Sacrifice Isometric or Turn-Based?

[UniversalWolf]

Suppose a development group with skill and a measure of integrity was making a new Fallout sequel. Would you find it more acceptable to abandon isometric view (assuming isometric view was not replaced by first-person perspective), or turn-based combat?

The reason I ask is because I was just playing the Tomb Raider Anniversary demo, and I really liked it's viewing perspective - essentially a third-person camera not locked onto the back of Lara's head. Not only can you look all around the environment at any time, but climbing, jumping, and swimming are all far more authentic-seeming than you get with FPP (though admittedly, Lara Croft has superhuman abilities).

I started thinking that if some one clever could figure out a way to incorporate an intricate turn-based combat system and multiple party members (and maybe SPECIAL, or GURPS) with that sort of game control, you'd have the makings of a potentially outstanding CRPG.

In that event, I would be willing to sacrifice isometric view.

 

[MrBumble]

I don't know but turn based AND first person perspective would certainly suck.

 

[xdarkyrex]

I don't know but turn based AND first person perspective would certainly suck.

I actually enjoy turn basd and fpp.

 

[Brother None]

Suppose a development group with skill and a measure of integrity was making a new Fallout sequel. Would you find it more acceptable to abandon isometric view (assuming isometric view was not replaced by first-person perspective), or turn-based combat?

Van Buren had a rotating camera - so not strictly "isometric" but "bird's eye" instead, but nobody actually wants strictly isometric - and TB/RT. It was fine, though TB/RT tends to be unbalanced.

That said, I'd toss the perspective for a free camera. I think the best camerawork in RPGs is in those RPGs that don't feel bound to one perspective. The most noticeable of these is Realms of Arkania: it's first-person when you're in town or exploring dungeons, it has a map view for travelling and it switches to isometric for combat.

That'd work ideally for a Fallout 3: just let someone use a free camera if he wants to and if he prefers he can always look at his character's butt, or let him use settings like "first person when exploring, isometric when in combat" or if he prefers "always isometric" or "always first person"

 

[xdarkyrex]

Indeed, games ought to have more camera options, especially games that have a free rotating third person camera. The issue comes in though when you think about the fact that gameplay has to be modified between effective third person and first person and all the other views. Also, in games that have first person, objects tend to rely on fine detail, and when you get the free camera too far up it then requires a new level of rendering and lighting detail to preserve processor speeds, so likely they will have to do LOTS of modification work and waste man hours debugging games in many different views and even potentially have to create multiple models for use in different views (think how the oblivion landscape looked from far away).

The technical and cost issues are there for sure, and it also creates more potential bugs and certian views may make a game feel unbalanced.

Is it really cost effective to add that in?

 

[Sander]

That'd work ideally for a Fallout 3: just let someone use a free camera if he wants to and if he prefers he can always look at his character's butt, or let him use settings like "first person when exploring, isometric when in combat" or if he prefers "always isometric" or "always first person"

This is pretty interesting, but causes severe interface and gameplay problems. Of course, if they can work around that, all the better.

 

[Tagaziel]

Borderline related to the topic:

Morrowind would be a much better game if it had the possibility to use an isometric camera, with free rotation. Looked much better that way.

 

[monsharen]

I did not like the rotating camera in Van Buren, but of course that was an early version and all that. I felt I needed to rotate the camera all the time to avoid missing important things, and to me, that's a new aspect that adds or takes from the gameplay. I liked fallouts static camera and how the game was designed from that perspective. It gave me more space to concentrate on what happened in front of me instead of looking for what could be happening around me. The static camera gave a good and clean overview.

I'm not a hardcore strategist. (no I did not really write fuckhead but yeah)

 

[Per]

Sacrifice was shoulder-cam and real-time, not isometric and turn-based.

 

[UniversalWolf]

Free camera is a fine idea, but wouldn't it be hard to hide things? If there were a molerat around the next corner, couldn't you just wheel the camera up ahead and peek?

