Fallout A Fallout 1/2 inspired isometric cRPG from New Blood Interactive

[Ol' Willy]

JRPG combat - hard pass. What a shame

 

[Denim Destroyer]

I automatically discard any game associated with New Blood Interactive due the company's track record of releasing highly derivative products that are coasting off of second hand nostalgia. Saves me quite a bit of money!

 

[Rocket-Propelled Game]

I automatically discard any game associated with New Blood Interactive due the company's track record of releasing highly derivative products that are coasting off of second hand nostalgia. Saves me quite a bit of money!

Hey now, the Faith trilogy is good for what it is and Amid Evil stands as its own thing despite clearly being inspired by Heretic and Hexen.

That much said, with Gloomwood taking so long, I wound asking myself "Is there any reason for me to bank on this when I could just be playing Thief and Dark Mod usermaps?" and concluded the answer was a pretty certain no.

 

[Bigg Boss]

It looks fine. I don't care if it is different. I am tired of playing the same shit all the time.

 

[Ivan]

I automatically discard any game associated with New Blood Interactive due the company's track record of releasing highly derivative products that are coasting off of second hand nostalgia. Saves me quite a bit of money!

Yes, b/c Newblood titles are $60/$70 with tacked on $DLCs

 

[Clockwork Knight]

For fucks sake. This may be a dealbreaker for me.

Meaningless answer to a meaningless question

edit: Ah, it was a reply to this



That's...not what I would think of hearing "JRPG style".

 

[luj1]

Honestly I see nothing wrong with Fallout's combat other than execution.

the main problem with Fallout is build variety

the combat is fine

 

[luj1]

The pip-boy style UI is there in the earliest screenshots I'm aware of

Who disputes that?

Address to actual issues here: why is a similar UI skin bad if other games like ATOM with such a derivative UI are in your opinion good?

Why is the Pip-boy in-setting justification for the UI skin good if the way you interact with the UI makes little sense if considered as an object in the game world?

My view is that it's just a skin with an in-setting tie that fails at being a believable object but succeeds at being cool and creating a setting feel. Therefore divorcing the skin from the in-setting justification, i.e. the Pip-boy, isn't a big loss at all, as what's good about it is the aesthetics and usability.

ATOM RPG UI doesn't look like the pipboy though?

Inspired by, yes. It also has a distinct slavjank design to it, and is very much their own.

Contrast that to what is shown in the video which is a blatant copy of Fallout nearly 1:1.
There's a difference between being inspired(which they claim), and blatantly copying something(which they're doing.)

whole ATOM is a 1:1 russian carbon copy of Fallout

even perks are the same

it is amazing to me how someone can be so unoriginal

 

[Interceptor]

Honestly I see nothing wrong with Fallout's combat other than execution.

the main problem with Fallout is build variety

the combat is fine

I've never had a feeling Fallout lacked a build variety. Maybe, coincidently, in terms of combat, for instance - melee/unarmed builds that had little to no variety as well as very limited viability, compared to firearm-oriented builds. But in terms of how the stats, perks and traits differentiated the player experience, how the gameplay was impacted and how the narrative reacted to it, I think Fallout 1 & 2 did a decent job at that. The differences might be smaller-scaled but definitely noticeable and impactful.

I do agree that the combat was fine and I don't find it clunky nor boring. Yet I wouldn't go that far as to praise it as a jewel in tactical combat either - as that's what I've read from some people comparing classic Fallout games. Fallout's combat was perhaps made with a similar approach as other strategy games (X-COM), but being a single-character game, the entire layer of strategy and tactics found in party-based games was gone, rendering it very simplistic. Your only strategy would involve positioning (although not being able to position companions degraded its impact), AP allocation and weapon choice. And perhaps watching after getting a good sequence and using called-shots, but the RNG made these harder to strategize upon. Given how combat-focused Fallout was, it was simplistic. Decent (and still fun, at least to me), but simplistic.

New Blood is apprently aiming towards even more simplistic combat with this JRPG-styled FP view. Given the fact that the game is clearly not post-apocalyptic, different exploring vs combat ratio could actually justify the simplification. But that's hard to tell at this point, as we know very little about the game itself.

 

[Trithne]

If you want to see how you can be inspired by Fallout but still actually do your own thing, look at Kamaz's Space Wreck - He says as much, but the inspiration is clearly in the build variety and wide range of ways to resolve things and work through the story, rather than just visuals.

This thing is typical 2020s nostalgiabait so far - It looks like Thing You Like, so you'll like it too, even if it doesn't play anything like it.

And even if it does play like it, Fallout isn't perfect. What you should take from Fallout is reactivity, world building, build variety. What they appear to have taken from Fallout is exactly the same as Bethesda did: Aesthetic. And they didn't even do that right.

 

[c u in da ballpit ashren]

Despite all criticisms, I have high hopes for New Blood. Not only are they tackling the task of a crpg, but they're bringing back car combat, something that's basically my shit. You really can't be too picky these days when it comes to those who lord over the niches that have since died out.

