Fallout 3 Trailer

[Brother None]

Even in Van Buren the BOS stopped being isolationistic and instead waged war against the NCR.

You know damn well that design decision was made to stop the rampant growth started in Fallout 2 of NCR and BoS, Ausir, the Van Buren people chose that plotline because a major war between two powers would effectively toss the world backwards in point of development, rather than having it steam forward towards recovery like in Fallout 2. The expansionist BoS is just a plot device there.

Besides, there's a big difference between the Mid-West and the East Coast, in expansionist terms. Overstretch? Too big an area? Definitely, there's no way the BoS could develop the kind of institutional base needed for that kind of expansion from within 200 years of Fallout 1.

 

[Silencer]

Definitely, there's no way the BoS could develop the kind of institutional base needed for that kind of expansion from within 200 years of Fallout 1.

At least if we still want a harsh world where survival is paramount, not some sort of a Manifest Destiny Revisited reverse-western

 

[Bernard Bumner]

Besides, there's a big difference between the Mid-West and the East Coast, in expansionist terms. Overstretch? Too big an area? Definitely, there's no way the BoS could develop the kind of institutional base needed for that kind of expansion from within 200 years of Fallout 1.

Although history suggests that many technological superpowers have tried to extend beyond their regional influence in exactly that manner, and with the consequence of precipitating their own downfall. (The Japanese switch from isolationism to regionalism, to attempted empire-building is a decent example.)

Of course, you do wonder whether such a politically nuanced backstory is likely, even though it might be timely... (Which is not to say that self-righteous allegory or satire is necessarily a good thing, but it is potentially a good way to build credible and intelligent narrative, if done with subtlety.)

 

[Dracon M'Alkir]

go ahead and do it already. The threat means nothing to me, nor does getting banned.

You so hard. You Tarzan, me Jane.

Anyone else want a gratuitous ban from the loser, testosterone-laden, acne-ridden, obnoxious moderator with no life? No? Smoke?

That was beautiful.

 

[DrKissinger1]

I'm kind of surprised how negatively this is being viewed here. I mean, yeah, I was skeptical as anybody but this trailers seems to be about as Falloutish as anything could be. I still have my fears but...come on. This seems as good as can be expected.

Agreed.

Also, as much as I appreciate the isometric system of Fallout 1 and 2, I don't see how you can flesh out as detailed a world as shown in the teaser without a first person perspective. I don't think enough of us are considering the drawbacks of the isometric system: lack of immersion and poor visual detail. It would be possible to have a first person camera in a turn-based game, but it would seem a bit anticlimactic to relinquish control and watch your hands pull the trigger and miss.

That being the case, if I have to choose between having a fully-realized Wasteland that IPLY/Black Isle only dreamed of in 1997 and a more strategic combat system, I'm going to have to side with the former. Fallout's combat, to me, has always been secondary to the richness of the environment. The satisfaction of lancing a super mutant with a plasma rifle is secondary to the adventurous feeling of stepping into a post-apocalyptic shanty town for the first time, a stranger, kicking the dust off your boots and learning the town's inner workings.

Heh, but I'm new around here, and I've only played Fallout 1/2 a month ago, so my credentials are sadly lacking.

 

[Sander]

Agreed.

Also, as much as I appreciate the isometric system of Fallout 1 and 2, I don't see how you can flesh out as detailed a world as shown in the teaser without a first person perspective. I don't think enough of us are considering the drawbacks of the isometric system: lack of immersion and poor visual detail.

...
Are you kidding me? 'Immersion'? That isn't even quantifiable, and certainly isn't the same as first-person view. 'Immershun' has been mistaken over the past years as 'see everything as a character would', which is ridiculous. Immersion is brought about by a believable, consistently modeled and reactive gameworld. Not by a freaking viewpoint.

Also, isometric view in no way reduces visual quality. I don't even see a reason why it would.

It would be possible to have a first person camera in a turn-based game, but it would seem a bit anticlimactic to relinquish control and watch your hands pull the trigger and miss.

The interface for a first-person turn-based game would be atrocious.

