Gamasutra interviews Todd Howard

[TheWesDude]

i think the actual reason they couldnt do in TB+Iso is they couldnt.

they lack creativity and ability.

simple as that.

 

[ookami]

I know a lot of other people here will disagree with me, but I wouldn't mind a Fallout with first-person view for exploration and bird's eye view for combat

I don't know why anyone would disagree with that (except maybe the people who just want Fallout to be another FPS). The PA tech demo from Troika made it look quite feasible, and that impressed me. Several different functional cameras/perspectives (instead of just FPP and OTSTPP) would, at least, be great as an option.

 

[Hovercar Madness]

Kind of defeats your point when the example you give of things done right was purely iso.

Yeah, but JA2 hardly involves any non-combat world exploration so invisible npcs never really become a problem, while in fallout walking through a non-hostile city entirely devoid of life until they're in your range of sight just seems kind of silly from a design standpoint.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

while in fallout walking through a non-hostile city entirely devoid of life until they're in your range of sight just seems kind of silly from a design standpoint.

For one thing I'd say beyond night ops there's not that great a difference between exploration in JA2 and Fallout, combat tends to take place in one part of the map leaving you free to explore in peace (hopefully). And for another thing in fpp it wouldn't really work that different, depends on the draw distance etc. Sure you might not be able to see to the left, right and back of you but nothing is more jarring than things or people just popping into existance in front of you. Something that you probably wouldn't even register in isometric.

 

[Tagaziel]

I know a lot of other people here will disagree with me, but I wouldn't mind a Fallout with first-person view for exploration and bird's eye view for combat

I support this notion with every fibre of my being.

 

[Ausir]

I know a lot of other people here will disagree with me, but I wouldn't mind a Fallout with first-person view for exploration and bird's eye view for combat

I support this notion with every fibre of my being.

I don't, unless the first person view is optional (it was optional in Troika's game, IIRC). I always tend to get lost in first person games. Bird's eve view for everything for me.

 

[Hovercar Madness]

For one thing I'd say beyond night ops there's not that great a difference between exploration in JA2 and Fallout, combat tends to take place in one part of the map leaving you free to explore in peace (hopefully). And for another thing in fpp it wouldn't really work that different, depends on the draw distance etc. Sure you might not be able to see to the left, right and back of you but nothing is more jarring than things or people just popping into existance in front of you. Something that you probably wouldn't even register in isometric.

Well, draw distance entails both inanimate and animate objects, while what I'm referring to is having for instance a huge bazaar being completely lifeless and then suddenly springing to life as I turn a corner. Now whether this jars more or less than draw distance in fpp to me really comes down to how visually interesting your surroundings are. Because a background like this in Van Buren would, I think, suffer far more from the lack of a visible and active population than, say, a random background in Planescape.

 

[Mane]

My problem with first person is it's always rather clunky to me with poor casual periphrial vision.

It's just the limits of controls and engines, and I'm unlikely to be able to get a grasp of my surroundings and move in one direction while fighting in another as I am in real life where I can turn my head in microseconds to have a vastly greater situational awareness.

I therefore have a problem wrapping my head around any idea of a turnbased combat in first person, but I've always understood it in isometric, or even in a 3rd person with a floating camera I could move around.

But then again 1st person exploration and isometric combat isn't new and I've always enjoyed it. The SSI Goldbox games come to mind, the older Ultima's in Dungeons, and others which will probably ovvur to me later and I'll be too lazy to edit in.

I never actually had all that much problem with FO3 being in 1st person, although generally a sequeal should actually stick to the reasons and gameplay that led to the desire of a sequel, I just wanted a comprehensive game which Bethesda has monumentally failed to create.

 

[Stoveburner]

It's hard enough for even great devs to get one camera style working properly, much less 2 or more completely different ones that serve specific and vital functions.

Unless you want to count jRPG style world exploration and then zooming into combat on predefined 'battlefields'. Which I'd rather not count.

I also think that having half the game in FPP and suddenly and jarringly sweeping out to bird's eye for combat wouldn't sit well with most people. It's something that sounds good on paper but likely disorienting in practice.


I'd love to see a new and unique camera and control system introduced to RPGs but I completely understand why we don't.

 

[Pope Viper]

I don't know, Troika seemed to do a pretty good job.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzYmQyHl2bc

 

[Bernard Bumner]

It's hard enough for even great devs to get one camera style working properly, much less 2 or more completely different ones that serve specific and vital functions.

Jedi Academy, to pick a game off the top of my head - incorporated useful first-person (blaster) and third-person (lightsaber) perspectives.

I also think that having half the game in FPP and suddenly and jarringly sweeping out to bird's eye for combat wouldn't sit well with most people. It's something that sounds good on paper but likely disorienting in practice..

I can't see why this would particularly jarring, because I think most people would like to see this coupled to turn-based combat, so the game would effectively pause on entering combat.