 

[Bigg Boss]

Agreed. You gotta take what you can get assuming it is worth messing around with. Games like PoE might be mediocre to some but they do fill a niche that was gone for years. Games like this are the same way. Fallout combat was pretty shit regardless of what people say. It did not get good until tactics but people could not think hard enough for that one. I think it must have been the prone position. Nobody uses it so it must be horrible.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

I'm curious, do you guys play the fan mods?

 

[c u in da ballpit ashren]

Agreed. You gotta take what you can get assuming it is worth messing around with. Games like PoE might be mediocre to some but they do fill a niche that was gone for years. Games like this are the same way. Fallout combat was pretty shit regardless of what people say. It did not get good until tactics but people could not think hard enough for that one. I think it must have been the prone position. Nobody uses it so it must be horrible.

Reminds me, I still gotta get back to that one. For me it was the controls. I vaguely remember the game being a bitch to run (which is unusual since I can run mostly anything somehow, even games that are supposedly crashing for everyone) because I had to use my mouse to go prone or whatever. Besides. I prefer how the story went in Tactics than how it did for the brotherhood in 4.

 

[c u in da ballpit ashren]

I'm curious, do you guys plan the fan mods?

Wanna try again, champ? If you're saying play the mods for Fallout, I have, yeah.

 

[Bigg Boss]

I have played some but I need to do Nevada. Xconns Ultimate Ripoff is the best Tactics mod ever. I will fight anybody who disagrees.

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

Xconns Ultimate Ripoff is the best Tactics mod ever. I will fight anybody who disagrees.

Shit, I wasn't looking for a fight. Anyway, Xcon's mod is great indeed, but a little "too great" at times (Agarapichu ). Plus the sheer number of new quests sometimes creates problems solving them. I couldn't finish the Heat quest on my last playthrough for instance, having killed a non-critical NPC ahead of time. As good, bold, and incredibly vast as it is, I still rank it lower than the smaller, yet tighter and more RPG-like "Awaken".

 

[blessed king of longing]

Agreed. You gotta take what you can get assuming it is worth messing around with. Games like PoE might be mediocre to some but they do fill a niche that was gone for years. Games like this are the same way. Fallout combat was pretty shit regardless of what people say. It did not get good until tactics but people could not think hard enough for that one. I think it must have been the prone position. Nobody uses it so it must be horrible.

Reminds me, I still gotta get back to that one. For me it was the controls. I vaguely remember the game being a bitch to run (which is unusual since I can run mostly anything somehow, even games that are supposedly crashing for everyone) because I had to use my mouse to go prone or whatever. Besides. I prefer how the story went in Tactics than how it did for the brotherhood in 4.

iirc Q A Z to change stances. why would you need to use the mouse?

 

[Wunderbar]

 

[Serus]

The issue with that kind of combat has always been that it removes the major tactical element of positioning. There have been attempts to add it back in(e.g., Wiz8 party formations), but it's not the same. Without positioning, the games slide much closer to pop-a-mole(in the truest sense) gameplay.

So, like the two original Fallouts then? Not "in the truest sense" just "popamole" as it sometimes used in the Codex. Any combat where you can't give specific orders to your teammates is like that. Unless you make it a proper low-level tactical game with teams or even squads but then we are probably not talking CRPG anymore.

People who claim that Fallout 1 combat was fine are out of their minds. There is a crucial difference between "fine" and "fun". Fallout 1 combat was mechanically very lacking. Additionally build variety in combat was only ok-ish and the combat encounter design was poor. Enemy variety wasn't great either. And it was too easy. It was "fun" nonetheless because it was mostly fast, had cool animation and body part shooting. However if someone want a repeat - i don't even... If you are making a Fallout 1 inspired game - make a properly interesting combat or at least make it different. If i have to choose between some kind of 1st person blob-erish combat and the original - i want the former. As long as it is as much tactical as a blob gameplay allows it. Obviously a proper tactical 3rd person combat would be much better but i'm willing to try blob. Also, please, make the game have any difficulty to speak of.
I believe it all come from the Fallout 1 status here on the Dex. Since it is considered by some a "holy grail" instead of very good but flawed game - as it should - people stopped seeing the "flawed" part and simply want more of the same "best game". Well, you got it. Atom to the rescue.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

The issue with that kind of combat has always been that it removes the major tactical element of positioning. There have been attempts to add it back in(e.g., Wiz8 party formations), but it's not the same. Without positioning, the games slide much closer to pop-a-mole(in the truest sense) gameplay.

So, like the two original Fallouts then? Not "in the truest sense" just "popamole" as it sometimes used in the Codex. Any combat where you can't give specific orders to your teammates is like that. Unless you make it a proper low-level tactical game with teams or even squads but then we are probably not talking CRPG anymore.