I guess the thing I like about the camera in the new Tomb Raider is that you can look all around the PC while dispensing with the stupid illusion of the view being linked to the character's eyes, head, or facing. It's intentionally designed to allow vertical space and movement within the game world - something absent in isometric and hamstrung in FPP. It synthesizes the real-wold ability to look at what is around you (without going beyond that ability) better than anything else I've seen (though admittedly I'm not a huge gamer). Vastly better than FPP, in any case.

If a CRPG were designed from the beginning with that sort of control in mind, it would really open up possibilities for utilizing the full depth of a skill system. Climing, swimming, and jumping would actually have meaning. The system would have to account for trying to shoot a gun at a target behind cover while clinging to a narrow ledge, and situations of similar complexity.

Just got my mind working, thinking what an interesting RPG could result from an integration of a turn-based system into the newest 3D technology...if it were done correctly.

 

[Sorrow]

I did not like the rotating camera in Van Buren, but of course that was an early version and all that. I felt I needed to rotate the camera all the time to avoid missing important things, and to me, that's a new aspect that adds or takes from the gameplay. I liked fallouts static camera and how the game was designed from that perspective. It gave me more space to concentrate on what happened in front of me instead of looking for what could be happening around me. The static camera gave a good and clean overview.

Same here. After all, Fallout is a cRPG, not a camera drone simulator. In all cRPGs and tactical games I felt that rotating the camera was a chore. Also, I don't like the sensation of hanging above the scene instead looking at it like at a comic book or image in Fallout or Baldur's Gate.

The only game in which I actually enjoyed the rotating camera was Syndicate Wars, but it was because the camera actually fit the game's mood.

 

[SuAside]

Free camera is a fine idea, but wouldn't it be hard to hide things? If there were a molerat around the next corner, couldn't you just wheel the camera up ahead and peek?

FO didnt hide anything.

 

[xdarkyrex]

Free camera is a fine idea, but wouldn't it be hard to hide things? If there were a molerat around the next corner, couldn't you just wheel the camera up ahead and peek?

FO didnt hide anything.

And that didn't add to the game, infact it detracted from it.
Fallout would have been better with a fog of war and unknown mapspace.

 

[SuAside]

that's more a matter of taste really. both have their pros and cons. largely depends on where you want to go with the game.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

I'd prefer a free camera than real time combat.

Although free cameras can be bloody annoying some times, real time combat in rpgs tends to suck balls. Hot sweaty, salty ones at that.

Really though it depends on the type of game. Party based games just have to be turn based, I have not found a single real time party based game that had decent combat, or more importantly decent companion ai.

On the other hand a solo real time game can be fun though again that depends on whether the skills are player based as in VTMB & Mass Effect. If they are then you shouldn't be penalised just because it's the start of the game. Look at Mass Effect, your character is meant to be a Commander in the military yet can barely hit the side of a barn at the start of the game. Why not make progress give you new abilities and combos (alright hard to do in a shooter) rather than remove handicaps?

As for non player skill based real time rpgs your character should have no ai. The ability to hit and dodge etc might be down to your character's build but every decision should be down to you. It's so bloody annoying when your character spots an enemy and runs off through a minefield of traps while your concentration is elsewhere.

Having said all that free cameras can be a real pain. Those that use mouse turning at the edge of the screen tend to be far too sensitive and spin wildly, especially when standing in door ways, or tall buildings and other objects can get in the way. But the worst thing is, as soon as you find a decent angle to play the game from something (scripted event, high object/low roof, dialogue) will happen and change the camera view, so you'll have to start all over again.

Bah humbug, sod it nothing beats tb and iso.

 

[Sorrow]

And that didn't add to the game, infact it detracted from it.
Fallout would have been better with a fog of war and unknown mapspace.

In fact, Fallout had unknown mapspace... on automaps.
I agree on FoW though. As long as it offers a decent field of view (i.e. not 188 meters radius like in Baldur's Gate).