Do we think perspective is the least of Fallout's problems?

[ZigzagPX4]

perspective is okay. bethesda is the only problem.

Why are the short answers always the most spot-on?

While technically correct, I don't think Bethesda is definitely not the "only" problem. I can think of quite a few companies who can screw the series up just as bad.

Jesus Christ what a clusterfuck. Well just to add my two cents while Bethesda has more problems then just perspective, weapon skills for example don't work too well in a first person setting when manual aim causes you to hit every time you aim and shoot at the enemy. Sipping enemies with pistols and rifles with pin point accuracy too. I could handle another FPS Fallout but I really want another isometric Fallout game, well that's all I have to add. I'm just going to slip out of here before I get caught up in your guys'..uhh...pissing contest?

Or maybe grab the popcorn and slip back in here.

I think System Shock 2 brings up the concept of integrating skills into a first person game pretty well. So did the original Deus Ex. Sad that no one has ever tried to expand or develop further on that.

 

[peadar87]

Gun skills work perfectly well in an FPSRPG. Lower gun skill equates to more weapon sway. If your character has low guns skill, weapons, especially more advanced ones, sway around all over the place. There's no problem having an element of player skill involved.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Gun skills work perfectly well in an FPSRPG. Lower gun skill equates to more weapon sway. If your character has low guns skill, weapons, especially more advanced ones, sway around all over the place. There's no problem having an element of player skill involved.

I disagree. An RPG [and Fallout especially] is about the limitations of the PC. An RPG depicts what events that the PC is capable of. Once the designer starts ignoring what the limits of the PC's competency allow, in favor of what the player can manage ~it stops being an RPG, and starts being a digital costume... It becomes an experience like in the movie Avatar. It's no longer how that individual would perceive and behave in situations, and becomes strictly how the player perceives and behaves in their place. This [substitution] is bad for RPGs in general, but especially so in the Fallout series; as Fallout only ever allowed the player to access what their PC could access; or accomplish what their PC could accomplish ~because it's only their PC that is present in the situation.

In Bethesda's unrelated FO titles, the player effectively dresses up like a vault dweller and runs around in the would as if it were them. Doing whatever the hell whim comes to mind ~~instead of roleplaying the PC.

**This is the same crap that ruined the Witcher series in both of its sequels. It turned Geralt into a hand puppet instead of a professional.

 

[ZigzagPX4]

Gun skills work perfectly well in an FPSRPG. Lower gun skill equates to more weapon sway. If your character has low guns skill, weapons, especially more advanced ones, sway around all over the place. There's no problem having an element of player skill involved.

I disagree. An RPG [and Fallout especially] is about the limitations of the PC. An RPG depicts what events that the PC is capable of. Once the designer starts ignoring what the limits of the PC's competency allow, in favor of what the player can manage ~it stops being an RPG, and starts being a digital costume... It becomes an experience like in the movie Avatar. It's no longer how that individual would perceive and behave in situations, and becomes strictly how the player perceives and behaves in their place. This [substitution] is bad for RPGs in general, but especially so in the Fallout series; as Fallout only ever allowed the player to access what their PC could access; or accomplish what their PC could accomplish ~because it's only their PC that is present in the situation.

In Bethesda's unrelated FO titles, the player effectively dresses up like a vault dweller and runs around in the would as if it were them. Doing whatever the hell whim comes to mind ~~instead of roleplaying the PC.

**This is the same crap that ruined the Witcher series in both of its sequels. It turned Geralt into a hand puppet instead of a professional.

I'm going to assume that your particular berserk button is when people say that RPG mechanics are outdated simply because they used to substitute for what engine limitations couldn't handle, if you get what I mean. No offense intended, just a guess.

Mainstream gamers don't like numbers and RNGs speaking for what their hands and reflexes can do, so that's why it's a common criticism for old-school games. Hell, people unfamiliar with such mechanics got pissed with the new X-COM because you could miss even with a 90% hit chance (which is actually correct). Maybe it's fair to say this is what Fallout is, but I don't think it would be wise to suggest every single RPG should have numbers speak for the player's ability. After all, casual gamers see player characters in RPGs as an extension of themselves, even when doing things that don't always match their personality. I thought the Witcher series were fine the way they were.

