What defines 'Fallout' for you?

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

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.

The viewpoint determines how much of the game you depict through graphics and how much of the game you depict through writing. Load up Fallout and go click on a small pile of rocks and read the description, then click on some more rocks then again, then some more. Now go load up Fallout New Vegas and go click on some rocks, then tell me the perspective has influenced the game's 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.

Camera angle affects how much detail must be shown, what works from one perspective wouldn't necessarily work in another. That is going to affect the art direction of the game, it's like the difference between set design for film, television and the theater.

 

[Wintermind]

Funny, I got the impression that we were discussing camera angles and their influence on the game, and I assumed that it would be totally acceptable to throw out a different game for the purposes of example. Hence why I used LA Noir since it's writing is superb a difference in camera angle would not necessarily alter that.

While making it isometric might make things more 'strategic' it would do so at the cost of making it easier. The best time I have playing most FPS's is the first time. when i don't know what's around a corner. If there will be a guy in ambush around that corner. If I can lay down behind that crate and mow down a squad of baddies before they become a threat. I'm limited solely to what I can see. Letting me scroll around the battlefield, I can see things that I shouldn't be able to. Okay, so maybe like in FOT I can't see baddies until they're detected by my dudes, but I can still see what might be good spot for an ambush, or where I can set one; even if my character has never seen the area before and can't see that area right now.

Similarly, things in game may have been more accessible if by accessible you mean easy. Yes, some clues may be a total fucker to find, but I prefer it the way it is, as opposed to making it so you just click and examine everything till you find all the clues.

I'd also say that the interrogations rely far more on the writing and voice acting than facial expresisons. I tend to around 3/4 questions or 4/5, generally.

While I concede that it defintiely influences the final in game assets, I am using a more broader term for art design than you, RFAS.

Writing however, may be influenced but A) need to be, and B) need not be negatively influenced. If you bother giving the protagonist a voice, you can add in dialog for the character when examining rocks or boulders or what have you. Or have the companions do it. Or the vault boy say so. LA Noir does this all the time, and it's quite nice.

 

[Walpknut]

But there would be no point in making La Noire more "strategic", the action in the game is so secondary that you can actualy skip it entirely, the fcus of the game is in the investigation, thats why I am sayign that using it for the camera angle discussion while comparing it to completely diferent games is kind of stupid (no offense)

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

While making it isometric might make things more 'strategic' it would do so at the cost of making it easier. The best time I have playing most FPS's is the first time. when i don't know what's around a corner.

You're talking about subjective derived results not intended design. These are two very different game types, with different mind sets. Neither in themselves are better than the other, though each have their own strong points and weakness. Each presents the player with a different experience, whether you prefer one over the other or find one more challenging than the other has nothing to do with the intentions of the developers when choosing a perspective.

I'd also say that the interrogations rely far more on the writing and voice acting than facial expresisons. I tend to around 3/4 questions or 4/5, generally.

I've not played LA Noire so I can't reallly comment on it, but I did read an interview with one of the developers about the importance of the facial expressions in the game (well at least to the developers). This goes back to the choice of viewpoint in the initial design stages, they sat down decided how they wanted the player to interact with the game. How the interrogation mechanics would work and how they would communicate information to the player. And which would be the best viewpoint to do all that in. Which in turn would influence the writing in the game as if they had chosen an isometric viewpoint then they would need to use writing in the game a lot more.

Writing however, may be influenced but A) need to be, and B) need not be negatively influenced. If you bother giving the protagonist a voice, you can add in dialog for the character when examining rocks or boulders or what have you. Or have the companions do it. Or the vault boy say so. LA Noir does this all the time, and it's quite nice.

You can do, but the difference is developers usually are working to a limited time and budget. Writing might not cost as much as developing facial animation techniques but still takes time to produce. If a developer is making a graphics heavy first/third person game then they don't have to go the extra mile. On the other hand the isometric viewpoint does as it relies as much on text to convey information as it does graphics.

