Obsidian CEO Talks Working on Fallout Again

imagine in 10 years you might have to expalin your kidz that Fallout wasnt born as shooter.

But thinking about it, might happen that you have to explain your children that EVERY game they play, which will be probably a sequel, prequel or cooking recipe from some past game has started most of the time not as brainless action shooter/hybrid game. Imagine. What is S-u-r-v-i-v-al Horror Dad?
 
Brother None said:
I wouldn't say bad. It's just extremely middling. There's very little to Fallout's combat, especially since you only control one character and enemy AI is never much to write home about. But even without that, the basic system (shooting them in the eyes is always best) could've used some tweaking.

The reason most people still have very fond memories of it is that its presentation was and is among the best ever done; a good variety of guns that sounds and "feel" great, high-quality animations and gorgeous death animations, really good text descriptions and satisfying crits. And presentation is part of it. I don't see how you can call the whole package bad. Now if you want to separate out presentation and say the core was bad then yeah ok, maybe, though again, I'd rather call it middling.

There have certainly been better turn-based games.

I do wonder how much of a difference GURPS would've made. I think it had a more complex hit location system and might have made for more tactically sound combat.

That said, I'm still with others in that my dream would be a turn-based spinoff done by Obsidian. That is too unlikely though. Brand dilution! Fallout is a first-person shooter brand now, can't risk confusing the market.
Click to expand...
I think you're right about animations and "feel" being important in classic fallout. Animations especially. They weren't just high quality, they were also really visually interesting. Especially the ultra-violent ones that you'd get with bloody mess. Part of why getting half your torso blown off wasn't as big a sting was that half your torso got blown off and it looked cool.

Like I said, I'm not saying a fallout with an awesome isometric system would suck. I was kinda hoping for that when they talked about the possibility of a tactical iOS fallout way back when, and I would totally dig it now. Don't get me wrong, I love tactical combat in RPGs, whether it's turn based or Real Time with Pause.

I'm just saying that Fallout's combat wasn't the compelling part. New Vegas, I think, is better at having shooter-y combat than classic Fallout is at having good tactical combat. FO1, 2, and New Vegas are all great games, but not because of their combat. A fallout game with any other combat would smell as sweet.
 
DemonNick said:
New Vegas has more tactical depth, and it's improved by mods like Project Nevada or jsawyer ..
Click to expand...
Well, I don't think so.

In the classic turn-based Fallout, you have to spent your action points wisely. Is there more than one opponent? If so, you must strike one fast hand-to-hand blow, move several hexes back or even use stimpak/psycho in the same turn. You can use the obstacles to your advantage; because they are working as a chance-to-hit modifier. When fighting several strong opponents at once, you can step in the doors, protect the position and fight them supermutants one by one as they are crossing the doorstill.

FO3/NV combat system is just confusing. Constant switching between the VATS and realtime mode, jumping and turning like a madman, with a bunch of crazy critters running at you mindlessly. Where is at least minimal tactic in this? (Also, the Sawyer's mod doesn't alter tactic in the slightest way. It just modifies the default values of ammo damage, DT/DR and so.)
 
Don't make Fallout combat more tactical than it really is. Most of the time I was just shooting at the guy with the least HP and that worked pretty good. In most cases, I didn't even switched weapons while combat, as it is more effective to hit the enemy once (if you don't have enough APs to hit him again), then let the remaining APs fill up your AC while the enemy has his turn.

So yeah, it isn't really what I would call "tactical depth" or somesuch, especially as you are able to abuse the ai quite easily, with stepping behind an obstacle and let them come one by one around the corner, exactly the same way you described FNV right now.
 
FNV and F3 require a bit of modding to make the fights interesting/tactical. Vanilla lacks any penalty for reloading/healing/inventory management. That was a big part in the, admittedy flawed, F1/2 combat.

I still prefer F1/2 combat though. It's quick and dirty compared to deeper tactics games like JA2. The only thing I would change is being able to position your PC or Party before combat starts. Starting a random encounter directly in the middle of 20 highwaymen fighting 20 Vault City goons is just silly. (having a high sneak skill and ending combat to reposition can be used to circumvent this, but it's not ideal)
 
mobucks said:
The only thing I would change is being able to position your PC or Party before combat starts. Starting a random encounter directly in the middle of 20 highwaymen fighting 20 Vault City goons is just silly.
Click to expand...

