Penny Arcade talks on Fallout 3, socrates200x replies

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

I'm really torn with what it should be. In a way I feel like Oblivion-style gameplay would help me immerse with the game world more.

Immersion is relative. I don't find FP more immersive, in fact often less so. Especially those games where you can't see your feet. VTMB was very surreal in the public areas where you had to put your weapon away and you felt like a ghost floating around. Immersion is created through the gameplay, writing etc not just the perspective.

Isometric was nice for its time. First person also means you're actually witnessing things happening instead of watching some stick figure adventuring.

First person was nice for it's time, it's so outdated now though. Unlike the relatively new isometric viewpoint. Isometric doesn't have to mean stick figures and you get to see so much more of what's going on around you. Unlike FPP with it's artificial vision restriction as your character has no real peripheral vision etc.

 

[stormcrow]

I don't get people that want to play Fallout with an FPS perspective. Yes it looks good in HL2, but then why aren't you playing HL?
The one exemple of psuedo-RPG in 1st person that comes to mind is System Shock 2. I played the demo, it was allright. Nevertheless putting an RPG in a FPS perspective means you have to spend a lot of time on the graphics, combat, ...
For me, the important part of an RPG like Fallout is the dialogue/quest/interaction aspect. Having an FPS perspective means you shift part of the emphasis on the pure combat. Thats not what I'd like for Fallout. Fallout is about talking to people, having sex with mutants, delivering holodisks... not about fancy combat scenes, killing people by shooting your grenade launcher on the wall to make it bounce, strafing,...

Simply put: If Fallout were developed in 1st perspective, the emphasis would be shifted from the RPG elements (the core of Fallout) to the combat aspects which are, IMHO, less important to the "Fallout feel".

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

I've never got how people can think that the gameplay is so dispensable? That changing things to another format is okay for a sequel?

Is it just because Fallout has guns that they think it should be a shooter?

 

[Vault 69er]

I've never got how people can think that the gameplay is so dispensable? That changing things to another format is okay for a sequel?

Is it just because Fallout has guns that they think it should be a shooter?

They seem to think that there's some sort of linear progression in gameplay. That turn based combat and non-first person views are a thing of the past. Nevermind that they have always co-existed since the beginning of gaming.

 

[Nim82]

I sort of agree that turn based (traditionally) was down to technological limitations, back in 'ye olde' days, computers couldn't handle multiple AI's functioning at once. However with FO the technology was there to do real-time, yet BI chose not to. Being turn based made combat more strategic, if it was real-time doing targeted shots would have been a pain in the arse for example. I could accept real-time pause as an 'advancement' but after playing BG1/2 I needed a new keyboard (spacebar was broken), made me think it should just have had a TB option from the get go.

Real-time (esp in conjunction with FPV) also changes the relationship between the player's ability and their character's ability. In real-time the player's dexterity becomes as important as their Characters - am I playing as myself or as my character? Personally I am not great at FPS games (my reaction times aren't amazing) yet in FO I can play as the fastest gun in the west if I want.

As to Isometric being old fashioned - that is plain stupid. Camera perspective is an artistic choice. There were FPV RPG's long before FO was released. The decision to make FO Isometric was artistic not technical. First person Starcraft2, SupCom, Bomberman anyone? Thought not. It's like arguing that every TV show/film should be shot entirely from head cameras. For me FO being first person would be about as insulting/annoying as Quake5 being an isometric shooter, could still be a fun game... but no longer Quake!

 

[Brother None]

I sort of agree that turn based (traditionally) was down to technological limitations, back in 'ye olde' days, computers couldn't handle multiple AI's functioning at once.

Indeed, there were some limitations. But here's a short-list of real-time RPGs pre-Fallout:
1980 Akalabeth - Real Time
1987 Dungeon Master - Real Time
1990 Eye of the Beholder - Real Time
1991 Eye of the Beholder II: The Legend of Darkmoon - Real time
1992 Darklands - Real time with pause
1993 Dungeon Master II: The Legend of Skullkeep - Real time
1993 Eye of the Beholder III: Assault on Myth Drannor - Real time
1994 The Elder Scrolls: Arena - Real time
1996 The Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall - Real time
1996 Diablo - Real time

As you can tell, computer limitations didn't mean real time was an unexplored genre, from the 80s onwards. It just meant the game had to adapt the combat mode to enable it to handle the combat properly, but even that wasn't much of a problem anymore from the early 90s onwards, let alone in '97.