That being the case, if I have to choose between having a fully-realized Wasteland that IPLY/Black Isle only dreamed of in 1997 and a more strategic combat system, I'm going to have to side with the former. Fallout's combat, to me, has always been secondary to the richness of the environment. The satisfaction of lancing a super mutant with a plasma rifle is secondary to the adventurous feeling of stepping into a post-apocalyptic shanty town for the first time, a stranger, kicking the dust off your boots and learning the town's inner workings.

Fallout has *always* been designed as a turn-based, isometric game. And *not* because of technological limitations, but because that's what it was meant to be. They even had a high-budget approach, that also was isometric and turn-based. Those features are incorporated because of the design.

 

[echoandbounce]

Fallout has *always* been designed as a turn-based, isometric game. And *not* because of technological limitations, but because that's what it was meant to be. They even had a high-budget approach, that also was isometric and turn-based. Those features are incorporated because of the design.

OTOH, when the design was made, Turn-Based was also pretty much the way things were done, if you were going to have a fairly deep combat system. If nothing else considering the constraints of the hardware at the time RT would have been problematic and even more buggy than it turned out. Not to say I'm against TB, I love me some TB (JA2 = drool). I just don't think that the way combat is resolved defines what is or is not a good Fallout game. I always liked the writing more than anything else.

As far as the trailer goes I don't think it necessarily indicates either way. FO1 had a very similar pullout on it's opening cinematic, and for that matter the walking-out-of-the-Vault cinematic right before the game proper started was first person. Still, Bethesda likes their FP, so that's probably what we get. :-\

 

[Dracon M'Alkir]

...
Are you kidding me? 'Immersion'? That isn't even quantifiable, and certainly isn't the same as first-person view. 'Immershun' has been mistaken over the past years as 'see everything as a character would', which is ridiculous. Immersion is brought about by a believable, consistently modeled and reactive gameworld. Not by a freaking viewpoint.

Actually, immersion goes even deeper than what you have described. Immersion is when you're sitting late at night playing Fallout, and the walls of your room suddenly begin to vanish, followed by your monitor - your desk, your keyboard, your hands, everything around you just dissapears; and you are inside of the game. You're literarilly part of it, observing the events and feeling exactly what you character is at the exact moments, dictating his movements as if your instruments never existed, like you're not even friggen sitting at your desk playing on your computer. Your brain and the game become one, and the entire thing becomes a MEMORY within your mind, not "I've played it" like you've read a book, but as if you had actually ventured out into the wasteland YOURSELF and had been in the footsteps of the Vault Dweller.

Immersion is not possible nowadays. There's only been two games that I've ever been immersed in, and those were Fallout and Fallout 2.

 

[Silencer]

OTOH, when the design was made, Turn-Based was also pretty much the way things were done, if you were going to have a fairly deep combat system. If nothing else considering the constraints of the hardware at the time

As it was pointed out countless times around this forum, real-time games were not invented this century, real-time RPG games had existed prior to Fallout and early as 1979

Read here: http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=34772

 

[echoandbounce]

OTOH, when the design was made, Turn-Based was also pretty much the way things were done, if you were going to have a fairly deep combat system. If nothing else considering the constraints of the hardware at the time

As it was pointed out countless times around this forum, real-time games were not invented this century, real-time RPG games had existed prior to Fallout and early as 1979

Read here: http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=34772

Oh god Alkabeth.

That was such an awful game, although that's neither here nor there.

The point I was trying to make was about depth of combat. TB is fantastic for that, because you can let the player sit there and sort out exactly what they want to do, in what order. RT tends to be twitchier. Fallout was designed to be TB, sure. It was also designed to be a GURPS game. -shrug-

Like I say, I'm in that annoying middle camp where combat resolution doesn't define Fallout for me. I hope it's turn based, if nothing else because I'm old and don't trust these newfangled 'graphics' and what have you.

 

[Sander]

OTOH, when the design was made, Turn-Based was also pretty much the way things were done, if you were going to have a fairly deep combat system.

Wrong. Turn-based combat is still the way you do things if you want a deep combat system, but barely anyone wants a deep combat system. Technology has not advanced in such a way that you needed turn-based back then, but don't need it anymore now.