Max Payne and now Fallout 3 use cuts to a cinematic camera during combat. The former was eminently playable, and not particularly disorienting (although twitchy controls during switiching could be a problem). Actually, some element of dynamic camera implementation seems to be more and more common; even a 'scoped weapon forces a perspective shift of sorts.

 

[Stoveburner]

Going from full FPP to OTS isn't really the same as going from FPP to a zoomed out TB bird's eye.


If this style was so easy to implement and played smooth and was desirable I'd think we'd see more of it, even from indie devs who supposedly 'get it'.

 

[Bernard Bumner]

If this style was so easy to implement and played smooth and was desirable I'd think we'd see more of it, even from indie devs who supposedly 'get it'.

Major developers seem to obsessed with first-person realtime combat, which they tout as more realistic and visceral. The indie developers are often working with old engines which couldn't perform the transition, and may well lack the expertise in any case - producing competent indie fare is difficult enough.

Nobody said that it would be easy to do, but it clearly is possible. There can't be that many additional challenges in switching from OTS to a dynamic or pseudo-isometric view?

 

[Stoveburner]

If this style was so easy to implement and played smooth and was desirable I'd think we'd see more of it, even from indie devs who supposedly 'get it'.

Major developers seem to obsessed with first-person realtime combat, which they tout as more realistic and visceral. The indie developers are often working with old engines which couldn't perform the transition, and may well lack the expertise in any case - producing competent indie fare is difficult enough.

Nobody said that it would be easy to do, but it clearly is possible. There can't be that many additional challenges in switching from OTS to a dynamic or pseudo-isometric view?

I think the easiest way to do it would be use a fully 3D camera.. like WoW (with an .ini tweak you can zoom way out) , or *gasp* Fallout 3. The problem with Fallout 3 seems to be that while you can zoom out and make it look almost similar to Fallout 1/2, you can't really fight that way unless you use only VATS. And I guess it's still not turn-based enough to satisfy that crowd either.

Maybe someone will make a mod that automatically puts you in VATS when you enter combat and that's the only way you can play. Might be hard to get the enemies to use the same mechanics though.

 

[Bernard Bumner]

The problem with Fallout 3 seems to be that while you can zoom out and make it look almost similar to Fallout 1/2, you can't really fight that way unless you use only VATS.

From the videos I saw, even walking seems to be a problem sometimes.

And I guess it's still not turn-based enough to satisfy that crowd either.

Maybe someone will make a mod that automatically puts you in VATS when you enter combat and that's the only way you can play.

Fine, but that does rely on fans fixing the game. Equally, it doesn't really play to the strengths of isometric combat - it still lacks any genuine tactical element.

 

[Pope Viper]

I agree with the gentlemen above.

One of the primary reasons I enjoyed FO was the tactical feel of it, I didn't need to have twitch skills in order to play it.

With FO3, I either have to have twitch, or use a crippled abomination called VATS.

I get the worst of both worlds.

 

[Stoveburner]

Fine, but that does rely on fans fixing the game. Equally, it doesn't really play to the strengths of isometric combat - it still lacks any genuine tactical element.

It relies on fans making the game suit them better.

It's not really 'broken' it's just not what you want. There is a difference.

Bethesda wanted to do it a certain way and as long as it works when played that way then it isn't broken, you just don't like it. And it's perfectly fine to not like it.

And I won't get into tactical elements because frankly I found Fallout 1/2 lacking entirely in that regard. It was stand there and attack until you or it died. Unless you consider ducking behind a wall 'tactics'... and considering enemies could not use this behavior I would say it's more of an exploit (or maybe just piss poor AI on the games part).

 

[Brother None]

And I guess it's still not turn-based enough to satisfy that crowd either.

Enough? It's not turn-based at all. Turn-based conceptually depend on the two individuals or groups (for phase-based) not being able to move simultaneously.

This is real time, but with pause. Different from turn-based in its very essence.

 

[Bernard Bumner]

t's not really 'broken' it's just not what you want. There is a difference.

I know, which was why I italicized fixing.

And I won't get into tactical elements because frankly I found Fallout 1/2 lacking entirely in that regard. It was stand there and attack until you or it died. Unless you consider ducking behind a wall 'tactics'... and considering enemies could not use this behavior I would say it's more of an exploit (or maybe just piss poor AI on the games part).

Piss poor A.I.? By today's standards; it was pretty much on par with its contemporaries.

The tactical element was more to do with how to deal with multiple enemies, stronger enemies, or situations where you were outgunned. It was about weapon choice and the player-character's strengths and weaknesses. It was about maintaining range, or closing distances, and managing Action Points for movement, offense, and healing.

With modern machines and better A.I., the tactical depth could be greatly enhanced. I don't want a re-skinned Fallout, I want a new and improved version.

 

[taag]

And I guess it's still not turn-based enough to satisfy that crowd either.

Think of turn-based in chess terms (presuming you know chess rules). Anything else is not turn-based, so you shouldn't refer to it like it is.