FPS Fallout - inquiring mind wants to know

[Quaid]

Fallout 3

Hello all. Been a long time Fallout fan, even before it came out (since Wasteland on the C64).

Been browsing the Bethesda forums and recently found this one.

I see that 'isometric view' is a hot topic. Technically since it is used to describe a top down type view for 2-D, would a 3-D world with a similar effect due to camera movement work for most here?

What is it about first person view that "won't work" for the game? What if there was a mode to switch between third person and first person view?

I already have some ideas on the subject, but I am interested in hashing out the idea of 'no way in hell first person would allow the feel and capability that iso allowed in F1 & F2!'

 

[Vault Dweller]

I took the liberty of splitting the 18-page thread and starting a new one here. I have a feeling that many people would want to express themselves on that matter.

 

[Quaid]

Thank you.

 

[Vault Dweller]

No problem. While we are waiting for people to join, why don't you start by presenting us your thoughts on this matter. You've read the other thread, you know where people stand, their "isometric" position was explained many times. Yet, you believe that FP view "will work". Why?

 

[Quaid]

I don't necessarily believe first person will work. I am just trying to hash it out to make the best possible Fallout 3.

Now I know Bethesda can make a game that is 'not like Morrowind'. That being said, I was excited for months about a 'true, non-watered down RPG' coming to the XBOX. And I am impressed with the effort and dedication put into Morrowind. But since the combat stunk and the dialogue stunk and the plot didn't draw me in, I gave up playing after the newness wore off. That is an example of first person which didn't work for me.

What worked for me with Fallout's iso view is: 'chess board type combat' - turn based, perspective gave a good idea of environment and 'troop' layout. kinda like X-COM in its strategic aspect. Can this be captured in a first person game? Would a combat style similar to Galdius work? I enjoy the way Gladius plays out, and the fact that opponents take turns based on initiative, but movement can and does occur inbetween turns. It is like a dynamic turn based.

 

[Enderandrew]

I have no qualms with a 3d engine that will allow a nice 3/4 view of my entire squad (of which I have control of every member). A first person post-apocalyptic game would be fine, but it would not be Fallout.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Now I know Bethesda can make a game that is 'not like Morrowind'

And how would you know that? Unfortunately we can't accept religious revelations as a proof, so hopefully you have something else to back you up.

That being said, I was excited for months about a 'true, non-watered down RPG' coming to the XBOX.

I'm excited too. What game is that?

And I am impressed with the effort and dedication put into Morrowind.

Can you be more specific? What efforts are those? According to you, combat, dialogues, and plot suck, what's left? Pretty pictures?

Can this be captured in a first person game?

Technically it's possible. Wiz had phase-based combat after all, but I would prefer the iso look. The real question is "can Bethesda deliver good combat?" considering that a) that was never their strongest area, b) they dumbed MW down.

Finally, assuming that they can make a somewhat turn-based FP game, would that game be a Fallout game? Fallout was more then a PA TB game. That essense, that style, feel, and look require an isometric mode. Just like MW the exploration game requires FP style.

 

[Quaid]

Now I know Bethesda can make a game that is 'not like Morrowind'

And how would you know that? Unfortunately we can't accept religious revelations as a proof, so hopefully you have something else to back you up.

Fair enough. Weren't they integral in Pirates of the Caribbean? This game had a different feel than Morrowind. It doesn't help the case for a 'good Fallout3' though, since I think they screwed up the story and combat in that game also. Plus they sold out to paste the damn disney name on it simply because it coincided with the movie release. :-/

That being said, I was excited for months about a 'true, non-watered down RPG' coming to the XBOX.

I'm excited too. What game is that?

Ha Ha
Umm...that would be Morrowind. From what I have read, their 'vision' for the game on PC made it to the XBOX with everything in tact, and nothing 'dumbed down for the kiddie console club'. Perhaps I am mistaken. But I am not much for religious revelations either. Care to explain how Morrowind could have been more of a 'true-rpg' or 'non-watered down (from its PC counterpart)'? Note: this has nothing to do with how well we liked the game as a game. as weird as that sounds, I am only attempting to cover the specific technical aspects above.

