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

ZigzagPX4

ZigzagPX4

The Swiftness of the Ranger
Maybe it's really just me, but whether Fallout is an isometric turn-based game or a first-or-third person view game just became the least of the series problems.

Most of scepticism seems to be aimed at how clunky Gamebryo shooting mechanics were. How much RPG mechanics influence the whole gameplay is a whole 'nother line of worry entirely. New Vegas proved that a good Fallout game can be fit into such a perspective (if only they had more time to perfect it), and Fallout 4 proved that it's possible to build good shooting mechanics out of the engine. It seems like it's barely an issue at this point which type of perspective Fallout should use - an argument I feel could be shelved in lieu of more important issues. The writing, and lack of RPG in it, the lack of choice and consequence, and the addition of filler "fluff" that doesn't serve anything seems to be the most significant ones.

So what do we think about this? Once we get, on Fallout 4's engine, a New Vegas like game by Obsidian (preferably with as much development time as Fallout 4 had, minus the time it took to integrate the Creation Engine), maybe then and only then we can reheat this debate up again. And yes - there is a debate. I don't feel like it's a "there and then" argument that Fallout should be just as Fallout always was, but the main problems I mentioned above seems to be the common worries of Fallout fans all throughout. The discussions here, I feel, should start moving off this already. Any opinions?
 
Perspective is a very minor, arguably non-existent problem with the Bethesda Fallouts. In my opinion, they can keep the first person perspective and fps gameplay: you have to cater to the mass market in some way and I sort of understand that. The other problems that exist however are more significant, and cannot simply be fixed with mods, mod notably:

* The lack of player choice
* Incoherent plot and world
* In fallout 4, the godawful pacing
* The bugs

Could say something about the dated graphics, though that's barely any worse of a problem as the perspective.
 
Yep, pretty much the above. In fact I prefer the FPS gameplay, it's unfortunate it has been associated with two of the worst Fallout games to date...
 
Honestly, I think the isometric, classic CRPG gameplay was the worst part of the original games. Just hear me out here.

New Vegas is, singlehandedly, the greatest game of all time. It has a great story, great characters, great atmosphere, great music, good gameplay, passable graphics, and a level of charm and effort put into it that I haven't seen in a game since, well, Bioshock. New Vegas is, genuinely, the first game that ever made me a). cry (the first time a companion of mine died) b). laugh out loud (all of OWB) and c). get angry at a game for a reason other than "CAZADORS?!?! FFFFFFFFFFFF...." (When I saw what the Legion did at Nipton, when I learned the Think Tank were playing me for a fool [Really, Borous? I got you your dead dog's bowl] and, for a lesser example, when Barton Thorn played me for a fool.)

None of that happened in Fallout 1, and I think the gameplay had a lot to do with that. In NV, everything is smooth and fluid.. It's immersive. Fallout 1... isn't. Everything is rigid. The very nature of a turn-based game makes that an inevitable truth. I can't connect with any of these characters because, for the most part, they feel like the characters from Lemmings or any army-based RTS. It's ridiculous how unimportant the perspective makes this world feel. My brains sees this world and doesn't see interesting, unique characters with interesting, unique personalities. It sees those little stick figures from Darwinia+.

Now, granted, I can't argue that F1 would've been better as an FPSRPG in '98, but I have to judge games based on how they stand up to modern standards. F1 doesn't hold up, IMHO. The only time I felt any reaction to the plot was "Oh. Yay. Another Vault-tileset "dungeon." I wonder what I'll be killing he-oh look, it's mutants and/or mutated animals. What shock. I might collapse from the surprise. My surprise shall not be contained."

Well, I suppose that's an overstatement. I did like most of the talking heads (in particular, Killian, Lou and Aradesh) and dialogue is fairly good, but it still doesn't help the overlying issues. It doesn't stop F1 from being a good game, but it's not a great game.
 
Here's the most hamfisted and obvious comparison I can make. Let's not focus too much on time, resource and performance constraints of an engine for this theory. Fallout 4 as an isometric game, Fallout 1 style, would be absolutely horrible. We would have basically a rehash of similar fights again and again. The plot, which is usually what keeps an isometric game from falling no matter what its other failures are, is barely held together. It would be like a poor indie imitation of turn based games in general. Fallout 2, on the Fallout 4 engine (though preferably with the classic travel system), would be a pretty decent game. In fact, it would be pretty good. I can see a few campy parts that wouldn't probably make sense to the humour-radar of modern gaming, but most of it would run on as a well-written game with bits to laugh at and think on.