People who claim that Fallout 1 combat was fine are out of their minds. There is a crucial difference between "fine" and "fun". Fallout 1 combat was mechanically very lacking. Additionally build variety in combat was only ok-ish and the combat encounter design was poor. Enemy variety wasn't great either. And it was too easy. It was "fun" nonetheless because it was mostly fast, had cool animation and body part shooting. However if someone want a repeat - i don't even... If you are making a Fallout 1 inspired game - make a properly interesting combat or at least make it different. If i have to choose between some kind of 1st person blob-erish combat and the original - i want the former. As long as it is as much tactical as a blob gameplay allows it. Obviously a proper tactical 3rd person combat would be much better but i'm willing to try blob. Also, please, make the game have any difficulty to speak of.
I believe it all come from the Fallout 1 status here on the Dex. Since it is considered by some a "holy grail" instead of very good but flawed game - as it should - people stopped seeing the "flawed" part and simply want more of the same "best game". Well, you got it. Atom to the rescue.

games where you directly control more than one character aren't rpgs unless you're schizophrenic

 

[rusty_shackleford]

And I disagree with my previous position(heh), I think positioning is highly overrated and so-called 'blobber-style' combat can actually be more tacticool due to abstracting position, it's a shame that instead of doing so most of them remove positioning. Maybe my mind will change when AI sucks less, but it almost always results in exactly one thing: the player abusing an easily exploitable AI.

 

[Serus]

The issue with that kind of combat has always been that it removes the major tactical element of positioning. There have been attempts to add it back in(e.g., Wiz8 party formations), but it's not the same. Without positioning, the games slide much closer to pop-a-mole(in the truest sense) gameplay.

So, like the two original Fallouts then? Not "in the truest sense" just "popamole" as it sometimes used in the Codex. Any combat where you can't give specific orders to your teammates is like that. Unless you make it a proper low-level tactical game with teams or even squads but then we are probably not talking CRPG anymore.

People who claim that Fallout 1 combat was fine are out of their minds. There is a crucial difference between "fine" and "fun". Fallout 1 combat was mechanically very lacking. Additionally build variety in combat was only ok-ish and the combat encounter design was poor. Enemy variety wasn't great either. And it was too easy. It was "fun" nonetheless because it was mostly fast, had cool animation and body part shooting. However if someone want a repeat - i don't even... If you are making a Fallout 1 inspired game - make a properly interesting combat or at least make it different. If i have to choose between some kind of 1st person blob-erish combat and the original - i want the former. As long as it is as much tactical as a blob gameplay allows it. Obviously a proper tactical 3rd person combat would be much better but i'm willing to try blob. Also, please, make the game have any difficulty to speak of.
I believe it all come from the Fallout 1 status here on the Dex. Since it is considered by some a "holy grail" instead of very good but flawed game - as it should - people stopped seeing the "flawed" part and simply want more of the same "best game". Well, you got it. Atom to the rescue.

games where you directly control more than one character aren't rpgs unless you're schizophrenic

No (single player) computer game was ever an "rpg". Rpg is by definition a type of entertainment you do with other people. Anyone who claims to "play a role" in a single player computer game - in front of an inanimate object aka computer - is either crazy or a moron.

See. Others can play with you but it gets old very fast so let's not do it here. Please?

 

[Daedalos]

Rusty shut the fuck up

 

[rusty_shackleford]

The issue with that kind of combat has always been that it removes the major tactical element of positioning. There have been attempts to add it back in(e.g., Wiz8 party formations), but it's not the same. Without positioning, the games slide much closer to pop-a-mole(in the truest sense) gameplay.

So, like the two original Fallouts then? Not "in the truest sense" just "popamole" as it sometimes used in the Codex. Any combat where you can't give specific orders to your teammates is like that. Unless you make it a proper low-level tactical game with teams or even squads but then we are probably not talking CRPG anymore.

People who claim that Fallout 1 combat was fine are out of their minds. There is a crucial difference between "fine" and "fun". Fallout 1 combat was mechanically very lacking. Additionally build variety in combat was only ok-ish and the combat encounter design was poor. Enemy variety wasn't great either. And it was too easy. It was "fun" nonetheless because it was mostly fast, had cool animation and body part shooting. However if someone want a repeat - i don't even... If you are making a Fallout 1 inspired game - make a properly interesting combat or at least make it different. If i have to choose between some kind of 1st person blob-erish combat and the original - i want the former. As long as it is as much tactical as a blob gameplay allows it. Obviously a proper tactical 3rd person combat would be much better but i'm willing to try blob. Also, please, make the game have any difficulty to speak of.
I believe it all come from the Fallout 1 status here on the Dex. Since it is considered by some a "holy grail" instead of very good but flawed game - as it should - people stopped seeing the "flawed" part and simply want more of the same "best game". Well, you got it. Atom to the rescue.

games where you directly control more than one character aren't rpgs unless you're schizophrenic

No (single player) computer game was ever an "rpg". Rpg is by definition a type of entertainment you do with other people. Anyone who claims to "play a role" in a single player computer game - in front of an inanimate object aka computer - is either crazy or a moron.

See. Others can play with you but it gets old very fast so let's not do it here. Please?

Are you one of those people that can't visualize things in their head?