Fallout 3 2D/TB vs 3D/FPS

[tunguska]

Both Daggerfall and Morrowind were highly immersive to me not because of the graphics, but because of the freedom of movement in a virtual world (not restricted by invisible walls, etc.) and the attempt at simulating an entire world, with many inhabitants, guilds, etc.

I am truly speechless. I find this so difficult to imagine. Freedom of movement? I had a problem with that in Stonekeep and Wizardry 7. Perhaps the problem with immersion is that it is too subjective. Maybe some people feel immersed while playing Pong. That's the problem with anything defined in terms of a subjective experience. Daggerfall I could almost somewhat believe, especially as compared with modern action RPGs and MMOGs, but Morrowind?! OMG! I couldn't get into that game at all. More than 30 minutes and I'd be yawning despite all the eye candy for scenery (most of the character models were not very good). There's a game that might be a lot more fun with a 3D display. I could even use shutter glasses because I couldn't play for more than 30 minutes anyway due to profound boredom.

 

[Dementia Praecox]

... but Morrowind?! OMG! I couldn't get into that game at all. More than 30 minutes and I'd be yawning despite all the eye candy for scenery (most of the character models were not very good). There's a game that might be a lot more fun with a 3D display. I could even use shutter glasses because I couldn't play for more than 30 minutes anyway due to profound boredom.

Are you saying that it was the graphics that made you feel "unimmersed" in Morrowind?

 

[tunguska]

Dementia, you still haven't answered my question about age. If you are so elderly, how many trips have you taken around the sun? I am 37 and not ashamed to admit it. My first computer game was 'SpaceWar' on a DEC PDP-11 in the late 70s. So that's where I'm coming from.

As to anyone else who might want to flame me for being age-ist or whatever go ahead. I realize that this is a gaming forum, that I am in the minority, and that probably around half of the people here might very well be in the age group I mentioned. I have no problem with that as long as I don't notice it. But occasionally it is just too much. I realize you like to have your fun with the name calling and playing and running about or whatever it is that kiddies do, but you may lose a lot of older gamers with such antics. Why not just behave a bit better so that adults might want to be involved in the 'discussion' as well? Remember that adults also tend to be the ones who make the games. We really should all be on the same side here. We mostly like the same sorts of 'real' cRPGs. We should all be allies in the fight against the Oblivions and World of Warcrafts ridding the world of games with a bit more 'depth' (yeah, another buzzword). All this in-fighting is not good for The Cause. Hell, look what happened to the christian church.

 

[kingcomrade]

Remember that adults also tend to be the ones who make the games.

BOOBIES

 

[Fez]

Todd doesn't like bump-mapped nipples.

 

[tunguska]

Are you saying that it was the graphics that made you feel "unimmersed" in Morrowind?

Nooo. I didn't think it would be necessary to explain myself to this crowd when it comes to Bethesda games. No. While I do think the graphics of Morrowind were (mostly) overrated, that is certainly not what I meant when I said that the game was not immersive. To me, everything about the game lacked immersion. And, yes, Daggerfall was certainly a bit more immersive (to me). Even Arena was. Seems like Bethesda was doing their best to completely rid their games of this whole immersiveness thing. It is hard to pin down exactly why a game is or is not immersive. I think there are many components to creating immersion in a computer game, but I would at least mention world complexity in this context. I'd have to replay the game to try to figure out more exactly where things went so horribly wrong.

 

[Dementia Praecox]

Dementia, you still haven't answered my question about age. If you are so elderly, how many trips have you taken around the sun? I am 37 and not ashamed to admit it. My first computer game was 'SpaceWar' on a DEC PDP-11 in the late 70s. So that's where I'm coming from.

Now, you haven't answered one single thing I've asked you, so why should I do you the courtesy of answering that ? Besides, whatever age I may be, that being 10 or 70 (like bryce), there is no way you can know for sure if it's true. Unless you do some serious Internet digging combined with IP-checks, that is. And even then it's going to be hard, because I take my Internet anonymity seriously. Now, if you are as old as you say, then you sure can't be a native English speaker, because I barely could get anything coherent out of that Morrowind-remark you posted above. And further, why do you even care about the age of the ones you are discussing with? If you can't take what's written for what it is, and judge form that, then surely knowing whether or not the poster is of this or that age won't do anything to change that? And I get fairly annoyed that you can't be bothered to do some reading up on previous posts of users you go about bashing in this utmost retarded way. If you take a look at that pedo-thread I can't recall the name of right now (and I sure as hell can't be arsed to look it up for you), you should be able to pass some fairly adequate judgement on whatever age I might be of.