That's how easy it is to realise how little of a problem the view is. But I guess I didn't really need to expand on this, because Fallout: New Vegas told us all we needed to know about this debate.
 
If is stable/scriptable, I think it's a great foundation for an after-market Fallout RPG to be made out of it. A DIY Fallout RPG kit, where all you have to do is add roleplaying to it.
 
Ben Soto said:
Honestly, I think the isometric, classic CRPG gameplay was the worst part of the original games. Just hear me out here.

New Vegas is, singlehandedly, the greatest game of all time. It has a great story, great characters, great atmosphere, great music, good gameplay, passable graphics, and a level of charm and effort put into it that I haven't seen in a game since, well, Bioshock. New Vegas is, genuinely, the first game that ever made me a). cry (the first time a companion of mine died) b). laugh out loud (all of OWB) and c). get angry at a game for a reason other than "CAZADORS?!?! FFFFFFFFFFFF...." (When I saw what the Legion did at Nipton, when I learned the Think Tank were playing me for a fool [Really, Borous? I got you your dead dog's bowl] and, for a lesser example, when Barton Thorn played me for a fool.)

None of that happened in Fallout 1, and I think the gameplay had a lot to do with that. In NV, everything is smooth and fluid.. It's immersive. Fallout 1... isn't. Everything is rigid. The very nature of a turn-based game makes that an inevitable truth. I can't connect with any of these characters because, for the most part, they feel like the characters from Lemmings or any army-based RTS. It's ridiculous how unimportant the perspective makes this world feel. My brains sees this world and doesn't see interesting, unique characters with interesting, unique personalities. It sees those little stick figures from Darwinia+.

Now, granted, I can't argue that F1 would've been better as an FPSRPG in '98, but I have to judge games based on how they stand up to modern standards. F1 doesn't hold up, IMHO. The only time I felt any reaction to the plot was "Oh. Yay. Another Vault-tileset "dungeon." I wonder what I'll be killing he-oh look, it's mutants and/or mutated animals. What shock. I might collapse from the surprise. My surprise shall not be contained."

Well, I suppose that's an overstatement. I did like most of the talking heads (in particular, Killian, Lou and Aradesh) and dialogue is fairly good, but it still doesn't help the overlying issues. It doesn't stop F1 from being a good game, but it's not a great game.
Click to expand...
I think it's more of using your imagination with the earlier games than anything. The talking heads in particular helped me view the game in a first person perspective in my mind, while still enjoying the game if that makes any sense lol. Fallout New Vegas helped me view FO1/2 from a first-person view point as well, because it was fairly close to what I had imagined it being like it in the first place. When I met Tycho in the Skum Pitt and it gave me the description of him wearing a trenchcoat and a gasmask, I imagined him in the Desert Ranger combat armor from New Vegas. Just little things like that helped me imagine the world that I was in during FO/FO2.

I love Fallout 1 and 2 and I also love New Vegas, but I can see how older fans of the series don't like the change FO3/NV brought with the FPS elements. The perspective of Fallout for people who started out with the games recently is probably not as big as an issue as it is for the older fans.
 
ZigzagPX4 said:
Here's the most hamfisted and obvious comparison I can make. Let's not focus too much on time, resource and performance constraints of an engine for this theory. Fallout 4 as an isometric game, Fallout 1 style, would be absolutely horrible. We would have basically a rehash of similar fights again and again. The plot, which is usually what keeps an isometric game from falling no matter what its other failures are, is barely held together. It would be like a poor indie imitation of turn based games in general. Fallout 2, on the Fallout 4 engine (though preferably with the classic travel system), would be a pretty decent game. In fact, it would be pretty good. I can see a few campy parts that wouldn't probably make sense to the humour-radar of modern gaming, but most of it would run on as a well-written game with bits to laugh at and think on.

That's how easy it is to realise how little of a problem the view is. But I guess I didn't really need to expand on this, because Fallout: New Vegas told us all we needed to know about this debate.
Click to expand...

Does it really?

