tangents; and FO3 is a good example of one... disingenuously mislabeled as a sequel.

 

[ZigzagPX4]

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with 1st person action oriented RPG on itself, but I think the big mistake was to NOT take advantage of the good sides of the "old" and "dated" system, the things that worked.

Agreed; but... I don't see it as a dated system; I just see it as a system; and in this case I see it as the Fallout series system, and I see Bethesda ignoring the Fallout series system to sell their game [on name alone], to a non-Fallout series fanbase, who just want another TES series spin-off that uses the Fallout setting instead of Tamriel.

**Personally, I cannot acknowledge any numbered sequel that plays unrelated to the series proper [no matter how good of a game it is on its own merits]. Spin-offs are wonderful ~tangents; and FO3 is a good example of one... disingenuously mislabeled as a sequel.

Fallout 3 is decent as a Fallout spin-off and terrible as a Fallout sequel, is the vibe I'm getting here.

 

[Gizmojunk]

That's about right IMO. FO3 is impressive ~not as an RPG, or a Fallout game, but for it's own strong points as a theme park sandbox.

The stupefying thing is the idea that they would [or would need to] spend the money licensing it for just the names, when the series name meant nothing to the overwhelming majority of their target market. They could have done TES extrapolated to the future as a diesel punk setting all their own [just copy Arcanum's setting, and add a century or two], or go even further on into the year 10,000 after a nuclear war; and populated with cyborgs and techno-mages... Basically Rifts RPG in video game form; even licensed it from Palladium Books,

Spoiler

...and it would likely have sold just as well or better [including to me].

 

[Crni Vuk]

"Bethesda are good marketers, good designers, and good at selling games a lot. We, however, do not like them, simply because they have taken a franchise we love and turned it into something it is not."

Does this sound about right? For the opinion of NMA's majority?

Maybe if you left out the good designers. Just because they know how to sell crap, doesn't change the fact that it is a mediocre product. I mean the UI they use in their games ... that alone kills everything that goes in to good design.

- But, remember that Gizmo likes F3! (For what it is at least ...). Not everyone of us here follows the same principle or ideas. But I would assume that many here don't see Fallout 3 as a good Sequel to Fallout 1 and 2. For different reasons most probably.

 

[Gizmojunk]

- But, remember that Gizmo likes F3! (For what it is at least ...).

I had fun on lonely walks in the wastes; at least until interrupted by NPCs. The landscape is spot on IMO; most of the art design is good; with some exceptions, like Mr. Handy; and that everything looks like it's been 20 years instead of 200 since the war.

FO3 has a lot to offer...

But offers nothing (at all) that I would seek out a Fallout sequel to have or experience.
As a Fallout game it's depressing as hell ~and not in the good way one would expect from the Fallout series.

 

[MercenarySnake]

I think the problem with Fallout 4 is that the stats and perks are there to make super heroes instead of people with flaws in some areas and skills like a scientist with terrible luck. Bethesda seems like they want the player to become a godly figure without any downsides and seem like they're too afraid to lock them out of some things.

As a game where you kill things in an open world of course it does that right and the little mini stories and details are pretty decent as well but what we're looking for is a Fallout game not a game impersonating Fallout. The first person perspective could work IF done correctly but as it seems to me the PC's skill isn't determined based on what their skills are set at but rather if the person playing as the PC is able to shoot and hit the target or not.

Now when it comes to the way Fallout 1 and 2 do it, the player's skill isn't determining if the PC hits or not but the PC themselves.

 

[Crni Vuk]

But there is still no substance to your choice. Even if you're the equivalent of Arnold Schwarzenegers, Einstein and the charisma of Napoleon Bonaparte, the game doesn't recognize it, despite the fact of throwing perks and skills at you that say stuff like "scientist" or "super-duper-intelligent-something-something". You still have no way to show it in the game. Most of the time you end up as that guy who is pushing a button, starting some action, finding this incredible rare and hard to get ingredience that is just around the corner which every faction needs and will get anyway if you chose to side with the other faction ...

