There's more to Fallout than its engine.

Nyarlathotep said:
Silly man :D

Doom, Wolfenstein and Duke Nukem 3D were actually 2.5D games. I don't know the technicalities, but basically you could not have one room on top of the other (unless the engine cheated).
Click to expand...

Quite true. :)

However, this also assumes that the military, universities, and independent companies weren't working on 3D engines at that time or before, either. Technically, unless you mean an engine that is capable of full modern 3D rendering, lens flares, physics and all that, Spasim in 1974 (not to be confused with NASA's SPASIM), on PLATO, was the first multiplayer game (with up to 32 players) with a 3D engine. ;) As for the first game with a real 3D engine, I'm too lazy after this to look it up. I would just like to note that even then, the Lowest Common Denominator still had appeal over good design, but the author did change the game from what made people play it.
 
I'm curious as to why isometric seems to be a demand for FO3 in the FO community. Is this because you actually mean third-person from about 10 meters distance(at a fixed angle) or do you actually mean isometric? Most of the other demands I understand and agree with(e.g. s.p.e.c.i.a.l., turnbased).
Personally I'd like to see it 3rd-person the way they did in the new UFO game, with the ability to rotate the camera(don't take anything else from that game though...) as one of the few irritating things for me in FO/FO2 has been when I can't see what the main char can see due to obstracting walls.

Note: this is no flamebait or troll, just that I've seen the same demand a few times and I'm curious. One explanation could be that the word means more than one thing, and if so I'm curious which meaning it is ;)
 
Doow said:
I'm curious as to why isometric seems to be a demand for FO3 in the FO community. Is this because you actually mean third-person from about 10 meters distance(at a fixed angle) or do you actually mean isometric? Most of the other demands I understand and agree with(e.g. s.p.e.c.i.a.l., turnbased).
Click to expand...
Thank god someone finally brought this up, since noone thought about it before. :roll:


Well, In dubio pro reo or something. Most people wouldn't insist on real isometric, since that's 2D. I doubt many would insist on a fixed angle, after all many fans were looking forward to Van Buren which would have had a rotating camera if I am not very mistaken.

However, there is concern that the view will be changed completely, and force us to play the game in a specific manner than, as most games do. Also, there is the fear that even a compromise would affect gameplay negatively.
And in some cases, different is negative enough, although more subsential arguments have been brought up, and you should be able to find them on this forum if you search for it.
 
Hehe, sorry if it's been debated millions of times before, I've just seen the "we want ISOMETRIC!!!1!!eleven!!!!!!!!!111!1" part.

Your answer was helpful though and I won't bug you more about it. (well maybe in one of those designated threads if I can add something that isn't already there)
 
My hope is they do a good job on the intros (along with everything else) and also acquire Ron Perlman for the narrator like FO and FO2. Of all the intros I've ever watch, FO and FO2's were the best because of his voice.

On a side note, I didn't think Morrowind was great. Sure the graphics were exceptional but after playing the game for a week, I couldn't remember what the story was ahd a large part of the game was just spend running to places and battling those anoying pteradactyls. As stated earlier in this thread, the dialogue was bland and it seemed I was interagating everyone. Just like in sports, some players have "it" or don't, Morrowind just didn't seem to have "it".
 
what makes fallout great IS its engine, its viewpoint, its turn based combat - its what Fallout is and why it is liked for what it is, trying to turn it into anything else is just going to ruin it - try and find another game this old that still has an active following let alone a following this dedicated if they can't see that they are blind, stupid or both
 
The engine is irrevelint.

Look at the VB screen caps.

It was 3D, but still had that FO 'look'.


However the general interface and topdown viewpoint is a must.
 
ok mr. IRRELEVANT you totally missed the entire fucking point, reach down between your legs and pull on your shoulders until you hear a popping noise, so with your thinking we could copy and paste Fallout's GUI and put it on a fucking chess game and you would buy it because it had a topdown viewpoint goddamn! were you born stupid or just perfect it?
 
RogueStar said:
ok mr. IRRELEVANT you totally missed the entire fucking point, reach down between your legs and pull on your shoulders until you hear a popping noise, so with your thinking we could copy and paste Fallout's GUI and put it on a fucking chess game and you would buy it because it had a topdown viewpoint goddamn! were you born stupid or just perfect it?
Click to expand...

