Interesting discussion at developer's request

[patriot_41]

I agree, but still a basis for sequel should the story not the mechanics

Why?
No really, why is this so? No one would dare call Paper Mario a Mario sequel, because it isn't a Mario-type game, but it still has a Mario story.
Your counter-example:

As for the game mechanics, or graphics having anything to do with what sequel is or should be, I hardly think that it matters, take for example the "Curse Of Monkey Island" the first three were practically hand drawn, animated, basically played entirely with a mouse, while the Fourth installement, moved completly to 3D (In the same way that Fallout is transitioning from Isometric view, to First/Third Person view). But it is considered a sequel since it continued the story.

This is not true. It is considered a sequel because it is still a point-and-click adventure game, with the same hallmarks of the series (setting and humour mostly). The core gameplay didn't actually change between 3 & 4. While in the case of Fallout, combat is very much core gameplay material.

By the way, the first two games weren't 'practically hand-drawn', that was actually only the third game. The first two games were very pixellated console games, unlike the third game which had a very distinct, much more cartoon-esque and hand-drawn look.

I, for one, do not consider the 4th Monkey Island Canon. Nor do I consider the new Indiana Jones Game a sequel to Atlantis. Diablo 2 is a sequel to Diablo, Falloit 2 is a sequel to Fallout.

There is something, which eludes us in this discussion, because there's games with same names and similar mechanics, which are not considered sequels. Street Fighter has tons of Street Fighter Brand Games - Mini, EX, FX, 2nd strike and etc.

 

[Sander]

I, for one, do not consider the 4th Monkey Island Canon. Nor do I consider the new Indiana Jones Game a sequel to Atlantis. Diablo 2 is a sequel to Diablo, Falloit 2 is a sequel to Fallout.

Ehm, why?
Really, explain why you feel this way. This blank statement is useless otherwise.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

Perhaps it has to do with story changes and such, controls for Escape from Monkey Island were different than that of the first three games, feeling more designed for a control pad.

I have to agree on the storyline, Monkey Island 4 felt as the weakest part of the series, the whole issue on consumerism.
It all seemed pretty well finished off in Monkey Island 3.

 

[patriot_41]

I, for one, do not consider the 4th Monkey Island Canon. Nor do I consider the new Indiana Jones Game a sequel to Atlantis. Diablo 2 is a sequel to Diablo, Falloit 2 is a sequel to Fallout.

Ehm, why?
Really, explain why you feel this way. This blank statement is useless otherwise.

Same core game mechanics, same world, same brand name, same viewpoint. Slight improvement of graphics.
The brand name, obviously, is subject to change. Interface changes are obviously acceptable, too. But it has to 'feel' right.

But that was exactly the point - the same thing is valid for a few SF titles, yet I wouldn't consider them sequels. No one would.

 

[Blackwing]

I think I made my point about why I don't think it's a sequel (and why I think Woodward is a f...ing id... Erhm... wrong) on the Bethesda forum itself, so I'll just vote here.

 

[Borathian]

In my view, the thing that defines a fallout title is how it role plays not necessarily the setting(to a degree) or manner in which the RPing is taking place(iso or FP), as good RP is the binding glue that keeps a fallout game together, and without it TBS an isometric viewpoint nor the setting it self can make a good game, or every isometric TBS game would be a success and that is obviously not true, this kinda runs along the same lines as what makes FF7 such a great game, not the stile but the story, and IMO the same is true for fallout.

Now I'm not defending Beth as there are MANY things about F3 that just seem stupid or lazy to me I just have questions about the poll answers and the ideas behind them.

how does a change in mechanics effect the integrity of a fallout title when TBS and an isometric view are things that made fallout unique but not things that made fallout great? IMO

how does a change in setting effect the integrity of a fallout title when a wasteland is defined by desolation not the content thereof? (basically why is being in a ruined city less acceptable as a wasteland environment than a sunbaked plane?)

why is "NO, because Beth blows ass at RPGs" not one of the answers?

