When Bethesda announced that they would scrap the original Fallout 3 design and focus on "what they do best" which, to this date, seems to be first-person RPGs, the entire Fallout community was nervous. The thought crossed my mind, and I believe it crossed many of yours, that Bethesda had bought the Fallout license to whore it out, like Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel, riding on a huge, dedicated fanbase for a bit of income.
But what does this really mean? It means the engine will be different. Radically so, even. We might never see a turn-based, isometric Fallout. But what's in a turn-based, isomentric game? Turn-based, isometric games have sucked before. Fallout was great because of how a turn-based isometric engine complemented the content the developers wanted to put into the game.
The first, and most important, is the environment. Fallout is not complete without a full-fledged nuclear wasteland. Isometry facilitated this by allowing players to get the whole picture at once: enter Den, and you're assailed with the whole thing: rude brick buildings, corrugated tin rooves, dirty children, starving peasants, drug dealers, gangers, rusted cars, old soda machines...in short, the entire Fallout culture could hit the player in an instant.
This was competence of design, not competence of engine. It could take more work to create a captivating first-person environment...but the two are not mutually exclusive. Bethesda's Morrowind series did a very good job at creating a medieval fantasy world that seemed to have its own character. I think that Bethesda, with care and respect for the Fallout universe and its fans, could create an immersive Fallout world, no matter what perspective it uses.
Turn-based combat? It was useful. It gave the game a feeling of tactics, and allowed players to be very exact in their combat. It allowed the full potential of a highly detailed game system to be reached. In short, it added to the depth of combat. But how many features to turn-based combat are really exclusive to turn-based combat? You can control large groups much more effectively in a turn-based system, but Fallout did away with large groups. You control yourself. You can make targeted shots in turn-based combat, but so you can in a real-time, first-person environment, if handeled correctly. You could sneak...you could access your inventory calmly and efficiently, but both could also be accomplished with hotkeys and an intuitive interface (and competent AI). It's been my impression that the only advantage that cannot be reproduced is thinking time...which is a petty advantage to damn an entire developer over.
Of course, I'm not without my complaints. Morrowind's dialogue system was completely inadequate to Fallout. If they're going to pursue a Morrowind-like engine, they need voice-acting, full facial movement and, most important of all, a node-based dialogue system. Fallout's conversations were interesting and complex, Morrowind's seemed to be a form of interrogation. Morrowind's dialogue system won't fly.
Further, the character movement was too clunky to handle a non-medieval combat system. A rifle can hit you from any distance, do you want to get caught on a small rock while finding cover? MorrowindFallout will need an effective character movement system.
In the end, however, more will depend on Bethesda's effective implementation of the Fallout universe, its culture, its Bible, the SPECIAL system and top-notch plotlines. An immersive nuclear wasteland can be accomplished by a determined team, no matter the tools they use to accomplish it.
But a note to Bethesda: Fallout is important to us. If you're fans of the series and want to see it continue, then at least I am supportive. If you're trying to make a qucik buck off of a tragedy, you'll never get a penny from us for Fallout, or anything else you ever produce.
I await the flames,
Dibujante
But what does this really mean? It means the engine will be different. Radically so, even. We might never see a turn-based, isometric Fallout. But what's in a turn-based, isomentric game? Turn-based, isometric games have sucked before. Fallout was great because of how a turn-based isometric engine complemented the content the developers wanted to put into the game.
The first, and most important, is the environment. Fallout is not complete without a full-fledged nuclear wasteland. Isometry facilitated this by allowing players to get the whole picture at once: enter Den, and you're assailed with the whole thing: rude brick buildings, corrugated tin rooves, dirty children, starving peasants, drug dealers, gangers, rusted cars, old soda machines...in short, the entire Fallout culture could hit the player in an instant.
This was competence of design, not competence of engine. It could take more work to create a captivating first-person environment...but the two are not mutually exclusive. Bethesda's Morrowind series did a very good job at creating a medieval fantasy world that seemed to have its own character. I think that Bethesda, with care and respect for the Fallout universe and its fans, could create an immersive Fallout world, no matter what perspective it uses.
Turn-based combat? It was useful. It gave the game a feeling of tactics, and allowed players to be very exact in their combat. It allowed the full potential of a highly detailed game system to be reached. In short, it added to the depth of combat. But how many features to turn-based combat are really exclusive to turn-based combat? You can control large groups much more effectively in a turn-based system, but Fallout did away with large groups. You control yourself. You can make targeted shots in turn-based combat, but so you can in a real-time, first-person environment, if handeled correctly. You could sneak...you could access your inventory calmly and efficiently, but both could also be accomplished with hotkeys and an intuitive interface (and competent AI). It's been my impression that the only advantage that cannot be reproduced is thinking time...which is a petty advantage to damn an entire developer over.
Of course, I'm not without my complaints. Morrowind's dialogue system was completely inadequate to Fallout. If they're going to pursue a Morrowind-like engine, they need voice-acting, full facial movement and, most important of all, a node-based dialogue system. Fallout's conversations were interesting and complex, Morrowind's seemed to be a form of interrogation. Morrowind's dialogue system won't fly.
Further, the character movement was too clunky to handle a non-medieval combat system. A rifle can hit you from any distance, do you want to get caught on a small rock while finding cover? MorrowindFallout will need an effective character movement system.
In the end, however, more will depend on Bethesda's effective implementation of the Fallout universe, its culture, its Bible, the SPECIAL system and top-notch plotlines. An immersive nuclear wasteland can be accomplished by a determined team, no matter the tools they use to accomplish it.
But a note to Bethesda: Fallout is important to us. If you're fans of the series and want to see it continue, then at least I am supportive. If you're trying to make a qucik buck off of a tragedy, you'll never get a penny from us for Fallout, or anything else you ever produce.
I await the flames,
Dibujante
