Nevermind

Since Bethesda decided to make Fallout 3, we figured we might as well have a forum about it.
User avatar
requiem_for_a_starfury
Hero of the Wastes
Hero of the Wastes
Posts: 1820
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 11:13 am

Post by requiem_for_a_starfury »

And I think you're being overly optimistic.

But I see you ignored my comment about changing the basic elements of the game. Elements that many of us are fans of. I love isometric games not just for the combat but for the whole world. Why should the sequel to one of the best examples of this type of game be so radically changed? When there will always be some new Oblivion coming along with it's uber 3d fps graphics to keep those of you who like such things happy.
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
User avatar
Aonaran
Striding Hero
Striding Hero
Posts: 1261
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 8:02 pm

Post by Aonaran »

Wolfman Walt wrote:
Aonaran wrote:Add a rocket launcher, jackass. It's Morrowind with guns, remember?
They'll add katanas and trench coats most likely, so it's all still fairly accurate.
Fair enough.
my vocabulary skills is above you.
User avatar
PaladinHeart
Strider
Strider
Posts: 747
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2003 5:28 am
Contact:

Post by PaladinHeart »

requiem_for_a_starfury wrote:And I think you're being overly optimistic.

But I see you ignored my comment about changing the basic elements of the game. Elements that many of us are fans of. I love isometric games not just for the combat but for the whole world. Why should the sequel to one of the best examples of this type of game be so radically changed? When there will always be some new Oblivion coming along with it's uber 3d fps graphics to keep those of you who like such things happy.
You could say I'm being overly optimistic but at the same time I am being pessimistic because I am having a hard time envisioning a good isometric game that uses only 3D graphics.

I'm sorry but I guess I just don't care about the basic hex elements of the SPECIAL system. That's why I didn't really pay much attention to your comment. I doubt if I'd be willing to pay much for a game that would use such an outdated archaic system.

Actually the only reason I would even want it turn based is if I have control of more than one character. Otherwise it's pointless, clunky, and time consuming when I could easily manage the single character in realtime combat.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. " -John 3:16

Hopes. Dreams. You have to live these things. If not, they will remain prisoner within the confines of your mind for the rest of your life.
User avatar
requiem_for_a_starfury
Hero of the Wastes
Hero of the Wastes
Posts: 1820
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 11:13 am

Post by requiem_for_a_starfury »

I doubt it would use the same system, I'm not against updating and improving as long as it keeps to the same principles so that SPECIAL isn't gutted. And isn't the first person view older than the isometric view making that the archaic one?

Either way it's still one of the best examples of it's genre and the things that you've suggested would take it out of that genre and plunk it in the middle of another. That might work for a spin off (though it hasn't for Fallout games so far) but not for a sequel. You wouldn't suggest that for any other type of media so why not show the same respect for the Isometric RPG format? If you find it pointless and time consuming find a different game to play.
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
User avatar
Wolfman Walt
Mamma's Gang member
Mamma's Gang member
Posts: 5243
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 1:31 pm
Location: La Grange, Kentucky
Contact:

Post by Wolfman Walt »

just as easily as you can press your tab key in Morrowind to see your character from 3rd person.
And you know what Morrowind is in 3rd person? The same thing as morrowind in first person except you can't hit anything.
PaladinHeart wrote:I'm sorry but I guess I just don't care about the basic hex elements of the SPECIAL system.
And it doesn't care about you. Honest, it sounds like you just want an entirely different game then fallout. Go (pretend to) fuck up some other game series that I don't care about.
Otherwise it (turn based) is pointless, clunky, and time consuming
Just because something isn't super fast doesn't make it "Pointless" or "Clunky." Jagged Alliance is anything BUT and it's an excellent example of what turn based is. For that matter, I found Fallout's system to work just fine, yea I found JA's to be abit better in the combat department, but Fallout's was perfectly fine. As for your point on "Time Consuming" Who the fuck cares? It's an rpg, you're supposed to spend time in it. Real time has very little place in Fallout less it just become Diablo with guns, or worse, Morrowind with guns. In either case please go play something like Restricted Area or the UT Wasteland mod, it seems to be more of what you're after.
User avatar
VasikkA
No more Tuna
No more Tuna
Posts: 8703
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 6:14 pm

Post by VasikkA »

PaladinHeart wrote:I am having a hard time envisioning a good isometric game that uses only 3D graphics.
Well, envision a 2D isometric game with fixed camera then. I often found myself adjusting the camera in fully rotatable 3D games like NWN and Dungeon Siege. 2D games can look pretty too, as the beauty is often in the artwork, environments and a clear functional interface. At least to me.

