Relax?!
- Thread starter Odin
- Start date
That's how Fallout came about, oddly enough. The words "Remember Wasteland?" were printed on the inside flap of the original box. It was done so because the game was in many regards a spiritual successor and turned what Wasteland made of a CRPG into something with a life of its own.
Someone will make a spiritual successor to Fallout if others can't or won't. Those that enjoy playing CRPGs like Fallout will naturally migrate towards those.
Someone will make a spiritual successor to Fallout if others can't or won't. Those that enjoy playing CRPGs like Fallout will naturally migrate towards those.
Saint_Proverbius
Vault Senior Citizen
All these Bethesda forumboys that keep coming here, spewing that fun stuff, and getting banned for it can best be summed up by this picture:
DarkUnderlord
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Where the hell did this idiot get his bullshit definition from? Just because you can move the camera around doesn't mean you can't move the camera BACK to a viewpoint that is of an (...and I quote):extarbags said:
- Isometrical perspective, an inaccurate term for a mechanical way of representing objects in the direction of the diagonal of a cube.
The definition of "isometric" from the gods' own dictionary (which, in case anyone is wondering, is the Concise Oxford Dictionary) is:
That basically translates into extarbags' definition. Now, it's obvious and to be expected that the usage differs from the basic art/design definition when it comes to computer games. For instance, Warcraft 3 wouldn't be isometric since you can change the camera's angle of incidence. Many games wouldn't be isometric because the camera angle isn't exactly 45 degrees in every direction. What about Fallout, which has a square tile grid and a hexagonal movement grid? Where are the principal axes? In any 3D environment without apparent tiles (and therefore no cardinal directions) there is no preferred angle, so either all of them or none of them must fit the definition of isometry. But if rotation (in less than 90-degree steps) and isometry are mutually exclusive as extarbags claims, that means you can't have isometry and 3D. Why do I get the feeling that just doesn't take actual usage into account?
That basically translates into extarbags' definition. Now, it's obvious and to be expected that the usage differs from the basic art/design definition when it comes to computer games. For instance, Warcraft 3 wouldn't be isometric since you can change the camera's angle of incidence. Many games wouldn't be isometric because the camera angle isn't exactly 45 degrees in every direction. What about Fallout, which has a square tile grid and a hexagonal movement grid? Where are the principal axes? In any 3D environment without apparent tiles (and therefore no cardinal directions) there is no preferred angle, so either all of them or none of them must fit the definition of isometry. But if rotation (in less than 90-degree steps) and isometry are mutually exclusive as extarbags claims, that means you can't have isometry and 3D. Why do I get the feeling that just doesn't take actual usage into account?
Now this is just wrong. What that definition means, is that you take the three principal axes of the object shown (horizontal, vertical, and depth), and are at equal angles with all of them. Because of the view of Fallout, Fallout has an isometric view.
However, if you can move the camera, you can also lock the camera in an isometric position. Wow, shocker. So isometic views are possible in a 3d environment.
Sander said:
We keep telling 'em that, but they don't get it. Shrunken brains, mebbe.
I'd like to point out that Bethesda doesn't own us a thing,
It's their call wheter to release information or not, and the fact that most dev's contradict eachother just proves that it still is a bit messy there, on top of that, things just get misinterpret, they just do, so don't pay to much attention to them for now.
That said I think that Mr.Teatime's suggestion would work best, to keep attention focussed on the elements that are imporant, but without making us all look like murderous tyrans who 'are never happy anyway.'
On the fact of 'why to buy the license?'
Of course it was a planned action, and of course they know more things then they let on, but sometimes people buy things on impulse, and it might be expansive, but hell 'it was a golden oppurtunity'. It could have happened, we don't know for sure.
Then again it's unlikely, so most likely they know more, BUT they don't have to tell us, perhaps they will just let the subject die for another year, just so the game won't get overhyped, and fails in advance.
Anyway getting more and more angry at them, won't help us at all, infact it will just work against us.
as to the Isometric thing, I LOVED how van buren was lshaping up, it looked brilliaint, so they might do something like that, one cannot tell.
So till I know more, Ill not make any conclusions.
And I suggest nobody does so either, as none of us is Omniescient.
oh well just my thoughts...
Heya everyone by the way
It's their call wheter to release information or not, and the fact that most dev's contradict eachother just proves that it still is a bit messy there, on top of that, things just get misinterpret, they just do, so don't pay to much attention to them for now.
That said I think that Mr.Teatime's suggestion would work best, to keep attention focussed on the elements that are imporant, but without making us all look like murderous tyrans who 'are never happy anyway.'
On the fact of 'why to buy the license?'
Of course it was a planned action, and of course they know more things then they let on, but sometimes people buy things on impulse, and it might be expansive, but hell 'it was a golden oppurtunity'. It could have happened, we don't know for sure.
