Staying true to Fallout

[Claw]

I don't understand why you people cause so much fuss over a trivial thing like perspective.

If this debate should have shown anything than how much difference a different perspective makes.

Perspective is probably the least relevant aspect of a role playing game and with a 3D engine, it's possible to implement any point of view you might desire.

Disagree. There are many things based on perspective - the level of detail and performance, for instance. The more intimate the perspective, the more detail is necessary. A Morrowind with overhead perspective could probably have been designed with a far better performance. I might not have had to endure loading screens if not for entering or leaving buildings or similar.

While any perspective can be implemented in a 3D engine, the main perspective the game is designed for is relevant I believe. The same goes for combat btw. *cough*FOT*cough*

What we should cause fuss about is the combat system - if it's not turn-based, it will significantly impair the game mechanics.

Yes. Of course, can you truly imagine turnbased combat in FP? If they decide to make it FP, they may easily decide to stick to RT as well. You know, what they are good at.

I don't believe you can really consider these elements independently like that.

As I see it, there are two basic approaches they could take to develop FO3. Either they take the original design as starting point and think about how to improve on that and recreate the style with modern tech - which could, for instance, lead to a Fallout similar to VB, with a moveable camera, and even an optional FP mode - or they start thinking with their trademark design as base, and try to reinvent Fallout from there. Which might lead to a game like Morrowind, with RT combat and an optional 3rd person view with limited usefulness.
I believe the core concept is very important to the execution. Look at Dungeon Keeper for instance. Sure, there was a FP mode, but you couldn't really play that way; it was only a gimmick. I don't want RB combat or 3rd person perspective as gimmicks. I want the game to be designed around that.

I rather doubt that they are gonna behave like children and say "Now we screw them over" because of the hassle. The extremist attitude stirred up some dust, which is now settling and the reasonable discusstion can begin. But we made out point clear: Fallout must be Fallout. We don't like experiments, we want it close to the original.

 

[Hirle]

It works in BG and KotOR because what you do there is slap the best equipment you have on your characters, send them into the fray and watch the proceedings.

not true, maybe for KoTOR (in which the combat was very bad imo), but not for BG. There was definitely a tactical aspect to BG, keeping your casters out of harms way, defending them with you melee guys, casting the right spell at the right moment. All of which would have been impossible with a full RT system. BG was definitely no select, press attack and watch game.

In KoTOR the pause option was only used to select a new target (because of the lame controls doing that in full RT would cost rounds) and maybe to use a heal item in cobat once or twice... but then again, i never finished KoTOR so i might have missed some stuff.

Fallout simply shouldn't, mustn't be like that, hence TB.

agreed, hence

oh and besides, it IS the only way to go for FO3....

 

[Lady Ronin]

So what is the general concensus?

I don't know Bethesda well enough... to be honest... I read all that stuff on the board when the announcement was made... the ever growing post..

People obviously have clearer heads now.

The thing is... I don't see why Bethesda could not take FO... and if they stay true to it.. make it better.

I honestly don't care if there is an option for first person, I repeat OPTION... So long as iso is the default, because I want iso dammit, just like I want SPECIAL, just like I want TB.

The thing is, I want the same fun I got from FO EVERY TIME I PLAY IT. I had fun because of the story... the discovering things... finding new things every time I played... the ability to be just about any type of character... not JUST a warrior... not JUST a thief... not JUST a diplomat... but the ability to create a character that can be a little of all. And you really don't have to be just good... or just evil... you could be a little of both... I like that... a lot.

What I'd like for improvements?... I want to change the look of my little character running around the screen.. make her more mine.... a little more {not total} control over anyone who joins my party... and updated... without losing the charm, style and distinctiveness that is Fallout.

So what I am asking... is now that the dust is settling... Now that Peter has recently said what he's said... what do you think?... Will Bethesda deliver?... Or will FO3 be like what FO:BOS is to me.... something I will buy ONLY when I am TOTALLY desperate for something Fallout... and the price tag is only $9.99?

 

[Jabbapop]

i think one of the things is that when you think of first person it implies some kind of twitch shooter interface, where you have to aim at the character and repeatedly click to execute attacks. can you imagine a first person turn based interface? would moving the mouse pointer be like some kind of mouselook, or will it merely be moving the cursor to allow you to click on the target of your action?

 

[Bradylama]

Its been awhile since I played FFX so I don't remember the finer points of the system. But how wasn't it turn based?

I haven't played KOTOR either, so how exactly does the combat operate? Is it phase based?

EDIT: Nevermind. The last post I saw was J.E.'s, so I didn't think the thread would reach 3 pages in 10 minutes.

 

[Per]

There was definitely a tactical aspect to BG, keeping your casters out of harms way, defending them with you melee guys, casting the right spell at the right moment.

Yes, spellcasting added an extra dimension (and enemy spellcasters were always the most annoying enemies ).

but then again, i never finished KoTOR so i might have missed some stuff.

I viewed both endings with the same character, since it only depends on a single dialogue choice and nothing that's gone before. Now that is lame.

Fallout simply shouldn't, mustn't be like that, hence TB.

agreed, hence

oh and besides, it IS the only way to go for FO3....

OK. (As your last post was written, "it" could really only refer to TB-with-pause.)

