Duck and Cover Forum Index


Use these links, buy stuff from Amazon and help us out, nubs.
Amazon.com | Amazon.ca | Amazon.co.uk | Amazon.de
  Duck and Cover  •  FAQ  •  Search  •  Memberlist  •  Usergroups   •  Register  •  Profile  •  Log in to check your private messages  •  Log in

 Support DAC!
 ominous signs of treachery View next topic
View previous topic
Post new topicReply to topic
Author Message
xbow
Vault Elite
Vault Elite


Joined: 30 Jul 2004
Posts: 337
Location: Mojave Desert

PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:06 am Reply with quoteBack to top

Quote:
Pete Hines: We're not going to go away from what it is that we do best. We're not going to suddenly do a top-down isometric Baldur's Gate-style game, because that's not what we do well.


Saint Proverbius says: Actually, that was from a phone interview Petey Hines did with IGN, and IGN basically fucked up the quote. so this treachery post started from a false premise Mr Hiness didnt say that. I wonder what he really said?

Making first person or fllowing first person fallout3 has about the same level of idiocy as making doom3 isometric.

A first person or fllowing first person Fallout3 will..................


BOMB AND CRATER icon_no
Because it will feel nothing like fallout


Last edited by xbow on Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:08 am; edited 2 times in total
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Jimmyjay86
Hero of the Glowing Lands
Hero of the Glowing Lands


Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 2102
Location: Wisconsin

PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:51 am Reply with quoteBack to top

It depends on what they mean when they say "non-isometric". Playing Silent Storm or Soldiers: Heroes of WW2 both of which have a changeable perspective is fine. I wouldn't really characterize them as isometric because there is a perspective involved. The perspectives do stay fixed though from a more-or-less 3/4 top-down view. It's definitely not a 1st person perspective or even a moveable, following 3rd person perspective also sucks.
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's website
PsychoSniper
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 9:08 am Reply with quoteBack to top

Also, I was banned for 'flaming' it seems.

Guess they couldnt take the heat at home.

Iply has an heir in customer relations.

EDIT, and xbow, Isometric isnt nessacarily required.

Look at VanBuren, it was going to be 3D and have an overhead view that could rotate. Not clasic isometric, but would have the same viewpoint.

Isometric isnt required, topdown viewpoint that looks the same is.
Mismatch
Hero of the Glowing Lands
Hero of the Glowing Lands


Joined: 20 Jan 2004
Posts: 2160
Location: Over yonder hill

PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 9:17 am Reply with quoteBack to top

I have slid into a dull acceptance state...
There is nothing one can do, I hardly have hope anymore. Not that I do not wish things to be well, I just dare not expect anything.
And, Jj is right about the point he makes about the view.
Apart from that, I seriously doubt that ANYONE would be so stupid to make FO3 i 1st person. Especially if they, as they said, are fallout fans.

All I want for now is a pipboy pic at bethesdas website, just to confirm that things will be as they once were. But I doubt they ever will.
View user's profileSend private message
xbow
Vault Elite
Vault Elite


Joined: 30 Jul 2004
Posts: 337
Location: Mojave Desert

PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 11:01 am Reply with quoteBack to top

The shots I saw of VanBuren looked alright to me I could live with that nothing wrong with a near isometric perspective generated by a 3D engine. I simply don't like following 1st person for an RPG its just to restrictive.

A change I would like to see in fallout 3 is having real tactical control over the party in turn based or CTB combat. I liked that about FOT...No I loved that about FOT. The ability to send members of your party to an enemies flank with their sentry modes on 1% to get the enemy into a nasty crossfire is fun in my book.

I would also like to see a behind the scenes party 'moral roll' where your NPC's chicken out momntarily or depart permanently on their own if you are not leading them and taking your share of the risk in LOS combat or your Karma gets too low.

I remember once there was a game called Pirates and it was a simple dos game but if you were not capable of hunting down enough treasure to keep your crew happy they would eventually mutiny. The potential for internal conflicts within the party adds a welcome and quite realistic human dimension to an CRPG.
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Retlaw83
Goatse Messiah
Goatse Messiah


Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Posts: 5328

PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 5:08 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

I disagree with being able to tactically control party members in FO3. Fallout is a game of generalized weapons - assault rifles, combat shotguns, knife, etc - and an abstract model of combat. Tactics is a game of specific weapons, each with its own use - AK-47, Colt .45, Vindicator minigun, etc - and the focus is entirely on combat.