Not everyone wants to play a vulnerable or flawed character in games. Not everyone wants a challenge. Do you see that as wrong?

And no guys, "casual" is not a derogatory term. Nor is "mainstream". Just stating some obvious facts - a lot of non-hardcore gamers want what they can do with the input device to represent what the player character does. But I understand perfectly that Fallout isn't that kind of game.

 

[Gizmojunk]

I'm going to assume that your particular berserk button is when people say that RPG mechanics are outdated simply because they used to substitute for what engine limitations couldn't handle, if you get what I mean. No offense intended, just a guess.

It comes of an ignorance about the technology... You see this when someone asserts ~for instance about Fallout, that they had to make them [isometric] that way, because they couldn't make first person games back then. []
People also commonly don't understand what they see of it (perhaps for lack of familiarity). Someone once said to me, "That computer is old; it doesn't even have Google on it.". Another person was stunned [incredulous] at the graphics quality of a 1984 arcade game ~because they did not understand the technology of what they were seeing. [That game was Cobra Command BTW; here is a 90's console port of it.]

Fallout was isometric [most likely] for an easy reason:

Spoiler

The fact is that most of core FO3's gameplay could have been managed with the same tech that was available the year Fallout shipped.... if that's all the game was intended to be.
We could have been stuck with something like this instead:

Spoiler

Mainstream gamers don't like numbers and RNGs speaking for what their hands and reflexes can do, so that's why it's a common criticism for old-school games.
Hell, people unfamiliar with such mechanics got pissed with the new X-COM because you could miss even with a 90% hit chance (which is actually correct). Maybe it's fair to say this is what Fallout is, but I don't think it would be wise to suggest every single RPG should have numbers speak for the player's ability.After all, casual gamers see player characters in RPGs as an extension of themselves, even when doing things that don't always match their personality.

Their reflexes should have exactly ~squat to do with anything ~in an RPG; it is their character's reflexes that should matter. This is the reason for a character sheet. The purpose of PC stats and skills is to indicate when to say "NO". RNG is the absolute best option [period] for deciding an impartial outcome. It indicates ~life and circumstance; it enforces the reality of having only a measure of control in situations; and sometimes less than one likes.

Mainstream gamers and even mainstream designers are not wanting RPGs; they want empowerment fantasy. RPGs can offer that, but not the servile typical examples [calling themselves RPGs] that we get these days; one that never say 'no' to the player ~only "not yet". Sometimes a PC is supposed to fail. That's what it means for that PC to be in that situation. The same exceptional skill that allows them to succeed in places where most would fail, leaves weaknesses in their abilities elsewhere. The silver tongued 20 year old conman is not also the hardened combat veteran with unbreakable cool; and not also the PHD medical doctor; and not also the near preternatural pickpocket; and not also experienced mechanical engineer.

When the pickpocket and/or conman face down a squad of heavily armed & armored opponents, it is not in their character to start landing headshots while edging towards cover, and preparing a grenade. It's not, because they can't be all that they are, and have spent their lives fighting as a mercenary or in special forces [instead]. Yet that is exactly what these players expect when they demand that the game let them get away with handling the fight personally... cool-headedly making shots that their character is often simply incapable of.

*This goes both ways too... The reverse is to roleplay the war hero veteran sniper ~who cannot shoot straight while under the player's control. In Witcher 2&3 Geralt is an absolute loon in a fight ~unless the player can control their [puppet witcher] comparably to the character's expected level of expertise; as a veteran professional monster hunter. One cannot get the experience of roleplaying Geralt, or Bruce Lee, or Conan... if the character is hamstrung by their control of them. Roleplaying Bruce Lee or Chuck Norris [characters] should deliver on their expertise and behavior, just the same as roleplaying Sheldon from 'The Big Bang Theory; and how would Sheldon fair in a back alley knife fight instead of Lee or Norris?

Not everyone wants to play a vulnerable or flawed character in games. Not everyone wants a challenge. Do you see that as wrong?

I see it as picking the wrong genre; (and that goes for players and developers alike).

