Fallout 3 will stink like Deus Ex 2.

[Starbuck1975]

The name Fallout name isn?t some kind of fiery dust you sprinkle over you computer that will magically make the story good and the atmosphere compelling.

Well duh...the only thing a IP franchise does is establish a universe and backstory upon which other developers and creative minds can build. The Fallout name in and of itself doesn't guarantee an amazing game experience, but in capable hands, I think the franchise can branch off beyond isometric play.

And anyone that think that the Fallout series would have died if Bethesda didn?t purchased the right for it, dosnt really know what they are talking about.

Well the Fallout series did kind of die. I have seen the Van Buren trailer...looks like Fallout 1 and 2, with a minor graphics engine upgrade.

If fallout was all about post apocalyptic setting and atmosphere and dark humor, but with sucky rule-set and game-play, you think it would still reached a lot of players (including some players that aren?t even cRPG fans.) top games list of ALL TIME?

Obviously not, but you can adapt rule-sets and game-play to other genres.

If you are going to take large parts out of it, don?t be surprised that at the end of the day all you are left with is some kind of post apocalyptic GTA wannabe, only with a superficial story*, and immersion through graphics.

Oblivion is hardly a fantasy GTA. The Dark Brotherhood faction campaign and the latest Shivering Isle expansion clearly demonstrate that Bethesda is quite capable of developing a rather immersive environment.

Here is the tricky bit, story and atmosphere isn?t graphics and sound effects, the Fallout designers managed to convey that atmosphere and story through character, not player, it is in the way you character interacts with the world, it is about the choices you take and their consequences. It is in the writing, in the game design, in the quest and in the game-play system.

Again, easily accomplished in a FPS environment...Deus Ex, System Shock 2 and the Thief series being noteable examples.

Writing, game design and questing are independent of the graphics engine or gameplay style...you don't require an isometric view, or turn based combat, to have all of those elements.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: kobymu

Wouldn't a wavering hand of your character be a much more subtle interpretation of weapon skill than a % indicator?

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

A game can be real time and first person and still limit your ability with a weapon, whether they do it fallout style (% chance to miss) or just increase difficulty of using the weapon (sluggish movement, unsteady hand). Higher levels of skill could even give autoaim.

Who is aiming, the player or the character?

And if I take the Dodger perk, who will dodge, the player or the character? If I am in the middle of running from point A to point B (or aiming/firing) and the game mechanic will decide that I am successful in dodge attempt, will it interfere with my movement/action?

And what about Bonus Rate of Fire or Action Boy perk for example, in you are going to infuse REALTIME character control with all these modifiers, controlling the character will be a weird in not downright frustrating.

Distorting real-time control of the character with attributes, skills, traits and perks is just ... it goes against the idea of having real-time control to begin with. I think EVERYONE will hate that kind of game play. Most FPS gamer will resent the interference, and RPG fans would just prefer the classical TB.

edit
And btw, aim shots, one of fallout most beloved feature, how will that work in realtime?

Well, obviously those are design decisions, I see they can be done in multple ways.
Dodging - Either it can happen automatically (perhaps a slight movement that doesn't actually move the player out of his position, or maybe a full on dodge in whichever way he is moving), or it could occur through the press of a dodge button of some form. Maybe even a combo of the two, pressing the correct direction at the right time will initiate a dodge.

Bonus rate of fire - How hard is it to make someone fire faster in real time?

Action boy - Fatigue is the real time equivalent of action points, action boy would be more fatigue. Honestly, anything that was an amount per turn in fallout can easily be changed to a amount per time period.
Besides, you don't seem to remember that fallout has been realtime before. Outside of combat, fallout still used action points but occured in realtime. And Fallout tactics was realtime in the manner I am trying to describe, minus the possibility for the player to have any influence over the outcome of an action.

And btw, aim shots, one of fallout most beloved feature, how will that work in realtime?

Aim shots huh? You either let the player do the aiming and the actual difficulty of the shot is determined by...well the actual difficulty of the shot, or you can even give a certain amount of autoaim to hit a target dependent on skill.

I don't think this changes would ruin the game, as many games have already included the things I'm describing, such as oblivion, deus ex, and vampire bloodlines. Heck, even some non-rpg first person shooters include fatigue and gun inaccuracy due to a wavering hand or movement.

