Crichton said:
1) Get the combat system right: A transposed version of Oblivion's action-oriented combat won't cut it. Combat in a Fallout game should be more tactical, allowing you to specifically designate where you want to hit a foe. It ain't Fallout unless you can kick a rat in the groin.
This is outrageously stupid. Hit locations...
Agreed. It's a pretty laughable notion of "tactics".
There's nothing "tactical" about any game with one unit.
I still disagree with this. Consider doing an X-com mission with one soldier (if necessary, assume your line of sight extends further than the opposition). There's no amazing tactical depth in this scenario, but I find it difficult to see how there's "nothing tactical" about it. [unless you're saying that "tactics" involves more than one unit by definition - in which case your point is vacuous for anyone who shares that definition (and Desslock clearly doesn't)]
I certainly wouldn't be inclined to call that "action".
There are quite a few differences between single-soldier X-com combat and (random encounter) Fallout combat:
Units start a long way apart in X-com; in each other's faces in Fallout.
Most units are hidden in X-com; all units are visible in Fallout.
There's (often) a lot of cover in X-com; there's less in Fallout.
The cover can be destroyed in X-com; not in Fallout.
X-com areas usually have more than one level; Fallout's don't.
Shots can be made over much longer distances in X-com (without absurdly good skills).
Units generally die faster in X-com than Fallout (until you start to hit them all in the eyes) - fewer pitched battles at close range.
There are proximity mines, timed explosives, smoke grenades, electro-flares, incendiary weapons and motion scanners in X-com.
Pretty much all these factors (and possibly others) make single-soldier X-com combat more tactical (or strategic, or whatever word makes you happy) than Fallout combat.
Particularly since Fallout 3 is allegedly set in a city, I don't see much reason why combat couldn't be significantly more tactical than it was in Fallout - even without multiple party members. I'm not sure this would be a good thing though. It'd still be a poor substitute for multiple unit combat, and would take much longer than Fallout combat. (no-one would enjoy X-com much if every mission used only one guy)
I think you'd either want to make combat really good, or get it over quickly. Single unit tactical(ish) combat isn't going to be either of those things.
A) Have a turn-based isometric fallout game with control over a party of 5-6 to make skirmish tactics part of the game and trust that there will be enough party configurations that play differently
If combat were handled really well, I'd like this. It'd need to be better than Fallout with 5 guys though - i.e. starting toe-to-toe in the open with a visible group of enemies.
As you point out, there's the danger that all effective parties would be pretty similar.
However, I'm not sure I can see how there'd be time to do tactical squad combat really well, but at the same time not require it for the game to be entertaining. I'd rather combat stayed mediocre, than see support for diplomatic/stealth options disappear because the combat is such a central feature. (of course we might get both)
B) Have only the one character but have an action-based system to provide some interest in combat and trust that different characters will still be different
I'd quite like this, but then I don't mind action. I'd be very happy with a non-linear, reactive world Deus-Ex type game (with more skills, factions etc.).
C) Have another single-character indirect control game a la Fallout/Arcanum/NWN and trust that watching different characters perform differently will be as entertaining
I guess this is the only way we'd see any sort of party (given that 1st-person control is a (near?)certainty). I'm not too keen on this style. If I'm going to have a party, I'd like direct control.
