Fallout 3 reviews round-up #5

[sonicmerlin]

A turn-based combat system in a fully 3D world?

Raider: Time to die scumbag!
You: We'll see about that! Let us begin!
(Raider moves 5 steps forward and pulls out a knife)
Raider: Oh no! I don't have any action points left!
You: Ok, hold on while I walk in front of you and pull this shotgun trigger.
Raider: Hurry up, will you? I'm getting a rash from all this sunl- (BOOM)
You: Hah, evil-doers will never win against me!

 

[Sander]

A turn-based combat system in a fully 3D world?

Raider: Time to die scumbag!
You: We'll see about that! Let us begin!
(Raider moves 5 steps forward and pulls out a knife)
Raider: Oh no! I don't have any action points left!
You: Ok, hold on while I walk in front of you and pull this shotgun trigger.
Raider: Hurry up, will you? I'm getting a rash from all this sunl- (BOOM)
You: Hah, evil-doers will never win against me!

You do realise that the graphical engine wouldn't limit really limit the choice in combat-styles, right? There's no law that says you can't have a fully 3-d world, viewed from an isometric perspective.

 

[sonicmerlin]

So he's not really criticizing the combat system of Fallout 3. He's criticizing the first person perspective.

But since Fallout 3 is a first-person perspective game, and not an isometric 3D game, we have to consider what works best in that situation and what would allow for Fallout's original combat system to have some influence.

 

[Sander]

So he's not really criticizing the combat system of Fallout 3. He's criticizing the first person perspective.

How the hell do you make this an either/or question? He's criticizing the combat system, and the alternative he (and most people here) would like to see would require a different perspective, yes. But the core complaint is still the combat system.

But since Fallout 3 is a first-person perspective game, and not an isometric 3D game, we have to consider what works best in that situation and what would allow for Fallout's original combat system to have some influence.

Wait, let's turn that around.
Since Fallout 3 is an action-RPG and not a turn-based RPG we need to figure out what perspective would work best!

Wait a minute.

Also, is it somehow impossible for a game to switch perspectives? You know, 1st-person perspective for one thing, third-person perspective for another? No? Then why, again, do you make this seem an either/or question?

 

[sonicmerlin]

As soon as you suggested the isometric perspective, you made it an either/or situation.

Either you have the original combat system, or it sucks.

What I was trying to say is that FO3 was committed towards having a first-person combat system. VATS was a way of incorporating some semblance of the original system into the combat. And from what I've played of the game it's not so bad.

His criticism was silly. Questioning a random number generator is just inane. It's true that they're not truly random, but not to the extent that any one person would notice.

And my little skit was to illustrate how silly a turn-based combat system (in first person or isometric perspective) would feel when you're walking and looking around such a lush, 3D world.

I liked it in F1 and 2 because of the limitations of the hardware. It made sense for a 2D game. But putting it in F3 would have just screamed arbitrary restriction.

 

[Sander]

As soon as you suggested the isometric perspective, you made it an either/or situation.

Either you have the original combat system, or it sucks.

I'll quote myself again to disprove this:
"Also, is it somehow impossible for a game to switch perspectives? You know, 1st-person perspective for one thing, third-person perspective for another? No? Then why, again, do you make this seem an either/or question?"

His criticism was silly. Questioning a random number generator is just inane. It's true that they're not truly random, but not to the extent that any one person would notice.

Yes, note my quip on being Fooled by Randomness (great book).

What I was trying to say is that FO3 was committed towards having a first-person combat system. VATS was a way of incorporating some semblance of the original system into the combat. And from what I've played of the game it's not so bad.

Meh, seems like the worst of both worlds to me.
It removes most of the twitch gaming that is attractive in FPS games, but it's nowhere near the tactical system turn-based gamers want to see.

In other words, it pleases neither camp.
Of course, an FPS gamer could just not use VATS, but the game plays pretty poorly as a straight-up shooter.

And my little skit was to illustrate how silly a turn-based combat system (in first person or isometric perspective) would feel when you're walking and looking around such a lush, 3D world.

I liked it in F1 and 2 because of the limitations of the hardware. It made sense for a 2D game. But putting it in F3 would have just screamed arbitrary restriction.

There was no restriction in Fallout 1 to prevent it from being a real-time game. Any and all technological restrictions are figments of your imagination.

And I really don't see how improved graphical detail has an impact on how well turn-based combat fits.

 

[sonicmerlin]

Because even if it switches, the point is that you want the isometric perspective. So either you get that isometric turn-based combat, or its thumbs down for you.

