Isometric, 1st person and Turn based combat.

Since Bethesda decided to make Fallout 3, we figured we might as well have a forum about it.
User avatar
xbow
Vault Elite
Vault Elite
Posts: 337
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 12:23 am
Location: Mojave Desert

Isometric, 1st person and Turn based combat.

Post by xbow »

OK its pretty clear that the majority of us woukld like to see Fallout3 be played from the isometric perspective and retain turn based combat. So a few questions are in order:

Question: "Why do you find the Isometric perspective to be better or more enjoyable than 1st Person?

Question: "Is turn based combat an integral part of the fallout experience to you and if so why, or why not?

Question: "If Turn based combat and the Isometric perspective are history what kind of a combat system could be introduced to make it something other than a shooter with elements of an RPG? Describe a new combat system that would work and be fallouty

Long thoughtful answers would be appreciated.
User avatar
Sovy Kurosei
Vault Veteran
Vault Veteran
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 10:20 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Sovy Kurosei »

1. It is about presentation. A first person perspective is primed for first person shooters, as it gives optimal control and precision for twitch based combat. The first person perspective is best suited to games where making tactical decisions based on the environment you are in is on the back burner, and plowing through 300 baddies a hour is on the forefront of your mind.

An isometric point of view allows the player to view the lay of the land, and gives awareness to a player to what is beside them, and behind them. This is difficult if not impossible to implement passively in a first person perspective. I also find that an isometric point of view allows player controlled parties to be easier to manage than in a first person perspective. Combat also plays out differently in an isometric point of view than in a first person point of view. While one aims and shoots in a first person perspective, the player points and clicks in an isometric point of view. This works irregardless if the isometric point of view is real-time or turn-based.

It isn't so much wether isometric or first person is better than one or the other, but if one perspective or the other is better suited to the environment that the gamer will be playing in. And I have always felt that RPGs, particularly any involving parties, are served best if they are presented in an isometric point of view.

2. Turn-based combat isn't a defining aspect of Fallout. However, what makes turn-based combat necessary for Fallout is the SPECIAL system and the isometric point of view. SPECIAL lays out the rules, the isometric view presents the appropriate graphical interface to overwatch and make decisions in combat, and turn-based makes the game much more managable to deal with the situation. The system is self-contained. The sum of the parts alone are outweighed, outmatched than the entire system itself by God knows how many order of magnitudes. If you replace turn-based with real-time, then SPECIAL will be affected, and be deleterious to the gameplay experience. If you remove the isometric point of view in favor of a first person perspective, then you will make the gamer feel claustophobic, and make party management increasingly difficult. If you remove SPECIAL in favor of another set of rules and laws, then it is quite likely those game mechanics were designed for a game that favored a different style of play, like in real-time or first person.

Unfortunately, while Bethesda expressed interest in using the SPECIAL system, we are either going to end up having rules system that is SPECIAL only in name, or SPECIAL will be more of a hinderence than an actual useful rules set.

3. One that does not use SPECIAL, I would hope. If Bethesda is indeed planning on making Fallout 3 a first-person, real time experience, then at least try not to implement a set of game rules that will ruin the gameplay.

Although, there are ways to fix the turn-based system so it will not be as convulated as, say, Silent Storm. For example, and I believe this was brought up already, make parties in a conflict (barring the player character of course) to go all at once. The CPU can calculate the bad guys at a turn-based level, but shows off the results all at one go. In a game that focusses on melee, it would be quite difficult. But with reasonable level designing and monster placement, it will be much more rewarding in saving the gamer time. And since Fallout is definately range-weapon dominant game, well...

Such a system would have its bugs, but they can be kept in check explicitly if necessary (characters walking off the screen if they were trying to walk towards the player character would magically teleport themselves where they should be) but could be handled implicitly too. It depends on how much time the developer wants to invest in the combat system.

Unfortunately, the isometric point of view is a real hit-or-miss scenario. There is very little grey territory between a first person or isometric point of view.

Edit: Erm, I'm not too sure about anybody else, but if a moderator feels that some paragraphs are too big, feel free to edit this post to break them up.
User avatar
Jimmyjay86
Hero of the Glowing Lands
Hero of the Glowing Lands
Posts: 2102
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2002 4:02 am
Location: Wisconsin
Contact:

Post by Jimmyjay86 »

You know it isn't really that isometric viewpoint is better than 1st person. Case in point; a color film isn't better than black and white. A sports car isn't better than an SUV. Each is used for different reasons. Maybe it is the traditional and preferred approach to use an overhead viewpoint beause of the evolution of RPGs from the tabletop. True, there was a subculture devoted to role-playing in real time in real environments but maybe not to the best effect. It's hard to beat the detail of the imagination. The best special effects can never come close to an average person's imaginative visions. Why even try to compete?