I could never ever play a Jagged Alliance or Commandos in first person. And those games are really not defined by their setting or story. The mercenary-ww2-concepts are as generic as you can get in gaming.

There are games that are defined by the view, so much, that even new technologies, didn't change the angle TO much, even though they are made in 3D where previous games have been simply made in 2D.

As great as New Vegas is, but in my opinion a TRUE Fallout Sequel has to be to Fallout 1 and 2 what

This is to


to this


To really stay true to a game it is not enough to just focus on the setting - that makes it as far as games goes, a spin off, which New Vegas is - if you want to continue with the spirit of the game you have to keep at least it's essence. And a game like Fallout, is usually more than just the sum of it's parts.

- Yes, I like New Vegas a lot, but even New Vegas, could not be a true Sequel, as it an FPS game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Crni Vuk said:
- Yes, I like New Vegas a lot, but even New Vegas, could not be a true Sequel, as it an FPS game.
Click to expand...

A true sequel needs to, IMO, take what made the previous game good and get rid of what made it bad. FNV took what made F1 work (story, characters, certain RPG mechanics, music, etc.) and what (little) made F3 (barely) work (shooting and dungeon crawling) and proved that Fallout could work as an FPSRPG without being... well, F3. If and when Obsidian does another game in the series, I hope they'll do for F4 what they did for F3.
 
SJDHBSAJDBSAKFBSJKDASJKD

No Crni, we went through this before, in your warped view of the English language NV couldn't be a sequel, but by the definition it very much is, as it keeps the atmosphere and continues the story of the West Coast.
 
So you think the turn based mechanic and top down view was not a part of Fallout? You just don't get it, do you?



Than why do you think they chose that shit in the first place, if it's so fucking meaningless. I am sick of this. Sorry guys. But this is EXACTLY the kind of mentality that allows to do everything to a franchise. It is exactly this kind of thinking that destroys franchises like Commandos and Jagged Alliance because some pleb thinks that it's enough to turn those in to first person shooters. I LOVE(!) FPS games. I do! But if I want the Commandos experience, as how Commandos 1,2 and 3 provided it than there is NO FUCKING WAY IN HELL, that Commandos 4 as FPS can provide that. Is this so hard to grasp? Do you really want to sell me a car as bicycle here and tell me with a straight face, what are you complaining about, it's the EXACT SAME EXPERIENCE JUST BECAUSE BOTH CAN MOVE YOU FROM A TO B.

Seriously. Go to VD and tell him to make his next sequel as first person shooter in real time. Why don't you guys tell inxile to make Planescape Numenera in to a Skyrim clone with real time and first person gameplay.

Tell me. How is New Vegas FPS real time Gameplay providing the same experience like top-down turn based. How? NO ONE was capable to explain that.

How, how in the 9 hells is THIS
​
maxresdefault.jpg

​

the same as THIS
​
Fallout_NV_gameplay.jpg

​

It might have the SAME TONE, but it can NEVER EVER BE THE EXACT SAME EXPERIENCE.

Only Fallout 2 can give you the same experience as Fallout 1! And if Van Buren would have been made with the gameplay of New Vegas, it would have seen a shit-ton of flak in this community. And rightfully so.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
All it needs is the same FUCKING TONE, that's what defines a sequel not the fucking mechanics. The tone and story is where the sequel is made upon, the mechanics are a consideration. They make the game yes, but not the franchise. You can hoist as much importance as you like but by god, stop spreading your view that while I would like to agree to is so inherently wrong.

But same experience... let me see...

Isometric-First Person (X)
Turn Based-Real Time (X)
Good Characters-Good Characters
Good Factions-Good Factions
Lot's of Choices-Lot's of Choices
Lot's of consequences-Lot's of consequences
Well Written Dialogue-Well Written Dialogue
Society Rebuilding theme-Society Rebuilding theme

Hmm, there seems to be a lot MORE similar things then there are different.
 
Did I ever suggested they don't have many things in common? Is it really impossible to see where I am coming from?

Cars and bicycles have also a lot in common. But they are still NOT the same experience.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Did I ever suggested they don't have many things in common? Is it really impossible to see where I am coming from?

Cars and bicycles have also a lot in common. But they are still NOT the same experience.
Click to expand...

What do cars and bicycles have in common that's not transportation? Get me five things and I'll take you seriously.
 