Let me repeat myself, camera view doesn't have anything to do with immersion. Assuming you've played 'archaic' RPGs, you'd understand that.
I'm sorry but I guess I just don't care about the basic hex elements of the SPECIAL system. That's why I didn't really pay much attention to your comment. I doubt if I'd be willing to pay much for a game that would use such an outdated archaic system.
Although it would look comical to walk in hex patterns, I think Bethesda will have to discard hex based movement as the Oblivion engine isn't based on hexes. It's possible to implement SPECIAL rules in a non hex-based system, though. I haven't played Lionheart, but judging from what I've read, the core of the game(combat and otherwise) is tightly set around SPECIAL. Silent Storm is a good example of how to implement turn based combat in a modern game engine.
Actually the only reason I would even want it turn based is if I have control of more than one character.

Actually, turn-based works best when controlling one character or a small squad. Real time combat is more efficient in larger scale. Fallout was never about controlling more than one character and I never found any problems with the turn-based combat. Please elaborate.
Otherwise it's pointless, clunky, and time consuming when I could easily manage the single character in realtime combat.
You forgot OUTDATED. :giggle:
  • Pointless: Care to explain how? It's a combat system, therefore it's used for carrying out the combat situations in the game. I think that is the point.

    Clunky: I can't think of a more organized system than turn-based combat; take you time to plan your next move and execute it. Together with isometric view, it gives you an almost perfect overview of the combat situation. Real time combat in RPGs usually tend to become messy and too fast paced if there's more than 2 enemies on the screen. Usually you just repeatedly click your mouse buttons at random enemies. I could come up with more examples, but from the top of my head I give you Arcanum and Diablo, just to mention a few real-time isometric games.

    Time consuming: If the system works and is enjoyable, then I'd like to spend some time with it. Isn't that what you wish from a game? Usually shorter battles are compensated with MORE COMBAT. Many RPGs have way too much combat for it to remain interesting. I don't think you become amused when you encounter the 100th pack of zombies.
User avatar
PaladinHeart
Strider
Strider
Posts: 747
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2003 5:28 am
Contact:

Post by PaladinHeart »

requiem_for_a_starfury wrote:I doubt it would use the same system, I'm not against updating and improving as long as it keeps to the same principles so that SPECIAL isn't gutted. And isn't the first person view older than the isometric view making that the archaic one?
You misunderstood me. I meant the hexes are archaic. Not the view. Fallout Tactics doesn't use hexes and it seems a better game for it.
requiem_for_a_starfury wrote:Either way it's still one of the best examples of it's genre and the things that you've suggested would take it out of that genre and plunk it in the middle of another.
What genre is Fallout exactly?
requiem_for_a_starfury wrote:That might work for a spin off (though it hasn't for Fallout games so far) but not for a sequel. You wouldn't suggest that for any other type of media so why not show the same respect for the Isometric RPG format? If you find it pointless and time consuming find a different game to play.
I think you basically misunderstood me. I mentioned axing the whole hex thing. Not the isometric view.
Wolfman Walt wrote:
just as easily as you can press your tab key in Morrowind to see your character from 3rd person.
And you know what Morrowind is in 3rd person? The same thing as morrowind in first person except you can't hit anything.
That's taken entirely out of context. By your way of thinking Bethesda must use the first person perspective simply becaue it's what their game engine already uses.
Wolfman Walt wrote:Just because something isn't super fast doesn't make it "Pointless" or "Clunky." Jagged Alliance is anything BUT and it's an excellent example of what turn based is.
Jagged Alliance and Fallout are two completely different genres. Fallout is an RPG while Jagged Alliance is a turn based strategy game. The main difference being that you could control more than one character in Jagged Alliance. In most cases where turn based is used it is simply because you wouldn't otherwise be able to control more than one character at a time as effectively as you can in turn based combat. While I do enjoy a good bout of turn based combat it is much more enjoyable when you have control of all your allies.

Could you imagine having played most any other RPG without control of your allies? Just think about it. It would make them virtually useless in combat situations (as is the case in Fallout 1 and 2). Plus it makes you not really care whether they live or die.

