Idea - (Flames Allowed)

  • Thread starter Thread starter I/O Error
  • Start date Start date
I

I/O Error

Guest
First, a note to Moderators:

I've lurked on these forums for a long time, and I've seen a lot of the "Fallout-Should-Be-A-First-Person-Shooter" ideas, and I agree with you COMPLETELY that those ideas are terrible. Such an idea would ruin Fallout's basic theme, and would try to make into another stupid mindless Quake-clone, or at best a Thief-clone. I do NOT want you to think that I'm stupid enough to recommend such a frankly... well, blasphemous idea. :D I also realize how many people believe Real-Time to be a hideously bad idea.

So, just read what I'm putting down for a bit, and at least if you do tell me that, "Your idea is stupid, do not EVER post this crap again", please just don't throw me into the same crowd of those Fallout 3 FPS idea goons. ;) Hey, if nothing else, this might be a few minutes of amusement for you before you yell at me. *grin*

Fallout 3 - First Person NOT Shooter (Can't say that enough)

Okay, the main point (it'll take a while to get there, I apologize for beating around the bush):

Any of you guys played a CRPG series called The Elder Scrolls? Chapter 1 was Arena, Chapter 2 was Daggerfall, and Chapter 3 is the upcoming Morrowind. (Check out www.gamespot.com for a decent preview)

It is literally the only time where I've been able to, with no reservations, say that good graphics (for the time) do not automatically ruin the gameplay. A little bit of an exaggeration, but many of you might know what I mean. How many games have you seen where the devs spent all the time on graphics and tossed out of the gameplay?

Unlike most RPGs, it was not a simple matter of "kill x number of monsters, get x amount of experience points. Instead, your levels goes up by practicing your skills, which are divided into "primary", "major", "minor" and "miscellaneous". So your success with sword fighting, for instance, was determined by your strength, agility, and long blade skill. Primary skills started off at a higher level, and they were the skills you were supposed to work on the most in order to level up. You could level up by working on nothing but your minor skills, but it was slow and hard.

Now then, the interface:

Daggerfall is played from a first person perspective, but two things saved it from being a Doom/Quake/Half-Life clone:

1.) Example with archery: Most games that have archery, Thief being a good example, require precise movement of the mouse. In Daggerfall, close enough is good enough. This means that FPS fans can accept it, and FPS haters say, "Well, okay maybe this isn't that bad. I'll tough it up".

In other words, all you need is to have the enemy (vaguely) in the center of the screen, and your characters skill with archery is the REAL determining factor. (Similar to the firearms skill in Fallout, thinks I? You're only as good as your experience, stats, and ability.)

2.) When you start a new game, you have the option of deciding how "fast" you want to game to go. You can pick "Very Quick Reflexes" if you're a hardcore FPS fan, or you can pick "Very Slow Reflexes" if you are a hardcore RPG fan and spit on anything that smells like real-time. (There are three other settings in between the previously mentioned two.)

I'm just thinking that yes, naturally it is not possible to get RT and TB to work together in a game successfully. It's been tried and failed at numerous times. However, perhaps something "in the middle" like this type of idea might be a useful compromise?

The game has no multiplayer, and in fact Bethsoft has stated that The Elder Scrolls series will never have MP.

So, I'm done. I welcome any replies, criticisms, outright flames, etc. I personally think this would be ONE way that could be used to appeal to a wider base audience. A lot of folks I know have said they don't like the Fallout games I play "because they're turn-based." Ignorant savages, I think, but wouldn't it be useful (and profitable) to get more people hooked on the game, as long as that was possible WITHOUT losing the core theme of the game?

Just my $0.02. Add flame as necessary, serves 20.
 
I prefer the isometric perspective, but, having played a bit of Daggerfall, I could live with this.... if Brian Fargo promised to give me oral sex.
 
I'm very positive about non-combat part of the game having the ability to enter first-person mode (with 3D person being default), but combat MUST be 3D person!



http://www.nma-fallout.com/cgi-bin/forum/ForumID5/786.shtml#11

zero-x's bitter words after his encounter with roshambo:

"I agree with you but there comes a fuckin point i dont know who roquirbo thinks he is but I at least you didnt really criticize me and i appreciate that i hate people who fuck with my ideas when i didnt say shit to em and yes he is the kind of guy i would take a scalpel tear his head open the take an hammer use the end to samsh through the medulla and use the nail pull as a pry to pull back the top of the skull revealing a brain (small but brain nontheless)and take desert eagle magnum and blow it through his fucking spine as he still breath and then rip out his heart and show him how black it is before he dies but as you said thats illegal well cya"
 
1. Arena
2. Daggerfall
3. Battlespire
4. Redguard
5. Morrowind

Not all are good in the series...Battlespire was linear as hell, and Redguard reeked of a Womb Raider clone.

I do like that series for what it is (still play it a LOT, even today), but...I disagree.