Then again it's unlikely, so most likely they know more, BUT they don't have to tell us, perhaps they will just let the subject die for another year, just so the game won't get overhyped, and fails in advance.
Anyway getting more and more angry at them, won't help us at all, infact it will just work against us.
as to the Isometric thing, I LOVED how van buren was lshaping up, it looked brilliaint, so they might do something like that, one cannot tell.
So till I know more, Ill not make any conclusions.
And I suggest nobody does so either, as none of us is Omniescient.
oh well just my thoughts...
Heya everyone by the way
Sander said:
It wasn't clear what it was in my post you thought was just wrong (my reasoning or just extarbags' assertion), so I'll try again on a general level. My point is that if you turn to the textbook definition, a view must be isometric in relation to a system of orientation. This orientation is usually given by a tile grid: it's pretty obvious that Civ II is an isometric version of Civ. In Baldur's Gate with its pre-rendered backgrounds there are no tiles and no obvious axes. You can't take a tree or a potato and show me where the "horizontal" and "depth" axes are supposed to go. You could possibly do it with a house, but not with a group of three differently aligned houses.
Furthermore, if you look at a Fallout screenshot, you'll notice that the top edge of a map tile doesn't line up vertically on the screen with the bottom edge. Hence it's not viewed at 45 degrees with respect to the ground tiles, and so the view is not isometric according to the definition. If extarbags were still around, we should be asking him if he doesn't consider Fallout to be an isometric game.
I wasn't however trying to say Fallout is not isometric as much as saying that the definition is much too narrow to use in relation to computer games. Isometry at this time is rather what we point at when we say "look, isometric view". If we play a 3D game with a fixed camera and suddenly flip through the manual and discover the camera rotate function, we don't go, "Gee, all this time I thought I was looking at an isometric view and I really wasn't." Or at least, I wouldn't.
Sander said:
And if I point my gun at a 45 degree angle at the ground in Unreal Tournament, I've accessed the hidden isometric mode.
Technically, yeah.And if I point my gun at a 45 degree angle at the ground in Unreal Tournament, I've accessed the hidden isometric mode.
In any case, you're right. heh. The current definition of isometry in relation to video games should probably be "a viewpoint which is situated thusly that you view the field diagonally from above". Or something like that.
Sander said:Technically, yeah.
In any case, you're right. heh. The current definition of isometry in relation to video games should probably be "a viewpoint which is situated thusly that you view the field diagonally from above". Or something like that.
Should be, could be, isn't
"Game terms" tend to be used and everyone moves on, without someone taking the trouble of actually defining them. Still, there're unspoken rules as to what's what, and every now and again someone pops up and shouts really loud about "no, that not right, you should define it in another way"
Fuck it, it's hardly relevant for reality, which is another dimension than these people live in
Another description for the perspective used in Fallout 1/2 is "fixed-angle camera with free movement along two-dimensional plane".
Remove the technical constraints of 2D graphics engine, and you have "free-floating camera". "Classic" mode can lock the camera in fixed angle and two-dimensional movement plane and eliminate the "perspective" effect.
Is everyone happy now?
Remove the technical constraints of 2D graphics engine, and you have "free-floating camera". "Classic" mode can lock the camera in fixed angle and two-dimensional movement plane and eliminate the "perspective" effect.
Is everyone happy now?
For fucksake, use the example of Silent Storm. That's what everyone wants, right? I know that's what I want, then I can rotate/zoom all I want and still have it either isometric or something else..
God is Dog backwards
Mildly Dipped
APTYP said:
Kind of. If the game forced a default isometric classic view, then the game maps would be designed around that. Making the camera free form would mean the game might end up with some stupid viewing angles or missing stuff when viewed in classic mode. I like the way Warcraft 3 did it - a locked camera with some limited movement.
I'm with 2D anyway. 3D cuts off many details, and it always feels 'unnatural'. Unless you made it like Far Cry*.
Besides, everything is in 3D those days. A game in 2D would be an interesting at least.
* - But I don't think I'd like to need rig like THAT to play an RPG.
Besides, everything is in 3D those days. A game in 2D would be an interesting at least.
* - But I don't think I'd like to need rig like THAT to play an RPG.
*shows up*
There's at least one first-person turn-based tactical game. It's called Incubation.
*disappears without a trace*
There's at least one first-person turn-based tactical game. It's called Incubation.
*disappears without a trace*
Didn't it show the enemies moves from the first person? I think I remember one of my troopers getting shredded by some lizard thing after it came around a corner. Watching it from the enemies perspective was kinda wierd, but pretty cool.
Saint_Proverbius
Vault Senior Citizen
Claw is right, it's not first person. It's free camera.