Why the attachment to overhead/top-down isometric POV?

[myzko]

I like it better because there is less information to take in, when you're in a 3D room you're always unsure as to what you can use, what items to pick up etc

 

[zioburosky13]

This is absolute horseshit. The viewing distance is much, much, much greater in a first person view, and hence that too will cost a lot of resources. Isometric is not more resource-intensive in any way.

Viewing distance is always a resource hog for any FP game because of the texture. The crispy the texture, the more memory it needs to store.
Until id's Megatexture comes out.

Iso. view can be resource hog too. Just take a loot at Civ. 4

Put it this way, no matter what kinda camera view, it will always be a resource hog if programmer can't tweak his code properly.

 

[xdarkyrex]

Oblivion does use lower res models for the distance. A real draw distance looking like Oblivion's would consume far too many resources, so they implement this sort of "cheat".
This technique made it possible to implement a high draw distance in Morrowind even though it's engine didn't support it. For example:

Everything after a certain cut off point switches to low detail meshes and textures.

Damn I should be a programmer.

It just seemed like such an obvious and intuitive way to fix the resource issues.

 

[Vault 69er]

I'd say that without these tricks it would impossible to have distant views in games like Oblivion.
But even then they're still pretty resource intensive, my old computer could play Morrowind smoothly, but couldn't handle the distant land mod at all. The one time I managed to load it, it screamed along at 3 fps.

That's not to say iso games aren't intensive; NWN2 is an infamous pig of a game. Though it could be argued that those resources go into the actual game and not what is essentially fluff.

 

[xdarkyrex]

That's not to say iso games aren't intensive; NWN2 is an infamous pig of a game. Though it could be argued that those resources go into the actual game and not what is essentially fluff.

It's true, if you with high polygon models and alot of animations and particly thingies like spells and fire and projectiles and all the combat mechanics and dice rolls and glowing effects and lights and skills checks and buffers and items being used and just everything, with some fairly decent textures ontop of that, you're gonna get a slow game. It also depends largely on how far back the camera is, and how much is accounted for in gameplay offscreen too.


So it goes both ways. Draw distance is what redeems fpp games from being gfx card destroyers.

And then theres always the matter of the programming...


:/

 

[Iendicis]

Quick thing here: that's where isometric games went...MMO games. Of course most of them are pretty boring and level grinding, but whatever.

Graphics intensive? That depends on the developer. Morrowind runs like crap on my computer, and yet KOTOR is a smooth sail. They were designed differently. Compare it to one of those crappy free MMO games, where everything is very colorful and isometric, and it all runs comparably fast. Then look at NWN 2 where the game is horribly made and the framerate is as fragile as your sanity.

As for the gameplay, well, if we judged a game by the developer's intent, we'd have a lot of really popular games on our hands. Think of any stinker that was really hyped up, and there you go. Deloper intent is not enough.

It's perspective. I am a loose fan of the turn based combat. I don't really care which way it goes, so to me, the changes are indifferent. To Sander or the other Fallout lovers, the game is gospel, and Bethesda's handling of the game is like Uwe Boll directing a movie version of the Bible. It's horrible. Then you have the people who love Bethesda, and they want to see change to the franchise.

You can't please the entire spectrum, much less everyone on this thread. You're arguing over taste, saying "My opinion on RPG's is better than yours." You can't get anywhere like that.

 

[Sander]

Quick thing here: that's where isometric games went...MMO games. Of course most of them are pretty boring and level grinding, but whatever.

Graphics intensive? That depends on the developer. Morrowind runs like crap on my computer, and yet KOTOR is a smooth sail. They were designed differently. Compare it to one of those crappy free MMO games, where everything is very colorful and isometric, and it all runs comparably fast. Then look at NWN 2 where the game is horribly made and the framerate is as fragile as your sanity.

As for the gameplay, well, if we judged a game by the developer's intent, we'd have a lot of really popular games on our hands. Think of any stinker that was really hyped up, and there you go. Deloper intent is not enough.

It's perspective. I am a loose fan of the turn based combat. I don't really care which way it goes, so to me, the changes are indifferent. To Sander or the other Fallout lovers, the game is gospel, and Bethesda's handling of the game is like Uwe Boll directing a movie version of the Bible. It's horrible. Then you have the people who love Bethesda, and they want to see change to the franchise.