Uhm... . You, Sir, are a moron.

The ENGINE is indeed irrelevant. IanOut and that German Fallout-esque engine project are different, although similar, ENGINES which are capable of doing (mostly) the same as the Fallout engine(s).

Van Buren was apparently going to be capable of doing the same things, despite the totally new graphics part of the engine. However that didn't matter because the looks were quite similar to those archieved by the original engines with Tiles.

Please consider that the poly-count and effects used in the 3D programs used to generate the tiles and frames for Fallout are quite prehistoric compared to what some modern engines are capable of doing in REAL-TIME.
If done right, an almost identical, yet 3D, look could be archieved -- and VB was quite close to doing that.

Game mechanics like Turn-Based combat, the viewpoint and SPECIAL are important. Yet they are not engine dependant (well, the engine should be built for them, but it's not like you can't build a new engine which does all these things and is NOT 2D).
 
Great! Let's insult everyone who doesn't hold to the belief that, in the year 1999, the messiah shall return and Black Isle shall arise from the ashes, to reskin Fallout 2 to create a Fallout 3 to rule the holy land with a rod of iron for a thousand years, and yada yada yada.

We're having a discussion about the key elements of what made Fallout "fallout". I recently rewatched the Fallout intro for my viewing pleasure (Yes, I have no life), and I think that the 30-second sound bite there contained the very essence of Fallout.

But I also think that we can't noticeably change the situation we're in right now. We need to make the best of it, and where we will start is by coming together to discuss Fallout in a meaningful way so that we can deliver a clean and coherent pitch to Bethesda about how we, the fanbase, want the game to be made.

This may not be a uniform pitch. This may be many pitches. But never should this pitch be marred by flaming, ignorance or general spitefulness.

Regards,
Dibujante
 
Since Bethesda is doing it, you can pretty much guarantee that it's going to be first person. But.....it doesn't 'have' to be horrible. I just whipped up a picture to show how they 'could' do first person without destroying turn-based, targeted combat:

http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/josefgagnier/images/F3example.JPG


This is all considering it's turn-based (man, I hope it is).

For a targeted shot like the picture shows, you point your "crosshairs" (really just a cursor though) to the point on the body you want to shoot. If it was a non-targeted shot, you'd just click anywhere on the guy and it would calculate how Fallout already does it.

For the moving around aspect of it, it could kind of be like the Wizardry VIII way of moving, except that you don't lose AP points if you decide to backtrack in one turn. The farther you move from where you are when the you started the turn, the more AP you use up (like in the originals, but instead of a number next to a hex indicating how much it will take, you can just see the AP go up and down in "real-time" when you're moving around, figuring out where to stay put for that turn). I would assume that an invisible grid of some sort would be there to determine how many AP's you use up.

Since you're never directly controlling a party in Fallout, your NPC allies could just determine range, movement, weapons, and AP's, and move on their own. I suppose you could bark orders too, but that's their call.

Let me state that I really, really wish and hope that Bethesda does not stray from the successful model that we fans have come to enjoy. But since they probably are, let's just hope for the best.

Also, that picture sucks, I know, but I just thought I'd throw it out there.
 
Mixnmojo said:
F3example.JPG


Also, that picture sucks, I know, but I just thought I'd throw it out there.
Click to expand...

Yes, picture sucks...

Link does not work properly.
 
Mixnmojo said:
Right-click, Save Target As.......
Click to expand...

That doesn't change anything AT ALL.

Angelfire does not permit direct linking to pictures. HOW you access those pictures doesn't make a difference.
 
I'd swallow a first-person engine with a slickly integrated targetted-shot system.

However, I'm willing to vascillate on turn-based, too. I find that turn-based complements the Fallout system mostly for its ability to handle called shots really, really well. If it were really easy, in this engine, to direct a called shot at a target in real-time, I wouldn't shed too many tears over the departure of turn-based. Sure, you don't have as much time to plan maneouvres, but I won't miss that.
 
Ashmo said:
That doesn't change anything AT ALL.

Angelfire does not permit direct linking to pictures. HOW you access those pictures doesn't make a difference.
Click to expand...
Worked for me.
What you can also try is copy&paste the link into the browser's adress line.

Something funny I just noticed is that the picture shows up correctly in alec's post when viewed in the "Topic review" on the "Post Reply" page. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top