 

[shihonage]

The best time I have playing most FPS's is the first time. when i don't know what's around a corner. If there will be a guy in ambush around that corner. If I can lay down behind that crate and mow down a squad of baddies before they become a threat.

Fallout wasn't an FPS, and its entire structure worked in great cohesion without having to rely on ever-so-thrilling element of shit popping out at you from behind the immediate wall.

Letting me scroll around the battlefield, I can see things that I shouldn't be able to.
Okay, so maybe like in FOT I can't see baddies until they're detected by my dudes, but I can still see what might be good spot for an ambush, or where I can set one; even if my character has never seen the area before and can't see that area right now.

So, now you complain that TACTICAL Fallout game allows you a strategic view of the map.

Not a wink, not a nudge. You're completely serious.

Sweet Moses. I guess I've wasted time on worse, but I'm done with you now.

 

[Lexx]

Well, guess why Fallout has been 'evolved' into a shooter.

 

[valcik]

..there's too many paying customers with lack of imagination, I guess.

 

[pall]

Because Shoters and fast games bring more $$$ to Beth pockets.

 

[Wintermind]

Allow me to rephrase that on Fallout: Tactics; it only has fog of war as applied to units; You can always see the entire structure of the map regardless of where your units are positioned; you don't have to get inside the walls of the enemy structure to see inside, you always have an idea. The only thing you can't see inside is some structures until you have a character in range to 'remove' the roof. This, essentially, makes the game easier.

You also missed my point

I pointed this out because people felt that an isometric camera would make the game more 'strategic' because you could examine more of the map in advance, whereas I felt it makes the combat 'easer' for the exact same reason, even if it did implement a system like Fallout:Tactics, limiting showing dudes until you detected them. As far as I'm concerned, I should only be able to see what I see.

shihonage missed my point about somebody lying in ambush; I am not talking about jump out scares, I am talking about not knowing what comes next; not jump out thrills.

Walpknut, you should re read it (and this, of course) bearing in mind that when one can talk about two things at once.

RFAS: They did go very indepth for the facial expressions, to the point where they used most of the VA's actual faces for characters; it makes it that much better, but in my experience, the writing/voice acting itself did a far better job conveying what the correct response was, especially when compounded with the evidence, though it's all very unforgiving.

My point still stands, however, that they could instead of the extra written text, instead of going in a sidebox, be narrated or spoken by a PC/companion/other NPC. Or still, it could be displayed on screen, as a subtitle.

I was given to the understanding that when dealing with a graphical medium, it was better to show, not tell, whenever possible. Do not tell me about a rock, show me the rock. Don't tell me the chica by the door is wearing a smile, show her smile.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Allow me to rephrase that on Fallout: Tactics; it only has fog of war as applied to units; You can always see the entire structure of the map regardless of where your units are positioned; you don't have to get inside the walls of the enemy structure to see inside, you always have an idea. The only thing you can't see inside is some structures until you have a character in range to 'remove' the roof. This, essentially, makes the game easier.

Again this is subjective and has nothing to do with the developers intentions when they sit down to design a game. Plus Fallout Tactics isn't a really good example of the genre.

You also missed my point

I pointed this out because people felt that an isometric camera would make the game more 'strategic' because you could examine more of the map in advance, whereas I felt it makes the combat 'easer' for the exact same reason, even if it did implement a system like Fallout:Tactics, limiting showing dudes until you detected them. As far as I'm concerned, I should only be able to see what I see.

No I got your point but you are missing ours.

shihonage missed my point about somebody lying in ambush; I am not talking about jump out scares, I am talking about not knowing what comes next; not jump out thrills.

Again this is subjective, the point isn't about what your preferences are but what the developers intentions are. If they have a specific goal they will use the best viewpoint to achieve it, and for some instances like Fallout's pen and paper based mechanics an abstract viewpoint like isometric or even top down does a better job than first/third person.

My point still stands, however, that they could instead of the extra written text, instead of going in a sidebox, be narrated or spoken by a PC/companion/other NPC. Or still, it could be displayed on screen, as a subtitle.