If a game is successful one way, why deviate that far from the norm? People bought Fallout for specific reasons. If they wanted something like Daggerfall, shouldn't they play Daggerfall? If someone wanted to make a post-apocalyptic FP game, then by all means, make yours.

We've seen what retooling into another genre/aspect does with a game, notably with Ultima and X-Com. It's not pretty. What drew some people into the game's fandom will be changed and they may not like it, or a number of other factors.

A tried and true formula is what is needed to be adhered to. If it's a turn-based iso RPG that relies mostly upon the character's stats instead of the player's, then for the sequels make it a BETTER turn-based iso RPG that relies mostly upon the character's stats instead of the player's. Don't try to mesh it into a bunch of different flavors, it's been proven to not work.
 
>I've lurked on these forums for
>a long time, and I've
>seen a lot of the
>"Fallout-Should-Be-A-First-Person-Shooter" ideas, and I agree
>with you COMPLETELY that those
>ideas are terrible. Such
>an idea would ruin Fallout's
>basic theme, and would try
>to make into another stupid
>mindless Quake-clone, or at best
>a Thief-clone. I do
>NOT want you to think
>that I'm stupid enough to
>recommend such a frankly... well,
>blasphemous idea. :D I
>also realize how many people
>believe Real-Time to be a
>hideously bad idea.
>
>So, just read what I'm putting
>down for a bit, and
>at least if you do
>tell me that, "Your idea
>is stupid, do not EVER
>post this crap again", please
>just don't throw me into
>the same crowd of those
>Fallout 3 FPS idea goons.
>;) Hey, if nothing else,
>this might be a few
>minutes of amusement for you
>before you yell at me.
>*grin*
>
>Fallout 3 - First Person NOT
>Shooter (Can't say that enough)
>
>
>Okay, the main point (it'll take
>a while to get there,
>I apologize for beating around
>the bush):
>
>Any of you guys played a
>CRPG series called The Elder
>Scrolls? Chapter 1 was
>Arena, Chapter 2 was Daggerfall,
>and Chapter 3 is the
>upcoming Morrowind. (Check out
>www.gamespot.com for a decent preview)
>
>
>It is literally the only time
>where I've been able to,
>with no reservations, say that
>good graphics (for the time)
>do not automatically ruin the
>gameplay. A little bit
>of an exaggeration, but many
>of you might know what
>I mean. How many
>games have you seen where
>the devs spent all the
>time on graphics and tossed
>out of the gameplay?
>
>Unlike most RPGs, it was not
>a simple matter of "kill
>x number of monsters, get
>x amount of experience points.
> Instead, your levels goes
>up by practicing your skills,
>which are divided into "primary",
>"major", "minor" and "miscellaneous".
>So your success with sword
>fighting, for instance, was determined
>by your strength, agility, and
>long blade skill. Primary
>skills started off at a
>higher level, and they were
>the skills you were supposed
>to work on the most
>in order to level up.
> You could level up
>by working on nothing but
>your minor skills, but it
>was slow and hard.
>
>Now then, the interface:
>
>Daggerfall is played from a first
>person perspective, but two things
>saved it from being a
>Doom/Quake/Half-Life clone:
>
>1.) Example with archery: Most games
>that have archery, Thief being
>a good example, require precise
>movement of the mouse.
>In Daggerfall, close enough is
>good enough. This means
>that FPS fans can accept
>it, and FPS haters say,
>"Well, okay maybe this isn't
>that bad. I'll tough
>it up".
>
>In other words, all you need
>is to have the enemy
>(vaguely) in the center of
>the screen, and your characters
>skill with archery is the
>REAL determining factor. (Similar
>to the firearms skill in
>Fallout, thinks I? You're
>only as good as your
>experience, stats, and ability.)
>
>2.) When you start a new
>game, you have the option
>of deciding how "fast" you
>want to game to go.
> You can pick "Very
>Quick Reflexes" if you're a
>hardcore FPS fan, or you
>can pick "Very Slow Reflexes"
>if you are a hardcore
>RPG fan and spit on
>anything that smells like real-time.
> (There are three other
>settings in between the previously
>mentioned two.)
>
>I'm just thinking that yes, naturally
>it is not possible to
>get RT and TB to
>work together in a game
>successfully. It's been tried
>and failed at numerous times.
> However, perhaps something "in
>the middle" like this type
>of idea might be a
>useful compromise?

Man, I remember when Arena came out and it ran pretty damned slow on my friend's 486dx. Yeah, the game was first-person and had pretty good gameplay and graphics (for its time), but let me tell you this: It can't even COMPARE to Fallout in any way.