As to anyone else who might want to flame me for being age-ist or whatever go ahead. I realize that this is a gaming forum, that I am in the minority, and that probably around half of the people here might very well be in the age group I mentioned. I have no problem with that as long as I don't notice it. But occasionally it is just too much.

Now if you've only bothered to do a couple of hours worth of reading on these forums in the years you've been registered here, you surely should know by now, that a good portion of the regulars here are in the same age-group as you. To be fair, there has been a recent influx of kids and retards, much due to the coverage of Oblivion, but if you take a dive into the depths of the horrors that is The Codex archive, you'll see that that has been said every year since the beginning. It's also kind of ironic that you inquire this of me, in the light of that my posts in this thread is the usual way of handling those kids you loathe so much. If there had been a harsher moderating policy here, the likelihood of more retards and kids would be much infinitely higher.

I realize you like to have your fun with the name calling and playing and running about or whatever it is that kiddies do, but you may lose a lot of older gamers with such antics. Why not just behave a bit better so that adults might want to be involved in the 'discussion' as well?

As I wrote above adults are by far involved in the 'discussion' as you say. Those who made this site, and are maintaining it for your leisure, are adults. And it is very much because the decisions of those adults that I freely can flame retards like the topic starter of all my hearts content. As to why I do it? It's fun! It's plain old fun to bash the newcomers and retards. Very much the same reason that fuel the schoolyard bullies back in preliminary school. Those who can't cut it, leave. Those who cope stay and weigh every word they write and participate in all the good discussion that actually take place on this site. While you have to wade through a lot of shit, there are some true gems to be found here. Newcomers are put to the test, that is The Codex way. I recall the first reply I got. Wasn't very heart warming, nor should it have been. I made a retarded topic for my first post, so I got what I deserved. This is like it always has been on The Codex, and it's the way it should be. Now, go cry me a fucking river.

Remember that adults also tend to be the ones who make the games. We really should all be on the same side here. We mostly like the same sorts of 'real' cRPGs.

I believe this point has been promptly addressed already.

We should all be allies in the fight against the Oblivions and World of Warcrafts ridding the world of games with a bit more 'depth' (yeah, another buzzword).

Allying with retards have never been a good strategy in any fight (with retards I'm refering to the likes of topic starter and Naked Ninja).

All this in-fighting is not good for The Cause. Hell, look what happened to the christian church.

What in-fighting? And the Christian Church-remark must be the worst connotation, ever.

 

[Dementia Praecox]

Are you saying that it was the graphics that made you feel "unimmersed" in Morrowind?

Nooo. I didn't think it would be necessary to explain myself to this crowd when it comes to Bethesda games. No. While I do think the graphics of Morrowind were (mostly) overrated, that is certainly not what I meant when I said that the game was not immersive. To me, everything about the game lacked immersion. And, yes, Daggerfall was certainly a bit more immersive (to me). Even Arena was. Seems like Bethesda was doing their best to completely rid their games of this whole immersiveness thing. It is hard to pin down exactly why a game is or is not immersive. I think there are many components to creating immersion in a computer game, but I would at least mention world complexity in this context. I'd have to replay the game to try to figure out more exactly where things went so horribly wrong.

Ok, I started the above reply before I saw this one (been eating dinner while writing).
Anyway, I'd like to hear your take on immersion. What does the word mean to you (and I'm not talking about the dictionary definition)? What is necessary for a game to be immersing? I don't quite see what that could be, seeing which games you list as immersing and which you don't. See Section8s reply for further elaboration on this.

 

[Calis]

(stuff on name calling and such)

(in addition to Dementia's post on the entire age/name-calling issue)
The general consensus here is "if you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen". We tend to not judge posters by how often they call someone else a moron but rather by the logical qualities of their analysis of gaming concepts or gaming industry developments. If someone calls you a moron, you can a) join in the name calling b) ignore said poster or c) assume that your analysis of the discussion's subject matter was weak enough to warrant the name-calling. Telling people to behave accomplishes nothing. Telling the management they should crack down on name-calling will also accomplish nothing. We've got plenty of posters in your age category who don't pussy out when someone calls them a moron; getting all bothered by that stuff is about as immature as doing it in the first place.