Fallout's combat system badly needs an upgrade. Making it realtime isn't an upgrade, obviously.

Real Time with Pause is terrible, especially from isometric view. It often comes down to "click once, wait, pause when it goes wrong, click a few times, wait, combat ends". Not good.

 

[abbaon]

Immersion is relative.

You can "immerse yourself" in a crossword puzzle.

 

[Meh]

You will have much more guns and items in Fallout style isometric game since they are just easy sprites and in the game world they mostly use same few models. With 1st person 3d you have very more time consuming job to create unique items, unless you just end up coloring them differently.

 

[Jimmious]

I can't understand how people, especially people that are supposedly "professionaly" associated with games, really believe that FP is the way CRPGs are going to.
There is not even one RPG other than Beth's ones being made FP. All RPGs are top-down view or isometric. Anyone can do a quick search in upcoming RPG titles and decide for himself. FP is a dead option for RPGs, especially since FP&TB is abandoned nowadays.

 

[Nim82]

Indeed, there were some limitations. But here's a short-list of real-time RPGs pre-Fallout....

Apologies I rather fluffed my point. I knew RT had been around and established for a long time prior to FO (though I will confess I didn't know it went back that far). I had always considered/assumed wrongly that path finding A.I. (with some tactical skill) was a bit demanding until around ~1990. Thanks for the insight, proves even further it was a design not technical decision with FO.

I agree largely with your sentiment on RT pause, I just see it as a preferable compromise to pure RT, and one that could be appeal to the console crowd (KOTOR sold well). I hate that PC games have to appeal to them, but that's the world of today sadly.

Personally I'd like to see a more refined turn based option. Perhaps have all the enemy move at the same time (slightly stagger their animations so it looks less like a procession), then have a combat phase where they take turns firing. There are flaws in this too, but at least it would cut down the combat time drastically for large fights, without radically changing the gameplay either. Some other improvements could also be made, but this is digressing off topic a bit

 

[Sander]

Apologies I rather fluffed my point. I knew RT had been around and established for a long time prior to FO (though I will confess I didn't know it went back that far). I had always considered/assumed wrongly that path finding A.I. (with some tactical skill) was a bit demanding until around ~1990. Thanks for the insight, proves even further it was a design not technical decision with FO.

For tiled games, pathfinding AI has almost never been demanding, actually.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

I hate RTwP, it's completely retarded. If forced to choose between RT and RTwP I'd rather take the RT.

 

[Autoduel76]

Indeed, there were some limitations. But here's a short-list of real-time RPGs pre-Fallout:
1980 Akalabeth - Real Time
1987 Dungeon Master - Real Time
1990 Eye of the Beholder - Real Time
1991 Eye of the Beholder II: The Legend of Darkmoon - Real time
1992 Darklands - Real time with pause
1993 Dungeon Master II: The Legend of Skullkeep - Real time
1993 Eye of the Beholder III: Assault on Myth Drannor - Real time
1994 The Elder Scrolls: Arena - Real time
1996 The Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall - Real time
1996 Diablo - Real time

And that is a VERY short list. You left off plenty of classics...Ultima 7, or even 1st person/RPG even, like Ultima Underworld.

Or my sig, for that matter, had complex real time combat, that was taken from a turnbased tabletop game. And Autoduel was released in '85.

For tiled games, pathfinding AI has almost never been demanding, actually.

Well, there was also fairly complex pathfinding in Autdouel (again, my sig) in 85. They had some pathfinding in the early Space Quest/Kings Quest games, that weren't tiled.

Pathfinding has always been doable in pretty much whatever technical levels we've had. That's the nature of software. Everything is less complex, which creates some limitations, but also makes things easier to do at the same time. Since there were fewer options, the AI didn't have to be programmed to do as much, to pathfind.

 

[Plissken]

I don't get why turn-based combat is considered "old". I just see it as another mode of gameplay, just like first person is a form of gameply, and strategy, simulation and so on.