 

[ZigzagPX4]

For perspective, this is my dream game. Not what I think Fallout should be, but what I'm waiting for.

• Deus Ex's multiple playstyles and effect of choices
• STALKER's equipment system, atmosphere, and interactivity
• Source Engine level of physics and using physics to assist in gameplay
• Far Cry's freeflowing first person combat
• System Shock's "skills affect what player character can do" first person semi-RPGness
• Classic RPG depths of lore and writing, including dialogue
• Fallout 4's weapon customisation and character creation systems

You see how Fallout by Bethesda sorts of dips a little into each of these, but never beyond an inch? That's why I thought, "jack-of-all-trades" as Bethesda games' best description. I have no idea why they attempted to dip into Borderlands and Sims territory, though.

 

[Dr Fallout]

For perspective, this is my dream game. Not what I think Fallout should be, but what I'm waiting for.

• Deus Ex's multiple playstyles and effect of choices
• STALKER's equipment system, atmosphere, and interactivity
• Source Engine level of physics and using physics to assist in gameplay
• Far Cry's freeflowing first person combat
• System Shock's "skills affect what player character can do" first person semi-RPGness
• Classic RPG depths of lore and writing, including dialogue
• Fallout 4's weapon customisation and character creation systems

You see how Fallout by Bethesda sorts of dips a little into each of these, but never beyond an inch? That's why I thought, "jack-of-all-trades" as Bethesda games' best description. I have no idea why they attempted to dip into Borderlands and Sims territory, though.

Damn, that would be a great game.

 

[Sergeant Politeness]

For perspective, this is my dream game. Not what I think Fallout should be, but what I'm waiting for.

• Deus Ex's multiple playstyles and effect of choices
• STALKER's equipment system, atmosphere, and interactivity
• Source Engine level of physics and using physics to assist in gameplay
• Far Cry's freeflowing first person combat
• System Shock's "skills affect what player character can do" first person semi-RPGness
• Classic RPG depths of lore and writing, including dialogue
• Fallout 4's weapon customisation and character creation systems

Didn't Bethesda already create this game with Fallout 4?

 

[Dr Fallout]

For perspective, this is my dream game. Not what I think Fallout should be, but what I'm waiting for.

• Deus Ex's multiple playstyles and effect of choices
• STALKER's equipment system, atmosphere, and interactivity
• Source Engine level of physics and using physics to assist in gameplay
• Far Cry's freeflowing first person combat
• System Shock's "skills affect what player character can do" first person semi-RPGness
• Classic RPG depths of lore and writing, including dialogue
• Fallout 4's weapon customisation and character creation systems

Didn't Bethesda already create this game with Fallout 4?

I'd say no, see all those things are GOOD and everything Bethesda put in are BAD.

 

[ZigzagPX4]

For perspective, this is my dream game. Not what I think Fallout should be, but what I'm waiting for.

• Deus Ex's multiple playstyles and effect of choices
• STALKER's equipment system, atmosphere, and interactivity
• Source Engine level of physics and using physics to assist in gameplay
• Far Cry's freeflowing first person combat
• System Shock's "skills affect what player character can do" first person semi-RPGness
• Classic RPG depths of lore and writing, including dialogue
• Fallout 4's weapon customisation and character creation systems

Didn't Bethesda already create this game with Fallout 4?

I'd say no, see all those things are GOOD and everything Bethesda put in are BAD.

