To what extent FO3 could be modded?

[egalor]

Taking into account that Oblivion allowed a great degree of modding (if not unlimited), even so many Oblivion patches were actually made by fans (for free) instead of developers (for money), there is reason to presume that Bethesda will include and enhance the modding possibilities in FO3.

In this regard, I am more than sure, that within a year after FO3 release, many total mods will be released by fans, re-making all the aspects of the game, bringing it closer to what true FO fans really wanted.

Therefore, I wonder, will it be possible to change the 1st person view to isometric perspective? I don't think it should be too difficult to implement, am I right (if you remember The Witcher, camera positions there could be switched by a single key)? Or ultimately, make the the totally FO3 of our own, using the official mod tools?

 

[Ravager69]

Shitloads of work, another year or two waiting for the effects. Plus, I doubt fans would make a game big or good enough, such stuff requires a LOT of time and creativity.

 

[Brother None]

We don't know, it depends on if Bethesda releases a modkit.

They might not, because of the possible negative PR from fanmods.

 

[Ravager69]

http://pc.ign.com/articles/845/845404p1.html


This is the kind of attitude I'd like to see at Bethesda. They know where to look for talented folks and it helps - from an another childish fantasy game, Neverwinter Nights 2 is slowly turning into a more mature game focused on the roleplaying, instead of shunny grafics and immursion. I am really looking forward into Mysteries of Westgate.

Man I hope they'll make some decent looking armor this time, no more gay-anime armors!!!!

 

[egalor]

Brother None, what do you actually mean - "negative PR from fanmods"? Do you say that any fanmade mods harmed Oblivion success in some way??

 

[Sorrow]

I think he is talking about naked character mods.

 

[egalor]

Pfah.

Did they really hurt Oblivion sales, that much?

Even if so, I think it would be way harder and expensive to develop patches and mods themselves!

 

[Haldgar]

Therefore, I wonder, will it be possible to change the 1st person view to isometric perspective?

There's hopefully nothing stopping you from changing the camera to isometric when in third person, just like in Oblivion. But we don't know this yet. I've never understood why anyone would prefer to have a certain view "locked" in a _3D_ game. That really takes away the great functionallity and the great immersion of a 3D engine.

There are camera mods for Oblivion so you can see your character from even further away when zoomed out etc so if there's an editor released i'm guessing camera mods won't be much of a problem.

 

[Sander]

There's hopefully nothing stopping you from changing the camera to isometric when in third person, just like in Oblivion. But we don't know this yet. I've never understood why anyone would prefer to have a certain view "locked" in a _3D_ game. That really takes away the great functionallity and the great immersion of a 3D engine.

Ah yes, because 'immersion' is dependent on being able to rotate the camera.
Wait, what?

There are camera mods for Oblivion so you can see your character from even further away when zoomed out etc so if there's an editor released i'm guessing camera mods won't be much of a problem.

The ability to change a camera position doesn't mean the game has an adequate interface and design to be able to work properly with that camera position.

 

[Wooz]

Brother None, what do you actually mean - "negative PR from fanmods"? Do you say that any fanmade mods harmed Oblivion success in some way??

I think he is talking about naked character mods.

On the other hand, I think it has more to do with the reaction that occurs when a mod is vastly superior to the developers' work.

Things like, oh dunno. The interface mod? You know, the one that came out a few days after the game's release and well before the first patch?

Yeah.

 

[Haldgar]

Ah yes, because 'immersion' is dependent on being able to rotate the camera.
Wait, what?

Exactly, wait, what? I Never said a game _only_ needs a good camera/view to be immersive, but it sure helps, if you acctually bothered to read you'd notice i was talking about the _3D engine_

 

[Sander]

Exactly, wait, what? I Never said a game _only_ needs a good camera/view to be immersive, but it sure helps, if you acctually bothered to read you'd notice i was talking about the _3D engine_

No, you were saying how locking the camera takes away 'immersion' in a 3D engine (which, by the way, has very little to do with a 3D engine and mostly with the quality and coherence of the world). In other words, you feel that you need to be able to rotate a camera to get immersion. Which is mind-boggingly weird.

 

[Haldgar]

Exactly, wait, what? I Never said a game _only_ needs a good camera/view to be immersive, but it sure helps, if you acctually bothered to read you'd notice i was talking about the _3D engine_

No, you were saying how locking the camera takes away 'immersion' in a 3D engine (which, by the way, has very little to do with a 3D engine and mostly with the quality and coherence of the world). In other words, you feel that you need to be able to rotate a camera to get immersion. Which is mind-boggingly weird.

It's hardly wierd at all. You can never e.g see a very distant city or even the sky, and you can't (clearly) see faces, expressions or what they wear in a locked isometric view. With a camera that can be rotated you get the best possible view of everything at all times. Life is far less immersive if you just look at things from just one perspective all the time, so is games

 

[Sander]

It's hardly wierd at all. You can never e.g see a very distant city or even the sky, and you can't (clearly) see faces, expressions or what they wear in a locked isometric view. With a camera that can be rotated you get the best possible view of everything at all times. Life is far less immersive if you just look at things from just one perspective all the time, so is games

How is this more immersive?