Sorry I missed the pun.

You can't use VATS all the time. You still need to take cover, dodge the enemy, and all that FPS stuff. VATS just lets you target more enemies than you would be able to in a pure FPS. It's cool stuff to feel like you're about to be overwhelmed by enemies, then the meter fills up, and you blast a few enemies all at once to squeak out of the battle with your life.

By technological restrictions I meant that turn-based combat was more enjoyable in a 2D world than real-time was. Realism wasn't a factor. it was just more fun to play such a strategic system. Sure it looked a little strange (a la my skit), but that was far outweighed by the fun factor. The problem is that in a highly detailed 3D world the level of restriction becomes a real nuisance. Here you are exploring this wasteland as if you were actually there exploring. You're jumping over chasms, climbing strange cliffs and broken down monuments to find hidden treasure, and suddenly you're kicked out of the perspective and begin a 5 minute turn-based exercise in isometric tedium.

It's kind of like when you watched all that CG in PSX Final Fantasy games and were awed by the spectacle, only to be kicked back into a grainy, ugly looking world where people's hands were pointy. All you could say was "The heck is this???"

 

[FeelTheRads]

Jeez, another one of those: TURNBASE IS NOT REALISTIC OLOLOL!!1111

Maybe you'd like to read my last posts, in one of them I explain to someone else the quite simple, I'd say, concept of turn-based.

 

[UniversalWolf]

Here you are exploring this wasteland as if you were actually there exploring.

No you're not. No 3D "world" has ever tricked me into believing I was actually there, and the games that have come closest have had effective third-person perspective instead of first-person.

Having no neck and no peripheral vision is more unconvincing than turn-based combat, because turn-based combat isn't trying to trick you into believing something that's patently false. Turn-based combat isn't saying to you, "Hey, Buddy, you're actually participating in combat!" First-person perspective, on the other hand, is saying, "Hey, Buddy, you're actually present in another world!"

Why can't I turn my head? Why do two sets of buildings look identical? Why do NPCs and monsters have the exact same poses? Where are my feet?

Stop trying to convince me I'm actually there. I'm not that credulous.

 

[Ausir]

Either you have the original combat system, or it sucks.

We don't just want the original combat system. We want a superior turn-based system, not just a carbon copy of the original or something taken from a totally diffferent series.

I liked it in F1 and 2 because of the limitations of the hardware. It made sense for a 2D game. But putting it in F3 would have just screamed arbitrary restriction.

Neither does anyone want a 2D Fallout 3. Pseudo-isometric viewpoint and turn-based combat work just as well in 3D.

 

[Sander]

Because even if it switches, the point is that you want the isometric perspective. So either you get that isometric turn-based combat, or its thumbs down for you.

No, if they manage to find a way to make turn-based combat work in a different perspective I have very little complaints.

By technological restrictions I meant that turn-based combat was more enjoyable in a 2D world than real-time was. Realism wasn't a factor. it was just more fun to play such a strategic system. Sure it looked a little strange (a la my skit), but that was far outweighed by the fun factor. The problem is that in a highly detailed 3D world the level of restriction becomes a real nuisance. Here you are exploring this wasteland as if you were actually there exploring. You're jumping over chasms, climbing strange cliffs and broken down monuments to find hidden treasure, and suddenly you're kicked out of the perspective and begin a 5 minute turn-based exercise in isometric tedium.

It's kind of like when you watched all that CG in PSX Final Fantasy games and were awed by the spectacle, only to be kicked back into a grainy, ugly looking world where people's hands were pointy. All you could say was "The heck is this???"

Yes, because VATS is so much more realistic.
The fuck?

Look, if you need a game to be completely first-person to feel immersed, good for you. But actual immersion is achieved by coherence, world design and atmosphere, not by viewpoint.

The reason that combat didn't feel jarring or out-of-place in Fallout wasn't that it was 2D or old, it was because it was designed to fit well into the world and interface.

Also, in many ways turn-based combat is an objectively much more realistic and powerful abstraction than real-time combat.

 

[Multidirectional]

It's good that chess don't have better graphics nowadays, so that game can continue to be turnbased.

 

[sonicmerlin]

The FPS and VATS combo is a heck of a lot more realistic than isometric turn-based combat.

3D realism enhances "atmosphere" and "world design". It is absolutely insane to claim that 2D can be more immersive than detailed, high-res 3D. sure it can be just as addictive and enjoyable, but immersion? Give me a break.