 

[N]

There was certainly room for some tweaks and changes to it, but the best implementation of TB I've played with in QUITE a long time was in Silent Storm. I can only imagine a game with that engine, that amount of destructibility, and TB combat options (moreso?), but with the RPG elements (character, story, etc) of Fallout(2).

 

[Grey_Ghost]

There was definitely a tactical aspect to BG, keeping your casters out of harms way, defending them with you melee guys, casting the right spell at the right moment. All of which would have been impossible with a full RT system. BG was definitely no select, press attack and watch game.

That reminds me...I don't wan't full control over NPC's that join me. I'm fine with managing their equipment like F1/2, but they should be smart enough to handle combat on their own. That is not to say through some sort of leadership skill it could be possible to coordinate in different ways. Depends on how advanced the combat will be (stances etc.)

Grey_Ghost

 

[BlueNinja]

Look at Dungeon Keeper for instance. Sure, there was a FP mode, but you couldn't really play that way; it was only a gimmick.

<tangent>Since I'm in the middle of playing Dungeon Keeper 2 right now, I disagree; going into FP mode by possessing a creature is simply the most efficient way to explore and slaughter enemy creatures for the lowest cost.</tangent>

I don't wan't full control over NPC's that join me. I'm fine with managing their equipment like F1/2, but they should be smart enough to handle combat on their own. That is not to say through some sort of leadership skill it could be possible to coordinate in different ways. Depends on how advanced the combat will be (stances etc.)

The way NPCs were handled in FO2 was good, though a little more control over combat would be nice. You know, so that Marcus will shot with a plasma rifle when he has a clear shot, but not with the Bozar when Sulik and Cassidy are standing right in front of him. (Marcus has critically hit Sulik for 496 points of damage. Marcus has critically hit Cassidy for 264 points of damage. Marcus has hit Tough Alien for 2 points of damage.)

 

[Koki]

Re: So what is the general concensus?

The thing is... I don't see why Bethesda could not take FO... and if they stay true to it.. make it better.

Even if they would say that they will make it TB, with isometric, 2D graphic, with SPECIAL, and in the same universe that fits the story, I would STILL be worried. Because it's not (former)Black Isle.

Besides, is there anybody from the creators of FO in the Bethseda developers team?

 

[Odin]

Re: So what is the general concensus?

Besides, is there anybody from the creators of FO in the Bethseda developers team?

I really don't consider that a criteria, but with that said I expect them to understand the Fallout universe because if they don't then it will be FUBAR. It just doesn't cut it to make a game post apocalyptic and include various vehicles that would gulp down oil like a sheik on viagra (fot anyone), they need to grasp the entire world and thus make it stick to the former games (I'd prefer game tho.. Fallout 1).

 

[PsychoSniper]

I think that it should have the general look of FO 1/2 regardless of 3D or not, they should make the game be very similar to the prequels, but add new options like item creation that were planned for VanBuren.

That, and improve the AI, so you dont have things like NPCs bursting into eachother.

 

[Jabbapop]

I think that it should have the general look of FO 1/2 regardless of 3D or not, they should make the game be very similar to the prequels, but add new options like item creation that were planned for VanBuren.

That, and improve the AI, so you dont have things like NPCs bursting into eachother.

now we're just being repetitive.

 

[Roshambo]

One of the things that was discussed between myself and a few friend developers is that I write up a series of topic pages that the fans deem worthy of adhering to, and why. This will relate to the developers what we consider to be important, how it should be done in spirit of the previous Fallout games, and perhaps improvements to the existing system that would add to the experience and not remove from it. These will be stickied on the Fo3 forum.

I had a long e-mail I was going to send to some people at Bethesda, to establish contact through that channel, but I believe this would be a more helpful thing and Odin is better with e-mail relay than I am. That doesn't mean I won't talk with the developers as "Rosh", but I will do my best to steer them onto the right course through critique and explanation.

Topic suggestions are welcome, PM them to me, please. Expect the first one either later tonight or tomorrow. This will also be good to use as a reference for items, and I will also debunk a few myths on the way.

 

[Adz]

I'd like to see an option where you can choose where to camera is.

For example, press F2 and the camera would move to behind the players back, F3 and it's first person or F4 and it locks it to a view above the players head and gives the player the view of the traditional fallouts (and maybe the option to rotate the view)

 

[SimpleMinded]

- will NOT make F3 T-Based, because there's little chance they would sell more than two copies of a TBased game to people who haven't already fallen in love with TBased games, (here: Fallout(s)), and if they make a Real-time game Fallout fans will buy it anyway,

Keep in mind: Turn based console games do suprisingly well (Disgaea, Final Fantasy Tactics)

If they plan on a console release, that might factor in.

*Disclaimer... that's only a guess

I thought those games really only sold well to a niche group? And by selling well, they actually moved lotsa units or for (what i'm assuming to be budget titles) sold enough units that they churn profits.

 

[Bradylama]

Disgaea was a huge success, actually. Store owners thought that it wouldn't sell very well, so their inventories were understocked. The game's quality was spread quite literally, by word of mouth, and people bought it up. They've had to re-release it because you can't find it anywhere.

 

[jaberwocki]

those actually had a limited release, so some people equate hard to find and fun= successful.

 

[Razorwolf]

Hi everyone, I'm glad my interview started some discussion.
Too bad most of our site is in Dutch, so you can't really enjoy the rest of it .

 

[NgInE]

but in KOTOR it was possible to pause at the end of each turn so...what doesn't make it turn-based then?