How do you feel about the change in gameplay style from the original Fallouts?

Meurzh

Meurzh

Spurs that Jingle Jangle
As in how it changed from being isometric, turn based to being a third person type of game? Personally, I like it purely because that is my preferred style of gaming. I loved exploring in New Vegas and the more personal feel it gave.

Now, I'm not bashing the old style. In fact, I've actually been embracing it a bit more since I've made Wasteland 2 my Fallout 4 alternative. I just prefer the third person style with 1 (2) companion(s). I tried playing Fallout 2 but never really got out of Klammath. It just didn't feel as free flowing and personal to me, I suppose.

If Obsidian got to make the next Fallout game, I definitely would prefer them to make it in the third person style, but I also would try playing any spin off games they'd make that took place in the Fallout world.
 
While I enjoy isometric turn based gameplay, I'm not married to it. There are some features that a real time, first/third person perspective simply handles better (or could handle better potentially), such as stealth.

That said, I think the bugs and gameplay limitations of Bethesda's engine are egregious. The shooting mechanics are atrocious, combat is a button mashing mess, enemy AI is non-existent (beyond bum rushing or just standing there, emptying clips), stealth is a joke (if I crouch down, I become invisible!) and the way skills effect game play possibilities is all out of whack (in that player skill easily trumps character skill). And that's when everything is working perfectly, without glitches (and there are always loads of glitches...)

A perfect Fallout gameplay experience would combine elements of both styles of gameplay, but actually make good on the potentials of a first/third person perspective game. Here's my perfect Fallout game:


  • A return to the World Map, including random encounters
  • Real time First/Third person perspective in locations, allowing for better stealth gameplay, more realistic interaction with the environment, more dynamic conversations, etc.
  • Tactical turn based combat, but more along the lines of Fallout Tactics or XCOM - incorporating cover, lines of sight, etc for ranged combat. Melee combat could include moves like blocking, setting up stances, etc. Ideally this would integrate fairly smoothly with the first/third person perspective, so that the camera maybe just kind of shifts to enter combat.
 
Last edited:
This really should be in the Fallout discussion section and not here. And it has been discussed many times already. Conclusion: there is no definite NMA combined opinion on this matter. My latest attempt to find out what the major opinion is ended up in a massive storm of conflicting ideas, some of which are overwhelmingly excessive in detail.

*cough* @Crni Vuk *cough*

But if you want my two cents, I fall on the first-person/third-person side of the debate. Mostly because my favourite "classic" games are not the original Fallouts or stuff like Baldur's Gate, but rather Deus Ex, System Shock, anything based on the classic Thief (I've yet to play the classic Thief games in detail, I only touched on it once or twice) and Half-Life. And my first Fallout was 3. So I'm biased against isometric Fallouts, mostly.

I'm not a very good indicator of what Fallout should be. My heart says it's definitely not 4, but not isometric either, so that puts me at odds with both Bethesda fans and original fans. Fun!
 
Last edited:
I really don't mind.
I don't normally like FPS games a whole lot, but the recent Fallout games just do it for me.
While I do enjoy the old style, I got wasteland 2 if I want to back to them (and wasteland 1 on steam, which despite its age, is still a fantastic game).
Little fun and pointless side note, when I first played the original fallout back in 2010 (about a week before NV), I was a little disappointed that it was point and click movement (I thought I could just use the directional keys and my character would move, I was 15, allow me to be a little clueless). But the more I played it, the more the style grew on me to the point where if I want a crpg fix, I just go back onto either fallout or wasteland to play through them.

So I think that's the difference, if I want to go for a proper RPG experience, it's Fallout 1 and 2.

If I want a mindless shooter with some RPG elements that will keep me entertained longer than the whole COD franchise, I go for 3 and 4.

If I want the best of both, I go for New Vegas.

If I want to be a little tactical, I go for tactics.

And if I feel like life isn't worth living anymore and want a reason to kill myself, I go ft Brotherhood of Steel.
 
Kilgore Trout said:
  • A return to the World Map, including random encounters
  • Real time First/Third person perspective in locations, allowing for better stealth gameplay, more realistic interaction with the environment, more dynamic conversations, etc.
  • Tactical turn based combat, but more along the lines of Fallout Tactics or XCOM - incorporating cover, lines of sight, etc for ranged combat. Melee combat could include moves like blocking, setting up stances, etc. Ideally this would integrate fairly smoothly with the first/third person perspective, so that the camera maybe just kind of shifts to enter combat.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see this. This would allow for smoother gameplay than most isometric RPG's allow, but combined with the world map and turn-based combat this would be pretty sweet. If it was developed by Obsidian of course, because they have decent writers.

Also, if I remember correctly, somewhere on nexusmods there's a mod that adds random encounters during fast travel for Fallout 3. I'm sure at some point this'll be made for Fallout 4 as well (although, from what I understand, the world is too cluttered with bad guys to make this work properly but that could be modded as well).
 
Without posting about Fallout games or their developers, I will say that I generally prefer everything to real-time first person, since that sort of thing gives me motion sickness after prolonged play (especially if I'm trying to navigate like building interiors or non-open spaces.) I spend most of the time in games walking around in third person if I have that option, but in games that involve shooting that generally makes aiming more difficult.
 
dopezilla said:
I can't even aim in first person. I have to use VATS like a fool.
Click to expand...