Fallout 2 basically let you wander around in the game unattended, for around 10 years (or more if the engine allowed it). That was something I thought made it much more inferior to Fallotu 1 where you had a sense of urgency to get something done or you would lose the game. Now take into account Arena: Arena composed of something like 2000 square kilometers of terrain. I seriously don't know how they fit all that info into a ten-meg game. Once out of the initial dungeon you're left, unguided, to complete the game. Most players simply forgot, abandoned, or never even knew the point of the game, but instead went wandering off to kill things and get a buff character. Yeah, it was fun for a while, but you soon realized that it had NO POINT.

For me, an RPG needs to be very coherent. It is a story played out by the player, not a life-inside-the-game like Arena. It is also not the job of the player to rely on HIS skills to make the character good. The player is merely the decision maker. Arena was more of a first-person medival game with stats.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
RE:

I submit that there was a LOT of difference between Arena and Daggerfall. I'm not using Arena as my example, as I prefered DF and so did the general public.

Daggerfall DID have a (fairly) linear plot if you wanted to follow it. You had the opton of ignoring it for as long as you wanted or jumping straight into it. Clear instructions to follow, for the most part.

Yes, I can easily see how Fallout 2 was annoying in that respect of being totally open. Personally, I prefered it that way. I've played FAR too many linear games already, why would I play another "Do A, go to B, perform task C, talk to D, etc" game?

However, putting in a sense of urgency is quite simple. Example: "The terrible warlord <name> plans to invade in three weeks." That's a very trite example, but you get the idea of how simple it is to do. Some games have a more "realistic" method by simply making it harder as time goes on.

Example: In X-Com: UFO Defense, the aliens made more bases and came in larger numbers as time went on. There was no explicit warning that your time was limited, but it was very nicely put in an IMPLICIT way. THAT's the way I like to see it.

I didn't find that Fallout had ANY sense of urgency at all. I mean, I stumbled around for a LONG time before I got the water problem solved, and I wasn't even close to running out of time. It was a VERY generous allowance, which kind of defeated the point.

Oh yeah: Daggerfall has 16 million square miles of terrain. *big sloppy grin*

I'd like to think that Fallout 3 could, possibly, use some help to push the genre. Yes, we all like the Fallout series because of certain things that appeal to each of us, but does that mean we just want a cookie-cutter sequel? Hell no! That's one of the things I enjoyed most about the FO series, they DIDN'T just stay the same. They changed, they improved, and so on.
 
RE:

>I'd like to think that Fallout
>3 could, possibly, use some
>help to push the genre.
> Yes, we all like
>the Fallout series because of
>certain things that appeal to
>each of us, but does
>that mean we just want
>a cookie-cutter sequel? Hell
>no! That's one of
>the things I enjoyed most
>about the FO series, they
>DIDN'T just stay the same.
> They changed, they improved,
>and so on.

1. I hope you aren't counting FOT in there.
2. Fo2 lacked a bit of the setting depth of Fo1. When you played Fo1 through the first time, you didn't know where you were for a good long time. The city names were off what role they played. Fo2 went with established city names. Much more was botched as well.
3. Let's throw all historically-proven facts that when a game series is changed too much, that game bombs, shall we?

Face it, the Fallout series (and Arcanum) are pretty well alone in what they offer. Why insist on tooling things around for the hell of it or bowing to trends? Pretty fucking strong following already, only topped by the AD&D Hackfest and Diablo fanboy cattle! For all you know, a FPS Fallout would bomb HARD, namely because it's not what drew the original fan-base in and it's likely not going to draw in more people because FPS RPGs are quite *rare* and have never done as well as the 3rd-person. It became even tougher when FPS games upped the notch on what's considered "acceptable". Namely with Wizards and Warriors, which was a passable game, but since it wasn't uber graphics or something, the FPS crowd publically snubbed it into a domino effect.
 
RE:

>2. Fo2 lacked a bit
>of the setting depth of
>Fo1. When you played
>Fo1 through the first time,
>you didn't know where you
>were for a good long
>time. The city names
>were off what role they
>played. Fo2 went with
>established city names. Much
>more was botched as well.

Yeah. Get this - post-nuclear apocalypse world had POLITICIANS and even GOVERNMENTS! Anarchy touch to the world design simply vanished, sacrificed on the altar of "Realism", the new addition to the pantheon of evil gods of the gaming world. Screw realism! It is supposed to be a tool, not a final product!



http://www.nma-fallout.com/cgi-bin/forum/ForumID5/786.shtml#11

zero-x's bitter words after his encounter with roshambo:

"I agree with you but there comes a fuckin point i dont know who roquirbo thinks he is but I at least you didnt really criticize me and i appreciate that i hate people who fuck with my ideas when i didnt say shit to em and yes he is the kind of guy i would take a scalpel tear his head open the take an hammer use the end to samsh through the medulla and use the nail pull as a pry to pull back the top of the skull revealing a brain (small but brain nontheless)and take desert eagle magnum and blow it through his fucking spine as he still breath and then rip out his heart and show him how black it is before he dies but as you said thats illegal well cya"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top