Actually even in a game such as Baldur's Gate (for the PC, not the console trash) you wouldn't want the computer controlling your allies. It's just lame as it was in Fallout 1 and 2.

I guess I'm just saying that if you can't control your comanions you pick up along the way then I just don't see much point to turn based combat other than making you wait a century while 20 super mutants take their turns. Which is a moment where you'll constantly be thinking, "I really need to kill one or two of them a round so that this will go by faster."

That said, I really don't mind small encounters with at most 5 enemies in a game such as Fallout. Although in the same sense I wouldn't want to engage turn based combat 100 times just to kill 100 individual rats. Give us the option to leave turn based engaged or even have it not engage if the first shot actually kills the enemy.
Wolfman Walt wrote: In either case please go play something like Restricted Area or the UT Wasteland mod, it seems to be more of what you're after.
Funny you should mention it. I've actually played Restricted Area and didn't like it. I was hoping it would play more like Fallout Tactics does in CTB mode.

In any case everyone overexaggerated my comment about taking out the hex system and is assuming I obviously meant that I wanted to nix every RPG element. No I just think something like Fallout Tactics' combat system works better. Though I would prefer a turn based system that works more like Temple of Elemental Evil (don't take this 100% I'm not saying to use the D20 rules, nor am I saying I want attack of opportunity).

Like I mentioned previously the perfect blend would include first person exploration (which they would have to do no work at all on their engine to get that) and third person turn based combat. However, encounters should be limited to only 5 or less enemies at a time and I would greatly like control of allied party members. There really shouldn't be more enemies than that in a game system where a super mutant can get a lucky critical and kill the PC in only one hit at any given moment during combat. I know you enjoyed waiting around a corner and killing them one by one with a burst as they come around the bend but hopefully the AI won't be as exploitable in FO3.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. " -John 3:16

Hopes. Dreams. You have to live these things. If not, they will remain prisoner within the confines of your mind for the rest of your life.
User avatar
requiem_for_a_starfury
Hero of the Wastes
Hero of the Wastes
Posts: 1820
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 11:13 am

Post by requiem_for_a_starfury »

Fallout is an isometric game, adding any first person view would turn it into a first person game, which wouldn't be a sequel. Isometric RPGs aren't anything like Firstperson RPGs. Why suggest such a radical change, when such a change would destroy half of what makes the game? What do you actually like about Fallout, enough to make you post on a fan forum? Because there doesn't seem to be much about the games that you don't want to change, and before you say setting, writing and plot a game is more than just those things. Setting, writing and plot make a book not a game, in a game the camera view, the mechanics and gameplay are just as much of the experience as anything else.

All of the RPG games I've played where you control more than one person would of worked better if you could only control your character. As someone else said how is it roleplaying if you are controlling more than one character all the time? Sure some of the npcs would be useless, but part of Fallout's charm is Ian shooting you in the back, it adds an element of depth when the npcs are actually characters that have their own abilities be it good or bad. I care more about the npcs in Fallout that I couldn't control than the one's in other games which I could control, they are just pack mules or cannon fodder. They have little or no character and the only reason I might want to keep one alive is because they're loaded down with stuff that no one else has room for.

100 rats, where were there ever 100 rats in a TB RPG? Combat in TB RPGs is hardly ever about big pitched battles, you usually only get a few opponents at a time.
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
User avatar
PaladinHeart
Strider
Strider
Posts: 747
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2003 5:28 am
Contact:

Post by PaladinHeart »

VasikkA wrote:Well, envision a 2D isometric game with fixed camera then. I often found myself adjusting the camera in fully rotatable 3D games like NWN and Dungeon Siege. 2D games can look pretty too, as the beauty is often in the artwork, environments and a clear functional interface. At least to me.
I like 2D as much as anyone else here but didn't someone who works at Bethesda here already say they were going to use their Oblivion game's engine? Which is 3D of course.
VasikkA wrote:Let me repeat myself, camera view doesn't have anything to do with immersion. Assuming you've played 'archaic' RPGs, you'd understand that.


