Staying true to Fallout

[Roshambo]

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

Just because the unit of time is called a "turn", that doesn't mean that you take turns when your character(s) act(s) simultaneously with everyone else.

 

[Claw]

I write up a series of topic pages that the fans deem worthy of adhering to, and why. (...) These will be stickied on the Fo3 forum.

Topic suggestions are welcome, PM them to me, please.

Hmm, how about starting the thread with a summary the suggested topics?
That'd give us a little to think about, maybe and avoids suggesting the same thing over and over.

 

[Briosafreak]

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 .

Welcome razorwolf, nice interview

 

[Egis]

The worst part is i dont believe it will look like the fallout we all love just the name that we are used to.I mean i remember the jokes, the frases thath was heaven...I come to kick ass and chew gum and im all out of gum.Thats wath im talking about :!:

 

[slechy]

I believe they will try their best to satisfy the Fallout community... If not Pete wouldn't have said

I don't think we could make a great game without staying true to Fallout.

PS: this interview wasn't about Fallout 3 alone.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Yes, he talked about Call of Cthulhu too. Awsome new spiffing information there

 

[zetabobster]

Has anyone here sent them our holy text(that would be the fallout bible)

I'm actually basically fine with me as long as they keep true to the fallout story(things r not always as they seem). They also need to keep SPECIAL but I have no clue how they will do that when they use first person perspective, with RT, without doing someclumsy targeting interface like in POS

 

[God is Dog backwards]

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/r/?page=http://www.computerandvideogames.com/news/news_story.php(que)id=107079

Another interview with the PR guy.

More things to worry about - he mentions the special system as being great about fallout, but no mention of the combat or viewpoint.
And then he goes on to compare MW and FO...... .....

 

[Hirle]

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.)

Hahaha, what the... now that i read it again... yeah, "it" could only refer to RT-with-pause (I take it thats what you ment). However I ment "it" to refer to pure TB... and in my head it did Dont know what I was thinking, that was pretty much retarded, sorry for the confusion.

So what i wanted to say (although that wasnt quite what i actually said) was basically, "although RT-with-pause worked for BG, turnbased IS the way to go for FO3".

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.)

Agreed, having full control over your party takes away from the role playing (you're not playing a role but a party) and might take away from the personality of the NPC, cause they now cant have a personality of their own during battle cause their actions are chosen by you.

 

[NgInE]

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

Just because the unit of time is called a "turn", that doesn't mean that you take turns when your character(s) act(s) simultaneously with everyone else.

er...isn't KOTOR based on the D&D D20 system? because i don't think that you were reacting simultaneously with the rest of the characters. if you gave the command to attack, it would sometimes take a while to do so, because a other character was still in his/her turn. and that's the D&D rules: the higher some of your stats are (i thought DEX) the sooner you may attack.

 

[Jabbapop]

not to be repetitive, but no one has responded to my comment that i think it would be impossible to have a turn based game from the firs person perspective, as i think the interface would prevent it. has any game attempted this?

 

[Bradylama]

At least this time when he talked about KOTOR he focused on the moral aspects of it. Something that wasn't touched upon too well in Fallout.

Sure you could've been evil, but in Fallout there were no significant drawbacks, and in Fallout 2 the Bounty Hunters actually net you good stuff fairly early on. Until, of course, later when they're in power armors and wielding railguns.

The primary problem, though, is that NPCs didn't seem to be too inclined to react to your karma rating as one would normally suspect. Sure, some of them show a certain reaction, but not enough.

What would really aid the moral roleplay was if there was a good and evil way to complete every quest, and that regardless of which way you did it, you'd still get the same amount of XP for it. Sort of like Planescape: Torment.

 

[pulp]

not to be repetitive, but no one has responded to my comment that i think it would be impossible to have a turn based game from the firs person perspective, as i think the interface would prevent it. has any game attempted this?

i don't remember any (but you shouldn't really rely on my answer; i don't know that many FP games - never liked them).

FP with TB would be pointless. it appears the FP perspective would be to increase the level of claustrophobia (therefore increasing tension, expectation of danger of the horizon etc etc) while the limited scope of vision means you don't really know what's coming at you - or rather, what else is coming at you. TB would destroy the first aspect, whilst render the second really quite lame.

a personal opinion, but i think it's only with the isometric view that you allow artists to really fully flesh out the feel of desolation (or etc) in a particular game/area etc. it's more than particularly important in fallout, i suppose, because we're dealing with a setting that, essentially, no one has really experienced. there isn't anything particularly exciting about strolling through a forest of sprites and blocky 3D objects...[/i]

 

[NgInE]

for some reason, i've never, ever, played as an evil character in any RPG....i wonder why...

 

[Stevie D]

not to be repetitive, but no one has responded to my comment that i think it would be impossible to have a turn based game from the firs person perspective, as i think the interface would prevent it. has any game attempted this?

That's a damn good point, actually. If we can wring a confession out of Bethesda that they're going with TB, it's fairly safe to assume from that that FP is out of the question, too.

 

[SuAside]

no one replied because that is pretty obvious...

 

[Hirle]

not to be repetitive, but no one has responded to my comment that i think it would be impossible to have a turn based game from the firs person perspective, as i think the interface would prevent it. has any game attempted this?

Cant think of any game that did. But i dont think i'd be impossible even with standard FPS controls it'd be possible. Just give every action its own AP cost let every character use their APs one by one turn by turn and you'd be there.

There'd sure be problems a-plenty though. First, in most turn based games its important to be able to keep track of the whole situation ie. see whats going on. In FP you cant. Of course they could make looking around free (cost no AP). But with a tradional TB-perspective you'd still be able to see more of the situation. One could view that as added realism, but that realism would still be destroyed by the TB (and then again, who cares about realism). Secondly, In TB its important to be precise, in FP with standard FP controls, you cant be precise. Sure, they could add a grid on the ground so can see where you're walking and how many AP its gonna cost and make some KoTOR like system to to lock on enemies when selecting one to attack. Or make the controls click based (like in a tradional TB game only from FP perspective). But that all gonna make the game feel really weird. And would also take away from the realism (that is the reason they probably implented FP in the first place.

And besides what good would it do, FP is ment to give you the impression it's you walking in the game, TB would immediately destroy that impression. TB is ment to make the world a bit more abstract to make the combat more tactical, in tactical combat its important to see the whole picture of what is going on. FP would destroy that.

 

[APTYP]

"Incubation" had first-person cam. Can't say it was spectacular.

You can come up with ways to make it work, I'm sure. But it sure as hell won't look anything like we've seen before.

 

[Araanor]

The primary problem, though, is that NPCs didn't seem to be too inclined to react to your karma rating as one would normally suspect. Sure, some of them show a certain reaction, but not enough.

There's no reason why a random stranger would be able to see your 'karma' and divine if you're 'good' or 'evil'. I think it's one thing if your reputation preceded you (say, a further development of the town-specific reputation from FO2) but more than that would be stretching it.

What would really aid the moral roleplay was if there was a good and evil way to complete every quest, and that regardless of which way you did it, you'd still get the same amount of XP for it. Sort of like Planescape: Torment.

I don't like the sound of boxing in solutions as either 'good' or 'evil'. Solutions should make sense and allow as varied ways of going at it as possible. Some ways could be moral, some less moral and others what you would call neutral.

 

[Odin]

One thing that I liked about Van Buren was the ability to command the CNPCs (presuasion), JES come in here and talk about that..