quietfanatic
Ancient One
Firstly, the lack of emphasis on dialogue is extremely disturbing. You’d think a proper conversation with well written dialogue would seem like an obvious sample to show off to the press for a real Fallout sequel, but then I haven’t seen the article.
The gimmicky background stuff is uninteresting, although the loss of skills is worrying. DNA sequencing etc. wasn’t invented yet back in the 50’s, but the alternative/diverging timeline and FEV discussion partially justifies using such things. There are genetic disorders that can lead to the wrong sex vs genotype, but RPG’s don’t usually cover rare developmental abnormalities. Reflection in the father figure suggests less choice for av and age, although they could get by with only a few possibilities and have annoying Spiderman-style father conscience/flashbacks. Using standardised testing for abstract skills is also a laughable gimmick.
On combat/viewpoint, here is my speculative interpretation. It seems to me that you can toggle between FP and 3rd person (being able to snap closer to isometric would be a nice touch). As it is based on S.P.E.C.I.A.L. you would click on an enemy and hit or miss based on character skill (or hit nothing if attacking empty space). The ‘bullet time’ interpretation seems silly to me as targeted shots would have reduced accuracy anyway and there would be no other magical way of causing extra damage, as well as this jarring with the game supposedly being about RP rather than player skill (and not an anti-unco FPS feature) and detailed combat mechanics. The article and/or the transcription is the problem here. Targeting in RT for the player might be locked on a particular location as in Tactics. When you enter V.A.T.S. your turn is similar to the original Fallouts, but the non-PC side moves in RT. I would assume you can leave it at any time, playing in CTB with regenerating AP’s similar to Tactics, needed for optional switching between the two modes.
The gimmicky background stuff is uninteresting, although the loss of skills is worrying. DNA sequencing etc. wasn’t invented yet back in the 50’s, but the alternative/diverging timeline and FEV discussion partially justifies using such things. There are genetic disorders that can lead to the wrong sex vs genotype, but RPG’s don’t usually cover rare developmental abnormalities. Reflection in the father figure suggests less choice for av and age, although they could get by with only a few possibilities and have annoying Spiderman-style father conscience/flashbacks. Using standardised testing for abstract skills is also a laughable gimmick.
On combat/viewpoint, here is my speculative interpretation. It seems to me that you can toggle between FP and 3rd person (being able to snap closer to isometric would be a nice touch). As it is based on S.P.E.C.I.A.L. you would click on an enemy and hit or miss based on character skill (or hit nothing if attacking empty space). The ‘bullet time’ interpretation seems silly to me as targeted shots would have reduced accuracy anyway and there would be no other magical way of causing extra damage, as well as this jarring with the game supposedly being about RP rather than player skill (and not an anti-unco FPS feature) and detailed combat mechanics. The article and/or the transcription is the problem here. Targeting in RT for the player might be locked on a particular location as in Tactics. When you enter V.A.T.S. your turn is similar to the original Fallouts, but the non-PC side moves in RT. I would assume you can leave it at any time, playing in CTB with regenerating AP’s similar to Tactics, needed for optional switching between the two modes.