 

[kobymu]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Well duh...the only thing a IP franchise does is establish a universe and backstory upon which other developers and creative minds can build. The Fallout name in and of itself doesn't guarantee an amazing game experience, but in capable hands, I think the franchise can branch off beyond isometric play.

Be sure to tell that to Diablo and SC fans.

can branch off

As stated before, Fallout 3 doesn't need to branch off from the original gameplay, that is what spin-offs are for.

beyond isometric play.

You just hate isometric with a vengeance don?t you. You make it sound like isometric perspective is inferior to first person perspective, and it isn?t, and it is probably not a good idea to present you preferences as facts.

If you haven?t already, the Wizardry series and Darklands are some good FPP cRPGs, I recommend them. If you have, do tell me, IS FPS and RT are both a requirements for a "good" game.

Well the Fallout series did kind of die. I have seen the Van Buren trailer...looks like Fallout 1 and 2, with a minor graphics engine upgrade.

Some devs from Obsidian have shown interest in making Fallout 3, sure it only sounded like they are merely entertaining the idea, but then again we are talking about a company that employs quite a number ex-Troika devs.

Obviously not, but you can adapt rule-sets and game-play to other genres.

TB gameplay is TB gameplay ... moving from TB to RT isn?t adapting, it is changing, drastically! Real RT and pseudo-RT are further apart from each other then TB and pseudo-RT IMO.

Rule-sets, can be adapted, but if rule-sets X if rooted in TB, then trying to adapt it to pure RT is like trying to fit a square into a circle.

Oblivion is hardly a fantasy GTA. The Dark Brotherhood faction campaign and the latest Shivering Isle expansion clearly demonstrate that Bethesda is quite capable of developing a rather immersive environment.

I'm going to have to flat-out disagree with you on this one. Overall Oblivion *is* a fantasy GTA with HDR/bloom, the style is different, sure, but overall, in terms of gameplay it is almost the same, replace the firearms with magic, cars with horses, that's about it.

immersive environment

HDR and bloom don?t immerse me.

Here is the tricky bit, story and atmosphere isn?t graphics and sound effects, the Fallout designers managed to convey that atmosphere and story through character, not player, it is in the way you character interacts with the world, it is about the choices you take and their consequences. It is in the writing, in the game design, in the quest and in the game-play system.

Again, easily accomplished in a FPS environment...Deus Ex, System Shock 2 and the Thief series being noteable examples.

...

Writing, game design and questing are independent of the graphics engine or gameplay style...you don't require an isometric view, or turn based combat, to have all of those elements.

Hmmmm, so, if the fallowing games where to be made isometric TB, it wouldn?t ruin them?

Oh and btw, why isn?t oblivion on that list of fine games?

 

[natethegreat]

Rumors on FO3 gameplay from July GI article: http://nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=36854

 

[kobymu]

Originally posted by: Fox5Well, obviously those are design decisions, I see they can be done in multple ways.
Dodging - Either it can happen automatically (perhaps a slight movement that doesn't actually move the player out of his position, or maybe a full on dodge in whichever way he is moving), ...

So if a throwing knife is headed strait to you face what? It magically vanishes?

... or it could occur through the press of a dodge button of some form. Maybe even a combo of the two, pressing the correct direction at the right time will initiate a dodge.

then what is the point in giving the character that ability?

Bonus rate of fire - How hard is it to make someone fire faster in real time?

This Perk allows you to pull the trigger a little more faster, and still remain as accurate as before. Each ranged weapon attack costs 1 AP less to perform.

And at different enemies? Again my original point is in Fallout these abilities belong to the character, if it is the player that determine the success of an action why give the character skills to begin with?

Action boy - Fatigue is the real time equivalent of action points, action boy would be more fatigue.

No it is not, fatigue is designed to simulate AP in a pseudo-RT environment. To give the artificial constraint that the character can't perform at the speed you can click the mouse button. It's TB under the hood.

Honestly, anything that was an amount per turn in fallout can easily be changed to a amount per time period.

Not everything, for example I haven't seen one game where character reflexes are simulated in pure RT environment, and unless you break the RT character control, there will be now way to separate between player reflexes and character reflexes. And that is just one example, another is if you have speed/quickness as a character attribute, If you have speed/quickness as a character attribute, and that character is controlled in real time, than the attribute is nothing more then surface deep. If you character has low speed/quickness attributes then the character has to be slowed down, that means everything, including stuff like adding latency between you mouse cursor placement and time it takes for the aim on you firearm of choice to reach that cursor placement, but what happens when character speed/quickness exceeds yours? I will continue on this later.