And I am impressed with the effort and dedication put into Morrowind.

Can you be more specific? What efforts are those? According to you, combat, dialogues, and plot suck, what's left? Pretty pictures?

Just because they didn't create an outstanding all-around rpg gaming experience does not mean that effort and dedication wasn't involved. Yes, they missed the mark. The continuous, expansive world, the amount of backstory and text (in books, not the damn hyperlink), the variety in armor and weapons - the way it changed on your character, the sand storms, all of this was commendable. Again, I am not discussing the merits of the game as fun or engrossing - and yes, that is an extremely important topic, especially since the company is taking on Fallout 3 - just not one I am addressing in this post, since it is hard to cover everything at once.

Can this be captured in a first person game?

Technically it's possible. Wiz had phase-based combat after all, but I would prefer the iso look. The real question is "can Bethesda deliver good combat?" considering that a) that was never their strongest area, b) they dumbed MW down.

Will concede a)
Can you elaborate on b) ?

Finally, assuming that they can make a somewhat turn-based FP game, would that game be a Fallout game? Fallout was more then a PA TB game. That essense, that style, feel, and look require an isometric mode. Just like MW the exploration game requires FP style.

You can explore in the Iso view (so Morrowind exploration could have been done in Iso), so why does the Fallout essence, style, and feel require an iso view? Is it because F1 & F2 set the precedent and a non-iso just wouldn't feel right? Kinda like Harold returning in F3 as a mutant?

 

[StraitLacedDeviant]

You could claim numerous technical reasons why it wouldn't play the same. When you are talking about the essence, the feel, you're as much talking about your reaction to the game. Its an entire package that causes as profound a reaction as Fallout caused in many. If you change the ingredients you change the essence and it ceases to be truly "Fallout".

 

[Whipporowill]

Wasn't it Akella that did Pirates of the Carribean (Originally meant to be Sea Dogs II) and Beth just did the publishing? Nothing I would say changes what kind of game Beth themselves would do...

 

[FrankHorrigan]

Fair enough. Weren't they integral in Pirates of the Caribbean? This game had a different feel than Morrowind.

As whip said above bethesda published Sea Dogs 1 & 2(sorry POTC) in North America. They had no hand in development and akella has since stated they would never partner with bethesda again. Also do a search on bluesnews for Echeleon, another russian game bethesda published and the devs of which went so far as to publish an open letter on game sites regarding lack of fee payments. Theirs alot more to the story and its not exactly relevent, but Bethsoft had zero to do with sea dogs and the only thing other than a TES game they have self developed is a bowling simulator and a drag racing simulator.

That being said, I was excited for months about a 'true, non-watered down RPG' coming to the XBOX.

"true, non-watered down RPG' coming to the XBOX" - Isnt that an oxymoron?

And I am impressed with the effort and dedication put into Morrowind.

I agree with you here, ALOT of man hours and work went into morrowind, and while i enjoyed it, they could have spent that enourmous dev time alot more productively

Can this be captured in a first person game?

I really dont think it can, the 2 most immersive first person games ive played are System Shock 2 and Deus Ex 1, both were fantastic, but neither had essence/depth of Fallout style game nor could i imagine how they could technicaly speaking, turn based alone would be so hard to implement and couldnt possibly be as strategic from first/third person(ala wiz sorta) .

I do actualy think if bethesda work really hard in the right direction, they do have the ability to come up with something worthwhile. They self publish and have a healthy bank balance, so they dont have pressure coming from a higher authority to include features that sell. They also have some talented people working for them, *BUT* as much as i enjoyed Morrowind, it was not a step forward over daggerfall, it still felt (almost) as generic as daggerfall and the main story dialogue/plot was worse. Time will tell.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Weren't they integral in Pirates of the Caribbean? This game had a different feel than Morrowind.