I'm not saying your guy viewpoints are bad or anything I would just like to know your guys ideas/opinions on these subjects compared to my own, and possibly your ideas behind them.

 

[Sander]

You're kind of missing the point, Borathian.

One of the main reasons why we lament the lack of turn-based combat and an isometric view are that those features were in the original game to facilitate roleplaying.

Besides that, we can't say anything concrete about the state of roleplaying in the game either, because basically nothing is known about it. Although there was a lot of bitching about the seemingly linear/black-white choices you have in the game (eg. blow up city/don't blow up city).

 

[patriot_41]

how does a change in mechanics effect the integrity of a fallout title when TBS and an isometric view are things that made fallout unique but not things that made fallout great? IMO

Well, provided that the general idea behind Fallout is Pen n' Paper emulation, what other way than isometric to mimic the RPG DnD figurines, the World map and the fighting system, as closely resembling the PnP view as possible? I've rarely had good DMs, who'd allow me to opt to attack an orc in the eyes, whereas Fallout had different scenarios and NPC reaction patterns stemming from that option alone? TBS is the only fair way to reenact a PnP campaign while actually roleplaying. Roleplaying is mainly about strategy and character-based decision, not reflexes or immersion. It's your character in an environment, not yourself in a similar situation.

how does a change in setting effect the integrity of a fallout title when a wasteland is defined by desolation not the content thereof? (basically why is being in a ruined city less acceptable as a wasteland environment than a sunbaked plane?)

There was a general design decision that helped the atmosphere. It's easy. Imagine the ruins of New York the 50's and you have fallout and FO2, imagine The Ruins of the Ancient Temple Of the Orc Tecnomancer Asteroth and you have FO3. Where is the similarity?

 

[Ravager69]

Bethesda simply misses the point. Falout isn't exactly about apocalyptic world, because I think it'd been considered an awesome game even in the fantasy setting (providing it'd have the same depth of gameplay and story). Of course the current setting made it *special*, but it was the final detail to make it great instead of being the main reason for it's greatness.

Now let's take a look at Fallout 3 - it's *all* about post apocalyptic world. It's a "OMG look ! White House got pwned!", a graphical show off based on primal fears of having our society destroyed and lives ruined, instead of something truly immersive.

Fallout was never about ruined world. The mature approach to the world's game, the dark, intelligent humour, absorbing story and sidequests were the things that made it unique.

 

[Borathian]

You're kind of missing the point, Borathian.

One of the main reasons why we lament the lack of turn-based combat and an isometric view are that those features were in the original game to facilitate roleplaying.

Besides that, we can't say anything concrete about the state of roleplaying in the game either, because basically nothing is known about it. Although there was a lot of bitching about the seemingly linear/black-white choices you have in the game (eg. blow up city/don't blow up city).

OK

Tho I do like the idea of a fallout game that is FP as I think it would/will be very interesting to see the wasteland directly through the eyes of one of its inhabitants...its doubtful but I think if Beth actually attempted an Isometric TBS game especially a fallout one that it might be very interesting or even good given there art departments affinity for graphics and a good amount of detail...it could even incorporate VATS in a way as I think it would be interesting to have a TBS game were critical hits and precision shooting were dun in a cinematic zoomed in or bullet time mode then pop you back out to the isometric viewpoint when its over, but thats just me.

 

[Quaid]

You're kind of missing the point, Borathian.

One of the main reasons why we lament the lack of turn-based combat and an isometric view are that those features were in the original game to facilitate roleplaying.

Besides that, we can't say anything concrete about the state of roleplaying in the game either, because basically nothing is known about it. Although there was a lot of bitching about the seemingly linear/black-white choices you have in the game (eg. blow up city/don't blow up city).

OK

Tho I do like the idea of a fallout game that is FP as I think it would/will be very interesting to see the wasteland directly through the eyes of one of its inhabitants...its doubtful but I think if Beth actually attempted an Isometric TBS game especially a fallout one that it might be very interesting or even good given there art departments affinity for graphics and a good amount of detail...it could even incorporate VATS in a way as I think it would be interesting to have a TBS game were critical hits and precision shooting were dun in a cinematic zoomed in or bullet time mode then pop you back out to the isometric viewpoint when its over, but thats just me.

