Capelworth said:
Do you really feel that skills, stats, traits, and perks are at the core of what Fallout is?
To an extent.
1) Viewpoint
To take one view to an extreme, if Fallout 3 had *exactly* the same setting, I mean if it was perfectly Fallout. It has everything right in regards to characters, dialogue, graphical feel etc...
BUT it was from the first-person perspective and it was called Fallout 3,
would it REALLY be Fallout 3? What if it had EXACTLY the same special system and skills, perks etc... and the
ONLY difference was that it was from the first-person viewpoint instead of the isometric one?
My argument is that it's not the same. One of the core things about Fallout is its isometric view. To me, Fallout is an isometric RPG. To change that is to make something different and create the chance that I may and/or may not enjoy it. Akin to Grand Theft Auto. The original was a top-down point of view. I enjoyed it immensely. The second one followed suit (although they seriously screwed the driving up and the cars look like shit and the whole respect thing was stupid etc...), yet the third one is a first person driving game.
Now I enjoy GTA3, but to me, it's a whole new game. More to the point, I still have GTA1 installed and play that regularly, along with GTA3, because to me, they are different games. They play very differently. GTA3 relies more on your FPS skills than GTA1 ever did. Besides that difference though, they're still both great games. I am aware of a few people who miss that old style though, and don't play GTA3.
My point is that there's a limit to what you can change. You can still make an enjoyable game, but whatever you change, you run the risk that you'll lose more of the audience that liked and enjoyed the first games. JE's hope is that what he changes will attract more people than it loses. In a sense, you're throwing away the old fan-base and trying to find a new one. If JE fails with a horribly implemented real-time system, or ruins the turn-based system, or changes "too much", he could find he loses more people than he attracts and as a result, creates an overall negative effect.
2) System
Now imagine Fallout with everything Fallout. Setting and so on etc.. BUT, instead of using special, it used altered D&D rules. Would it be the same? We drop the perks and traits and right at the start, we get to choose whether we're lawless good, or lawless evil or lawless unlawless (and all the other stupid alignments that I never really cared for). Then, you have to choose a specific "class". If you choose to be a fighter, the combat skills are tagged and a certain number of points are allocated into them automatically as you progress. If you choose thief, the same happens with the thief skills.
The game is still the same though, it has the isometric view, you're still out to get the master, you're still using firearms in turn-based combat. Is it the same though? Would it be Fallout 3 if Fallout 3 was like this?
Again, I'd probably play it and enjoy it. I might have issues with the combat system but I can get over them because of the story, or I might have issues with the initial character creation, but as happens, you overlook some faults in every game and enjoy what you can. Again though, it's a new system that has the potential of alienating the old fans. There would be some people who won't/don't like the new system and that the new system is TOO MUCH of a change for them to enjoy it.
Would it be Fallout though?
3) Setting
Now, this IS the core of what Fallout is, isn't it? If Fallout had the same viewpoint, skills, weapons and so on but was set in 100 AD and had you surviving the dark ages after having gone through a rip in space-time which meant everyone in 100 AD had SMG's instead of swords, it wouldn't be Fallout. It just ain't the same as 80 years after the Great War, battling Super Mutants and taking on the evil Master and his Unity.
I mean, you can change
EVERYTHING BUT THE SETTING and still have a game you can call "Fallout". That's how Fallout: Enforcer can get away with being Fallout. Sure, it's got more hookers than Fallout 1 or 2 ever had, and there are some story inconsistencies, but it's set in the "Fallout World", ipso facto, it is Fallout...
... or is it? We're talking about computer games. Why do we play computer games? Quite simply because they're fun. So when I tell you that I play and enjoy Starcraft, am I really saying
"I enjoy the space setting and how the different races have interesting histories, that's why I play the game." or am I really saying
"I love the unit choices. The command menu is really simple to understand and so issuing orders is a breeze. The three distinct races make for interesting online strategy play. Terran suck because of all the damn Supply Depo's they have to build. I usually play Protoss because they have IMO, the best units. In short, I find the game is fun to play."?
So, which is it? Do I play Fallout because I like the setting? Well, sure, to an extent. But I'd be lying a fair bit too. I *love* the combat system. I *love* the perks I can choose. I *love* the weapons. I *love* the graphics. If Fallout had *exactly* the same things but was set in a fantasy setting, I'd probably enjoy that too. In fact if Lionheart was Fallout except with a fantasy setting, I'd probably like it and enjoy it (instead they've got a rooted combat system), although I might complain about the generic fantasy setting to an extent.
My point is, games are beyong their settings. Games are a combination of things that together, create something that I/you/we enjoy. No matter how fantastic the Fallout setting was, I'd NEVER play the game if it played like a bad Diablo clone. Like-wise, I'm inclined to ignore Fallout: Enforcer and there's a reason why Fallout: Tactics has never been re-installed since I formatted my hard-drive, yet both Fallout 1 and 2 have been. FO:T changed too much for me to like it. FO:E doesn't offer me anything I can't get in any numerous other games I play, and quite simply, I *love* FO1 and FO2.
4) All things combined
In conclusion, it's
all these things combined which make Fallout a great game. The setting makes it unique in its genre (name 10 other fantasy RPGs, now name 10 other non-fantasy RPGs), the combat system is fun and exciting to play, the open ended game options and multiple endings allow me to play the game a few times over and get a different but still enjoyble experience, and the isometric view-point is a nice, simple and easy to use "point and click" interface.
That's what Fallout is. So when I say "I like Fallout". That's what I'm saying I like. Option 4) All of the above.
JE Sawyer's Changes
I suppose this bit needs to be in here too.
JE's suggested changes so far, won't make me NOT play Fallout 3 at this stage. I'm still fairly confident they can make an interesting and compelling story that'll suck me right in. However, it's my view that he's getting mighty close to the border-line. Combo's ultimately won't affect my typical play-style of the Gauss Rifle carrying 200% Small Guns (sorry, firearms) Sniper Guy™, much. His creation of the pure firearms skill WILL mean I don't play through once as the "Big Guns d00d" AND as the "Energy Weapons d00d" AND FINALLY as the "Small Guns d00d", as those three are now done all in one session.
The BIGGEST concern I have at this stage is the different combat systems. Making a game work with two systems means some things have to be changed. I don't care that JE has said "Turn-based will be 90% good while real-time is 70-80%". That 90%'s just not good enough for me. Ultimately, it means things have to change. THINGS I DON'T KNOW ABOUT. I can't judge Fallout 3's combat at this stage because I haven't played it. If I do, will it be like Lionheart? Annoying rather than fun and too late to do anything about it? I enjoy Fallout's combat, if JE fucks it up, it means I'll still have to have FO1 and FO2 installed just to get my kicks, and really, I shouldn't have to (especially as it probably won't be too long before new systems won't be able to play them, as is the case I find with GTA1 and my new graphics card).