Of course, it had. As it was pointed out, Bethsesda only published it and slapped the Disney logo on highly anticipated Sea Dogs 2.
http://www.rpgcodex.com/gamedetails.php?id=51

From what I have read, their 'vision' for the game on PC made it to the XBOX with everything in tact, and nothing 'dumbed down for the kiddie console club'. Perhaps I am mistaken.

You are. They dumbed down not the Xbox version, but the PC one to ensure the identical gameplay. If 2 things are the same, it's often not because the second is as good as the first one, but because the first one didn't set high standards. The fact that they did dumbed it down is clear to anyone who played Daggerfall.

Care to explain how Morrowind could have been more of a 'true-rpg' or 'non-watered down (from its PC counterpart)'?

From the PC verison? No, see above. If you want to know how it could have been a better game, check this thread:
http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic ... 23&start=0

Yes, they missed the mark. The continuous, expansive world, the amount of backstory and text (in books, not the damn hyperlink), the variety in armor and weapons - the way it changed on your character, the sand storms, all of this was commendable.

That's why I called it an exploration game, like Myst. Overall, I see your point, but if all that people would be able to say about FO3 are big empty world, lotsa items, and radioactive storms, that would be disappointing, wouldn't you agree?

Can you elaborate on b) ?

Sure. Dumbing down=simplification. Why? Makes it easier for casual players to get in and start playing, easier to make, easier to trasfer to consoles "as is", etc. Overall, more money. TB represents the opposite, the unnecessary and costly complexity, it would be a 180 degree shift in Bethesda's approach to game design, and thus, it's unlikely.

You can explore in the Iso view (so Morrowind exploration could have been done in Iso)

Wouldn't be the same. Can you compare exploring MW dungeons and tombs with BG's and IWD's little dark rectangles of dungeons and tombs? Not the same, but then again, that wasn't the main strength of these games. It was in MW.

so why does the Fallout essence, style, and feel require an iso view? Is it because F1 & F2 set the precedent and a non-iso just wouldn't feel right?

No, not because of that, but because that's what worked, that's what created that look, while anything else would result in something else. Look at MW, now make it PA, replace tombs with vaults, add guns, and tweak monsters, does it look like a Fallout game to you?

 

[Quaid]

You could claim numerous technical reasons why it wouldn't play the same. When you are talking about the essence, the feel, you're as much talking about your reaction to the game. Its an entire package that causes as profound a reaction as Fallout caused in many. If you change the ingredients you change the essence and it ceases to be truly "Fallout".

Understood. But Wasteland was Fallout's grandaddy, and it didn't play the same, yet it and the Fallouts are all worthy of the legacy.

Would this have been a concern for Wasteland fans if they were going to name Fallout Wasteland 2? What got me excited about Fallout was picking up a box in a game store, turning it over and reading the words 'Remember Wasteland?'

Seems like a deviation from 'Fallout', say under a new name like 'Enter the Wastes' would be more welcomed even if done in first person. Perhaps they could even put 'Remember Fallout' on the back of the package...

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Re: Fallout 3

I see that 'isometric view' is a hot topic. Technically since it is used to describe a top down type view for 2-D, would a 3-D world with a similar effect due to camera movement work for most here?

Yes.

What is it about first person view that "won't work" for the game?

It becomes a different style of gameplay. Hey, I like Doom 3 (well, I don't really, the plots a bit thin, armour is useless, the darkness is stupid and the only monster in the game is the imp) but Doom 3 is a first person shooter. You run around and you shoot stuff. You dodge in real-time, your own hand-eye co-ordination and leet keyboard skillz come into play as you dodge slow moving imp fireballs.

Turn-based first person sucks and first person Morrowind style "whack a mole" is both uninteresting and major suckage. Isometric allows you to have a proper turn-based game. Turn-based allows for some tactics and less reliance on your own skills, increasing the "RPG" factor. It's also interesting and enjoyable game play that I like and want to see again.