 

[ibo]

When I think about Falout that means an isometric 2D TB game for me. I like to stick with that.

But technology evolves and 3d is in demand these days.

First Person View, 3d cameras etc. could work too, if they manage to implement a smart pausable system like Brigade E5, the nicest combat simulator I tried. No real time shooters, thank you.

They also need to have a good story and good dialog..

 

[elander_]

And a bit of roleplaying maybe?

 

[Zomg]

"I'm led to believe I like this game."

I hope this becomes the hot new critical takeaway - "An immersive non-stop rollercoaster ride! I'm led to believe I like this game! The vapid anomie of my taste has been briefly catalyzed by marketing!"

 

[Section8]

I wonder how would you solve the targeting problem. It sucked in DeusEx and sucked in Bloodlines. The only action rpg i played that did this to my liking was System Shock. No retarded targeting but the damage we take (and the rate at which weapons condition deteriorate (?) don't remenber) depends on skill.

I think the answer is pretty simple. Hard restrictions. After all, "can sorta use a pistol a bit better" isn't particularly defining when compared to "can/can't use a pistol". When player skill plays such a large role, character skill needs to be defined much more clearly.

 

[Dementia Praecox]

I think the answer is pretty simple. Hard restrictions. After all, "can sorta use a pistol a bit better" isn't particularly defining when compared to "can/can't use a pistol". When player skill plays such a large role, character skill needs to be defined much more clearly.

Yes, god dammit.
It's so fucking frustrating to see one concept after another go down the drain, and just to be ditched all together, when this fairly obvious solution should glare them in the eyes. Fuck compromises. Get the priorities right in the first place.

 

[Vault Dweller]

And a bit of roleplaying maybe?

It's kinda redundant, don't you think? I mean, you are already playing a role...

 

[elander_]

How could i forget the meaning of role-playing that is playing a role.

"I think the answer is pretty simple. Hard restrictions. After all, "can sorta use a pistol a bit better" isn't particularly defining when compared to "can/can't use a pistol". When player skill plays such a large role, character skill needs to be defined much more clearly."

I don't know about not being able to use a pistol. Even a monkey could use a pistol but only a human with some skill would be able to unjam it or install a mod. I enjoy good balance but i also enjoy a realistic balance. The damage thing would be a possibility but there are other alternatives like having more and better criticals with an higher skill.

 

[mister lamat]

i think you need an opposable thumb to use a pistol. monkeys are out. reload time and better critical chance are fine though.

 

[aries202]

I'm too tired for this discussion, but anywway...

Please remember that it is possible to have third person shooter that has tactical assault combat, just like GRAW 2, Gears of War and such games.(and that Mass Effect will have the same 3rd person tactical combat). Please also remember that you can have a realtime combat game in third person, just like Gears of War etc.

I like playing in third person mode, because I tend to suffer from motion sickness when I play First Person Shooters (that's why I don't play these game nor do I watch any trailers for FPS games).

As for 3D, I'm pretty sure that FO 3 will be in full 3D as this means that the character(s) can wonder freely (I think??) in the world. And 3D, irrc,doesn't necessarily mean First Person View or realtime, although it often does these days.

For me, anyway, 2d/TB vs 3d/FPS isn't what Fallout (3) is all about. It is about the exploring, the quests, the missions, the striving to survive in harsh mutated world where anything you loved is gone. And you need to do anything, just anything to survive.

And that's done through the atmosphere portrayed in the game's main quest, as well as in the game's sidequests and gameplay. It isn't, for me, tied to whether or not the game has TB or RT combat or is in 2D or 3D or has a third person view or first person view (unless the game only offers the FP view as this means that I probably won't be able to play the game, due to the aforementioned motion sickness when playing FPS games).

 

[galsiah]

I wonder how would you solve the targeting problem. It sucked in DeusEx and sucked in Bloodlines. The only action rpg i played that did this to my liking was System Shock. No retarded targeting but the damage we take (and the rate at which weapons condition deteriorate (?) don't remenber) depends on skill.

I think the answer is pretty simple. Hard restrictions. After all, "can sorta use a pistol a bit better" isn't particularly defining when compared to "can/can't use a pistol". When player skill plays such a large role, character skill needs to be defined much more clearly.

