First Person Shooter or Isometric Turn Based?

First Person or Isometric?

  • Total voters
    60
  • Poll closed .
retardette said:
Not sure why it is being discussed, it is fine to think about it but we will never ever get another Isometric Fallout. Fallout is dead especially the Isometric part, you just see a serial killer pealed its skin off, walks around with it and pretends it is Fallout.
Click to expand...

Hey hey hey!

There's still potential fan games!
 
retardette said:
That's true, I hold them in the highest regards. Good or not, gotta appreciate people investing their time in it.
Click to expand...

I wonder what'd be the best way to make such a game.

Make one town at a time and release patches/versions which add more, then start to chain towns together with quests?
 
Knight In Leather Armor said:
Why not both but with the option to change from first person to isometric?
Click to expand...

They should go full top down if they go from FPS to high up camera.

From this:

To this:


More seriously, though. Dungeon Keeper did Iso/FPP transition already in the 90's, so it should be doable now too (mechanical compromises abound, obviously). But I don't think I see much point if the game would play the same regardless of perspective. Iso shooter might have more camp value, but it's still a shooter just the same.
 
Well, the dissusion of CDproject for fallout got a bit off-tracked so I bring the turn base VS FPS talk over here.

While some old-school RPG fans over here praised the turn base combat over the "clickfest" FPS, I would like to say the turn base combat in FO1/2 are quite plain. For turn base, I would prefer a the setup in XCOM. It is turn base, it is a mind game, steath is important, and most importantly, it is exciting. Yes, your team in FO is a horde of mods, gangsters, survivors and misfits rather than a coherent team made up of disciplined, well trained troopers, so they won't follow orders. Still, that's something you can spice up the game, like, the more "friend points" with your mate, the more he would do what you said.

I have gave wasteland 2 a try, the combat is pretty much similar to those in classical FO. In short, I would prefer a FPS-ish FO such as FNV rather than that.

I know there are games to be Iso/FPP transition-able, but their map compromised a lot to make that happens. Less "complicated" path, no multi-vertical layouts, just name a few. Do we really want a fallout map like this?
 
rockitten said:
I have gave wasteland 2 a try, the combat is pretty much similar to those in classical FO. In short, I would prefer a FPS-ish FO such as FNV rather than that.
Click to expand...
Have you tried Underrail? Or Age of Decadence? Those are probably the best TB cRPGs to come out in recent years, and certainly the way I want to see Fallout to return to regarding combat.
 
It's 2017, if Bullfrog had fit 2-3-4 games in one before it was cool, now it should not be a problem.
 
0wing said:
It's 2017, if Bullfrog had fit 2-3-4 games in one before it was cool, now it should not be a problem.
Click to expand...
Bullfrog had some great games. So many hours playing Theme Hospital, Syndicate, Populous and Dungeon Keeper for example.
 
If they're gonna be using the same engine Fallout 4 used, they might as well just go back to isometric view. As it stands first person is neither immersive nor does it add much to the game play.
 
I feel like by adopting the FPS-style they put a lot of pressure on themselves to provide realistic gunplay.
It's my opinion Fallout doesn't need realistic gunplay, and is better off sticking to or creating it's own style, which could be within a 3d/FPS framework, but also isometric. I don't think any real Fallout fan really cares, as long as it's a true Fallout game.
I'd love to see them work out V.A.T.S. further and use that as the core combat mechanic.
To be honest though, I have trouble looking forward to the next Fallout game. Fallout 4 did a lot of damage which I am unsure can ever be repaired.
 
I feel like my answer is primarily rooted not necessarily in Fallout, but in the market surrounding Fallout. I would be ecstatic if they returned to Fallout's isometric roots. There are more than enough first person shooters, Fallout doesn't need to be one. While there's been a small resurgence, there are not so many isometric games anymore. I like that camera angle, it just feels right for a CRPG. I do love a good FPS game, don't get me wrong. I just don't feel like character stats mix in well with fps gameplay. Especially when accuracy as an innate character trait is thrown in, my aim being spot on can still result in a miss. I find that infuriating, where from an isometric perspective if my character misses I am more accepting of it. I've played my fair share of tabletop games as well, and am used to the fact that sometimes the dice just don't go your way.
 
FPS, all the way. Fallout 1 was good because of it's story and atmosphere, not the combat. Fallout 2... You can look in my sig to see what I think of that.

As for the accuracy problem, do it like the original Deus Ex did it; guns always do base damage, but if you're bad with guns, you won't be able to hold it straight (like how it is in real-life.)
 
I prefer isometric and turn-based. Maybe make the combat a bit more involved, though. Not necessarily going full Jagged Alliance 2 in terms of complexity, but for example stances and cover would be a great addition.
But these days first person will be much more probable. Deus Ex is pretty much the game to look at when it comes to FPS and RPG mechanics. Skill should only affect weapon sway, accuracy, reloading speed and so on, certainly not damage. And leave out VATS, commit to the FPS mechanics instead.
 
I liked the combat in the older Fallout games more than in the newer ones. Sure it wasn't fancy and it would be slow if many characters were around, but for me character skill is what a RPG is all about. If I the player have to aim to hit the enemy than I am not roleplaying that character, I am roleplaying myself using my real reflexes and skills pretending to be a character that should use it's own skills.
 
For a true roleplaying experience turn-based combat is a must. No way around it if it's supposed to be all about the character skill, not the player skill.
 
Hassknecht said:
For a true roleplaying experience turn-based combat is a must. No way around it if it's supposed to be all about the character skill, not the player skill.
Click to expand...
I agree.
Although some Action RPGs do use character's skill for combat and still work well (like Diablo, Sacred, Grim Dawn, etc. games). But turn based is definitely my go-to for pure RPGs. :nod:
 
I think the series could use a revamp gameplay wise. It doesn't have to be the new FPS action based gameplay of FO4, but I'd be lying if I said the style of the originals was a high standard for quality and interactivity.
 
Walpknut said:
but I'd be lying if I said the style of the originals was a high standard for quality and interactivity.
Click to expand...
But it IS a high standard for quality and interactivity, it's just lacking in execution. In fact, the modern TB cRPGs such as Age of Decadence and Underrail improved so well upon original Fallout's combat. Like has been discussed in the past, there are many new engines these days, good contenders for a new top-down, isometric TB cRPG Fallout game, like Underrail's engine. Age of Decadence might not be a suitable engine but it does have a good combat mechanics.
 
In general I don't think the "Isometric" part is even necessary at all. I much rather have a free rotating camera. I would integrate all sorts of mechanics that could replicate the feeling of a PnP rpg, but maybe my vision would end up as a game with a shit load of prompts per turn to take into account everything that can be done with Turn based.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top