How could Fallout work on a Console?

N

Nyarlathotep

First time out of the vault
I'm going to hang my newbie balls out and make a topic in this forum. If this has already been discussed to death, accept my apologies. I've searched this forum and found no topics on the subject, so here we go.

Now that Bethesda is at the helm of the Fallout 3 development, we can almost certainly expect the game to appear on one or more consoles. Not only have most of Bethesda's recent games appeared on a console, it is (sadly?) an economic reality that most games need cross-platform development to make profit. Do you think a game like Fallout is possible on a console without making compromises when it comes to depth of gameplay?
If one thing needs changing, than it's the interface. TV-resolution and the distance people sit from the screen will make it impossible to read those little green letters we all love so much. How can the Fallout interface be ported to work in this environment while still being true to it's roots?



Please don't turn this into a console vs. PC discussion. I've seen that there is a General Gaming forum for that. Also, I realise that console games are a sensitive topic around these parts since the FO:POS. Please consider a gentle massage to ease your nerves before replying to this topic.
 
Its not that hard to read text unless you have a small-ass tv. And was Fallout's resolution 640x480? Because I think that's the standard resolution for new tvs.
 
The interface will be really hard to do, the main concern people have with making the game for multiple platforms is that usually the PC version doesn't get any special treatment. This means that they make the game fit into "each" platform in regards to limitations/specs etc, which means we usually end up with the finger in the ass.

End of the line, NMA says NO TO CONSOLES.
 
Using Fallout as an example.

1. Why did Bethesda buy the rights to making Fallout 3? Because they feel it could be a potential money maker right.

What the developers must remember is the fact that it was the FANS that made the game popular and who made it successful (oh yeah, the fans of Fallout are PC gamers).

Bethesda should focus all their effort in producing a quality Fallout 3 that the fans all want and demand. Interplay took a foolish leap of faith in believing that a whored out, dumbed down, bastardized Fallout would sell on the console. There is no need to repeat that mistake.
 
Well I don't suspect that Bethesda will whore it out like IPLY, but I do fear that they will dumb it down or make a generic version that fits all platforms just to save a buck or two.. In the end the PC version will loose, due to restrictions/expectations of the console.
 
I think we all agree that dumbing down is a bad idea. But let's take the hypothetical case here that Bethesda develops a deep and interesting game (content-wise) for both PC and consoles. Gameplay will be affected, no doubt about that, so do you think a true Fallout game could work on the console?
 
What I've never understood was why game mechanics or interface designs had to be "dumbed down" for consoles.
 
My guess is that people that play console games are usually(remember, I said *usually*) younger people...and young people are mostly dumb people...
 
Bradylama said:
What I've never understood was why game mechanics or interface designs had to be "dumbed down" for consoles.
Click to expand...
You have a lower resolution (less screen space) and fuzzier quality per-pixel (resulting in thicker lines) on low-end TVs. I went straight from designing VB interfaces to designing console interfaces and man, it's like building with Duplo blocks on console.

Also, console controllers have a limited amount of buttons and comfortable button combinations. And you don't have a fast point and click interface.
 
Plus people tend to sit further away from a TV screen than from a computer monitor.

But aren't these thing solveable tough good design. I mean, Fallout needed a mouse and two buttons to work. You can't say that is impossible to emulate with a gamepad, even if it means switching trough hot-spots with the thumbstick.

They'll probably will have to lose the on-screen hud to maximise the playing field...
 
I'm not so afraid of the whole how to move the game/interface thing as I am what the consequences that the game might face..
 
I'm playing Chrono Cross on 19" TV lately and I don't have any problems in seeing what's on screen. Even when my head is, like, 2 meters from screen. Well, they could write in hardware specs: "TV 24'' or bigger" ;)

I'm not saying it should be - because I'm against multi-platforming - but it could be done. Hell, there's C&C ported to, IIRC, Jaguar? Or something like that.

And dealing with cursors using analog pad isn't that bad - in TB you don't have to hurry, after all.
 
In the end I think what were trying to tell Bethesda is not to get too gimmicky.

Why even bother to buy the liscence and make the game if the company wants to change the game so radically that it nowhere near resembles its previous successors.

Bethesda bought the liscence to F3 and in doing so should focus all of their attention to making a good Fallout for the PC. Ineptplay somehow got it through their thick skulls that getting gimmicky with Fallout like making it console friendly would be a good idea. We all know how good that idea turned out to be.
 
Certain things are just harder in consoles. Like Fallout's combat system. Can you imagine selecting one of many tiny hexes with a bulky joystick?

I think that in order to make this work on the calculator - erm, console, they will have to take one of two routes: isometric action game (a la FO: BOS) or first-person game. The movement and action of each is more accessible to consoles.

They wouldn't get far with an isometric action game. We killed FO: BOS, we'll kill MorrowindFallout if they try that. This leaves a first-person game. As expected, the community is (rightfully) unnerved by this concept.

I agree, though, that Bethesda should give up the idea of a console distribution. Consoles would have trouble capturing the Fallout universe. Whether they'll listen or not is a different matter. They may have their hearts dead-set on a first-person RPG a la Morrowind and are announcing a console release just because That's How Things Are Done.

A console release bodes ill for us unless we can talk to Bethesda and get them to see eye to eye with us on a couple of key issues.

Regards,
Dibujante
 
Certain things are just harder in consoles. Like Fallout's combat system. Can you imagine selecting one of many tiny hexes with a bulky joystick?
Click to expand...

It worked for Tactical RPGs. (FFT, La Pucelle, Disgaea)
 
FFTactics didn't used an hexagonal grid that i remember. It just used squares, with four directions for movement and/or actions.
 
I see no reason why a console controller wouldn't be able to use hexes. Those thumbsticks turn 360°, you know. The time of those NES 4 directional pads is long gone. It's all in the interface design, I guess.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the move to 3D make hexes obsolete? The only reason I see to implement hex-based combat in 3D is to simplify the turn based combat (as opposed to a tile-based engine, where hexes are part of the underlying structure).
 
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the move to 3D make hexes obsolete?
Click to expand...

Heck no. A 3 dimensional playing field that uses hexes isn't any harder to implement from a 3 dimensional playing field that uses squares. Well, aside from the fact that it'd take longer. What with those extra two sides.
 
Nyarlathotep said:
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the move to 3D make hexes obsolete? The only reason I see to implement hex-based combat in 3D is to simplify the turn based combat (as opposed to a tile-based engine, where hexes are part of the underlying structure).
Click to expand...

Probably. I don't think anyone would call ToEE purely 3D, but it looks as if it's handled distances PCs can run/walk in a single round and still perform actions pretty ok.

I don't think it's that much possible with Fallout, because it's not as simple as:

You move x meters and your round ends. but if you move x/2 meters, you can perform a limited action. It probably works with ToEE because full action and limited action is just an either/or.

If BS sticks to utilizing action points, the above scenario will be problematic - to punch an opponent, for example, can use up action points at different rates, depending on the sort of punch you intend to use. The same follows with firing off weapons in hand, depending on weapon size and modes of attack. Action points allow you to plan your attacks carefully; fire off a shot, use a stimpack and then back off, making a melee opponent follow you and maybe lose a potentially fatal attack (I know I've used this tactic often enough against Deathclaws).

Hexes/boxes/grids help in this exact planning, I believe.

Now, 360 degree movement which indicates the number of action points used up in the process would be interesting..though it may be slightly problematic -or just more inconvenient - if you figure in your opponent's action points into your combat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top