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

peadar87 said:
ZigzagPX4 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I believe so too. I can understand how narrative might change between games, or how the second one could even be set before the first, but changing the genre entirely for a direct numbered sequel is just dumb and confusing.
 
I think it all boils down to what our priorities are, not what is right/wrong. Ask yourself this: Why do you play Fallout? Any Fallout game for that matter. What are you looking for in a Fallout game?

For me, it is the experience of immersion. It is easier to admire and take in a beautifully crafted world through the FPS view, rather than an isometric one. FPS have better camera control, which allows you to view the world from any angle. Sure, Diablo was great fun too, but I didnt play it for the immersion, because it wasn't the game's selling point.

Like in Skyrim, when casting a shout in FPS view, it feels like it comes out from your mouth. I don't think it will feel half as epic in isometric view. Similarly, when the mod 'The Joy of Perspective' came out, it was fantastic to be able to see your body when you look down in FPS view.

So I would say yes, perspective IS very important. One of Fallout's main attraction for me was the ability to switch between 1st person and 3rd person view. Had it be locked to either view, I would certainly think twice about playing it. I mean, if you want to roleplay as a cowboy, you want to be the best damn good looking cowboy in the Mojave. And you need the 3rd person view to do that. 1st person view then completes the immersion of being in said cowboy's shoes.

Our problem these days is that the game developers' priorities are not aligned with the gamers. Back then, we would play a game with the expectations that were in line with the developers. But these days, even a masterpiece of a game can be hated just because it is not in line with the priorities of the gamer.
 
Last edited:
Immortalkickass said:
I think it all boils down to what our priorities are, not what is right/wrong. Ask yourself this: Why do you play Fallout? Any Fallout game for that matter. What are you looking for in a Fallout game?

For me, it is the experience of immersion. It is easier to admire and take in a beautifully crafted world through the FPS view, rather than an isometric one. FPS have better camera control, which allows you to view the world from any angle. Sure, Diablo was great fun too, but I didnt play it for the immersion, because it wasn't the game's selling point.

Like in Skyrim, when casting a shout in FPS view, it feels like it comes out from your mouth. I don't think it will feel half as epic in isometric view. Similarly, when the mod 'The Joy of Perspective' came out, it was fantastic to be able to see your body when you look down in FPS view.

So I would say yes, perspective IS very important. One of Fallout's main attraction for me was the ability to switch between 1st person and 3rd person view. Had it be locked to either view, I would certainly think twice about playing it. I mean, if you want to roleplay as a cowboy, you want to be the best damn good looking cowboy in the Mojave. And you need the 3rd person view to do that. 1st person view then completes the immersion of being in said cowboy's shoes.
Click to expand...

Different people have different reasons for enjoying the Fallout series, but to stretch your game between pleasing every single last one of these different people causes the game to lose focus. It's a common problem of games that take too much cues from other games rather than building an identity of its own.

Fallout 4 doesn't want to be an outright FPS, nor does it want to be an RPG. It's in a state of design limbo, and currently has an identity crisis of sorts. It faces the Ubisoft problem of looking like the devs themselves couldn't agree on a consensus of what game they want it to be. In that sense, Fallout 4 ended up as a collection of many games interlocked with each other rather than one solid game.

There are many people who prefer the isometric view because they either appreciate the art design of the world from that perspective, or (in most cases) just because they prefer turn-based gameplay, which is much better at making your allocated RP skills seem like they matter than real-time games.

There are also many who prefer first-person/third-person view, because switchable perspectives are somewhat unique in gaming, they allow for players to identify better with the character directly, they're a combination of the two best perspectives for real-time gameplay, and detail in graphics and world design are better appreciated at a close distance.

My original point was that, in relation to several of the flaws in Bethesda games, perspective is not a major problem. If an RPG game is poorly written, with crap optimisation, repetitive gameplay, and non-existent RPG mechanics, then becoming isometric and turn-based is not going to save it.

Hell, it might make it worse. Isometric gameplay is one of those things that can be used very well, but you have to be sure you know how to use it. Unless the writing is definitely very good and the balance near perfect, it's much easier to go with any other game type. They're difficult to develop because if you pull it off wrong, its very easy to make it come out as boring. Fast-paced shooters, in contrast, are very easy to get right, so if you're not a particularly good developer just yet its much easier to use the base gameplay of shooters as a training wheel of sorts.

I would prefer Fallout, in whoever's hand, stick to the FP/TP perspective until that whoever is absolutely sure they can pull off the flawless use of the isometric perspective. Unless it goes to Obsidian, in which case they can do what they want because they're experienced with the realms of isometric games.

Immortalkickass said:
Our problem these days is that the game developers' priorities are not aligned with the gamers. Back then, we would play a game with the expectations that were in line with the developers. But these days, even a masterpiece of a game can be hated just because it is not in line with the priorities of the gamer.
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure what you mean by this. Could you clarify?
 
ZigzagPX4 said:
My original point was that, in relation to several of the flaws in Bethesda games, perspective is not a major problem. If an RPG game is poorly written, with crap optimisation, repetitive gameplay, and non-existent RPG mechanics, then becoming isometric and turn-based is not going to save it.
Click to expand...

I know what your point is, and my argument is that perspective is important, whether the other aspects of the game are good or not is irrelevant.

To us NMA members, it probably is not so important, since most of us value good writing above all else. But if the series were to be isometric view again, it will fail to sell enough copies to break even. The majority of Fallout 4 players are people who just want to 'shoot motherfuckers'. Making it isometric will turn off the players who were weaned on FO3 and NV.

Quite simply, there's no turning back now.
 
Immortalkickass said:
I know what your point is, and my argument is that perspective is important, whether the other aspects of the game are good or not is irrelevant.

To us NMA members, it probably is not so important, since most of us value good writing above all else. But if the series were to be isometric view again, it will fail to sell enough copies to break even. The majority of Fallout 4 players are people who just want to 'shoot motherfuckers'. Making it isometric will turn off the players who were weaned on FO3 and NV.

Quite simply, there's no turning back now.
Click to expand...

XCOM proves that if Bethesda had originally taken the right approach, they still could've pulled off an isometric game getting popular.

And they still can - making it a spin-off series. Purist fans of Fallout all the way from the beginning will still not like the fact that the isometric games aren't the mainline of the series, but in sensible terms it would be miles better than not having an isometric Fallout at all.

You're right to an extent - the numbered games are, from now on, open-world shooters designed to please in the most basic sense. But apart from that, it's still possible for Bethesda to redeem themselves and allow the development of spin-offs that are true to the series. It's not too late, despite what many says.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top