High perception helps in this predicament. The higher the perception the further from the baddies one starts. But you can't win every fight in Fallout, and occasionally one needs to run, and that's one aspect I like about the game, you're not invincible. Having Sulik charge into a hopeless battle is also a laugh. I wish the game had a better AI system in regards to NPCs, but considering it was designed in 1996-1997 what can I say.
 
valcik wrote:
Well, I don't think so.

In the classic turn-based Fallout, you have to spent your action points wisely. Is there more than one opponent? If so, you must strike one fast hand-to-hand blow, move several hexes back or even use stimpak/psycho in the same turn. You can use the obstacles to your advantage; because they are working as a chance-to-hit modifier. When fighting several strong opponents at once, you can step in the doors, protect the position and fight them supermutants one by one as they are crossing the doorstill.

FO3/NV combat system is just confusing. Constant switching between the VATS and realtime mode, jumping and turning like a madman, with a bunch of crazy critters running at you mindlessly. Where is at least minimal tactic in this? (Also, the Sawyer's mod doesn't alter tactic in the slightest way. It just modifies the default values of ammo damage, DT/DR and so.)
Click to expand...

I hear this argument so much and I wonder why it exists,
per the first paragraph, that is easy in either F3 or FNV, so whats your point?

FO3/NV combat system is just confusing
Click to expand...
-your opinion, i'm not that easily confused

My opinion is that, FALLOUT 1 CORE COMBAT WAS SHIT, VISUALLY SATISFYING BUT NOTHING ELSE.

-You COULD {pause combat and go into your inventory and drop as many stimpacks as you want, and also reload all weapons}
Oh no 3 AP's gone. Still a cheap mechanic.

-Hexing index for firearms was total crap
*range not realistic in comparison to high stats

PIXOTE wrote:
I wish the game had a better AI system in regards to NPCs, but considering it was designed in 1996-1997 what can I say.
Click to expand...
You can say that it is sub-standard to the rest of the game.

Crni Vuk
imagine in 10 years you might have to expalin your kidz that Fallout wasnt born as shooter.
Click to expand...
I imagine in 10 years you'll actual be able to stay on topic for once.
 
oh wow poor you, someones hostile today.

I tell you something. Fallout 1 might not have been the epidome of "tactical" TB combat. But as far as shooters go both F3 and Vegas are pretty crap.
 
Dukeanumberone said:
.. whats your point?
Click to expand...
There's not much tactics in Fallout.

Don't forget even the respawning critters, it's very funny to explore those vaults in FONV with a bunch of scripted ghouls respawning out of nowhere.
 
I played a mod for Fallout 3 that completely changed how NPCs reacted in combat. They would take cover and shoot from cover a lot more/ leave combat to find cover and heal, things like that. I think it was called GTO combat overhaul. It blew me away when I first played it, it was like Brothers In Arms meets Fallout 3. Anyway I'm just mentioning this to point out the game was certainly capable of more intelligent scripted AI, the developers just neglected to give enough of a shit to implement anything other than run toward/ run away from the PC.
 
thats all you could do with the game anyway, making it "more" of a good shoter.

However for those of us that actually miss some real tactical oportunity that plays more something like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQgjOKxlATs
(Jagged Alliance 2)

then even the BEST shooter mechanics will not provide such an experience.

I am not saying a shooter is better or worse then TB games. We had those discussions a thousand times already. Just saying. One can not replace the other. But yeah ... I really wish Bethesda would have spend more then 5 min. on combat behaviour and NPC AI in F3 ... not even in Vegas the enemies are more then bags of health runing around.
 
Crni Vuk said:
thats all you could do with the game anyway, making it "more" of a good shoter.

However for those of us that actually miss some real tactical oportunity that plays more something like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQgjOKxlATs
(Jagged Alliance 2)

then even the BEST shooter mechanics will not provide such an experience.

I am not saying a shooter is better or worse then TB games. We had those discussions a thousand times already. Just saying. One can not replace the other. But yeah ... I really wish Bethesda would have spend more then 5 min. on combat behaviour and NPC AI in F3 ... not even in Vegas the enemies are more then bags of health runing around.
Click to expand...