And they don't need to please everyone. The people they're supposed to please are the people who have a vested interest in the franchise. After all, they didn't pay 5 million dollars just to make a game for their already existing audience? Or at least, it'd be ridiculous if they did. Which it seems they did.

You can't please the entire spectrum, much less everyone on this thread. You're arguing over taste, saying "My opinion on RPG's is better than yours." You can't get anywhere like that.

We're not arguing over tastes, we're arguing over Fallout's original design and hence what the subsequent games in the series should adhere to designwise.

 

[Iendicis]

And they don't need to please everyone. The people they're supposed to please are the people who have a vested interest in the franchise. After all, they didn't pay 5 million dollars just to make a game for their already existing audience? Or at least, it'd be ridiculous if they did. Which it seems they did.

They go where the money is, which is what everyone is forced to do in this economy as of late. That is exactly in the genre "FPS 2.0" such as Bioshockj and Crysis, and not with Fallout. Unfortunate, but true.

We're not arguing over tastes, we're arguing over Fallout's original design and hence what the subsequent games in the series should adhere to designwise.

Which is taste, "What in the series should be in the new one?" You have people who value P&P, and those who don't. I'm, indifferent, but I think that isometric can work very well if done correctly (see Fallout, of course). I also think that FPP can be done well with an RPG (see System Shock 2) if done right. I know you are going to say that SS2 is very different from Fallout, but I think in the game that Bethesda's making, it's a worthy comparison.

Perhaps it isn't taste, maybe it's just who is right and wrong. Of course other people are wrong and I am right. Fallout should play exactly like Deus Ex (sorry, I shudder at those words; making a point), because I think that's what the original devs wanted. I know because I am right.

 

[xdarkyrex]

Perhaps it isn't taste, maybe it's just who is right and wrong. Of course other people are wrong and I am right.

What you seem to not understand is that there IS a right and a wrong.


You know who decides what it is?

The guys who INVENTED fallout.

 

[Iendicis]

What you seem to not understand is that there IS a right and a wrong.

You know who decides what it is?

The guys who INVENTED fallout.

Do you know, exactly, what they wanted? Are there interviews or something? I'd probably believe you guys if you cited sources. That would probably wrap this all up really, really fast.

 

[xdarkyrex]

What you seem to not understand is that there IS a right and a wrong.

You know who decides what it is?

The guys who INVENTED fallout.

Do you know, exactly, what they wanted? Are there interviews or something? I'd probably believe you guys if you cited sources. That would probably wrap this all up really, really fast.

did you bother to search the nma site, not just the forum?

go look for the interviews about the original fallout games.

 

[Sander]

They go where the money is, which is what everyone is forced to do in this economy as of late. That is exactly in the genre "FPS 2.0" such as Bioshockj and Crysis, and not with Fallout. Unfortunate, but true.

'the money' is not in paying 5 million for a franchise, and then fucking over the people with a vested interest in said franchise.

Perhaps it isn't taste, maybe it's just who is right and wrong. Of course other people are wrong and I am right. Fallout should play exactly like Deus Ex (sorry, I shudder at those words; making a point), because I think that's what the original devs wanted. I know because I am right.

Do you know, exactly, what they wanted? Are there interviews or something? I'd probably believe you guys if you cited sources. That would probably wrap this all up really, really fast.

You mean you still haven't read this?
So, yes, we *do* know what Fallout's original design was from the mouths of the developers.

 

[VistraNORREZ]

I'm new to Fallout. I just got the Collection a week ago and I am close to finishing the first game. What made me finally play the game is Fallout 3. I had heard of the games before but just seeing the images and learning about the story gave me that final excitement I needed. I love post-apocalyptic anything. I've been interested in that setting for a long time.

I'm loving the series so far, but it's not because of the battle system. I enjoy the tactical element, but it's the setting, the characters, the style, the humor, and the openness.

I do not find the battle system close to being essential to this game. It is fun, but I could never play a game that was solely this battle system. I would be very bored very quick. The strategy of this game comes not from the actual fighting but how one approaches each situation.

The battle system works because the rest of the game works. It is not the other way around. If this game was a book or film, or the same game but all the combat automatic, I would still enjoy it just as much.