Besides, you don't seem to remember that fallout has been realtime before. Outside of combat, fallout still used action points but occured in realtime. And Fallout tactics was realtime in the manner I am trying to describe, minus the possibility for the player to have any influence over the outcome of an action.

I remember, and I already commented on this point as it was brought up before, look a few posts back.

Aim shots huh? You either let the player do the aiming and the actual difficulty of the shot is determined by...well the actual difficulty of the shot, ...

So it is now a capability that is removed from the character, the game engine is supposed to recognize at which specific body part I'm pointing with my mouse cursor in pure RT => the character is only as steady handed as the player is, not more, not less. The "actual difficulty of the shot" is now determent first by the player, and *IF* the player succeeds, it is then in the hand of the character.

... or you can even give a certain amount of autoaim to hit a target dependent on skill.

Same thing, different wrapping, the player is supposed to align the mouse cursor with the body part he to shoot at.

I don't think this changes would ruin the game, as many games have already included the things I'm describing, such as oblivion, deus ex, and vampire bloodlines. Heck, even some non-rpg first person shooters include fatigue and gun inaccuracy due to a wavering hand or movement.

You are missing my point.

Well, obviously those are design decisions...

I'll need to elaborate, hold on...

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: destrekor
why is everyone against change so much. Ever heard of something actually being better with change? It's happened.

What game franchises got better from 2D to 3D?

Final Fantasy 6 -> 7: Worse
Zelda Link to the Past -> Orcarina of Time: Even
Super Metroid -> Metroid Prime: Worse
Super Mario World -> Mario 64: Worse

It seems crazy, especially since they're so hell-bent on revamping everything. Could it work? Sure. Will it work? We'll see soon enough. I just don't see the point in taking something that is regarded as one of the best gaming franchises out there and messing with it. Why mess with success?

This is my favorite statement in this thread, because I disagree with every single comparison you made. I thought Final Fantasy 6 was boring and couldn't even bring myself to finish it, but I loved 7. I loved A Link to the Past, but the gameplay, storyline, control, and look of Ocarina were much better. I thought Super Metroid, while introducing some neat things to the series, was the weakest of the Metroid games (I've played all except Prime 2). And I enjoyed Super Mario World, finishing it to completion, but Mario 64 was just a much more fun game overall (Mario RPG is still the best Mario game).

 

[apoppin]

dp

 

[apoppin]

who cares what any of you *think* ?

seriously

even me

the damn game isn't even out yet and most of you say it stinks ... i will trust your reviews ... the psychic prejudging reviewer gods[/quote]
:thumbsdown:

make your own "perfect" game and THEN let us criticize it

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: apoppin
who cares what any of you *think* ?

seriously

even me

the damn game isn't even out yet and most of you say it stinks ... i will trust your reviews ... the psychic prejudging reviewer gods

:thumbsdown:

make your own "perfect" game and THEN let us criticize it[/quote]

Forums in general would be pretty redundant if people never stated their thoughts and expectations.
And I'm no game designer, so it's hardly my job to make perfect games.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: apoppin
who cares what any of you *think* ?

seriously

even me

the damn game isn't even out yet and most of you say it stinks ... i will trust your reviews ... the psychic prejudging reviewer gods

:thumbsdown:

make your own "perfect" game and THEN let us criticize it

Forums in general would be pretty redundant if people never stated their thoughts and expectations.
And I'm no game designer, so it's hardly my job to make perfect games.[/quote]

so it is your job to criticize something that is being created ... something of which you have zero idea about the implementation thereof, --nor will any of your suggestions be considered by the creators

sounds like an exercise in futility

so as to avoid redundancy, i am stating MY opinion about yours, right now

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: apoppin
who cares what any of you *think* ?

seriously

even me

the damn game isn't even out yet and most of you say it stinks ... i will trust your reviews ... the psychic prejudging reviewer gods

:thumbsdown:

make your own "perfect" game and THEN let us criticize it

Forums in general would be pretty redundant if people never stated their thoughts and expectations.
And I'm no game designer, so it's hardly my job to make perfect games.

so it is your job to criticize something that is being created ... something of which you have zero idea about the implementation thereof, --nor will any of your suggestions be considered by the creators

sounds like an exercise in futility

so as to avoid redundancy, i am stating MY opinion about yours, right now[/quote]

Obviously we have some idea, seeing as some information has been leaking, as of now we're speculating based on this information, so "zero idea" is wrong.
And yeah, of course you can state your opinion about mine, I just don't understand why you visit forums at all when you hold that opinion.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Well there isn't much more for me to say at this point...nothing will make you happy short of a developer releasing a new Fallout game that mirrors 1 & 2.