I wouldn't mind seeing a combination of the two games myself, but I wouldn't want it to be labeled as either Fallout or Fallout: Tactics. Fallout: Warrior of the Wastes or something like that would give it a better feel. I even have a rough outline for a plot of a Fallout-universe game like that happens in Western Pennsylvania and Eastern Ohio. Sadly, no one will ever see it. It continues the original Tactics plot quite nicely.
View user's profileSend private message
Wolfman Walt
Mamma's Gang member
Mamma's Gang member


Joined: 15 Mar 2003
Posts: 5171
Location: La Grange, Kentucky

PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 5:24 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

Sadly I agree with Retlaw on this interms of it doesn't belong. Although my reasoning is abit differant. In Fallout you're playing a ROLE (why its called a roleplaying game). Notice how that word is singular. Not Plural. It just kinda compromises the experience of "being this guy/girl in the wasteland with afew allies" because it becomes "I'm a guy/girl in the wasteland until combat starts inwhich I become a bunch of people."

You also have to think, most people who will become your allies won't have enough common sense or tactics to try and flank someone. Do you think Dogmeat would carefully sneak around an enemy or do anything aside from "Run up to him and bite the shit out of him ASAP"?

Also Fallout Tactics was just that, "Fallout" (In one form or another) but also focusing on "Tactics". Fallout is a roleplaying game. Lets leave it to where you play one "role."
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's websiteAIM AddressYahoo MessengerMSN Messenger
Lunchmeat
Strider
Strider


Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Posts: 730
Location: Washington

PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:41 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

Agreed. In fact, I think that in Fallout you have to babysit your NPC's too much already. They should take care of their own health and ammo. All you should have to worry about is sharing the loot. If you choose not to, or don't give them as much as they think they should have, then you get into the whole internal party dynamics and conflict type shit that could be interesting.

Imagine Ian getting pissed off and wanting more. Is he going to just leave or shoot you in the face and take your stuff? No one would know, it's entirely possible that he would. Do you get the jump on him and shoot him before he can shoot you?

I think that all the NPCs should act as humans trying to survive in a very hostile environment. They should be careful with their lives. In the same vein, wasteland scum armed with knives and pistols shouldn't try to jump a wasteland warrior in power armor armed with a plasma rifle. Unless they were hyped up on jet, they would realize how suicidal that is and choose a weaker target.

As JJ said in another thread, Fallout was about survival. The inhabitants of the post apocalyptic world presented in FO3 should act as if they are trying to survive at all costs.
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailMSN Messenger
xbow
Vault Elite
Vault Elite


Joined: 30 Jul 2004
Posts: 337
Location: Mojave Desert

PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 7:09 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

In fallout you are the leader and your NPC's are your troops I do not want to see fallout3 be ta tactical game but seriously if you are going to hit a raiders stronghold wouldn't you expect your 'hirlings' to be able to accept simple instructions and execute a simple plan?

Its not all that complex for the player, One click of the mouse and two NPC's with sentry modes set on 1% would head off and assume a firing position and cover some area that you want them to fire into. once that is done you are back in character.

Its really less time consuming than rescuing fallout1+2 NPC's when they run off and start attacking five raiders and block your shots to boot. How many rescue cassidy from himself missions have you done? When in combat you are playing the ROLE of a small unit leader and you should have a minimal set of tools to do it with (combat control in fallout2 wasnt really good enough).
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Lunchmeat
Strider
Strider


Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Posts: 730
Location: Washington

PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 7:28 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

I see it more as a posse. There isn't really a whole lot of discipline or organization. You just have some guys who you think would help you out in a fight and they agreed as long as they get something out of it. From the character's standpoint it would be unwise to put yourself in a position where you had to trust another party member with your life. It's more of a ragtag band of ruffians than a well-oiled fighting machine.

I'm not saying that it shouldn't be possible to say to Ian, "your gun sucks, here's another," or yell to him in combat, " cover me, i'm going to shoot that asshole in the eyes," but I don't think that I should have to worry about doing that stuff if I, the player, don't want to.
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailMSN Messenger
Retlaw83
Goatse Messiah
Goatse Messiah


Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Posts: 5328

PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 7:37 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

Lunchmeat wrote:
... but I don't think that I should have to worry about doing that stuff if I, the player, don't want to.


That's one of the reasons I loved Fallout 2's NPC control screen. You could adjust if you wanted, or leave it alone.
View user's profileSend private message
S4ur0n27
Mamma's Gang member
Mamma's Gang member


Joined: 01 Jun 2002
Posts: 15138
Location: Villeray

PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 8:56 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

NPC always sucked in FO, except Dogmeat.
View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's websiteMSN MessengerICQ Number
Saint_Proverbius
Righteous Subjugator
Righteous Subjugator


Joined: 21 May 2002
Posts: 1549

PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 9:39 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

xbow wrote:
Quote:
Bethesda : We're not going to go away from what it is that we do best. We're not going to suddenly do a top-down isometric Baldur's Gate-style game, because that's not what we do well.