For some reason I recently bought Silent Hill 3 on a lark. The graphical realism is impressive with it's cutting edge use of 3d shading but it is abysmal in the way that I feel control over the character and what she sees. There is no control over the viewpoint and it usually is pointed towards an area that is less than strategic for the frequent battles. The simplest battles are excrutiating and I feel like a retard after drinking a case of beer when trying to kill the creatures. The limitations of the medium need to be given help to make the control more realistic. Third person is a better adaptation for computer games than first person because it gives a viewpoint that is on par with the perceptions that a real person might experience in a real environment.

Regardless of the viewpoint there are design decisions that need to be made to balance the game so that the difficulty level isn't frustrating for an average player. I also think most average game players are sophisticated enough to enjoy challenging combat that encourages strategy and forethought. Because of the limitations of the first person game's range of vision, the balance must be made at the expense of sophistication. Is this a desirable goal?

The same can be said for real time combat. Although I would enjoy a quicker and more "true-to-life" system than TB, real-time doesn't allow for the sophistication and control that I desire. No computer interface offers the full range of sensations or control that is possible in real life. So to balance game combat the designer must make concessions and simplify things. Turn based combat is proven to be more sophisticated. Fallout's combat was simple and really didn't push the limits of complexitiy but it was still fun enough.

I think Fallout excelled because of it's role-playing qualities not it's combat. It excelled because of it's flexibility, depth and replayability. For it's generation it didn't have the excitement of combat that Doom or Unreal had. But that is because it never tried. It wasn't trying to compete with FPS games then and it shouldn't try now. It is always a great design mistake to try and fit all expectations into one package. Work with the best qualities of the product and don't go beyond that. Any self-respecting designer should know enough that there are some aspects to a product that cannot be changed without destroying the integrity of the product.
User avatar
xbow
Vault Elite
Vault Elite
Posts: 337
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 12:23 am
Location: Mojave Desert

Post by xbow »

Hey Jimmyjay86 and Sovy Kurosei thanks for the great responses.

now my little rant:


In trying to find out why the isometric perspective is so alluring I decided to do a little turd hunt around the web for some information. I stumbled on an article at
buzz cut: critical video game theory

A writer that identified himself as ‘David’ wrote his opinions on the isometric view in an article named “Small Gods: The Isometric Perspective Considered.� In that article he states,

“isometric perspective is about power and control. But it is the free and safe feeling of power that children have when they play. Not the complex adult god who has responsibilities for keeping his creation in line.�

He considers the isometric view to be similar to a child’s view of the world and that it allows the user to enjoy violent games without actually becoming involved.

In that same article ‘David’ quoted Stephen Poole the author of a book named ‘Trigger Happy.’ David believes that Pool is incorrect when he states in Trigger Happy.

“Foreshortening implies a subjective, individual viewpoint, so it’s absence in isometric graphics, along with the elevated position of survey, conspired to give the user a sense of playing God in these tiny universes.�


From either opinion you can assume that the lure of the isometric view has something to do with the way it strokes the control freak side of the brain. The isometric view empowers the player and allows him to be an anonymous agent, as safe as Zeus kicking back on mount Olympus watching the world below. That’s a tough act to beat.

There is also the issue of turn based combat which many people believe to be integral to any iteration of Fallout. If the view for Fallout3 is near isometric then turn based combat might be possible option but if it is a 1st person RPG game then turn based combat wouldn’t make much sense.

Even if the perspective is first person I could still see a method of combat that would not require us to become MNW’s (mindless nintendo wizards). That method of combat would be something like CTB combat in FOT. This allows the characters stats/skills/perks to be the determining factor in combat resolution. I could see a combat control screen where you set the character up to react in a certain way in combat, target selection, burst mode and all that You the player wouldn’t have to micro manage the character in that way you would in real time combat. Just point the character in a direction and move it around from position to position and the character would shoot at the closest most dangerous targets. If need be you could override its presets by designating a specific target, change weapons etc. The action would be fast and a bit automated but you wouldn’t all of a sudden be playing quake in real time.

If done correctly I guess I could live with a lot of changes just as long as the game still feels Fallouty.
User avatar
Mismatch
Paragon
Paragon
Posts: 2366
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2004 7:16 pm
Location: Over yonder hill

Post by Mismatch »

A writer that identified himself as ‘David’
David is muching his mommas ass.
“isometric perspective is about power and control. But it is the free and safe feeling of power that children have when they play. Not the complex adult god who has responsibilities for keeping his creation in line.�
It has nothing to do with that, postal 2 was first person, and I dont get any feeling to keep my creation in line in that game.
From either opinion you can assume that the lure of the isometric view has something to do with the way it strokes the control freak side of the brain
or mebbe, just mebbe, the reason why we want 3rd person isometric is because of the fact that no good (true) RPGs are in first person.