Cars and Bicycles have at least those in common. There are even more, depending how anal you want to be, but you said, just 5.

Wheels, present on cars and bicycles.
Both are made obviously to move.
Mechanical components/concepts.
Similar materials (metal, plastic).
They are used by people.

But this is all besides the point, I would say it is not crazy to say that a car has more in common with a bicycle, than let us say, a log. Let us not get to focused on that. No matter if you agree or not. It was just an example to show how ridiculous it is.

The real question is, can real time FPS gameplay provide you the EXACT(!) same experience as turn based top down view?
Yes or no?

And I will ask again, is it so difficult to understand where I am coming from?
 
Last edited:
Crni Vuk said:
Cars and Bicycles have at least those in common. There are even more, depending how anal you want to be, but you said, just 5.

Wheels, present on cars and bicycles.
Both are made obviously to move.
Mechanical components/concepts.
Similar materials (metal, plastic).
They are used by people.

But this is all besides the point, I would say it is not crazy to say that a car has more in common with a bicycle, than let us say, a log. Let us not get to focused on that. No matter if you agree or not. It was just an example to show how ridiculous it is.

The real question is, can real time FPS gameplay provide you the EXACT(!) same experience as turn based top down view?
Yes or no?

And I will ask again, is it so difficult to understand where I am coming from?
Click to expand...

Wow, you took the vaguest things to describe the comparisons, but they work I guess.

No, but you don't need the same experience to be a sequel. Is that difficult to understand?
 
Aaand we are back at "everything goes as sequel". If it's fun I guess? Because fun is the only factor that counts.

1633674.jpg


Don't you see the irony in that though? It's really not hard to nail down Fallout as a game. It's the setting and the gameplay. Why is gameplay important? Well, let me paraphrase.

Why isn't it important?

You can place emphasis on the stetting, or the story, I guess. But that is not the only point that matters as far as games goes. Otherwise, you could say that a book, makes a good PC/Video game, as it's all about story and setting - that is definetly one of the bigest points of a book. Just as how the cinematic experience is with movies.

But no one could possibily think that a book is a video game. Or that a movie is a book. To say that gameplay doesn't matter or that it doesn't play a role in what defines a game as whole, is simply absurd. What is the definition behind Pong or Tetris? Where is the setting/story here to define it?

It is what many at Bethesda believe though, without the intention to insult anyone! But they do very often use that as argument to justify any any every change that happens with NuFallout. Who cares right? As long it works! But you can not seperate it that easily from each other just as how you can't remove flour, suggar or eggs from a typical cake and expect the same result! The fact that New Vegas is an excelent role playing game and indeed very fun to play, doesn't change any of that.

I never said that the top down and turn based gameplay was the ONE AND ONLY defining factor of Fallout 1 and 2. You can not just slap vaults on Jagged Alliance and expect it to be Fallout. But the gameplay was important enough, that any possible Fallout 3 by the original developers, would have been done in top down and turn based, despite the fact that the technology to make an open world FPS game was already there.

For many of us who came to Fallout with the first 2 games, it was more than JUST the setting and post apoc theme. The fact that it was made as turn based game for example, was also a huge appeal. And the designers of Fallout 1, made it clear that they decided for that gameplay for a reason. That it was always a choice right from the start.

Wow, you took the vaguest things to describe the comparisons, but they work I guess.
Click to expand...
And you didn't with your points? Of course we have to be somewhat vague! Otherwise neither comparison would work. And I already said, that I do admit to be more on the ridiculous side with the car/bicycle example. I was trying to make a point. The point, that both can be used to get from point A to B, but that neither can replace the other when you're looking for a very specific experience.
 
Last edited:
See? This is my whole point. If we keep circling around this exact topic, we don't focus on what's actually the worst part here. What if by some freak miracle Bethesda decides to allow development of an isometric spin-off, but the story, lore and tone are complete shit? Would you rather prefer a Fallout New Vegas styled spin-off on the Fallout 4 engine or would you rather have a travesty of an isometric turn-based game because we raised too much attention on that as a problem?

Bethesda isn't exactly known for comprehending what players want that well. If everyone keeps raising a fuss only about the isometric view and turn-based gameplay, that's all you're gonna get back, and nothing else. But please, feel free to continue proving my point and demanding "everything or nothing", because that will get you absolutely nowhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top