If nothing else considering the constraints of the hardware at the time RT would have been problematic and even more buggy than it turned out. Not to say I'm against TB, I love me some TB (JA2 = drool). I just don't think that the way combat is resolved defines what is or is not a good Fallout game. I always liked the writing more than anything else.

And just the writing doesn't define Fallout either. There's more to the game than just either combat or writing, but both are essential parts of the game.

The point I was trying to make was about depth of combat. TB is fantastic for that, because you can let the player sit there and sort out exactly what they want to do, in what order. RT tends to be twitchier. Fallout was designed to be TB, sure. It was also designed to be a GURPS game.

It still is a GURPS-game, gameplay-wise. It just doesn't use the ruleset.

 

[echoandbounce]

OTOH, when the design was made, Turn-Based was also pretty much the way things were done, if you were going to have a fairly deep combat system.

Wrong. Turn-based combat is still the way you do things if you want a deep combat system, but barely anyone wants a deep combat system. Technology has not advanced in such a way that you needed turn-based back then, but don't need it anymore now.

Um, I'm bad with tenses? "Is" would be more accurate I suppose. Still, I think we're saying the same things.

If nothing else considering the constraints of the hardware at the time RT would have been problematic and even more buggy than it turned out. Not to say I'm against TB, I love me some TB (JA2 = drool). I just don't think that the way combat is resolved defines what is or is not a good Fallout game. I always liked the writing more than anything else.

And just the writing doesn't define Fallout either. There's more to the game than just either combat or writing, but both are essential parts of the game.

God forbid I have a preferred bit of the game. Considering I like Zork more than any other comptuer game ever made, you might see where I'm coming from on this one

 

[Sander]

God forbid I have a preferred bit of the game.

...
Huh?
I'm saying that Fallout's combat system is also a part of the game design, not that you can't like one bit better than the other. What the fuck?

 

[echoandbounce]

God forbid I have a preferred bit of the game.

...
Huh?
I'm saying that Fallout's combat system is also a part of the game design, not that you can't like one bit better than the other. What the fuck?

Tone problems I guess. Being the FNG on a forum always makes me a bit defensive

Just trying to say that the writing and the way the world is crafted is more important to me than combat resolution. (YES YES I tend to play Diplo-Boys)

 

[Tannhauser]

Wrong. Turn-based combat is still the way you do things if you want a deep combat system, but barely anyone wants a deep combat system. Technology has not advanced in such a way that you needed turn-based back then, but don't need it anymore now.

Take Troika's Temple of Elemental Evil, which has a fabulous turn-based combat system, and was released in 2003.

 

[Sorrow]

I don't think enough of us are considering the drawbacks of the isometric system: lack of immersion and poor visual detail.

I never had trouble with immersing myself into Fallout because of the isometric system. Actually, I don't find FPP system very immersing, because it's very crude when compared to the actual experience of being human.
Basically, when I walk, I can effortlessly look around, concentrate on specific objects, focus and unfocus my sight to be able to see minute details or have a greater field of view, I can look at things from close and admire their texture without discovering that what I'm looking at is a polygon box with a blurry image on it.

As for the visual detail. I have to disagree. 3d looks pretty horrible under a closer inspection, which includes crude shapes (bus seats for example), walls which are covered with something that turns out to be a flat blurry image, etc.
One thing that I like about 2d isometric, that it doesn't try to be the object (and ends up as a poor imitation) but is an artistic interpretation of it. I don't think that 2d is perfect - it has a bit "flat" looks, but I wouldn't change it for 3d - maybe for voxels, but not for polygons.

So, both immersion and "quality" of graphics are pretty realitive. I prefer and "artistic" quality of graphics to miserable attempts at photorealism.

 

[Vault 69er]

Wrong. Turn-based combat is still the way you do things if you want a deep combat system, but barely anyone wants a deep combat system. Technology has not advanced in such a way that you needed turn-based back then, but don't need it anymore now.

Take Troika's Temple of Elemental Evil, which has a fabulous turn-based combat system, and was released in 2003.

