What defines 'Fallout' for you?

[DarkCorp]

1. Choice and Consequence

2. Dialogue/Story

3. Ambient Music

4. PNP RPG

5. Post-Apoc

6. Freedom

 

[Wintermind]

So all that fallout means to you a is that it's a turn based RPG with an isometric view? Wow.

Not all that it means to me but the most important aspect, after all it is just a game. In this day and age when virtually everything game is first person or real time and post apocalypse settings are becoming the new WW2 it's what makes it stand out from the crowd.

Still, what about the choices? The consequences? I just don't get how the camera angle stands out above that?

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Still, what about the choices? The consequences? I just don't get how the camera angle stands out above that?

Because Surf Solar said six words. When someone says Roleplaying game, on these forums at least, choice and consequences would be taken as read. Plus as discussed in the FNV forum isometric is what makes half the mechanics work, they are quite immersion breaking in first/third person.

 

[tiagop]

Still, what about the choices? The consequences? I just don't get how the camera angle stands out above that?

Because Surf Solar said six words. When someone says Roleplaying game, on these forums at least, choice and consequences would be taken as read. Plus as discussed in the FNV forum isometric is what makes half the mechanics work, they are quite immersion breaking in first/third person.

Not all RPG's have choice and consequence but I understand your point of view and I defend the isometric graphics too, simply because I think that Fallout 3 and New Vegas would be a LOT better with isometric graphics (updated of course, like Van Buren). We all have our ways to see a perfect game

 

[Wintermind]

Fallout three is beyond help. I still fail to see how an an isometric camera angle would make such a difference, but not being made in gamebyro would be far better to start with.

 

[tiagop]

Fallout three is beyond help. I still fail to see how an an isometric camera angle would make such a difference, but not being made in gamebyro would be far better to start with.

Isometric view is what defines Fallout, it's what should've been with FO3, because it's more immersive and I prefer it over the first person in Fallout 3

 

[Walpknut]

Isometric is not what defines Fallout, I think there are other far more important elements to the game that make it what it is. The camera angle is not what makes it immersive, is the world, the mecanics, the siatuations and experiences you go thru it.

 

[Courier]

New Vegas turned out decent and it wasn't isometric. Camera angle does not make or break a game.

 

[shihonage]

The camera angle is far more important than most think.

___________

Like most other choices in Fallout's design, the isometric view was there on purpose. This is why Van Buren also had a similar viewpoint.

Similarly to Star Trek TNG episode, where each new planet is presented as nothing more than a village, Fallout presents its world as a bit of an abstraction as well.

In Fallout's world, a few people and a few houses represent a settlement, and it seems natural in isometric view.

Fallout:NV actually suffers tremendously here, because it used a first-person view, which removes any kind of abstraction and ambiguity from what's happening.

Which can "sorta kinda" work on its own, when done correctly.

But they still insist on the "few people in empty houses represent a live settlement" formula which was designed for isometric view.

Among a number of other things, it just doesn't work. Not only because it looks stupid and out of place, but because these "abstracted settlements" are separated by large, completely "non-abstracted" walking distances, which is where the game got the name of being a "walking simulator".

If I was making F:NV and was stuck with Gamebryo engine, I'd still make sure that I could optimize it to handle crowds of people and settlements that look believably, densely populated. It is A MUST with that kind of view change.

And BETWEEN settlements, if you INSIST on removing map travel, I'd expect a hell of a lot more people to meet on my way.

____

Of course, that's one problem with Fallout's CURRENT usage of the camera and general world design.

But it is just a part of a larger problem.

_______

In Fallout, the isometric view served as an abstraction, and there was an UNDERLYING REASON. The very same reason as they put behind the "scrolling text window".

The view is abstracted. The text window is your own personal Dungeon Master.

When you enter Shady Sands, and it says that "Katrina has a pretty smile", you can see that Katrina is a woman, she seems of healthy build, but her smile you do not see.

If you read that a woman is pretty in a book, you imagine what "pretty" means TO YOU, and visualize it. You are informed that your character finds Katrina's smile to be pretty, and it bypasses any perception filters you may have.

NOW, if Katrina was rendered in first-person, the DM would be gone, and they would have to portray her smile in a subjective fashion. Given how in 2011 our "uncanny valley" faces still very much SUCK, and how people have different "types", you may not find her smile to be, in fact, pretty. You may think she looks stupid, or you may notice that her idle animation is looping in unlifelike fashion.

This bypasses the game-->character-->you chain and just goes game-->you, with rather unreliable results.

What if your character was SUPPOSED to notice something based on the payoff of his PER attribute? Let's say, a tattoo on her shoulder.

In F1/2, you'd just output that in the DM window, problem solved.

In F3/NV you have to draw the tattoo on her shoulder, and somehow MAKE SURE the PLAYER notices it. How would you do that? With an obnoxious highlight? This is why that kind of mechanics seems to be absent from F3/NV entirely.