What you want is a new turn based isometric Fallout game that has all of the perks, abilities, and gameplay elements of the original...unfortunately for you, that is not the game Bethesda intends to make.

Now you can wait, hope for the best, and maybe find that a FPS RPG is not equivalent to the original Fallout games...but potentially just as fun and immersive...or you can choose to complain about it.

But a new Fallout game IS in development, WILL be FPS, and many of us are looking forward to what Bethesda does with the franchise.

 

[kobymu]

What you want is ... and gameplay elements of the original...

I'm weird like that.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Well there isn't much more for me to say at this point...nothing will make you happy short of a developer releasing a new Fallout game that mirrors 1 & 2.

What you want is a new turn based isometric Fallout game that has all of the perks, abilities, and gameplay elements of the original...unfortunately for you, that is not the game Bethesda intends to make.

Now you can wait, hope for the best, and maybe find that a FPS RPG is not equivalent to the original Fallout games...but potentially just as fun and immersive...or you can choose to complain about it.

But a new Fallout game IS in development, WILL be FPS, and many of us are looking forward to what Bethesda does with the franchise.

I'd expect he can wait, hope for the best AND complain about it. It's not like it's one or the other.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: pontifex
brotherhood of steel was on console? i played it on PC..

You sure you are not thinking about Tactics ? Fall Out Tactics was the turn based action game based on the Fallout universe. Some people hated it but I loved it for what it was and that was a squad based tactical turn based game. It had much of the same turn based combat but with many improved improvements IMHO. The only shame was that it lacked any sort of a real storyline and was pretty linear.

 

[natep]

Originally posted by: Dethfrumbelo
It's not about 2D vs. 3D, turn based vs. realtime, or even isometric vs. 3rd person vs. 1st person.

It's about:

"I saw a mudcrab today."

"Horrible creatures."

*snort*

"Have you heard that the Fighters' guild is hiring new members?"

"No."

"Ok."

"Bye."

"Bye."

Time for the Simon Says conversation influence game!

"You don't scare me."

"That's good. How'd it go again?"

"Amazing."

"Don't try to manipulate me."

Time to go poke some level-scaled monsters!

This is exactly where Bethesda will fail, if anywhere. That dialog.

 

[MagicConch]

I think it's safe to say Fallout 3 will a complete bastardization of the fallout gameplay itself, only preserving the environment created and the names. The turn-based isometric combat system was a huge part of the strategy of the game. How dumb would chess be it if was shot from point-of-view of one of the character pieces in real-time. another 'open-ended' bethes-turd imo.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: MagicConch
I think it's safe to say Fallout 3 will a complete bastardization of the fallout gameplay itself, only preserving the environment created and the names. The turn-based isometric combat system was a huge part of the strategy of the game. How dumb would chess be it if was shot from point-of-view of one of the character pieces in real-time. another 'open-ended' bethes-turd imo.

You only control one character in fallout, and he has stats. It's nothing like chess.

 

[MagicConch]

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: MagicConch
I think it's safe to say Fallout 3 will a complete bastardization of the fallout gameplay itself, only preserving the environment created and the names. The turn-based isometric combat system was a huge part of the strategy of the game. How dumb would chess be it if was shot from point-of-view of one of the character pieces in real-time. another 'open-ended' bethes-turd imo.

You only control one character in fallout, and he has stats. It's nothing like chess.

Fallout had turn-based, grid combat with some degree of party control (as well as customization), in addition to an isometric POV, so it did have elements common to all turn-based, grid strategy games (ie chess). Gameplay wise, realtime FPS is nothing close to Fallout, re: of the point system.

 

[natep]

Originally posted by: MagicConch

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: MagicConch
I think it's safe to say Fallout 3 will a complete bastardization of the fallout gameplay itself, only preserving the environment created and the names. The turn-based isometric combat system was a huge part of the strategy of the game. How dumb would chess be it if was shot from point-of-view of one of the character pieces in real-time. another 'open-ended' bethes-turd imo.