What if there was a mode to switch between third person and first person view?

Generally as a result, you end up with either a first-person game that has an overhead option that's useless (Battlezone) or an overhead style game with a first-person view that's useless (Battlezone II). You're starting to mess with game balance and ohw the game actually plays. You'll note that the games that have both views have quite distinctly different styles of play to Fallout.

I already have some ideas on the subject, but I am interested in hashing out the idea of 'no way in hell first person would allow the feel and capability that iso allowed in F1 & F2!'

As I've said before, first person games are fun. Isometric / 3-quarter top down style games are fun. 3rd person games are fun. Thing is, Fallout is isometric and that's the way it should stay. If I want to play a post-apocalyptic 1st person game, I'd like it to be something else and not Fallout.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Understood. But Wasteland was Fallout's grandaddy, and it didn't play the same, yet it and the Fallouts are all worthy of the legacy.

Would this have been a concern for Wasteland fans if they were going to name Fallout Wasteland 2? What got me excited about Fallout was picking up a box in a game store, turning it over and reading the words 'Remember Wasteland?'

Fallout was never intended to be Wasteland 2, ever. Wasteland used it's own character system made for that game and Fallout originally was a GURPS licensed game. Steve Jackson thought Fallout was too bloody, so he pulled the rights from it forcing them to come up with SPECIAL.

Even still, Fallout's setting and Wasteland's setting are much different from one another.

Seems like a deviation from 'Fallout', say under a new name like 'Enter the Wastes' would be more welcomed even if done in first person. Perhaps they could even put 'Remember Fallout' on the back of the package...

If they used their own setting, character system, and so on, I don't think there'd be a problem at all with it. It wouldn't be Fallout 3, and it would have to stand completely on it's own. That's probably a good thing considering they wouldn't be resting on anything else to sell it.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

First-person turn based can work. The Might & Magic series, especially the older ones, prove it.

I'm not holding my breath on Bethesda pulling it off, though, as they have yet to prove to me that they can. IF they attempt to make FO3 turn-based, it won't surprise me if they phale miserably.

 

[Ausir]

Fallout was never intended to be Wasteland 2, ever. Wasteland used it's own character system made for that game and Fallout originally was a GURPS licensed game. Steve Jackson thought Fallout was too bloody, so he pulled the rights from it forcing them to come up with SPECIAL.

Actually, Wasteland used the character system from the Mercenaries, Spies and Private Eyes PnP RPG by Michael Stackpole, who also worked on Wasteland. That's probably why they never used it again, even though it was quite a good system.

 

[Ap_Jolly]

Prove it.

 

[suibhne]

First-person turn based can work. The Might & Magic series, especially the older ones, prove it.

This was discussed in several other threads, and I was reminded by a few other posters that those older games aren't really turn-based at all; they're all phase-based (which has its own limitations). When we put our heads together, I don't think we were able to come up with any actual turn-based first-person games.

 

[Enderandrew]

People who keep claiming that Morrowind was dumbed down are ignorant of the facts.

Morrowind was designed to be exactly what it was. There was no dumbing down. Apparently you haven't played Arena, Daggerfall, Battlespire, etc.

Bethesda likes doing first-person action RPGs in the TES series. The combat would have been exactly the same if it was never ported to the X-Box. The X-Box had nothing to do with the design of the game.

Let me say that one more time. The X-Box had nothing to do with the design of that game. I followed it's design from day one, and preordered the collector's edition. That game has more features, and more depth than 95% of the CRPGs ever released.

Does that make Morrowind fun? Sadly, no. But the game isn't dumbed down and the only people who insist on repeating those claims are close-minded people who have an unhealthy hatred for consoles.

Bad games are bad games regardless of platform, and good games are good games regardless of platform. People need to stop being so close-minded about platforms.

 

[suibhne]

People who keep claiming that Morrowind was dumbed down are ignorant of the facts.