As to the perspective [being the problem for FO3], FPP generally encourages player substitution for the PC; so it's no longer the PC in situ ~it's the player. Many players become annoyed when their PC's limitations are enforced [upon them personally]. Eventually we get games [so called RPGs] that simply do not enforce the limitations of the PC; the PC becomes a vestigial inconvenience whose abilities only serve as enablers. In the end we are left with little to no RPG aspects at all, and a whole lot of ego-shooter in it's place.

 

[Banestalker]

Keep in mind Fallout 1 came during a time when Diablo 1 was starting turn heads around and alot of people gave positive reviews about it. Thats one of the reasons Fallout 1 was in isometric, and managed to garner alot of attention. Imo, maybe its better if Fallout never goes back to turn based system. Rather adopt a system like DA:O, Pillars and to a degree DA:I Why? Because of several reasons.


1) it makes weapon skills viable again. This way the chance of hitting or missing a target will be indicated by dice rolls and not player skill at FPS. And these weapon rolls are indivacated by your weapon skill.


2) its makes groups viable again . The current fps system makes any fight between large armies a freakin mess. Part of the reason why people prefer the current one companion restriction.


3) it gives a choice between third person view from behind the character and isometric view.


4) instead of vats, you have the ability to pause the battlefield and issue orders to your team. Similar to pillars of eternity and DA:O.


5) item usage can consume action points now. Instead of chugging several meals altogether, shoot some drugs and then inject stimpack just instantly via the pipboy tab your character has to spend some use their consumables one after another.


6) A combat system like pillars of eternity + a cover system makes for a great tactical gameplay. In which both melee and ranged enemies have opportunity to shine. You have melee bruisers who wade through gunfire and keep the enemy busy by jumping from cover to cover all the while your squishy ranged characters can deal dmg to them and your "assassins" can sneak around and deliver sneak attack criticals whenever an opportunity rises. The fast pace of this system as opposed to a turn based system avoids it from becoming time consuming gameplay.


7) it offers a flexible gameplay between tactical, zoomed out battlefields where you hover around and issue different orders to companions, and dialogues and cutscenes where you zoom in too see a close up of everyone's face and body. With the animations used to better portray and narrate the scene instead of resorting to text to describe complex happenings in each scene.

8) abilities can be introduced. And no, im not talking about magical spells or shit like that. For example grenade can become an ability (that consumes inventory grenades) that you can use to deal damage to enemies behind cover. Sneak can become an ability you can activate during combat, taunt can be introduced as a method to turn some powerful characters to tanks. Etc.

 

[DarkCorp]

As Gizmo has pointed out, there are PLENTY of empowerment games out there already, be it CoDs Frank Woods or Ms. Platformer Lara Croft.

What we have LITTLE of is the kind of game we want on this site. It is truly unfortunate that everything nowadays has to be essentially a clone of some other cash cow out there, of which F4 is the perfect example. It combines the shooter, the MMO, and the sim, all into one package. The 'RPG' elements are practically non-existant in the traditional sense for reasons already mentioned.

There is nothing wrong with people wanting their no RNG, empowerment fantasy. Thing is, they don't need to ass rape Fallout for that to happen.

 

[Dr Fallout]

As Gizmo has pointed out, there are PLENTY of empowerment games out there already, be it CoDs Frank Woods or Ms. Platformer Lara Croft.

What we have LITTLE of is the kind of game we want on this site. It is truly unfortunate that everything nowadays has to be essentially a clone of some other cash cow out there, of which F4 is the perfect example. It combines the shooter, the MMO, and the sim, all into one package. The 'RPG' elements are practically non-existant in the traditional sense for reasons already mentioned.

There is nothing wrong with people wanting their no RNG, empowerment fantasy. Thing is, they don't need to ass rape Fallout for that to happen.

It's a conspiracy to take all franchises and turn them into power fantasies orchestrated by EA, Bioware and Bethesda...

 

[Gizmojunk]

Keep in mind Fallout 1 came during a time when Diablo 1 was starting turn heads around and alot of people gave positive reviews about it. Thats one of the reasons Fallout 1 was in isometric, and managed to garner alot of attention.