You only control one character in fallout, and he has stats. It's nothing like chess.

Fallout had turn-based, grid combat with some degree of party control (as well as customization), in addition to an isometric POV, so it did have elements common to all turn-based, grid strategy games (ie chess). Gameplay wise, realtime FPS is nothing close to Fallout, re: of the point system.

There will be turn based tactical moments using a new AP system. It isn't totally real-time.

 

[Skacer]

Originally posted by: thraashman
This is my favorite statement in this thread, because I disagree with every single comparison you made. I thought Final Fantasy 6 was boring and couldn't even bring myself to finish it, but I loved 7. I loved A Link to the Past, but the gameplay, storyline, control, and look of Ocarina were much better. I thought Super Metroid, while introducing some neat things to the series, was the weakest of the Metroid games (I've played all except Prime 2). And I enjoyed Super Mario World, finishing it to completion, but Mario 64 was just a much more fun game overall (Mario RPG is still the best Mario game).

Goddamn, you just sht on like 10 classics. FF6 was hands down the best Final Fantasy game. LTTP was hands down the best Zelda game. Super Metroid was hands down the best Metroid game. Super Mario World 2 and 3 were hands down the best Mario games.

I don't even necessarily agree with Chaotic42 on the point he is trying to make, but your ability to completely miss so many classics is somewhat scary. The problem with Chaotic42's point is that all of these were examples of GOOD 2D -> 3D transitions. Sure, none of these games were better, they were very good games in their own respect. Fallout 3 being as good as MP, Mario64, or FF7 is a complete best case scenario. A worst case scenario would be Fallout 3 being as good as say, one of the 3d sonic games.

 

[kobymu]

Update:

NMA (3 links to youtube at the bottom of the first post)

boards.gamefaqs (Transcript of the Q&A)

 

[kobymu]

Q: Is this another Oblivion but with a Fallout theme?

A: In short: no. Sure, Fallout 3 plays primarily from a first-person perspective like Oblivion, and conversations with NPCs use a similar style of dialogue tree...

I always liked the deep, involving dialog trees(?) in oblivion.

...but combat(*1), questing, character creation and most importantly the tone and style of the gameplay shares more in common with Fallout 1 and 2 than Oblivion.

The Game Informer article clearly stipulated that the character creation is exactly like oblivion, WTF?

*1)

A: I talk about this a good bit in the July magazine article, but to be clear, Fallout 3 plays in both real time and a paused tactical combat mode. It?s not really turn based, however. Instead, you can pause the real-time action in order to make aimed ranged or melee attacks on your opponents, smashing their legs to slow them down, or perhaps shooting an arm to hurt their weapon aim. Like in the original Fallout games, doing these aimed shots take action points, but since there are no turns, those AP recharge over time after unpausing the game. You can shoot in real time, but that will then slow your recharge rate.

So the only penalty for playing it as a FPS is that the AP (which you can only use for aim shots) will generate slower. BUT OTHER THAN THAT THE COMBAT IS THE SAME AS IN FALLOUT.

In practice, this means players have the option to play the game very much like an RPG, but with a good bit more action than traditional RPGs. Are there other details to the way this system works? Almost definitely, yes. Do we know all the answers to how V.A.T.S. works after seeing it in one demo? No. We?re waiting just like you to find out more.

In practice it would be an FPS with bullet time, ohh excuse me, FPS with aim shots, completely different. :disgust:

 

[Starbuck1975]

Some great info is starting to leak out on the gameplay elements for Fallout 3...PC Gamer recently ran an article on the very concerns mentioned in this thread.

As many hoped, Bethesda is taking the Fallout gameplay and adapting it to the Oblivion engine...not simply giving a Fallout skin to Oblivion.

The core gameplay elements of Fallout are essentially the same, except you can now explore the game world from a typical 1st person RPG perspective...but for combat, you can switch to a turn based mode, and 3rd person perspective, as in the original Fallout series.

What more, Bethesda is using the same combat system from Fallout 1 & 2...that means turn based, specific targeting options. They are also bringing forward most of the S.P.E.C.I.A.L. perks and traits, adapting them to work in the Oblivion engine.

The more I read about what Bethesda is doing, the more excited I get about this game.

 

[shortylickens]

All that info would be nice if PC gamer didnt suck.

However, it is a hopeful message for the future and will encourage me to keep looking out for it.