I agree with this. FPP true hardcore RPGs are possible. Reference, Vampire: Bloodlines. That is a fantastic RPG. The FPP is truly immersive when it is combined with the diversity of vampire factions, the ways to complete quests, and the great dialogue options throughout the game. The TV and radio were great touches and I could sit in my haven for a while just listening to either of them. The sky was fantastic in Santa Monica and it really felt like I was there.

So what was the worst part of that game? The combat system. Even though the combat relied on your stats I felt it was weak. I even specialized in firearms because I knew they were underpowered (compared to melee) and I wanted a challenge. Still, the combat felt very, very FPS. And this was an FPP RPG created by the gods themselves, Fallout 1 devs.

How could the FPP RPG be improved? Allow real time exploration in FPP. I loved Vampire's perspective. Also, Fallout 1 WAS real time for exploration purposes. Once combat is initiated, change to third person (if not already in that camera mode), with a rotatable, zoomable, and tiltable camera. Change to TURN BASED (just like Fallout did!) Make it as close to Fallout combat as possible (similar Action Point usage, movement, etc). Maybe even add crouching feature (maybe 2 Action Points?) or add a 'cover fire' option ala X-Com: UFO Defense.

In this way we would have a gorgeous FPP game with the same core gameplay mechanics that allowed Fallout to emulate PnP. Would the people who feel that Fallout 3 is NOT a true sequel consider something described above as a true sequel? If not, I'd like to know why not. Thanks in advance.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

So what was the worst part of that game? The combat system. Even though the combat relied on your stats I felt it was weak. I even specialized in firearms because I knew they were underpowered (compared to melee) and I wanted a challenge. Still, the combat felt very, very FPS.

The combat felt very fps? I didn't have a problem with the combat, despite the tired old handicap your gun skills. What was wrong with the combat was the lack of alternatives virtually all major quests ended with an unavoidable combat situation. That would of been disappointing even in turn based isometric.

I found the first person perspective exploration though really disconcerting. Without a weapon equipped you'd just float along and that broke any immersion for me.

Zoomable rotating and tiltable cameras tend to be a real exercise in frustration. Few games get them really right.

 

[Quaid]

The combat felt very fps? I didn't have a problem with the combat, despite the tired old handicap your gun skills...

Okay. So if the combat didn't feel 'FPS' to you, what did it feel closest to?

...I found the first person perspective exploration though really disconcerting. Without a weapon equipped you'd just float along and that broke any immersion for me...

Are you saying that if the camera 'bobbed' while moving without a weapon it would feel more real and hence make for better immersion? Or are you saying that FPP is always less immersive for you than another perspective?

Zoomable rotating and tiltable cameras tend to be a real exercise in frustration. Few games get them really right.

So would my example be better if the camera zoomed out to a playable distance in the sky to show a fixed ISO view?

 

[RPGenius]

I feel that because so much appears to have changed, much of these changes moving it away from what it was and what makes it a PnP sim.

I still feel that there are enough PnP gamers to warrant building a game that, like Fallout, emulates that as much as possible.

So because the setting has changed, because the mechanics have changed, because Bethesda are building a game that they build, none of which in my opinion have been true RPGs, but another mediocre pretender to the throne, no. This is not a sequel.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Okay. So if the combat didn't feel 'FPS' to you, what did it feel closest to?

I never said it didn't feel like an fps, I was wondering what you were complaining about? Were you expecting something different? Sure I would of prefered to play a hardcore tb rpg but that was never what VTMB was billed as, as far as I can remember anyway.

Are you saying that if the camera 'bobbed' while moving without a weapon it would feel more real and hence make for better immersion? Or are you saying that FPP is always less immersive for you than another perspective?

I don't think that any one perspective is any more immersive that any other. I don't believe that perspective has much to do with creating immersion in the first place. But going from bobbing with weapon to smooth movement without was disconcerting. Just the same with switching between perspectives, being able to play in FPP or TPP or even ISO is purely down to preference. Switching between them though is always jarring.