Actually no... Fallout was begun in 1994 ~two years before Diablo released. When Diablo became popular during Fallout's development, Interplay demanded feasibility studies to see if Fallout could be redesigned as realtime ~which was not going to happen. Fallout began as intended to be GURPS on the PC; and if you look at it, it looks like a GURPS session ~technically you are looking down at miniatures on a hex grid table... though I don't think the game is literally depicting pieces on a game board.

Imo, maybe its better if Fallout never goes back to turn based system. Rather adopt a system like DA:O, Pillars and to a degree DA:I Why? Because of several reasons.

It's simply not a Fallout sequel then; IMO. The mechanics matter more than the setting. The [campaign] setting was an afterthought, a brilliant afterthought.

 

[naossano]

Keep in mind Fallout 1 came during a time when Diablo 1 was starting turn heads around and alot of people gave positive reviews about it. Thats one of the reasons Fallout 1 was in isometric, and managed to garner alot of attention.

Actually no... Fallout was begun in 1994 ~two years before Diablo released. When Diablo became popular during Fallout's development, Interplay demanded feasibility studies to see if Fallout could be redesigned as realtime ~which was not going to happen. Fallout began as intended to be GURPS on the PC; and if you look at it, it looks like a GURPS session ~technically you are looking down at miniatures on a hex grid table... though I don't think the game is literally depicting pieces on a game board.

.

And if you don't believe Gizmo, you might believe Tim Cain himself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa5IzHhAdi4

 

[swinedivine]

I feel like the actual problem at hand is not isometric perspective or turn-based combat, but rather the mixing of FPS and RPG.
And those two genres are probably some of the worst to mix, because they are almost diametrically opposed.
While FPS games are all about what the player himself can, RPGs are all about what the character that the player created can.
The shooter, when broken down to the basics, tests a very simple ability - point cursor-crosshair at things, press mouse button, make things die.
Now, if you choose to implement RPG elements so that one cannot use a gun unless one has pumped enough points into some stat, the player will (IMHO, justifiably) think that it is bullshit, because an ability that he knows he possesses is taken from him by some arbitrary reason.
Now, I do not know if a real RPG is impossible without turn-based combat and isometric perspective, what I do know is that it certainly helps, because it shifts the game's focus from "I want to utilise the abilities that the game gave me by deafault, as efficiently as possible" to "I want to utilise the abilities that I've chosen for my character as efficiently as possible", and not just mechanically, but also in player's perception.

Addendum: I think what Bethesda did right in the much reviled Fallout 4 was to remove the whole Skill-based system: it really clashed with the new shooter-y direction that the series has taken with Fallout 3 and it felt like a crutch.
A system with trees of "perks" that either let shoot things better or allow to utilise the surroundings to ones gain is, IMHO, a far more wholesome way of ingesting FPS mit trace RPG elements, and a rater wholesome way of doing so - I think of it as of the old attack/health/shield/invisibility/... -powerups of the shooters of yore, reinterpreted for the XXI century.
It's a shame, though, that using skills in conversation, which was done pretty well in NV, has to go, but oh well, it's Beth Fallout, it cannot be all good.
Now wouldn't it be nice if the Bethesda FO team has thrown away the cheap percentage-based savescum-enabling "persuasion" mechanic altogether, hired some competent writers for a change and had them write large amounts of branching dialogue that would require some actual human thinking on part of the player, not just taking the skill/perk dialogue choice automatically, for their new Fallout brand postapocalyptic shooter?
I mean, I still can dream.

On the side note, does any of you know of any turn-based games in first person?

 

[Crni Vuk]

Keep in mind Fallout 1 came during a time when Diablo 1 was starting turn heads around and alot of people gave positive reviews about it. Thats one of the reasons Fallout 1 was in isometric, and managed to garner alot of attention. Imo, maybe its better if Fallout never goes back to turn based system. Rather adopt a system like DA:O, Pillars and to a degree DA:I Why? Because of several reasons.

I think to remember, one of the developers said, their decision for top down views has been actually inspired by the popularity of first person/3D games, and they actually wanted to make something different.

First person as perspective has been even in the early 1990s a very popular choice. It was also the time where Doom, Hexen, Heretic, Quake, Wizardry, Elder Scrolls and many more first person games have been rather popular. I am not sure how much of an inspiration Diablo 1 really could have been to the Fallout developers, if any at all. But I would guess, not very much, if you consider that Diablo 1 was released around december 1996 and Fallout 1 in 1997, and thus probably in developement for at least a couple of years before the world even knew about Diablo 1. The choice for a top down and turn based gameplay was made very early in the development of Fallout 1. Besides, the history of Diablo 1 says that one of the first ideas for Diablo was to make a turn based game as well!