Precisely. Well, not very precisely, but yeah, that's about the size of it. Here's a bit of elaboration so as to make it clear why Fallout 4 botches this kind of hybrid:

• There are multiple playstyles... but all of them are clunky and unsupported by the mechanics, compared to Deus Ex. While stealth or melee builds are obviously possible, it's clear they promote a pro gun-it-all playstyle with a touch of stealth and melee from time to time. And C&C in Fallout 4? Please. Don't even start.
• Everything Fallout 4 does like STALKER, STALKER does better. The Commonwealth has an inconsistent feel and while the new piece-by-piece armour system is a step in the right direction, the inventory UI plus the lack of compatibility with half the clothes given just bring it three steps back.
• There's physics, lifting stuff up around (Skyrim bucket glitch, anyone?), sure. But none of that is ever used in the gameplay. Even in Deus Ex, moving crates can get you access to different paths. In Fallout 4, it's a bit of cheap fun and a pointless attempt at "dynamic environmental destruction" went the props all go flying from a grenade blast.
• Shooting's done well in Fallout 4, for a Bethesda game. Not so much when compared to the rest of the industry.
• At no point did skills affect the PC's abilities in Fallout 4. There was no skills of Fallout tradition, and the perks themselves were simply little "make-it-less-inconvenient" additions to the player's abilities rather than actually modify the player's skillset itself.
• Lore and writing including dialogue? Wow. Just wow. I don't think I even need to go over this dead horse.
• Well, this last two is just about what they did right and that's it.

But yes, Sergeant Politeness, I know you were being sarcastic.

 

[MercenarySnake]

Well I wouldn't go as far as to say different playstyles, I mean sure you can go melee only or small guns only, but eventually you'll either put points into the same thing as everyone else or keep yourself from putting points into things. Since it's a Bethesda game balance comes from gimping yourself.

 

[ZigzagPX4]

Back to the original point. Perspective in a Fallout game - an important mechanic to consider, but is it a high priority to raise? Or are there bigger issues with Bethesda's treatment of Fallout than a simple camera angle and time nature of combat?

I'm going to stick with my opinion. I would rather vote for an Obsidian-made Fallout with FP/TP real-time gameplay and exploration rather than have Bethesda make a buggy, repetitive isometric turn-based mess. Of course, almost everyone here wants Obsidian-made isometric turn-based Fallout, but we can't really have our cake and eat it unless we're working with indie developers. So there's that.

Come to think of it, I should've made this thread a poll.

 

[peadar87]

Gun skills work perfectly well in an FPSRPG. Lower gun skill equates to more weapon sway. If your character has low guns skill, weapons, especially more advanced ones, sway around all over the place. There's no problem having an element of player skill involved.

I disagree. An RPG [and Fallout especially] is about the limitations of the PC. An RPG depicts what events that the PC is capable of. Once the designer starts ignoring what the limits of the PC's competency allow, in favor of what the player can manage ~it stops being an RPG, and starts being a digital costume... It becomes an experience like in the movie Avatar. It's no longer how that individual would perceive and behave in situations, and becomes strictly how the player perceives and behaves in their place. This [substitution] is bad for RPGs in general, but especially so in the Fallout series; as Fallout only ever allowed the player to access what their PC could access; or accomplish what their PC could accomplish ~because it's only their PC that is present in the situation.

In Bethesda's unrelated FO titles, the player effectively dresses up like a vault dweller and runs around in the would as if it were them. Doing whatever the hell whim comes to mind ~~instead of roleplaying the PC.

**This is the same crap that ruined the Witcher series in both of its sequels. It turned Geralt into a hand puppet instead of a professional.

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree then. For me, it's a game, not a movie, you have to let the player in at some point. Even in the original Fallouts, you could make a character who couldn't say their own name, and yet could understand the concept of "go to Vault 15 and get a water chip" instead of just sitting in a cave drooling. Or in combat, prioritise who they fought, or be savvy enough to aim for the deathclaw's eyes. I don't think the entire series is ruined just because there is some element of player skill involved instead of a dice roll. If you have low guns skill and can barely hold a pistol straight, you're fairly daft if you get yourself in a firefight, and you'll most likely end up just as dead as if you were playing the original Fallout and tried the same thing.

At the end of the day it comes down to personal preference, but I don't think you can categorically state that a franchise is ruined just because the player of the game is introduced at a slightly different level.