Why does it have to be considered outdated? I'm sorry, but turn-based combat is a crucial part of Fallout, not just the story and the interactions within the game or whatever that Tycho douche said.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

I sort of agree that turn based (traditionally) was down to technological limitations, back in 'ye olde' days, computers couldn't handle multiple AI's functioning at once.

Early TB games tended to be turn based because they were conversions of non computer games, that were turn based. If you're talking technical limitations I think you'd have to go back to the pre home computing era. It seemed to be a more conceptual limitation on the developers part than any technical limitation of the computers of the time.

 

[Sorrow]

I'm really torn with what it should be. In a way I feel like Oblivion-style gameplay would help me immerse with the game world more.

Immersion is relative. I don't find FP more immersive, in fact often less so. Especially those games where you can't see your feet. VTMB was very surreal in the public areas where you had to put your weapon away and you felt like a ghost floating around. Immersion is created through the gameplay, writing etc not just the perspective.

I second that. Also, compared to reality FPP 3d is still crap. If I wanted this kind of immersion I would go for a walk, enjoying freedom of movement and looking, smells, great graphics, sound. I love walls and floors - imagine, a wall built of bricks. Not an ugly texture - bricks - some of them are damaged, every brick has different colour. It's really incredible experience.

To me, use of 3d is rather a neccesity for certain types of games like simulators, FPP shooters, etc. Not a source of better immersion.
Frankly, I immense myself better with Fallout's maps and animated miniatures than with FPP 3d RPG with their weird, limited movement, limited vision and shitty graphics.

As for buying F3...
I'm not buying it unless it's isometric and turn-based - I won't reward the developer for creating a "Fallout" game that isn't a recreation of the tabletop roleplaying experience on computer.
Just as I didn't reward the creators of Ufo: Extraterrastials for their innovative idea of creating immortal soldiers.

 

[God is Dog backwards]

Posted this on the codex.

I suspect what all this is leading to is some kind of 'tactical combat' in FO3, that Bethsoft will claim as being the best of both worlds whilst keeping fallout's 'soul'. What that combat style will be, I don't know. Obviously, I hope for a refined turn based system, but I doubt we'll get a hybrid like FOT, which is one good thing, at least.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

Posted this on the codex.

I suspect what all this is leading to is some kind of 'tactical combat' in FO3, that Bethsoft will claim as being the best of both worlds whilst keeping fallout's 'soul'.

That's what I'm thinking too, only that it will be an added option with RT as the default.

And it'll suck utterly.

 

[Briosafreak]

Posted this on the codex.

I suspect what all this is leading to is some kind of 'tactical combat' in FO3, that Bethsoft will claim as being the best of both worlds whilst keeping fallout's 'soul'. What that combat style will be, I don't know. Obviously, I hope for a refined turn based system, but I doubt we'll get a hybrid like FOT, which is one good thing, at least.

Maybe something like Gears of War with the pause from KoTOR?

 

[draeke]

Posted this on the codex.

I suspect what all this is leading to is some kind of 'tactical combat' in FO3, that Bethsoft will claim as being the best of both worlds whilst keeping fallout's 'soul'. What that combat style will be, I don't know. Obviously, I hope for a refined turn based system, but I doubt we'll get a hybrid like FOT, which is one good thing, at least.

didn't we hear that same tired-ass argument when they released tictacs..at least there was a choice though.

As far as TB games, why does there have to be this long drawn out discourse as to why one is better than the other. It's kind of like arguing politics or religion, you're really never going to convince the other side of your point of view. Personally, I prefer turn based games I think they were meant to emulate a role-playing environment. I think the shift towards FPS got alot more people involved in gaming. It brought in alot younger crowd who didn't necessarily have to think about what they were doing while gaming. It's like comparing apples and oranges anyway. It's as simple as the twitch-kiddies buying more copies of games than turn -based players. Hence, the shift in perspective. It opened up new markets and increased the bottom line. So, this is what we're stuck with until the market demands more turn based games. They will continue developing FPS/RTS until the demographic that buys more copies shifts to wanting more turn based games. It's not about a roomful of geeks drinking mountain dew and coding in a dimly lit room anymore or people selling pc's out of the trunk of their car, nor has it been for a long time. It's about the mass market.