(...) The Blizzard North devs liked real time, but didn’t think it was right for Diablo, and they argued back and forth for a while (there are lots of interesting quotes from both sides of the debate, in the sample chapter), but ultimately most of the Blizzard Nmost of the Blizzard North team came to support the real-time theory. No one really knew until they actually tried it out though, so that very evening David Brevik tackled the project (...) - See more at: http://www.diabloii.net/blog/comments/how-diablo-evolved-from-turn-based-to-real-time

I am pretty sure if Diablo 1 and maybe 2 would have ended up as turnbased, that under current Managment at Blizzard, Diablo 3 would have completely ditched turn based in favour for a real time gameplay ...

As Gizmo has pointed out, there are PLENTY of empowerment games out there already, be it CoDs Frank Woods or Ms. Platformer Lara Croft.

What we have LITTLE of is the kind of game we want on this site. It is truly unfortunate that everything nowadays has to be essentially a clone of some other cash cow out there, of which F4 is the perfect example. It combines the shooter, the MMO, and the sim, all into one package. The 'RPG' elements are practically non-existant in the traditional sense for reasons already mentioned.

There is nothing wrong with people wanting their no RNG, empowerment fantasy. Thing is, they don't need to ass rape Fallout for that to happen.

It's a conspiracy to take all franchises and turn them into power fantasies orchestrated by EA, Bioware and Bethesda...

Not a conspiracy. A reality. A necessary evolution, from a business point of view, as action games, which most of the times fall under FPS gameplay, are easier to sell and to exploit commercialy. If we are realistic, there is probably no way to sell a game like Fallout 2, even with modern graphics, to 30 million gamers out there. So it is just natural that a company like EA would turn a franchise they bought upside down, in favour of a broader mass market appeal.

It's not that Fallout 1 and 2 fans don't understand this reality. Doesn't make the situation better though.

Imo, maybe its better if Fallout never goes back to turn based system. Rather adopt a system like DA:O, Pillars and to a degree DA:I Why? Because of several reasons.

It's simply not a Fallout sequel then; IMO. The mechanics matter more than the setting. The [campaign] setting was an afterthought, a brilliant afterthought.

See guys! I am not the only saying it.

And if you don't agree with Gizmo, that's like disagreeing with Einstein about ... relativity or something. Don't be one of those people!

 

[GlutinousRice]

On the side note, does any of you know of any turn-based games in first person?

Might and Magic, Wizardry, and Realms of Arkania series come to my mind. They are mostly old games and old series, with the exception of Might & Magic X which came out last year.

 

[Risewild]

The biggest problem I had with the 1st person Fallout games was this:
-Fallout is a skill based RPG, which means the character we roleplay has his own skills and it is better or worse at doing things depending on his skills, but in FO3 and up it was mostly based on the player skills not the character ones... Example: Lockpick in older Fallout games, you would try and would succeed more based on how high the character lockpick skill is, in FO3 and FNV it is the player skill that counts for opening the lock, the skill only works to allow higher level locks to be picked, same with hacking, same with combat in some degree (although the higher the skill, the less the character would sway the weapon, it is still dependent on the player skill to aim the weapon properly to be able to hit the enemy, If I had a problem with my hands shaking a lot, it doesn't matter if my character has max guns skill I will still not hit anyone unless I use VATS but then I run out of AP and can't hit anything anymore).

I sometimes think that is why Bethesda removed skills from FO4 altogether, because it is not about your character skills (like a real RPG game should be) but it is all about player skills instead and we can't level those up in game .

 

[swinedivine]

On the side note, does any of you know of any turn-based games in first person?

Might and Magic, Wizardry, and Realms of Arkania series come to my mind. They are mostly old games and old series, with the exception of Might & Magic X which came out last year.

Ah, yes, silly of me to not remember those RPGs.
I was thinking about something more modern, though, and preferably with a tactical bent, but thank you for suggestion.
Also, I did not have time to really investigate Realms of Arkania yet, but from the screenshots it seems like it is at least partially in the third person.