Morrowind was designed to be exactly what it was. There was no dumbing down. Apparently you haven't played Arena, Daggerfall, Battlespire, etc.

For what it's worth, my perspective on it, even following some of Morrowind's development, is exactly in line with yours. It should be noted, though, that the XBox did impose significant technical constraints on the game, just as it did with Thief 3. In both cases, the miniscule zone size is due to memory limitations on the XBox, and it totally sucks.

 

[Vault Dweller]

People who keep claiming that Morrowind was dumbed down are ignorant of the facts.

I'm claiming that MW was dumbed down. What are the facts that I'm ignorant of?

Morrowind was designed to be exactly what it was. There was no dumbing down. Apparently you haven't played Arena, Daggerfall, Battlespire, etc.

Battlespire sucked and wasn't an RPG, so there is no point in bringing it up here, unless you want to show your ignorance. As for Daggerfall, simply comparing plots and char systems will show the difference.

Perhaps you didn't notice that MW didn't have skills like backstab, critical strike, climbing, swimming, a truckload of languages, disguise, dodge, medical, streetwise, and etiquette. While some skills were less useful, skills like climbing, swimming, backstabbing and critical strike were very good. DF had 30+ guilds to join, guilds advancement required increased reputation (not only skills), there were horses to ride, banks to deal with, houses to buy, etc

People need to stop being so close-minded about platforms.

People also need to stop passing opinions for facts.

 

[undead dolphin hacker]

People who keep claiming that Morrowind was dumbed down are ignorant of the facts.

I'm claiming that MW was dumbed down. What are the facts that I'm ignorant of?

Morrowind was designed to be exactly what it was. There was no dumbing down. Apparently you haven't played Arena, Daggerfall, Battlespire, etc.

Battlespire sucked and wasn't an RPG, so there is no point in bringing it up here, unless you want to show your ignorance. As for Daggerfall, simply comparing plots and char systems will show the difference.

Perhaps you didn't notice that MW didn't have skills like backstab, critical strike, climbing, swimming, a truckload of languages, disguise, dodge, medical, streetwise, and etiquette. While some skills were less useful, skills like climbing, swimming, backstabbing and critical strike were very good. DF had 30+ guilds to join, guilds advancement required increased reputation (not only skills), there were horses to ride, banks to deal with, houses to buy, etc

People need to stop being so close-minded about platforms.

People also need to stop passing opinions for facts.

Morrowind was dumbed down in comparison to Daggerfall and even Arena. It was not, however, dumbed down due to its eventual release on the XBox. It shedded features as it grew closer to release on the PC, yes, but that wasn't because it'd eventually be on the XBox--that's because Bethesda either ran out of time, money, or effort.

My point is, Morrowind was designed to suck. It's not the fact that it would eventually come to the XBox that made it suck. Bethesda had a vision for the game, and that vision was a crappy Wikipedia with fucking godawful combat. A HUGE part of Daggerfall and Arena was the random, quasi-dynamic nature of the world--when that was totally removed, vicious gameplay changes had to occur. And occur they did.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Morrowind was dumbed down in comparison to Daggerfall and even Arena.

That was my point.

 

[Quaid]

From what I have read, their 'vision' for the game on PC made it to the XBOX with everything in tact, and nothing 'dumbed down for the kiddie console club'. Perhaps I am mistaken.

You are. They dumbed down not the Xbox version, but the PC one to ensure the identical gameplay. If 2 things are the same, it's often not because the second is as good as the first one, but because the first one didn't set high standards. The fact that they did dumbed it down is clear to anyone who played Daggerfall.

Italics are mine, not Vault Dweller's

The above statement shows you feel the PC version of Morrowind was dumbed down to allow the gameplay on the XBOX to be identical. Implying that if there was no XBOX version of Morrowind, then the PC Morrowind would not have been dumbed down.

The counter argument people are making is that Morrowind was designed for the PC and released for the PC the way it was meant to be, for better or worse, regardless of the XBOX version.