All I'm hoping is that Bethesda captures the feel of the Fallout games for their sequel. That is all that is important. If the new combat system facilitates their storytelling then I'm all for it.

Change can be a good thing. I mean a large part of the reason I like Fallout so much is that it is very different than other games I've played.

 

[Sander]

All I'm hoping is that Bethesda captures the feel of the Fallout games for their sequel. That is all that is important. If the new combat system facilitates their storytelling then I'm all for it.

A combat system doesn't and cannot facilitate storytelling. That's completely seperate. The only reason that they have this perspective and the real-time combat is that every other game out there has it, so it must be what everybody wants, right?

Change can be a good thing. I mean a large part of the reason I like Fallout so much is that it is very different than other games I've played.

So why do you applaud the homogenisation and meanstream-changing of Fallout, if it's the *different* things you like about it in the first place? This makes no sense.

 

[VistraNORREZ]

A combat system doesn't and cannot facilitate storytelling. That's completely seperate. The only reason that they have this perspective and the real-time combat is that every other game out there has it, so it must be what everybody wants, right?

Well I believe that Bethesda is going for a more intimate style of play this time. Because of the new perspective one is placed directly into the world. You can see the characters faces (one of the best parts of the original was the talking head segments; they made the game more personal). You can also get close to objects and examine them. This allows for new storytelling.

And so, the battle system had to change. The previous style just wouldn't work as is. That's what I meant by the the battle system facilitating the story. Although I guess I said it kind of backwards.

So why do you applaud the homogenisation and meanstream-changing of Fallout, if it's the *different* things you like about it in the first place? This makes no sense.

Because something isn't new if I've experienced it already. The most beautiful things in the world aren't that beautiful if they are made over and over again. Bethesda is doing pretty interesting and difficult things with this new system. It's part old and new. It's a hard balance to maintain. I don't see how anyone could label this homogenisation. It isn't like everything else out there. Even the real-time portion depends on character skill. Don't you think this would be a major turn off to the "mainstream". They can't just run and gun everything, which is truly what the mainstream FPS is all about. Bethesda is taking the series to a different place, obviously, and it could be really good or really bad. I'd rather they experiment instead of just copying the original games. If I want the original games I can play them anytime.

I doesn't make sense to me that they are "mainstreaming" the game just cause they changed the perspective. You don't think the original games weren't trying to be mainstream when they came out? Don't kid yourself, they were trying their hardest to make a really popular game and they were making it in the style of their time.

Furthermore, Fallout is not that well known, and post apocalyptic stuff is not that popular either. With all this bitterness towards them taking the Franchise, they probably would've been better off starting their own similarly themed game. Why even bother to mainstream some other series? They are in a very bad position at the moment. Trying to do interesting things that they want to do, and still cater to the Fallout fanbase. It's a very large risk, the taking over a franchise.

I said it before, but change can be a very good thing. Hell that's one of the themes of series.

 

[Black]

I doesn't make sense to me that they are "mainstreaming" the game just cause they changed the perspective. You don't think the original games weren't trying to be mainstream when they came out? Don't kid yourself, they were trying their hardest to make a really popular game and they were making it in the style of their time.

Of course, so changing crpg that emulates p&pg rpgs to action-rpg with realtime, fpp view and stupid gimmicks like VATS isn't mainstreaming?
Besides, one should learn about the subject before posting.

"Additionally, Tim explained "It also showed how popular and fun turn-based combat could be, when everyone else was going with real-time or pause-based combat.""

Mainstreaming much?

And so, the battle system had to change. The previous style just wouldn't work as is.

I don't get it, battle system had to change because... ? Maybe let's put it simply- because bethesda isn't creative at all and doesn't know how to make games other than fpp real-time.

Furthermore, Fallout is not that well known, and post apocalyptic stuff is not that popular either.

Really? Just because idiots mistake Fallout with Flat Out doesn't mean that Fallout isn't popular. I bet I can find people who don't know who Mozart was- does this means he's not popular?

Trying to do interesting things that they want to do, and still cater to the Fallout fanbase.

Trying to do 'interesting' things they want to do? Yes.
Cater to the Fallout fanbase? Are you kidding me?