 

[ZigzagPX4]

Hey, don't get me wrong. I don't want Fallout to completely fling RPG systems in favour of power fantasies. It's just that realistically, it isn't a surprise how the series is turning out.

But really... Is it possible, in anyway whatsoever, to create a first-person game where character builds matter? I really think it is. My best examples are, again, Deus Ex and System Shock. They're not nearly the perfect representation of what I'm imagining, but they're a close concept.

 

[Hexhammer]

Hello NMA. Longtime lurker here. (EDIT: wow, I actually did have some posts here already, I couldn't remember...)

This perspective issue is one of those to which I will say both yes and no. A good RPG can work regardless of the mechanics, but a Fallout game might be different kettle of fish. To me what makes Fallout Fallout is partially about mechanics too, the recent obliteration of the skillsystem among other defining characteristicts was the last straw. The jump from isometric to 3D first person was huge, but manageable, New Vegas showed that it can work.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Now, I do not know if a real RPG is impossible without turn-based combat and isometric perspective, what I do know is that it certainly helps, because it shifts the game's focus from "I want to utilise the abilities that the game gave me by deafault, as efficiently as possible" to "I want to utilise the abilities that I've chosen for my character as efficiently as possible", and not just mechanically, but also in player's perception.

On the side note, does any of you know of any turn-based games in first person?

I feel like the actual problem at hand is not isometric perspective or turn-based combat, but rather the mixing of FPS and RPG.
And those two genres are probably some of the worst to mix, because they are almost diametrically opposed.

It can be done, and done well ~despite their intrinsic incompatibility... That doesn't mean that it's ideal.
The devs at Arkane managed it with Arx Fatalis. Bethesda never has. Arx Fatais is an unofficial [unlicensed] Ultima Underworld sequel; so it was certainly going to be FPP.

Thunderscape is a first person title with turn based combat.

This perspective issue is one of those to which I will say both yes and no. A good RPG can work regardless of the mechanics, but a Fallout game might be different kettle of fish. To me what makes Fallout Fallout is partially about mechanics too, the recent obliteration of the skillsystem among other defining characteristicts was the last straw. The jump from isometric to 3D first person was huge, but manageable, New Vegas showed that it can work.

It's true that an RPG can have the dev's choice of mechanics ~but a sequel should not. Any sequel should share a 'family' resemblance to its forebears in the series, and not be of an unrelated [game] species. Changing the story and setting does not make Skyrim a sequel to Divinity:Original Sin ~nor the other way around.

 

[Hexhammer]

^I agree.^

I do prefer the isometric + turn based system, but I don't care about the specifics if the game is good. What I don't understand about the new FO titles is why did Bethesda dumped those things that made Fallout work so damn well? I bet they would have cashed in pretty well even without getting rid of the "old" style mechanics.... But I guess that wouldn't been enough for them when there's even more profit to be made.

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with 1st person action oriented RPG on itself, but I think the big mistake was to NOT take advantage of the good sides of the "old" and "dated" system, the things that worked. The 1st person real time mechanic fucks up the skill system pretty badly. I remember when I started playing Fallout 3 and at some point I started to think, what the hell do these numbers matter anyway? Its me doing the aiming, not my character... And VATS, lol, the glossed over cheat system. It felt cool for a while and then I noticed that I'm overusing VATS to make difficult fights easier. Soon after I started to avoid VATS all together as it made things way too easy. /end partial offtopic.

 

[TheSnake]

Lack of depth and lack of respect for the source material. When I saw in FO4 there was a "pre-War Vertibird" I almost died (those were invented after the War right?).

The first-person/third-person view/gameplay is honestly a pretty decent step in the right direction and I think NV did a great job of allowing RPG players to enjoy the dialogue/setting/writing while also allowing the FPS kiddies to skip all of that and shoot things. I'm all for balancing out the game to make everyone happy, but dumbing it down and ignoring lore is absolutely not the way to go. If they absolutely feel they need to, they could go the ME3 route and have an option for idiots to auto-dialogue through the game.

Ugh, can't believe I used ME3 as a positive reference.