If you do that with every skill, you'd create an unsubtle, all-or-nothing system. I'm not sure a system that can't cope with at least: "can't use a pistol", "ok with a pistol", "expert pistol marksman", is a great RPG setup. YES/NO might be defining, but with very broad brush-strokes.

If you only do it for skills that have high player skill influence, it seems like reflex compensation, rather than thoughtful design. If it's not a good idea without player skill involved (and I don't think a binary decision is), I'm not sure I see why it's a good idea when you involve player skill. I don't see why it's necessary to make sure that e.g. player X with character skill 1 must always perform worse than player Y with character skill 2. So long as a given player always gains significantly with increased character skill, there's a significant character-based differentiation.

Was Deus Ex's targeting badly done anyway? If so, what was wrong with it? As a game mechanic, I thought it worked pretty well (though having max skill give 100% perfect aim was a mistake IMO - it felt wrong). If it stops Deus Ex, or any other such game, being an RPG, is that a bad thing?

That said, I agree that clear character skill differentiation is particularly important where player skill is involved. However, I'd draw a distinction between clear differentiation and clear definition. I think that it's necessary for different characters to play very differently, whatever a player's skill. I don't think it's necessary for an individual character to be completely defined (without potential for overlap) in isolation from player skill.

As soon as you include player skill, that's naturally going to be part of what defines the player character. Intentionally circumventing that by going to extremes on character definition, just seems a knee-jerk response. It's artificially forcing a natural player-skill/character-skill hybrid into a character-skill mould (in terms of character definition).

Once you open the FP/RT/player-skill door, you need to roll with the punches. Clinging to a pure character-skill model like grim death makes little sense in the context.

Again - I'm not saying that e.g. Deus Ex does differentiate characters enough. I'm just saying that you don't need to eliminate shades of grey in order to achieve this. It'd work, but I don't think it's a good solution.
It might sometimes make sense to use three or four discrete levels, rather than e.g. continuous/percentage skills. Going to simple YES/NO options just seems undesirably restrictive for most skills.

The graphical component of immersion is not about impressing the player with plastic, bump mapped Mattel horsehit, it's simply about avoiding anything the player's mind will subconsciously reject.

Agreed - though I wouldn't restrict that viewpoint either to graphics, or to the subconscious. Maintaining immersion is about not having the player think "Bullshit!" on any level. That goes for graphics, sound, gameplay mechanics....
Getting a sense of immersion in the first place is a separate matter, of course - and graphical glitz might help here. That's the easy part. Keeping it is the hard part.

I find it somewhat depressing that this is so often misunderstood.
It's like watching some immaculately dressed guy pull up to a party in a flashy sports-car, dazzle on-lookers with electric dance-moves, then spend the evening belching hugely in people's faces. Of course, things will be better at the next party: he'll have a flashier car, and more dance-moves.

...the character(s) can wonder freely...

As in "What kind of crap is this?!", "Is there a point to my being here??", "Perhaps this wall is just waiting for me to turn around, before it savagely attacks..."...?
Or did you mean wander freely?

 

[Claw]

Simply for the vertical component. Ruined city? I want to look up and see the twisted skeletons of the skyscrapers. Thats immersive. As are enemies who are bigger than you. I like to see something coming, look up and go "oh shit". Super mutants would look cooler in 1st person. Hoevering above everything makes me feel removed from the action a bit.

I feel same about this.

So? Unfortunately, NJ is a moron.

Why does it have to be 3D FPS or 2D isometric? Couldn't a 3D game use a zoomable TP view with FP mode as highest zoom level and have TB combat?

The single biggest factor regarding what makes an RPG "great" is a deep involving storyline,

Here's why NJ is a moron.

I suggest using the term "Parallel Projection" (PP ?) instead of "isometric", as half the games dubbed as isometric in gaming history aren't technically isometric at all but "isometrically correct" or not, all such games are "parallel projected" games.

Sure, but that would still not be correct for isometric-like 3D games. Personally, I favour pseudo-isometric for all styles visually similar to the isometric projection.

 

[galsiah]

Sure, but that would still not be correct for isometric-like 3D games. Personally, I favour pseudo-isometric for all styles visually similar to the isometric projection.

It can perfectly well be 3D and parallel projected.