 

[Quaid]

Okay. So if the combat didn't feel 'FPS' to you, what did it feel closest to?

I never said it didn't feel like an fps, I was wondering what you were complaining about? Were you expecting something different?...

Sorry if it sounded like complaining to you - that wasn't my intention. I knew it was FPP before I bought the game. My point was to say that even an FPP RPG from fantastic RPG makers can actually feel just like an FPS. I don't think PnP type CRPG combat should be twitch based. VtMB had stats associated with your character but it changed the FPS combat feel very little. I also had a similiar feeling with System Shock 2. Keep in mind those are two of my favorite computer games, after Fallout 1.

I am simply trying to brainstorm how to best make a hardcore CRPG in FPP, since Bethesda is trying their hand at it with Fallout 3. I didn't care for the combat system in Morrowind (therefore never played Oblivious) and I'm afraid that feeling may be repeated with Fallout 3. I haven't played a FPP RPG where I feel the combat is as good as Fallout 1's.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Sorry if it sounded like complaining to you - that wasn't my intention. I knew it was FPP before I bought the game. My point was to say that even an FPP RPG from fantastic RPG makers can actually feel just like an FPS.

Maybe that's because it was an FPS, just because it was an rpg doesn't mean it can't be an fps as well. That's why they call them hybrids.

I don't think PnP type CRPG combat should be twitch based. VtMB had stats associated with your character but it changed the FPS combat feel very little.

While VtMB was based on a pnp franchise, the intention was never to try and make it as close to playing masquerade without actually playing Masquerade (paraphrasing wildly ) well from what I can remember of the pre launch build up anyway. I can't think of a single action rpg that doesn't have some form of stats that handicap/enhance the player's skill.

I also had a similiar feeling with System Shock 2. Keep in mind those are two of my favorite computer games, after Fallout 1.

System Shock 2 wasn't an rpg though, like Deus Ex all the choices were purely tactical. I guess that's why they call them tactical shooters. Stats do not an rpg make.

I haven't played a FPP RPG where I feel the combat is as good as Fallout 1's.

Which era of fpp rpg are you talking about, pre isometric or post? Most fpp rpgs post isometric i.e. in the last ten years have been action rpgs with the emphasis on the action. They are so different from turn based isometric that there can be no real comparison made.

That's why Fallout 3 isn't a true sequel, it's a totally different type of game. It's like taking a flight simulation game and then following it with an arcade flyer.

 

[Ravager69]

So, what is Fallout 3 (besides a spin-off)? Is there a word for it?

 

[Quaid]

@Requiem - I am trying to be careful with the distinction between FPS and FPP. I consider FPS (first person shooter) to include games such as Halo, Doom, Quake, Wolfenstein, Duke-Nukem, etc.

I consider FPP (first person perspective) to be a more general term which simply notes the dominant perspective of the game. It is possible to have a number of sub-genres under this label, with FPS being by far the dominant one.

I believe VtMB and System Shock 2 to both be FPP without being FPS. Now we can discuss the semantics of whether they are RPGs or not, but I will agree with you that VtMB is an RPG hybrid (its twitch based combat keeping it from being a full RPG), and System Shock 2 is even less an RPG due to its lack of dialogue and quest options, along with its twitch based combat.

When I say 'full RPG' I mean in the strict sense of Western CRPGs such as Fallout 1 and Arcanum. Not the Eastern RPGs such as Final Fantasy.

As far as FPP true RPGs go, can you name any regardless of when they were made? I believe the early Might & Magic games were turn based FPP. Do these qualify as true western CRPGs by your own definition? If not, what keeps them from being so?


@Ravager69 - I'm sure there are many words for it, but I'm afraid to hear what words are most popular for it on NMA

 

[Genoq]

So, what is Fallout 3 (besides a spin-off)? Is there a word for it?

It's an action game with stats. Stats+Action=Staction

It's a Staction game.