I'm a huge fan of playing around with my inventory and in most cases first person lets me do that a great deal more than third person where I usually just have a huge pile of amassed junk. I know it's a little thing that doesn't matter that much. I just like first person better for playing around with items. It's a tad more difficult to imagine an interface that lets you lay a gun on a table in third person that it is to imagine the same thing happening in first person. Like I said. Not that important.
VasikkA wrote:I never found any problems with the turn-based combat. Please elaborate. (insert listed arguments)

I thought it was annoying when I had to wait on 20 super mutants to take their turns or when it had to initiate combat every time a rat wanted to bite me. It was really more of a flaw with the game's design than with turn based combat itself. It was also annoying when I wanted to avoid a random encounter especially with a character that had low perception, and had to wait every time on the enemy to take their turn. Especially if they had enough AP's to sap some life before I could get away. Fire geckos were especially annoying. Then again a lot of the new enemies in Fallout 2 were, in my opinion, poorly balanced.

Actually when I wasn't fighting rat after rat or a horde of super mutants I enjoyed the turn based combat. It was annoying for random enounters though.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. " -John 3:16

Hopes. Dreams. You have to live these things. If not, they will remain prisoner within the confines of your mind for the rest of your life.
User avatar
jetbaby
Mamma's Gang member
Mamma's Gang member
Posts: 4186
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2004 11:32 pm
Location: Magical Island

Post by jetbaby »

I read far enough into the opening post by Paladin whatever to see that he wants Fallout3's combat to be like Counterstrike.
off topic? OMG YOU'VE BEEN CENSORED... yet you're still posting. MYSTARY!!!!

Duck and Cover: THE site for all your Fallout needs
User avatar
PaladinHeart
Strider
Strider
Posts: 747
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2003 5:28 am
Contact:

Post by PaladinHeart »

jetbaby wrote:I read far enough into the opening post by Paladin whatever to see that he wants Fallout3's combat to be like Counterstrike.
I only used it as an example for the firing accuracy circle thingy. In your way of thinking Fallout 3 is going to be a turn based RPG so it must be like Final Fantasy!!! LOLLZZ!!! Final Fantasy with gunzorz woooooooowwwww!!! Gimme! xD

:hahano:

Oh and for your information I think Counterstrike is a sucky multiplayer FPS.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. " -John 3:16

Hopes. Dreams. You have to live these things. If not, they will remain prisoner within the confines of your mind for the rest of your life.
User avatar
jetbaby
Mamma's Gang member
Mamma's Gang member
Posts: 4186
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2004 11:32 pm
Location: Magical Island

Post by jetbaby »

I never mentioned jack shit as to what I think Fallout 3 should be. I especially find my reference of Final Fantasy as the necessary building block in Fallout 3. Please, do tell, where do you see these words that I do not type?

Oh, and for your information, I don't give a fuck whether you like Counterstrike or not. The fact is it sucks shit. So does an RPG done in first person.

And no, I will not give you "xD," you'll have to buy it yourself. Go pop twelve shots of vodka and if you vomit enough or otherwise get sober enough to post again pop twelve more.
off topic? OMG YOU'VE BEEN CENSORED... yet you're still posting. MYSTARY!!!!

Duck and Cover: THE site for all your Fallout needs
User avatar
PaladinHeart
Strider
Strider
Posts: 747
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2003 5:28 am
Contact:

Post by PaladinHeart »

jetbaby wrote:Go pop twelve shots of vodka and if you vomit enough or otherwise get sober enough to post again pop twelve more.
So that's what's wrong with you. No thanks. You can have my share. You can use it towards misunderstanding yet another post.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. " -John 3:16

Hopes. Dreams. You have to live these things. If not, they will remain prisoner within the confines of your mind for the rest of your life.
User avatar
jetbaby
Mamma's Gang member
Mamma's Gang member
Posts: 4186
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2004 11:32 pm
Location: Magical Island

Post by jetbaby »

Is english a second language or are you just dull?
off topic? OMG YOU'VE BEEN CENSORED... yet you're still posting. MYSTARY!!!!