I am pretty much the same way. I can line up long-distance shots sniping with a scope from stealth in New Vegas, because then I can take practically as long as I want to line up the shot, but doing it in a time-sensitive situation (like when people are shooting at you) is pretty much beyond me.
 
dopezilla, possiblecabbage, you're talking about the console-version I presume?

That was one of the worst things to get used to, when getting a PS - I can't aim anymore! It's all "auto aim" where possible, or VATS, as lame a system as that is, but for me, there's no way around it.
And I have very little experience with console games, but watching my friend play Battlefield - a game he has played every day of a third of his life, there is absolutely no precision to behold, he simply sprays bullets in general enemy directions.
This makes me suspect that once on a console, this is the best you can hope for - blindly spraing bullets in general directions (which in turn explains why there's rarely any such thing as single-fire in these games)
(I realize Battlefiend has single-fire, but does anybody not on a PC ever use it?)
 
Turn-based and first person are probably my absolute favorite game modes, so I don't really care if it's turn-based isometric or first person realtime. As long as it's a fun game that offers me what I want to get out of it.

When FO3 was first announced I was actually rather hyped and I defended aspects of it both on these forums and in real life (even though I was bitter over the fact that we would never see the "real" FO3 finished). I wasn't convinced it would be a good game, but to me there wasn't anything inherently wrong with it being first person or that Bethesda were making it. Seeing as how I loved Morrowing but was sorely disappointed with Oblivion, I did not know what to expect when it came to writing and other parts of the game. I was hesitant, but pre-ordered the game. As more info was released and gameplay videos started appearing I grew more hesitant and finally decided to cancel my pre-order. The more I saw, the more I realized it woud have very much in common with Oblivion.

When I finally played the game I found it to be alright in some regards (exploration and setting mainly) but horrible in other. Still, the first person combat was not the issue - the writing, the voice acting, the repetetiveness, and the bland character developement stood out in sore contrast to the original games. If all those things were to remain the same, but the game would be isometric turn-based, it would still be a crappy Fallout game. But if it remained first person, but had improved in those other areas it could have been a much better game.

Fallout NV further confirmed this for me.
 
Turn Based combat was always one of my favourite game modes. I don't know how many hours I have sunk into games like Jagged Alliance or Silent Storm. I also liked a lot of tactical top down games. Commandos for example.

I also love shooters a lot. Just to get that out of the way. So I am no way biased in favour of top down and turn based games. I love Doom, Quake, Half Life, FEAR and many more.

But I never wanted Fallout to become Doom with Orcs. So how I feel about it? No clue. How do you feel when a good friend of yours got lobotomized and the doctor telling you that he's now a better person.
 
I'll admit right now that I love both Isometric turn based and FPS realtime combat. I would say that I prefer isometric turn based though when I have to choose. I find first person shooters super easy, of course maybe it's because of playing on a mouse and keyboard and due to the FPS games I have played in recent years feel..uhh..."dumbed down".

Even with New Vegas I still thought killing things with a low-ish guns skill to feel as if I didn't have a guns skill at all as opposed to the first two games where when starting out you'd miss your enemies of you weren't close enough and if you had a low skill. I felt progress when I put more points into it as I leveled up. I still enjoy New Vegas but it feels a little on the shooty side of things when it comes to guns skill and like a twitch shooter.

In my opinion I prefer isometric turn based for Fallout(considering the most recent isometric game I've been playing as of late would be Underrail, the fact I've put over 53 hours into it so far pretty much explains it all :P).
 
zegh8578 said:
dopezilla, possiblecabbage, you're talking about the console-version I presume?
Click to expand...
I played Fallout 3 on PC and FNV on console. I'm terrible at both, but on console it is a bit worse.

aenemic said:
When I finally played the game I found it to be alright in some regards (exploration and setting mainly) but horrible in other. Still, the first person combat was not the issue - the writing, the voice acting, the repetetiveness, and the bland character developement stood out in sore contrast to the original games. If all those things were to remain the same, but the game would be isometric turn-based, it would still be a crappy Fallout game. But if it remained first person, but had improved in those other areas it could have been a much better game.

Fallout NV further confirmed this for me.
Click to expand...
Gotta agree with you here. The switch from isometric point of view and turn-based combat to a first person view wasn't the main problem with Fallout 3. I did enjoy FNV a lot. Although I must say I felt silly being forced to use VATS all the time. I assume they included VATS for the old school RPG fans who don't have any shooter experience, but using it all the time makes me feel like I'm bad at the game. That's not a feeling I enjoy. Also, this forces me to go with a sneaky sniper type character on every playthrough, so it leaves very little room for variation.

MercenarySnake said:
I'll admit right now that I love both Isometric turn based and FPS realtime combat. I would say that I prefer isometric turn based though when I have to choose.
....
In my opinion I prefer isometric turn based for Fallout(considering the most recent isometric game I've been playing as of late would be Underrail, the fact I've put over 53 hours into it so far pretty much explains it all :P).
Click to expand...
Been there, done that. Last time I checked I put in 110 hours into Underrail, which is mostly combat anyway. I absolutely love taking my time to ponder over my next move. I would be terrible in an IRL battlefield, that's for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top