 

[Crni Vuk]

If the game is moving further and furthe away from what the original developers wanted to do, or from the original experience, than you can say that this, is ruined with certain changes. That doesn't man that either the Witcher 2 or 3 are "bad" games on their own terms, just when you compare them directly to the Witcher 1, the change in narration, quests and gameplay is there. While TW2 was a quality game that I love a lot, it does not provide the same kind of experience as TW1. It's even more action oriented and fast paced than TW1 for example. On the other side, I was also missing characters like Thaler or Marlowe and the associated quests. Maybe ruined is to hard of a word, but I definetly get where Giz is coming from. And I very much agree with his conclussion.

 

[ZigzagPX4]

Though unlike with Fallout, I really never got the impression that CD Projekt RED didn't go where they didn't like with The Witcher 3. They seem to have been pleased with turning the series more towards action-oriented direct combat mechanics. As far as I know, I don't think suits rolled into their design meeting and told them they had to make it appeal to more people intentionally, by way of doing what's popular. I'm very confident they just did what they wanted with a tad of making sure it won't fail on the mainstream market. It turned out very well, so there's that.

Neverwinter Nights or Dragon Age: Origins styled combat aren't really my cup of tea anyway, but I can see why people would prefer gameplay to not be based on your direct input. It's why quick-time events exist though (even when they shouldn't) - the main focus of a game is to keep the player engaged, no matter what game in the world it is. Mobile, casual, tactical, action, story-based, sandbox, etc.

It's about keeping the player interested and continuously interacting. Now the reason we have different games in the first place is that different people are kept engaged by different things. Some people, as we've seen here, prefer that to be a solid, well-written plot and gameplay that keeps you thinking on your next move. Others, rarer here, prefer to have their actions directly influence things immediately. Dodge, shoot, stab, move, grab. That's not wrong.

There are people who are engaged by chess but not by football, while there are people who are engaged by football but not chess. That's the most apt metaphor I could come with. In terms of this comparison, I'm equally engaged by both - I enjoyed both Skyrim and Divinity: Original Sin equally, but for different reasons.

Now the main problem here, from what I've seen, is that you can't take a board game and turn it into a sport and keep the same name.

 

[peadar87]

Though unlike with Fallout, I really never got the impression that CD Projekt RED didn't go where they didn't like with The Witcher 3. They seem to have been pleased with turning the series more towards action-oriented direct combat mechanics. As far as I know, I don't think suits rolled into their design meeting and told them they had to make it appeal to more people intentionally, by way of doing what's popular. I'm very confident they just did what they wanted with a tad of making sure it won't fail on the mainstream market. It turned out very well, so there's that.

Neverwinter Nights or Dragon Age: Origins styled combat aren't really my cup of tea anyway, but I can see why people would prefer gameplay to not be based on your direct input. It's why quick-time events exist though (even when they shouldn't) - the main focus of a game is to keep the player engaged, no matter what game in the world it is. Mobile, casual, tactical, action, story-based, sandbox, etc.

It's about keeping the player interested and continuously interacting. Now the reason we have different games in the first place is that different people are kept engaged by different things. Some people, as we've seen here, prefer that to be a solid, well-written plot and gameplay that keeps you thinking on your next move. Others, rarer here, prefer to have their actions directly influence things immediately. Dodge, shoot, stab, move, grab. That's not wrong.

There are people who are engaged by chess but not by football, while there are people who are engaged by football but not chess. That's the most apt metaphor I could come with. In terms of this comparison, I'm equally engaged by both - I enjoyed both Skyrim and Divinity: Original Sin equally, but for different reasons.

Now the main problem here, from what I've seen, is that you can't take a board game and turn it into a sport and keep the same name.

Even then I think you can set different genres of game in the same universe (heck, we have FIFA, but we also have Football Manager). The only real gripe is the numbering system. Numbered sequels should probably fall into the same genre to prevent people getting the wrong idea.