Perhaps that crap about scrapping the work already done on Van Buren because they want a fresh perspective might really mean that "look baby, We already have a junk engine around and a bunch of desert textures so all we gotsta do is dump a Fallout shell on Morrowind and bing, bada Boom the Fallout rubes will buy it.


Actually, that was from a phone interview Petey Hines did with IGN, and IGN basically fucked up the quote. Petey didn't actually say that, they paraphrased their interpretation of what Petey was saying. That's how wonderful IGN is.

That said, Van Buren = CRAP. The best thing they could have done with it was scrap it. It remains to be seen if Bethesda makes something equally as bad or worse than BIS was making.
View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's websiteICQ Number
bloodbathmaster2
Vault Elite
Vault Elite


Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 366
Location: The Outskirts of Insanity

PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 10:52 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

Yeah. We're just gonna have to wait and pray. It'll be a while before Bethesda has an alpha that they can start showing us bits of. Really only THEN can we bitch about it.
View user's profileSend private message
S4ur0n27
Mamma's Gang member
Mamma's Gang member


Joined: 01 Jun 2002
Posts: 15138
Location: Villeray

PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 11:06 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

Will they even show the alpha? They know how big the hype builds when FO fans get their hands on something related.
View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's websiteMSN MessengerICQ Number
jetbaby
Mamma's Gang member
Mamma's Gang member


Joined: 18 Jan 2004
Posts: 4186
Location: Magical Island

PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2004 12:06 am Reply with quoteBack to top

I don't mind if it's three dimensional, non isometric (i.e. Heros of World War II) view. And fuck NPC controls. I want to play my character, not mine plus five others, a la tactics. I liked the generalized order-system in FO2. Just needs a better inventory/equipment setup. Totally with "Lunchmeat though. It's not YOUR group, they're just like friends that tag along for the action, glory, revenge, drugs, sex, money, companionship of a leather-clad individual oddly resembling Mad Max, etc.



And fuck it all anyways. How about we just shitcan the whole idea and just make Fallout: MMORPG! .... wait. sorry. That' one's taken.
View user's profileSend private message
xbow
Vault Elite
Vault Elite


Joined: 30 Jul 2004
Posts: 337
Location: Mojave Desert

PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2004 12:23 am Reply with quoteBack to top

Now another question, in FO2 the NPC's could wear various types of armor but they always looked the same. The reason was supposed to be that they didnt want a bunch of clones running around that all looked the same. Also I think that the reason that none of the human NPC's could use heavy weapons was because BI didnt want to make all those extra animations. But with a 3D models its easier to make different skins than make all those sprites. Would you prefer that your NPC's looked just as you found them or should the models reflect what kind of armor and weapons they are currently using. Identification could be facilitated via NPC's having a unique color like they did in FOT?

Whats the consensus?


Last edited by xbow on Wed Aug 04, 2004 12:38 am; edited 1 time in total
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Lunchmeat
Strider
Strider


Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Posts: 730
Location: Washington

PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2004 12:33 am Reply with quoteBack to top

I think that Ian in armor should look like Ian with armor on. If Vic puts on combat armor he shouldn't instantly become buff, he should look like Vic barely squeezed into combat armor. Body type and height should be taken into account.

This is obviously only cosmetic, but it's important for proper immersion into the game. It's understandable for them to choose the way they did it in the first two Fallouts because everything had to be drawn pixel by pixel, but with a 3D engine going in the same direction would be lazy.

Same goes for weapons. The only limitor should be the stats of the given character.
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailMSN Messenger
wild_qwerty
Regular
Regular


Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 58
Location: Land of the long white cloud

PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2004 12:40 am Reply with quoteBack to top

I think a bit of both would be best. Like Casidy was wearing leather armour but he still looked different. So maybe just have your NPCs have a small difference to them.

Tribal NPC example
- No Armour - Looks like a Tribal
- Leather Armour - You can still see his head with feathers in his hair
- Combat Armour - You cant really see his head as he has a helemt now, but the crazy guy has painted tribal sybbols all over his nice new armour
- Power Armour - Painted again but also has a few tribal 'totems' and stuff hanging off of it.

Maybe you have one guy in your party who doesnt wear a helmet with his combat/power armour.

There are ways of making them change their appearence with each armour while still reamaining identifible as that character.
View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's website
Lunchmeat
Strider
Strider


Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Posts: 730
Location: Washington

PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2004 12:44 am Reply with quoteBack to top

I should've mentioned that I think there should be a much higher level of character model diversity. Talking heads should have unique models as should recruitable NPCs. In fact, the fewer people that look the same, the better.
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailMSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:      
Post new topicReply to topic


Jump to:  



View next topic
View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group