 

[Haldgar]

How is this more immersive?

How is it not more immersive?

If someone gave you a really nice piece of art, let's say a very detailed sculpture of a city. Wouldn't you turn it around and examine it from all angles to really be immersed by it? I'd even go so far to say you're totaly out of your mind if you'd say you prefer to "lock" your view in a certain angle and just look at it from one direction.

 

[Sander]

How is it not more immersive?

That's not how it works. You made a statement, you have to back it up. I don't have to disprove it.

If someone gave you a really nice piece of art, let's say a very detailed sculpture of a city. Wouldn't you turn it around and examine it from all angles to really be immersed by it?

Your example fails in so many ways it's funny.
What do you mean by 'immersed' by art? Explain, and explain how multiple angles help immersion.
How does examining, say, a painting(2d) or a book(0d?) from multiple angles enhance immersion?

I'd even go so far to say you're totaly out of your mind if you'd say you prefer to "lock" your view in a certain angle and just look at it from one direction.

This is a nice attempt at twisting the discussion. The question was simple: how is having a rotatable camera more immersive? The question wasn't: why do you not want a locked camera?

 

[Haldgar]

That's not how it works. You made a statement, you have to back it up. I don't have to disprove it.

Never said you have to, but since you can't/won't disprove it i can't help but feeling a "bit" sceptical about your seriousness in this. To me it looks like you just want to argue (without having your own pro/cons arguments - or at least not confident enough to share them.)

To your other "questions", i've already explained it, if you dont agree or aprove of it, fine, but i'm not going to repeat myself.

 

[Sander]

Never said you have to, but since you can't/won't disprove it i can't help but feeling a "bit" sceptical about your seriousness in this. To me it looks like you just want to argue (without having your own pro/cons arguments - or at least not confident enough to share them.)

I'm trying to figure how you think rotating cameras fit into immersiveness. I still don't understand it.
'Immersion' (which is a stupid term anyway) isn't impacted by viewpoint, it's impacted by believability and world design.

To your other "questions", i've already explained it, if you dont agree or aprove of it, fine, but i'm not going to repeat myself.

?
You must have a different definition of explaining than I do.

 

[Haldgar]

it's impacted by believability and world design.

Just like i've said the whole time? In a locked isometric view you're quite limited to what you can do with believablity and design. There's no sense of height (requires 3D to be believable), you can't make a character see the world from a first person perspetive (does tons for immersion), you can't see people, clothes, items or anything up close and clearly and much like you do in real life (it will only show partialy in this fixed view, minus for believability/immersion), you could never see a very distant city. You could never go to a window, look out from it to examine a newly discovred area, open it and jump down into a sea below it.. Moments of surprise are almost non existant in locked isometric, eg. you wont pass a mountain to discover that behind it was a horde of enemies.

Jumping, climbing and diving could perhaps be done, but i've never seen it in any game that has had a locked isometric view. Would (probaly) NOT work very well at all and it wouldn't be as immersive (controll and camera wise) in this view compared to unrestricted 3D.

 

[Sander]

Just like i've said the whole time?

No, nothing like you've said the 'whole time'. You just babbled something about rotating cameras.
Which brings to another point: how is being able to rotate the camera more immersive? I can't get outside my body and look around myself now either.

In a locked isometric view you're quite limited to what you can do with believablity and design. There's no sense of height (requires 3D to be believable)

No, that requires decent artistry to be believable.

, you can't make a character see the world from a first person perspetive (does tons for immersion)

You do realise that a first-person perspective is effectively also a locked camera, right?
And besides that, how is this more immersive? You get a limited field of view that is really not what I see when I look around (peripheral vision anyone?)

, you can't see people, clothes, items or anything up close and clearly and much like you do in real life (it will only show partialy in this fixed view, minus for believability/immersion),

This is the only issue I can somewhat agree with, but which is easily fixed by being able to zoom in.

you could never see a very distant city. You could never go to a window, look out from it to examine a newly discovred area, open it and jump down into a sea below it.. Moments of surprise are almost non existant in locked isometric, eg. you wont pass a mountain to discover that behind it was a horde of enemies.

Actually, yes you could, and this is just part of a design decision. See all real-time strategy games that utilise a form of fog of war.

Jumping, climbing and diving could perhaps be done, but i've never seen it in any game that has had a locked isometric view. Would (probaly) NOT work very well at all and it wouldn't be as immersive (controll and camera wise) in this view compared to unrestricted 3D.

I never found jumping climbing or diving in any other game immersive either, because, well, it's almost always ridiculously done.

By the way, there are very few people that actually want a *locked* isometric view. Most people want an isometric view with a camera that rotates around. The biggest issue people have with the way Bethesda is supposedly creating the game now is interface and gameplay-wise, an isometric viewpoint (with or without a locked camera) helps gameplay a lot in a Fallout game.