Well it is indeed fundamentally different. But the element of tactical decision making can still be applied to a first or third person perspective, no?

It's just that few developers would even try to give a player the numerous commands needed to effectively command even a small squad. The necessary AI, UI and keymapping is too much to put into a game that needs to be popular with shooter fans, most of them can't focus that much. Or rather, they don't want to because it detracts from their fast paced combat.

Still, it would be a neat type of gameplay to experiment with.

How popular are squad based shooters like, SWAT and such? Not very.
 
sure, you can make tactical decisions in first person games. I do not dispute that. But it is a lot more difficult to achieve that compared to turn based gameplay which offers you simply more tools to make tactical decisions without everything working in detail.
 
There are only a few titles that actually managed to do that in an enjoyable fashion imo. Aside from a few old titles like Freedom Fighters (yes it's 3rd person but it did a passable job of it) the only game(s) that had a decent tactical tool was the Brothers in Arms series.
*Would you consider the squad management in Mass Effect games in this category?


I had some hopes for a decent such gameplay in the X-Com Fps but it seems that the project has gone the way of Dodo :(.
 
I would not. As far as combat goes ME isnt much more then a typical third person shooter. Just because you can tell your team mate "go behind this rock!" doesnt mean its tactical.
 
Crni Vuk
I tell you something. Fallout 1 might not have been the epidome of "tactical" TB combat. But as far as shooters go both F3 and Vegas are pretty crap.
Click to expand...
Your op, just like mine was mine. But a good portion of 8 million people would probably disagree with you. Would you prefer a Tom Clancy's F3 or Gearz of Fallout ?

valcik
There's not much tactics in Fallout.
Click to expand...
I disagree, plus FALLOUT TACTICS (the game)
There is as much tactics as you yourself posses in char building,hotkeying, and strategic enemy engagement.

Don't forget even the respawning critters, it's very funny to explore those vaults in FONV with a bunch of scripted ghouls respawning out of nowhere.
Click to expand...
Ya, that is bullshit,scripted spawns are so far my only dislike in FNV, magic fucking leprechaun legionaires.

Crni Vuk
thats all you could do with the game anyway, making it "more" of a good shoter.
Click to expand...
well that is a very narrow scope of imagination for a game designer,

However for those of us that actually miss some real tactical oportunity that plays more something like this
Click to expand...
There are plenty or RTS Tactical games as well, your simply biased toward the TB es evidence by your many comments on the subject matter and interjecting it into any remotely perpendicular conversation, fine man, whatever. I Like TB,RTS,FPS, and enjoy all for different reasons to say one or another is superior as far as tactics is concerned is laughable,all 3 lack components of actual combat and war scenarios. A perfect experience would have all 3 working in concert.


sure, you can make tactical decisions in first person games. I do not dispute that. But it is a lot more difficult to achieve that compared to turn based gameplay which offers you simply more tools to make tactical decisions without everything working in detail.
Click to expand...
again re-spouting your preference, its not thinly veiled either, its as obvious as a 8ft tall streaker with a raging boner man. We get it, TB makes you harder than a pedo in a kindergarten classroom during naptime.

I would not. As far as combat goes ME isnt much more then a typical third person shooter. Just because you can tell your team mate "go behind this rock!" doesnt mean its tactical.
Click to expand...
your right, nothing is more tactical that waiting for your "TURN" to attack while your enemy patiently and politely waits for you to make your decision and then continue the duel.
 
Your op, just like mine was mine. But a good portion of 8 million people would probably disagree with you. Would you prefer a Tom Clancy's F3 or Gearz of Fallout ?

nice. Lets throw around baseless facts. I say 8 million people saw that as issue in Fallout3/Vegas. Its easy to throw numbers in to the room. I am not attacking you. Just saying that it is very hard to guess why each and every individual bought either F3 or Vegas. And there have been quite a few around here which ... yeah, saw the "combat" in F3 at least as drawback. And Vegas is based a lot on F3 as far as gameplay goes. As far as combat goes both F3 and vegas are brainless shooters.

Also, yeah I would prefer an Clancy like approach comapred to Gearz of Fallout.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top