Your use of the words "realistic" and "abstraction" are paradoxical. To go so far as to say Fallout's turn-based combat is *more realistic* than real-time suggests you've lost your marbles. There is *nothing* realistic about the way combat was presented in Fallout 1 and 2. I had no problem with that, but it would be a nuisance and just plain embarrassing in a 3D world like Fallout 3.

People do not shoot rifles at people, stand still in the line of fire, grunt when hit, then return fire in turns. It is so ridiculously unrealistic that just this last month I was joking about it with my roommate. We were gooffing off and acting out what a battle scene from the original games would look like in real life. Suffice it to say it wasn't pretty.

Don't get me wrong. We both loved the original Fallout games, and he for whatever reason shares your opinion that Fallout 3's gameplay mechanics should have been much more like the originals (he's not going to buy or so much as try F3, unlike many of the "haters" I've read on this forum). But never ever does he even so much as pretend to think that in the first two games combat was "realistic" or that the games were more immersive than FO3.

 

[FeelTheRads]

You simply don't understand how turn-based works. That's it.

Just because it doesn't "look" realistic it doesn't mean it isn't.

But, why the fuck do I bother... you're just another one who thinks turn-based is just your turn/my turn.

Also, 3d=first-person=immersive is just a load of crap.

 

[Malcolm_x]

"The truth is out there" that words are from X-Files tv sieries - and i can say that same sentence why - I`m still looking for simple answer how good/bad fallout 3 is?
At one side is Tood and all that marks from Game - something and PC - whats - for them that game is 8 world miricle - but there are second side as always - and at that side Fallout 3 doesn`t have fans - so where is the truth.... good question

http://www.irontowerstudio.com/foru...=53f9ded1cbb9d7070a22eb0a7f9294c3&topic=577.0

 

[Per]

Your use of the words "realistic" and "abstraction" are paradoxical. To go so far as to say Fallout's turn-based combat is *more realistic* than real-time suggests you've lost your marbles. There is *nothing* realistic about the way combat was presented in Fallout 1 and 2.

It's paradoxical if you don't understand the words "realistic" and "abstraction". All combat systems are by necessity models, representations, abstractions. Apparently you judge their utility exclusively by looking at the surface of the mechanics. "How can they just stand there while the other side is shooting? They wouldn't do that in real life! Unrealistic!" If you look at the results, how well the system simulates the outcome of a battle based on the variables going in and the choices made, you get a better gauge of how "realistic" it is. That's why Squad Leader does a more realistic simulation of tactical combat than Unreal Tournament. I can't exactly judge how realistic the old Fallout combat system is, all told, but your suggestion that it's not realistic just because it's turn-based is puerile.

People do not shoot rifles at people, stand still in the line of fire, grunt when hit, then return fire in turns. It is so ridiculously unrealistic

Yes, that's what it comes down to if you refuse to understand the abstraction and the motivations for its use. You can say the same thing about Civilization or any other abstract representation of combat and movement.

 

[TheRatKing]

It is absolutely insane to claim that 2D can be more immersive than detailed, high-res 3D. sure it can be just as addictive and enjoyable, but immersion? Give me a break.

Personally, I have been much more immersed in books than I have been in games, and books are simply text. Planescape had pretty bad graphics and was 2d, but damn it was more believable and immersive than Bioshock. Generally, FPS are not immersive, yet they have shiny graphics. When I play CoD4, I don't feel like I am there. I don't connect with the characters or feel any emotion towards them. However, in Planescape, the characters are created with such attention to detail that I feel for them and actually care about what happens to them.

 

[UniversalWolf]

People do not shoot rifles at people, stand still in the line of fire, grunt when hit, then return fire in turns. It is so ridiculously unrealistic that just this last month I was joking about it with my roommate. We were gooffing off and acting out what a battle scene from the original games would look like in real life. Suffice it to say it wasn't pretty.

This is the essence of your failure to understand.

Unlike "Fallout 3", an isometric, turn-based game like, say, Fallout 1, isn't trying (and failing) to convince you you're actually doing battle in real life. Instead, it provides a medium for you to imagine the reality of the world it simulates. This is simliar to the process that allows you to imagine Middle Earth being real when you're reading Lord of the Rings - an infinitely more pleasurable, immersive experience that watching those crummy Peter Jackson movies, I might add.

3D games attempt to supplant imagination. Naturally, they fail. "Fallout 3" can't convince me I'm actually living in a twisted, raped version of the Fallout universe any more than a flight simulator can convince me I'm actually flying an airplane.