Duck and Cover: THE site for all your Fallout needs
User avatar
PaladinHeart
Strider
Strider
Posts: 747
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2003 5:28 am
Contact:

Post by PaladinHeart »

jetbaby wrote:Oh, and for your information, I don't give a fuck whether you like Counterstrike or not. The fact is it sucks shit. So does an RPG done in first person.
Ultima Underworld was one of the best RPG's ever made and it was first person.
jetbaby wrote:And no, I will not give you "xD," you'll have to buy it yourself. Go pop twelve shots of vodka and if you vomit enough or otherwise get sober enough to post again pop twelve more.
That was meant to be a smiley because I think the default ones here are inadequate as they only seem to represent extreme expressions. Plus I've been on Gaia Online too much. :-P
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. " -John 3:16

Hopes. Dreams. You have to live these things. If not, they will remain prisoner within the confines of your mind for the rest of your life.
User avatar
Wolfman Walt
Mamma's Gang member
Mamma's Gang member
Posts: 5243
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 1:31 pm
Location: La Grange, Kentucky
Contact:

Post by Wolfman Walt »

PaladinHeart wrote:You misunderstood me. I meant the hexes are archaic.
No it's not, it's a system and it works pretty good. You think it looks stupid that when you walk side by side? Good, who cares, it gets the job done effectively. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it archaic, bad, etc. It is just possible YOU'RE the one with horrible taste here.
What genre is Fallout exactly?
What Genre are those games you mentioned? Morrowind is an action/ exploration game with horribly implimented combat and character development elements.

Revenge at Krondor? That's an rpg from what I can tell, but I found the FPS system to be too clunky actually and really counter-intuiative. OMG, wtf?

Counter strike? Well we know what that is, and even though you're like "IT SHOULD BE LIKE COUNTER STRIKE! BUT NOT LIKE COUNTER STRIKE!" what you're actually describing is Vampire the Masquerade which is another Action game with decent character development. The problem is, just like with Morrowind, the combat system you're trying to suggest is HORRIBLE. So there goes your idea for first person real time, because it's been PROVEN not to work too well. What you get is a shitty hybrid of a shitty action game with some character development (Ala Dues ex) and it's just been proven not to work, so will you shut the fuck up about first person combat as it sucks, it sucks, it sucks and by that you suck in part for thinking it's a great system.

Switching from first person to isometric for combat? Why? You have yet to explain ANYTHING that makes any remote sense as to why you'd want to play it first person during exploration. "It's more immersive!!!" Bullshit. An isometric view is JUST as immersive and you don't have to worry about stupid view points with the isometric because the game team designed an area with first person in mind but you got yourself in combat.
Not the isometric view.
No, you suggested making it similar to Counterstrike, that inpart does say you wanted it as something OTHER then isometric view because it's not immersive enough.
That's taken entirely out of context.
No it's not, it's a quote that fits right in with what you're saying, now address the fucking point.
Jagged Alliance and Fallout are two completely different genres.

And you're an idiot for not getting the point. I wasn't talking about what genre they are, I was talking about their combat systems which are similar you numb nut. Infact, the JA combat system is almost everything you're asking for (No hex grid) and virtually improves on Fallouts combat system in every way, so comparisons can be made.

Could you imagine having played most any other RPG without control of your allies?
And I can imagine liking them more as then they'd be RPG's instead of squad based management systems.

It would make them virtually useless in combat situations (as is the case in Fallout 1 and 2). Plus it makes you not really care whether they live or die.
Bullshit, all my team members in Fallout 2 and 1 were important and I made sure they all stayed alive to the point of reloading to a much earlier date because I did something stupid. So you can shut up about that point too.
I guess I'm just saying that if you can't control your comanions you pick up along the way then I just don't see much point to turn based
And I see no point in your argument thus far besides "I LIKE THIS!" and no one else does. But yet.....you keep talking.......
combat other than making you wait a century while 20 super mutants take their turns.
What the fuck game were you playing? Do you suffer from ADD or something? You act like it takes 5 minutes for a turn to end or something. No, wrong, next point as yours is completely stupid, wrong, and an overexageration even when tuned down to more realistic porpotions.
Funny you should mention it. I've actually played Restricted Area and didn't like it.
Hmm......well maybe that should mean either one or two things. Your idea is pure shit or you just want another Fallout Tactics sequal.
In any case everyone overexaggerated my comment about taking out the hex system
No we didn't, you're assuming we took it out of proportion simply because we think you're a moron with little to offer and that your ideas (atleast as far as this goes) suck. They suck so hard that I believe if I search for "Suck" on google, I'll get this thread.
User avatar
PaladinHeart
Strider
Strider
Posts: 747
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2003 5:28 am
Contact:

Post by PaladinHeart »

PaladinHeart wrote:You misunderstood me. I meant the hexes are archaic.
Wolfman Walt wrote: No it's not, it's a system and it works pretty good. You think it looks stupid that when you walk side by side? Good, who cares, it gets the job done effectively. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it archaic, bad, etc. It is just possible YOU'RE the one with horrible taste here.
Well I can't really argue against old ideals. I was hoping for something new and refreshing that more than a few thousand people will like (how many people are still registered here, at NMA, and other Fallout sites?). Judging from how most people here feel then a new Fallout game made with the original Fallout's game engine would make them just as happy, if not moreso, than anything Bethesda might release.