The abstracted view and the DM window ENSURED that you were informed of how the character sees the world around him, bypassing your own bias. The original designers intentionally used broad strokes in creating the world, and your imagination filled in the rest of the details.

Blergh /enough for now

 

[Surf Solar]

Shihonage, I know that this is pretty much offtopic, but I've read a similar post of yours on the 'dex. If I could agree 200% ! then I would do that.

Suspension of disbelief? Imagination is stronger then a 3d engine? How would you call that? I'd be nice if you re-posted - as you seem to be able to express what I think.

But that still doesn't mean that NV was a bad game. It focussed on other elements.


As for the thread: Thank you! This is exactly what I have thought. Everyone has some loose connection to Fallout, but when it comes to the core elements, it is different from poster to poster. Interesting thread.

 

[shihonage]

Thanks, Surf Solar

I figured with Codex's broken search feature I would type this up faster than find my other post.

Also re:OP:

immersive
ruins
flexible
quirky
meaty
unsurpassed

 

[Continuum]

Stuff like being isometric, or turn-based is what DEFINES the game, just like setting, c&c, etc. And has exactly the same value, like everything else.

But that still doesn't mean that NV was a bad game. It focussed on other elements.

Perhaps Fallout 3 and and its total conversion - New Vegas aren't bad games, but Bethesda/Obsidian stripped those key elements, which define Fallout, thus made them completely unplayable for me. Fallout become console shooter, something wasn't and shouldn't ever be.

---------------------------EDIT

New Vegas turned out decent and it wasn't isometric.

Counter-Strike, Halo, Killzone, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., or Morrowind are decent and not isometric too, but that's not the point.

Camera angle does not make or break a game.

It does. It breaks or makes one of the fundamental design decision behind game known as Fallout.

 

[Wintermind]

Yeah, if I were to list what defines most games, I'd probably leave out the camera angle or perspective unless it was different or otherwise used exceptionally well in the game. It's not nearly as important a game as the writing, quest design, art design or any of that other stuff that essentially makes the game what it is.

I don't even like listing the stagnant things about the game that don't change as defining it; while it may lead to the best type of that sort of game, the best polished, it's inherently lazy and somewhat boring; I applaud any developer who atleast tries something different with their game; change their twitchy FPS into a turnbased tactical RPG? Bravo for trying something different. (I do not include Bethesda in this, because FO3 was essentially change of scenery for a TES game).

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Not all RPG's have choice and consequence but I understand your point of view

Correction not all games claiming to be rpgs have choice and consequence.

but not being made in gamebyro would be far better to start with.

Gamebryo in itself isn't the problem, but Bethesda's build of Gamebryo and the design decisions they made. I mean this is also Gamebryo and really rather good. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3axmOMgTdfk[/youtube]

Yeah, if I were to list what defines most games, I'd probably leave out the camera angle or perspective unless it was different or otherwise used exceptionally well in the game. It's not nearly as important a game as the writing, quest design, art design or any of that other stuff that essentially makes the game what it is.

The camera is the primary interface between the game and the player, the choice of viewpoint influences many design choices that the developer will have to make including writing, quest design, and art design.

 

[tiagop]

Not all RPG's have choice and consequence but I understand your point of view

Correction not all games claiming to be rpgs have choice and consequence.

Thanks for the correction, that sets it right .
Also Shihonage your post really explained what I feel about Fallout 1/2, and I'm not saying that 3 or NV are bad games it's just that I don't consider them Fallout games, it doesn't feel like Fallout .

 

[Wintermind]

See, I really don't think so; I'm pretty sure LA Noir could have the same writing if it was in a first person perspective or an isometric or any perspective; writing is writing. Quest design maybe, and art design in a way; a rusted up shack is still going to be a rusted up shack; you'll just have different in game assets; you can still have the 50's Americana style regardless of camera angle.

 

[shihonage]

L.A. Noir would've been a different game in isometric perspective.

The way you interact with objects in the game would've been more accessible on a 2D plane.

Combat could have more strategy as you see far more of your surroundings.

Cinematic cutscenes would've been dumped entirely in isometric (well, maybe with a few CGI intermissions for REALLY important events), and they would have to compensate with more flexible in-game mechanics, benefitting the design as a whole, making it less railroaded.

Just off the top of my head.

 

[Lexx]

See, I really don't think so; I'm pretty sure LA Noir could have the same writing if it was in a first person perspective or an isometric or any perspective; writing is writing.

Well, but LA Noire depends more on the characters face expressions than on the dialog writing, which is a different technical area.

 

[Walpknut]

LA Noire is a graphic adventure game with some small doses of rpg and sandboxy interface, why are you comparing both games here?

 

[shihonage]

Yeah, that's actually a good question. I mean we can debate how well Mario 64 worked compared to prior sidescroller Mario games, but this has nothing to do with Fallout.