You do realise that this david is really the davide in megotrons comic.
Don't listen to davide.
User avatar
Subhuman
Haha you're still not there yet
Haha you're still not there yet
Posts: 3450
Joined: Tue May 21, 2002 10:43 pm
Location: Denial
Contact:

Post by Subhuman »

Sovy wrote:If you replace turn-based with real-time, then SPECIAL will be affected, and be deleterious to the gameplay experience.
How, exactly? I'm kind of a n00b when it comes to the intricacies of the SPECIAL system, so I'm not entirely familiar with how every little part works. But I don't see how real-time combat would affect the SPECIAL system in any detrimental way.
User avatar
S4ur0n27
Mamma's Gang member
Mamma's Gang member
Posts: 15172
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2002 10:14 am
Contact:

Post by S4ur0n27 »

Because of APs and Sequence.
User avatar
Sovy Kurosei
Vault Veteran
Vault Veteran
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 10:20 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Sovy Kurosei »

What Susan said. That will need to be worked out. Perception and agility will need to be reworked out to take in account real-time combat.

Another key point is that playing styles will be limited from being so open to different strategies (tank, sneaky assassin, sniper, so forth) to being shoe-horned into one way of doing battle, which is usually some form of tanking up. If the developers are competent enough they can make melee and ranged combat viable but beyond that, no way, hosay.
User avatar
dude_obj
SDF!
SDF!
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:45 pm
Location: Canada (please don't annex me!)
Contact:

Post by dude_obj »

I'd like to be able to choose camera view based on my personal preference, or sometimes based on the situation. The turn-based combat in FO tends to make combat more strategic, but then real-time seems more dangerous.

I know the majority of FO fans think that anything but isometric camera views and turn-based combat is FO blasphemy. I personally think that I'll keep an open mind. Fallout in 3D with multiple selectable camera views might be very cool.

And I won't bash bethesda until I see what they cook.
<a href="http://modguide.nma-fallout.com/">Fallout Modification FAQ</a>
Bugs? Dammit Gus, I'm a dessert chef not a programmer! (Found in Fallout2.exe)
User avatar
Mismatch
Paragon
Paragon
Posts: 2366
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2004 7:16 pm
Location: Over yonder hill

Post by Mismatch »

I'd like to be able to choose camera view based on my personal preference, or sometimes based on the situation. The turn-based combat in FO tends to make combat more strategic, but then real-time seems more dangerous.
No, you can die in both.
I know the majority of FO fans think that anything but isometric camera views and turn-based combat is FO blasphemy.
anything but TB combat is blasphemy, yes. Choosing camera angels is ok, as long as isometric is there to be chosen.
And I won't bash bethesda until I see what they cook.
they wont show you their cocks.
User avatar
Flaser
Scarf-wearing n00b
Scarf-wearing n00b
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:20 pm
Location: Hungary-Budapest, Echus Overlook when out of house
Contact:

Post by Flaser »

Actually there were some good 3D RPG, witht the notable addition that they weren't pure incarnations of the genre. (no not that kind of impurity you perverted freak!!)

The fist thing that comes to my mind is System Shock - it implemented a number of things in FPS that were ealier though impossible or too complicated for real-time play.

The next game is Thief and later System Shock 2 (along with Arx)- they both implemented a lot slover and more tactical real time combat, where you HAD to use your mind. (though that's more true for Thief).

Deus Ex is the breakline IMHO - no woder Dx2 was such a disapoinment for many fans - it was the first game where the stats meant something, and the aiming system superbly integrated the concept.
If there was some Operation Falshpoint like automacy of the gun in your hand it could be taken to another level where the character acually aims it on his own.

With a more laid back and tactics enforcing gameplay even real time, first person combat can be tactically/strategically engaging.

Another great title to quote here is Battlezone - add some of its command options into the fray and you can finally yell at Marcus to friggin give some cover fire while you and Sulik sneak behind the corner and Vic lays some mines.

Some recent WWII titles promis to bring such command and controll options into their games, it was proven earlier that first person comat doesn't always degrade into a fragfast.