I said it before, but change can be a very good thing. Hell that's one of the themes of series.

I don't see how changing, i.e. removing Fallout core can be considered as a 'very good thing'.

 

[Sorrow]

Well I believe that Bethesda is going for a more intimate style of play this time. Because of the new perspective one is placed directly into the world.

That's only your opinion.
I don't find staring at the world through a piece of glass with a narrow vision field "intimate".

 

[Sander]

Well I believe that Bethesda is going for a more intimate style of play this time. Because of the new perspective one is placed directly into the world. You can see the characters faces (one of the best parts of the original was the talking head segments; they made the game more personal). You can also get close to objects and examine them. This allows for new storytelling.

And all of this can just easily be done in a 3d, isometric perspective, especially if you allow the camera to be rotated. This not something that you need a first-person perspective for.

And so, the battle system had to change. The previous style just wouldn't work as is. That's what I meant by the the battle system facilitating the story. Although I guess I said it kind of backwards.

Changing the battle system to fit the viewpoint seems extremely backwards.

Because something isn't new if I've experienced it already. The most beautiful things in the world aren't that beautiful if they are made over and over again. Bethesda is doing pretty interesting and difficult things with this new system. It's part old and new.

Ehm, what part of it is new, exactly? Because it looks all old to me. Real-time with pause, first-person perspective, all been done before a *lot*. And yes, character skill matters. Ever played Deus Ex, Morrowind or Bloodlines before? Yep, been done before. Nothing new about it whatsoever. In fact, a lot of RPGs have a real-time component which depends only partially on character, skill like Morrowind, Oblivion and Fallout 3

It's a hard balance to maintain. I don't see how anyone could label this homogenisation. It isn't like everything else out there. Even the real-time portion depends on character skill. Don't you think this would be a major turn off to the "mainstream". They can't just run and gun everything, which is truly what the mainstream FPS is all about.

And there you have it. You class it as an FPS, instead of an RPG.
Unless you're talking about what I mean by mainstream homogenisation, but in that case I never talked about it being an FPS. Mainstream is what Oblivion was, and this system is a lot like Oblivion's system.

Bethesda is taking the series to a different place, obviously, and it could be really good or really bad. I'd rather they experiment instead of just copying the original games. If I want the original games I can play them anytime.

And we don't want a copy of the original games either, that isn't the point. What we do want is a true sequel, one that does adhere to the core design of the original games.

I doesn't make sense to me that they are "mainstreaming" the game just cause they changed the perspective. You don't think the original games weren't trying to be mainstream when they came out? Don't kid yourself, they were trying their hardest to make a really popular game and they were making it in the style of their time.

I'm sorry, what? That's a load of horseshit. Fallout was purposely made to go *against* the grain of the times. Diablo, Daggerfall and Baldur's Gate ruled the day there, with real-time combat and in some cases a first-person perspective. Fallout was purposely a throwback to classic RPGs (like Wasteland) and P&P RPGs. So no, it did not get as mainstream as possible.

Furthermore, Fallout is not that well known, and post apocalyptic stuff is not that popular either. With all this bitterness towards them taking the Franchise, they probably would've been better off starting their own similarly themed game. Why even bother to mainstream some other series? They are in a very bad position at the moment. Trying to do interesting things that they want to do, and still cater to the Fallout fanbase.

Yet they don't appear to be catering to the Fallout fanbase at all, nor do they appear to have had that intention anywhere.

It's a very large risk, the taking over a franchise.

I said it before, but change can be a very good thing. Hell that's one of the themes of series.

Change for the sake of change is completely senseless, though.

 

[xdarkyrex]

Just an opinion here, but I think that real time is a necessity to revive the fallout franchise to mainstream audiences.

This is purely speculative, obviously, but I think the market has changed a lot in 10 years, and slow or turn based games are generally not well received (unless its a jrpg).

 

[Vault 69er]

Just an opinion here, but I think that real time is a necessity to revive the fallout franchise to mainstream audiences.

This is purely speculative, obviously, but I think the market has changed a lot in 10 years, and slow or turn based games are generally not well received (unless its a jrpg).

That's what they said when Fallout was released.
And it may not have sold like Oblivion today, but it didn't have Oblivion's million dollar budget and massive hype campaign either.