Err what's it matter how many people still log on to a fan site? Fan sites even at their peak only reflect a small percentage of the numbers of people playing a game. And for such an old game the Fallout community is still larger and more active than more recent games. As for being new and refreshing, it's possible to update the basic principles of the game without chucking the baby out with the bath water. Again you ignore my question what do you actually like about Fallout because all you ever post is what's wrong with it and what you want to change.PaladinHeart wrote: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.
Morrowind had dire gameplay, so bad I took it back to the shop and demanded my money back (and it's not often the British do something like that).PaladinHeart wrote: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.
Turn based strategy game? WTF it's a Turn Based RPG!PaladinHeart wrote: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.
So basically you're a graphics whore. What's wrong with the animations? Is there anything you do like about these games? As for seeing what's in containers, or vents can't you use your imagination for once? Actually who want's to look down a boring old vent and seeing the items in containers, Silent Storm did that, it didn't add anything to the game. Not all of us are so anal retentive that we find such miniscule everyday details interesting let alone 'fun'. The usual inventory screens aren't primative but efficient and effective.PaladinHeart wrote: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.
Trouble with Eye Candy is that it's all sugar coating and no substance, you'd find the game looked great but that's it. There's nothing wrong with improving the graphics but not at the expense of everything else. Saying that though there's no doubt the graphics will be better, since it's been 8 years since the first one and will be another 2 at least before the next.
Many people like to solo JA2, I don't really see the attraction myself since it's squad based and there are so many other solo games but still they like to do it. As for hexes being clunky please back that up, I'd say hexes are more efficient than squares being as they allow for all the directions better which surely must be fudged in a square system. If you've ever played a table top PnP game hexes are a far more playable and to quote PC Zone's article on Fallout in their 'Games that Changed the World' supplement, (reprinted in this months issue.)PaladinHeart wrote: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.
PCZone wrote:"We were trying to make a very paper and pencil type of RPG. We didn't avoid the previous computer RPGs, but we spent a lot of time trying to get that tabletop RPG experience into a computer game." recalls Chris Taylor, the second lead designer.
Not being able to control them gives me an RPG feeling, I don't even want to be able to equip them, as for how useful they are in combat I don't care, I just hope I save before I get shot in the back.PaladinHeart wrote: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.
You can already end combat at your own risk in Fallout, and usually if there's no immediate threat it'll end straight away anyway. What more do you need.PaladinHeart wrote: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?
Bloody hell, how much actual time does it cost to start combat? If you thought any of the combat went on for too long I surprised you play any TB games.PaladinHeart wrote:IAs 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.
I guess it goes to show that Fallout isn't about the combat. It's about the story and quests and overcoming obstacles. 