Therefore I think it is too soon to bury FO3 even if it is first person - we shall see and seeth on flaims or seek our copy, 'till than I live on with hope.
"Wer nicht von dreitausend Jahren
Sich weiß&#378;Rechenschaft zu geben,
Bleim im Dunkeln unerfahren
Mag von Tag zu Tage leben." - Johann Wolfgang Goethe


Hard Light Productions - Bringing Modders Together
Blargh
Ãœberkommando
Ãœberkommando
Posts: 6303
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2003 7:11 pm

Post by Blargh »

Flaser wrote:The next game is Thief and later System Shock 2 (along with Arx)- they both implemented a lot slover and more tactical real time combat, where you HAD to use your mind. (though that's more true for Thief).
Definitely true for System Shock 1/2, as it rewarded the thoughtful player. Yet with the exception of fucking around for amusement ('OH KAY LETZ BLACKJAK A HAWNT !! WHEEE !!11'), Thief 1/2/3/monkey-with-cymbals is all about avoiding combat, and dare I say all interaction with the A.I. You are a thief, not a warrior, get into combat and you're looking to be fucked through a hedge backwards, sideways and in reverse simultaneously, only with sharp things. Suffice to say you're as (usually) wrong as a thoughtful gift of coat hangers to an expecting mother.

Ghosting is fun. Yes.

The rest of your comments . . well, it's late, I'm shagged and the dogs are after me. So another time, perhaps. :drunk:
User avatar
atoga
Mamma's Gang member
Mamma's Gang member
Posts: 5440
Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 4:13 am
Location: Coney Island

Post by atoga »

Whatever happened to xbow? How I miss that 12 year old.

D:
suppose you're thinking about a plate of shrimp. suddenly somebody will say like 'plate' or 'shrimp' or 'plate of shrimp', out of the blue, no explanation.
User avatar
Mismatch
Paragon
Paragon
Posts: 2366
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2004 7:16 pm
Location: Over yonder hill

Post by Mismatch »

Actually there were some good 3D RPG, witht the notable addition that they weren't pure incarnations of the genre. (no not that kind of impurity you perverted freak!!)

The fist thing that comes to my mind is System Shock - it implemented a number of things in FPS that were ealier though impossible or too complicated for real-time play.
SS2 was great, but not a pure RPG. And, since I'd like to see FO3 as a puuuuure RPG, I must still insist that it should not be forstperson 3d. Never liked thief though, garret was a pussy.
I liked Deus EX to, but still not RPG.
Therefore I think it is too soon to bury FO3 even if it is first person - we shall see and seeth on flaims or seek our copy, 'till than I live on with hope.
If its first person it prolly wont be a real RPG, it can still be a good game in first person. But with the whole morrowind debacle in mind I do doubt it.
I want FO3 to be a fallout RPG. All bells and whistles included. And first person it wont be.
User avatar
Mr. Teatime
Righteous Subjugator
Righteous Subjugator
Posts: 3340
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 12:07 pm

Post by Mr. Teatime »

After thinking about this, I have to say that I think the whole game should be the isometric 3/4 viewpoint (3d is fine). i really don't think camera angles like first/3rd person should play a big role in the game apart from added features for certain circumstances maybe... the main view, the one the game is designed around, whether in or out of combat, should be the classic one.
Blargh
Ãœberkommando
Ãœberkommando
Posts: 6303
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2003 7:11 pm

Post by Blargh »

atoga wrote:Whatever happened to xbow? How I miss that 12 year old.

D:
We both miss him, and his insightful, thoughtful commentary. How shall we continue ? How shall we manage !?
Mismatch wrote:Never liked thief though, garret was a pussy.
You, are a worthless twat. :drunk:
User avatar
S4ur0n27
Mamma's Gang member
Mamma's Gang member
Posts: 15172
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2002 10:14 am
Contact:

Post by S4ur0n27 »

Thief gets fucking repetitive.
User avatar
Mismatch
Paragon
Paragon
Posts: 2366
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2004 7:16 pm
Location: Over yonder hill

Post by Mismatch »

You, are a worthless twat.
refusing to indulge oneself into queerish activities with garret the ass master does not qualify one as a worthless twat.
Indulging in those activities however, makes you a cockogobbling, anal receiving, rimjob aquiring, donkeyfisting, mom raping(which isnt that bad), ball tugging pee-face.

Pee-face
Blargh
Ãœberkommando
Ãœberkommando
Posts: 6303
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2003 7:11 pm

Post by Blargh »

S4ur0n27 wrote:Thief gets fucking repetitive.
Bah, another troglodyte . . .

Mismatch, let me know when you want to actually make an attempt at argument. Then, and only then, I will be happy to shoot down your comments. At the time of writing you're doing well enough at that on your own. Okay ? Okay. :drunk:
Last edited by Blargh on Fri Nov 12, 2004 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Mismatch
Paragon
Paragon
Posts: 2366
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2004 7:16 pm
Location: Over yonder hill

Post by Mismatch »

Mismatch, let me know when you want to actually make an attempt at argument. Then, and only then, I will be happy to shoot down your comments. Okay ? Okay.
naah, I'm all happy with this.
peeface
peeface
:0
Our Host!
Post Reply