If you mean that games with perspective projection should be called "pseudo-isometric", that's just pretty daft. It'd make as much sense as calling low resolution screens "pseudo-isometric", merely because historically isometric screens were low-res. (in fact it'd make less sense, since isometric perspective-projection is an oxymoron)

Isometric means something beyond "The way games with an isometric view appear.".

 

[Claw]

It can perfectly well be 3D and parallel projected.

I never said it couldn't, it's just now what I was talking aboout. Did you simply not realize or not care?

If you mean that games with perspective projection should be called "pseudo-isometric", that's just pretty daft.

The world is full of daft definitions. It is also full of pretentiousness.

It'd make as much sense as calling low resolution screens "pseudo-isometric", merely because historically isometric screens were low-res.

No, that's retarded. Then again, I don't know what you are talking about, or why "screens" are supposed to be a relevant factor.

(in fact it'd make less sense, since isometric perspective-projection is an oxymoron)

Well, since pseudo-isometric essentially means faux-isometric or deceptively-isometric-looking, I see no actual oxymoron in my suggested isometric-looking perspective projection.
OMG, a definition based on visual appearance! How shockingly unsophisticated, and how shockingly intuitive and how shockingly common practice. I just mean to get people to at least aknowledge that it's actually wrong.
Come to think of it, proposal essentially means that people say "isometric, except not really, you know what I mean" instead of just "isometric" as they already do.

Isometric means something beyond "The way games with an isometric view appear.".

I know what isometric means. I just don't care. Already games that aren't isometric are called so simply because most people can't tell the difference. First people called other projections isometric, then even a similar-looking 3D perspective.
I even seem to recall that Fallout isn't actually isometric. Go out and educate the dumb masses, if you like. I don't care if they use the term incorrectly, as long as there is a consensus to what it means.

 

[elander_]

It's very messy to mix something that is, at the same time, controlled by player skill and character skill. In these situations player skill is predominant most of the time. In deusex i would rather have it without the shrinking targeting scope. The idea makes sense. If we crouch and stand still for a moment we we get better accuracy but shooting at a guy right in front of you and miss doesn't make any sense when your cursor is right on top of his body. This is one of those things that breaks immersion completely.

 

[Claw]

Well, one could use crosshair jitter instead of the shrinking crosshair, if that's your only complaint.

 

[galsiah]

I see no actual oxymoron in my suggested isometric-looking perspective projection.

My point is that there are no "isometric-looking" perspective projections (unless you use such low angles as to make it effectively parallel). If you think a true perspective projection looks isometric, you're just not being very perceptive.

I don't care if they use the term incorrectly, as long as there is a consensus to what it means.

Which there isn't - beyond "Not first person / over-shoulder".

Already games that aren't isometric are called so simply because most people can't tell the difference.

No - it's because people don't know what it means. That's not the same thing at all.

...then even a similar-looking 3D perspective

A parallel view can be 3D. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a perspective projection - i.e. one where objects appear smaller in the distance. Can you name a game with such a view that has been called isometric by anyone sensible?

Using the term as you seem to be suggesting just lends itself to a load of vague, you-know-what-I-mean, broad categorizations. In a world where there were only two possible viewing options, that'd be fine. Given that there is a wide range of possibilities, why not be a little more descriptive? That way it's actually possible to think about the pros and cons of each aspect, rather than lumping everything into one vague heap. Also, everyone automatically knows what you mean - which they really don't when you say "pseudo-isometric".

Do you mean a low/high viewing angle? Do you mean a close/distant viewpoint? Do you mean a large/small visible area? Do you mean the potential to see equally in all directions? Do you mean for objects to appear at uniform scale? Do you mean for rotation to leave the over-all area in view mostly unchanged? Do you mean for parallel game-world lines to appear parallel? Do you mean a close/far/narrow/wide horizon?

If you stick to pseudo-isometric vs. (pseudo)first-person, you get a few baseless opinions - some of which disagree. If you actually describe what you mean, you might get reasonable discussion on the important properties.

If it's some throw-away comment tangential to the main thrust of the thread, then it'd be pointless to get picky on definitions (though I'd probably do it anyway). Given that this thread is supposedly about the relative merits of different views, persisting with a you-know-what-I-mean approach is daft - if the intention is to think things through, rather than to roll out preconceived opinions.