Maybe you'll all get lucky and they will make a 3D easily modifiable Fallout engine JUST LIKE the original? If I were them I'd just make something like that called Fallout Maker and release it for $30. Then they wouldn't be out the time and money making an actual story to go with it. I'm sure there'd be tons of fascinating modules made by fans for it. *snickers* Yeah right. The best thing you'd get is someone faithfully remaking the original Fallout.
Wolfman Walt wrote:What Genre are those games you mentioned? Morrowind is an action/ exploration game with horribly implimented combat and character development elements.

Revenge at Krondor? That's an rpg from what I can tell, but I found the FPS system to be too clunky actually and really counter-intuiative. OMG, wtf?
Morrowind had pretty decent gameplay. It mostly suffered from lack of gameplay balance. It's tough starting out but once you gain a few levels you can pretty much kill anything. BOO!! Too easy.

BETRAYAL at Krondor. Not Revenge. I haven't played the one you're talking about. I belive it got bad reviews and I therefore refused to buy it. :-P

From what you can tell? How can you say that and then claim the FPS system is too clunky and counter-intuitive if you haven't played it? You're not going by screenshots alone are you?

Furthermore the S in FPS stands for "shooter" and there are no guns in fantasy games. I know it's just a small mistake on your part but pointing fingers, cussing, and ridicule over such things seems to be required on DAC and I should keep up my jerk quota. Thankfully I don't have any unsightly veins popping out of my head yet like so many other members here.

I would suggest you try Betrayal in Antara (it can run in Win 95) but it's not as good as BaK despite using the same game engine. Plus if you haven't played something back in the day then you'd probably have a harder time sticking with it. Much like most people who haven't played Wasteland would feel if they tried it today. It doesn't work.
Wolfman Walt wrote:Counter strike? ---- Vampire the Masquerade ---- first person real time ---- PROVEN not to work too well. ---- first person combat ---- sucks ----
Yes I thought about it a bit and determined that switching to third person isometric view would be better for combat. Besides the point though I did not mean to imply that I wanted first person real time combat. I was thinking of some sort of active turn based system or something. It would be clunky though and not work well in first person. You can't see the combat zone as well in first person which is very important for a turn based strategy game such as Fallout.
Wolfman Walt wrote:Switching from first person to isometric for combat? ---- explain ANYTHING that makes any remote sense ---- An isometric view is JUST as immersive ---- designed an area with first person in mind ----
Yes. Consider the part in Fallout 2 where you pull the energy cells out of the vent. In first person not only would you hear the noise but you could also see the vent better from your perspective.

It's more of an aesthetic thing than something I think would function better. I'd like to see the opening of boxes and such and actually seeing the contents rather than a basic inventoryish list (as most games, even first person games, still primitively do to this day). It would be fun to go digging through junk to find useful stuff as well rather than telling your character to do so. Plus there is the issue of character animations for all these things whereas they could actually skimp on this with first person because you wouldn't actually be seeing it anyway. You'd be doing it yourself. Again, an aesthetic idea. Eye candy if you will. Go with complete third person if you don't care anything about improvements to the actual visual qualities in the game. Better yet why don't we just edit Wasteland to make Fallout 3? We don't need eye candy. Save Bethesda the trouble.

Let's see... don't need to address that point, or that. Oh. What's this one?
Jagged Alliance and Fallout are two completely different genres.
Wolfman Walt wrote: And you're an idiot for not getting the point. I wasn't talking about what genre they are, I was talking about their combat systems which are similar you numb nut. Infact, the JA combat system is almost everything you're asking for (No hex grid) and virtually improves on Fallouts combat system in every way, so comparisons can be made.
I said they were different games because you wouldn't want to play Jagged Alliance 2 with just one character. For a single character I'd choose Fallout Tactic's combat system but for a squad game like Jagged Alliance the turn based combat is perfect.