It doesn't matter if it's displayed text or spoken it's still writing. The developers still have to allocate the resources for it to be written, scripted and if need be acted. But when they have chosen to use the first person view and have invested in high quality graphics then it's unlikely they'll have the time or money to also add a lot of descriptive text.

I was given to the understanding that when dealing with a graphical medium, it was better to show, not tell, whenever possible. Do not tell me about a rock, show me the rock. Don't tell me the chica by the door is wearing a smile, show her smile.

Actually that originates with writing, and isn't really referring to such mundane details. An example would be the beginning of Mass Effect. At the start of the game several characters (if you talk to them that is ) will tell you about how awesome Spectres are. But the only Spectre you see doing awesome stuff is you, the problem there is they dumped you straight into the main plot and need some exposition, to get you up to speed.

 

[DarkCorp]

FPS: Since everything is in "first or third-person", graphics is a must. Afterall, the player sees everything and relies purely on his own eyesight to note objects, etc. Now given todays standards of graphics = immerzun, any game not on par with OMGZORS Far Cry/Crysis will always be second place or lower.

Result: Since graphics IS the priority, tons of resources must be devoted to making UBER POWNZORS GRAFFIKS. This knocks up the development costs which in-turn, requires the game to sell more units to be a hit (oh yeah, keep in mind those greedy corporate fucks arn't just content with profits (they demand UBER PROFITS). Otherwise, the game type is considered a market failure and not worthy of continuing.

Voice Acting: Same vein here. It costs MONEY (especially so since Bethesda seems to need a narrator for EVERY FUCKING THING). Again, more development cost that needs to be made back by producing a game that caters to the largest denomination of players out there.

Linear/Boredom: FPS are tedious and boring, hence their major appeal comes from multi-player. I mean, play through any FPS and you will know you have to check EVERYTHING, just to get to the next level. Since buildings and enviornments are also scaled to reality, checking office floors and warehouses IS a pain in the ass. Its like going to Walmart to find some obscure keycard. In Morrowinds case, its great they have awesome and pretty enviornments like forests. The kicker is, just like their real life counter-parts, its all empty (besides the whole sight seeing bit). Go to obscure cave in the middle of the Amazon. If I wanted a tourist adventure I would go to the Grand Canyon.

ISO: Because navigating through a real life Phoenix, Arizona would take HOURS, shit has to be scaled down and require the player to use some iota of imagination. Smaller maps means less work for artists, programmers, graphics guys, bug testers, etc. Because the player is not seeing through his own eyes, some things like cups and shelves and walls, need not be super duper defined with shitloads of polygons (I means its a fucking wall afterall). This also means there is more room in the budget to add in things like items, quests, dialogue, choice and consequence, etc.

Sorry for the soapbox rant but I seriously am tired of everything having to be super fucking shiny. Just because the majority of kids these days need everything handed to them on a silver fucking platter. I am tired of people who think PWNZOR GRAFFIKS and VOICE ACTING are things that can be focused on without affecting anything like budgets or deadlines or bugs or profit margins.

Thats the reason why the game industry sucks. It used to be divided into casual games (consoles) and hardcore games (PC). But at some point, some greedy fucks decided to just merge everything together in order to gobble the entire market. The result? You get consoles steroided up to play PC style games (but without the flexibility and ease of control that a PC offers). Everything is dumbed down to fit the control scheme or the new primary demographic. The variety goes to shit and all you get is fish, (which they keep telling you is steak) when all ya wanted was a steak (HOMAGE MOMENT).

I mean we have Red Faction, Killzone, Crysis, RAGE, Resistance, GEARS, HALO, Just Cause, MW, CoD, Operation Flashpoint, a re-doing of Battlefield Vietnam, Battlefield Special Ops, Battlefield 2042, Conduit, FEAR, the list goes on and on.

BTW: A very good read on the take between third/overhead view compared to first person view.

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/04/first-or-third-person-whats-your-perspective/

 

[Herr Mike]

Dude...unclench!

 

[shihonage]

^^^^^^^^^^

"It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools." - Ecclesiastes 7:5

Also the unofficial NMA/Codex motto.