And then Arcanum, who's real-time mode failed miserably and tarnishes an otherwise flawless game. That's right, flawless!!
Game wise, few things irritate me more than the notion that real time is superior to TB no matter what.

 

[Galdred]

And then Arcanum, who's real-time mode failed miserably and tarnishes an otherwise flawless game. That's right, flawless!!
Game wise, few things irritate me more than the notion that real time is superior to TB no matter what.

But Arcanum RT mode was not pausable, which was pretty stupid given the system in use.
However, I think alternate turn based is somewhat limited (I have horrible memories of urban fightings in fallout, when you had to wait for the 976 civilians to take their useless turn...), and I don't see how pausable real time, or simultaneous turns (like in Combat Mission or Laser Squad Nemesis) make for an inherently worse system (alternated turn based allows some not so realistic actions, that can only be partially limited by an overwatch system).

It is possible to make horrible games with a turn based system too. The issue will more likely be a poor implementation of real time mechanisms than the idea of real time itself.

 

[Vault Maker]

Putting aside combat mechanics for a moment, and looking at cassus belli:

Brother None wrote:
Besides, there's a big difference between the Mid-West and the East Coast, in expansionist terms. Overstretch? Too big an area? Definitely, there's no way the BoS could develop the kind of institutional base needed for that kind of expansion from within 200 years of Fallout 1.

then...Silencer wrote:
At least if we still want a harsh world where survival is paramount, not some sort of a Manifest Destiny Revisited reverse-western

then...Bernard Bumner wrote:
Although history suggests that many technological superpowers have tried to extend beyond their regional influence in exactly that manner, and with the consequence of precipitating their own downfall. (The Japanese switch from isolationism to regionalism, to attempted empire-building is a decent example.)

This reminded me of reading part of Dispatches, about the Vietnam War, which made me think of Fallout the moment I read it:

Michael Herr wrote:
"You couldn't find two people who agreed about when it began, how could you say when it began going off?...Anyway, you couldn't use standard methods to date the doom; might as well say that Vietnam was where the Trail of Tears was headed all along, the turnaround point where it would touch and come back to form a containing perimeter..."

It's kind of too bad that Beth jumped all the way to the East Coast already. A nice theme was developing like this:

1. Europeans land on the East Coast
2. For about 300 years, gradual genocide against the Indians gave America control over the entire continent
3. Japan and America went to war
4. We nuked Japan
5. China invaded Alaska (Alaska might be considered America's "last frontier"
6. The bombs fell

The theme picks up with a string of Fallout games starting at the West Coast, gradually revealing the rest of the country, until we eventually get to the East Coast, where it all started.

Bernard Bumner wrote:
Of course, you do wonder whether such a politically nuanced backstory is likely, even though it might be timely... (Which is not to say that self-righteous allegory or satire is necessarily a good thing, but it is potentially a good way to build credible and intelligent narrative, if done with subtlety.)

Sadly true.

Vault 69er wrote:
And then Arcanum...an otherwise flawless game.

I can think of one other flaw. If you're going to do a pseudo-Victorian setting, you've got to have colonies, empires, and massacres. The humans waging war against all the "inferior races"...exterminating all the brutes.

 

[John Uskglass]

Take Troika's Temple of Elemental Evil, which has a fabulous turn-based combat system, and was released in 2003.

And sold like deodorant in a Polish supermarket.

Besides, there's a big difference between the Mid-West and the East Coast, in expansionist terms. Overstretch? Too big an area? Definitely, there's no way the BoS could develop the kind of institutional base needed for that kind of expansion from within 200 years of Fallout 1.

Considering that they now have the Vertibird technology I see no reason why they couldn't set up branches in former urban centers across most of the continent. It is possible areas of the East Coast would have some pretty valuable technology too, and new recruiting grounds.

Heck, maybe they lost the war with the NCR and moved east?

Also, Sander, I'm pretty sure the Enclave President talked about most of the survivors in California were FEV contaminated, and if I remember right he said they SURVIVED because of FEV contamination. That's why he wanted to kill everyone: the only Americans alive were freaks to varying degrees.