Oh, and every Jagged Alliance game has a "square" system. It's better than clunky hexes but it still confines your path/position to geometric spaces and makes movement from point A to B look weird. Merely aesthetic though and not really worth discussing further.

Could you imagine having played most any other RPG without control of your allies?
Wolfman Walt wrote:And I can imagine liking them more as then they'd be RPG's instead of squad based management systems.
Not having control of your party members gives me a sortof hack n slash RPG feeling. Like playing as a necromancer with minions as in Diablo. You equip them and tweak them as best you can and hope they'll be useful in combat. Only strategic in the preparation.

It's not a big deal in Fallout though where you can actually accomplish your goals without the aid of an NPC. In other RPG's the challenge level would have to be toned down though to accomodate the possibility of poor NPC companion's judgement (and subsequent death).

So really if I can't control them then I would rather just do a couple quests with them and then them go on their own way and not level up with me and stuff. Dogmeat was okay but NPC's like Ian should consider going their own way when you start dealing with enemies that they're not comfortable with. It would be more realistic. It should be more of an RPG and less of a strategy game with "minions".
Wolfman Walt wrote:Bullshit, all my team members in Fallout 2 and 1 were important and I made sure they all stayed alive to the point of reloading to a much earlier date because I did something stupid. So you can shut up about that point too.
You can too since it's not only a difference of opinion but also a difference in the way the game is played. Sometimes I'd keep them alive (yes reloading as you did as well) and sometimes I'd leave them to rot.

Let's see.. that's a load of hot air so I'll skip that.
combat other than making you wait a century while 20 super mutants take their turns.
Wolfman Walt wrote:What the fuck game were you playing? Do you suffer from ADD or something? You act like it takes 5 minutes for a turn to end or something. No, wrong, next point as yours is completely stupid, wrong, and an overexageration even when tuned down to more realistic porpotions.
Do you always get this passionate over suggestions people make about games? I could do everyone here a disfavor and send my suggestions directly to Bethesda rather than discussing them here like the FO: BOS fans are probably doing right this very moment. :eyebrow:
Give us the option to leave turn based engaged or even have it not engage if the first shot actually kills the enemy.
What is so wrong with that idea? If I'm not mistaken I believe you could do something similar in Jagged Alliance 2 (a game which you seem to like) and yet you've attacked the idea as though it's outrageous?

It's a suggested feature that would only make encounters go a little bit more smoothly. It wouldn't change the whole design of the game.

Okay so it's more like 20 rats and 10 or so super mutants. The rats weren't a problem at all in the original Fallout and since Fallout 2 sucks by comparison we can just forget about the rats in that game.

As for Fallout 1 there were a few encounters that took a while to play out. The only one I remember minding in particular was the encounter in the Super Mutants' bunker. That's merely optional though since you can get by without visiting that floor.

My suggestion is still good though for when you're going through a cave full of rats and would like to go ahead and take them all out without starting combat for each individual rat.

Again, not that importand and more of an aesthetic improvement to the system. You can shut up about it now as I'm not discussing it further since that's all it is and, as such, not important in the overall design of the game.
Funny you should mention it. I've actually played Restricted Area and didn't like it.
Wolfman Walt wrote:Hmm......well maybe that should mean either one or two things. Your idea is pure shit or you just want another Fallout Tactics sequal.
No. It just means you suck for even mentioning Restricted Area.

As for a Fallout Tactics sequel, sure. Put in a dialogue system and a storyline that doesn't actually suck and you'll have a good game.
In any case everyone overexaggerated my comment about taking out the hex system
Wolfman Walt wrote:No we didn't, you're assuming we took it out of proportion simply because we think you're a moron with little to offer and that your ideas (atleast as far as this goes) suck. They suck so hard that I believe if I search for "Suck" on google, I'll get this thread.
If so then you could look up "Wolfman Walt" and get this thread too. What's your point?
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. " -John 3:16

Hopes. Dreams. You have to live these things. If not, they will remain prisoner within the confines of your mind for the rest of your life.
User avatar
Aonaran
Striding Hero
Striding Hero
Posts: 1261
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 8:02 pm

Post by Aonaran »

PaladinHeart wrote:A whole lot of shit in his defense

Look man, in case you haven't realized it yet, if you decide to evangelize FO3 and the slightest possibility that it might not suck here you are going to spend 99.999% of the time arguing with people who purposely misinterpret your posts so that they don't have to consider the possibility you might have a point. Just let it go man.
my vocabulary skills is above you.
User avatar
Wolfman Walt
Mamma's Gang member
Mamma's Gang member
Posts: 5243
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 1:31 pm
Location: La Grange, Kentucky
Contact:

Post by Wolfman Walt »

Maybe you'll all get lucky and they will make a 3D easily modifiable Fallout engine JUST LIKE the original? If I were them I'd just make something like that called Fallout Maker and release it for $30. Then they wouldn't be out the time and money making an actual story to go with it. I'm sure there'd be tons of fascinating modules made by fans for it. *snickers* Yeah right. The best thing you'd get is someone faithfully remaking the original Fallout.
We already have that, all that. Fan Made fallout, and theres some sort of fallout 2 mod to make fallout 2 into fallout 1. Notice how I wasn't commenting towards the story thread or whatever. Just that your "innovations" are stupid, have been said before, and have been proven stupid.

How can you say that and then claim the FPS system is too clunky and counter-intuitive if you haven't played it? You're not going by screenshots alone are you?
It was sarcasm - denote the OMG WTF. It looks clunky and off base and I doubt it works very well as a system. You can say it works well, but it just doesn't sound like it works well from a gameplay or developmental standpoint.

As for your furthermore - there are no guns in fantasy fps' but there ARE arrows and bows which you shoot, so technically, I'm still right. I think this is the point where I said "Don't get smart with me boy."
I'd like to see the opening of boxes and such and actually seeing the contents rather than a basic inventoryish list
You know how that works in morrowind? You look into the box. You see 3 things. They all look really lonely in there. Sorry, I'd rather have the isometric view as it sounds better.
Go with complete third person if you don't care anything about improvements to the actual visual qualities in the game
What are you trying to imply? That if a game isn't First Person it can't be good looking?
I said they were different games because you wouldn't want to play Jagged Alliance 2 with just one character.
I actually have and its a quite enjoyable experience (Up until the part where you have to be in more then one place at once.) We're not talking about all that shit though - we're talking about the combat inwhich case it works perfectly fine. Fallouts is probably better - but I was more of refering to the movement, distance, etc system you were speaking of.
Not having control of your party members gives me a sortof hack n slash RPG feeling
Has as been stated in another thread - thats what an RPG is. It's not a squad based tactical game, it's a ROLE playing game. Role in this case is singular.
It should be more of an RPG and less of a strategy game with "minions".
Sounds kinda like you're suggesting, except with high power minions.

Do you always get this passionate over suggestions people make about games
Do not mistake my replying or use of language as being passionate, I really could give ashit about your posts. So long as you take your posts away from my eyes, it's fine with me.
What is so wrong with that idea
It depends on just how you're talking about your idea - If your talking about a SINGULAR enemy, like sneaking up on them and killing them, that doesn't sound AS bad although I still see no reason why it can't be done the other way.....oh right.....you care about asthetics....Multiple enemies though - no, that's how it never worked because it'd be almost impossible to get it to work that way.
it just means you suck for even mentioning Restricted Area.
And you brought Counterstrike into this conversation if I'm correct......So by your logic....
If so then you could look up "Wolfman Walt" and get this thread too. What's your point?
You created it and these are all your ideas.
User avatar
PaladinHeart
Strider
Strider
Posts: 747
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2003 5:28 am
Contact:

Post by PaladinHeart »

Aonaran wrote:Look man, in case you haven't realized it yet, if you decide to evangelize FO3 and the slightest possibility that it might not suck here you are going to spend 99.999% of the time arguing with people who purposely misinterpret your posts so that they don't have to consider the possibility you might have a point. Just let it go man.
Hmm.. you're right. It's just a vicious cycle anyways and it's getting more boring than examining a piece of toast for 30 days straight. I've had more interesting conversations with Dogmeat. :bored:
You know how that works in morrowind? You look into the box. You see 3 things. They all look really lonely in there. Sorry, I'd rather have the isometric view as it sounds better.
And that is so funny I think I might put it in my signature. Or not. Nah. It's too dumb.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. " -John 3:16

Hopes. Dreams. You have to live these things. If not, they will remain prisoner within the confines of your mind for the rest of your life.
Our Host!
Locked