For all that we love the game, I think most people accept the obvious, that released more than ten years later Fallout does have to move on.
About to rant upon the subject of Fallout's evolution, I think the thread is appropriate really. Given that we're talking to a major Bethsoft player about the game.
Some elements of the debate, for example first person perspective, are... Negotiable? They aren't vital. Preferably to retain isometric, perhaps, or to compromise a nicely made adjustable camera view that that defaults to isometric, or even has a number of optional settings.
While other elements must evolve, for example the transition made from 2d to 3d. You could say it's obvious, particularly when being developed by a team now established as the developers of 3d FPS RPG games and their expansions. A more closeminded individual however could have said the same of Fallout: Tactics, a wholly 2d game but one that (regardless of story or gameplay) looked pretty damn sexy and, visually, fitted very well into the Fallout world.
3d isn't the be-all and end all, but we know Fallout 3 will be 3d.
What other elements can evolve?
What elements do major RPGs have now that simply weren't around between 1995 and 1999? (to give a broad view of the Fallout 1 and 2 era)
What has changed about gamers since then?
What has changed about gaming hardware since then, the computers most gamers play on?
Well there are more of us and our PCs are, naturally, comparatively fantastic.
So what can Fallout do to take advantage of more players? Sure, it might make more money by appealing to the masses of gamers, as a simple and non-controversial project, by going multiplatform and being playable on an Xbox 360 while cutting out a lot of Fallout's darker and less acceptable flavours. But with more gamers come more gamers interested in, and sorely bereft of, deep and quality games.
One could call Oblivion a comparatively deep game, depending on your comparisons. But compared to Morrowind some elements of it are as shallow as a paddling pool when one brings up points such as the consolidation of all 'long and sharp' weapons in to 'blades'. The skill that makes you good with a dagger, and consequently the use of that dagger, is the same skill that makes you good with a Claymore, a sword taller than... Well, Me O.o
Or the fact both Axes and the common Club come under the same heading; blunt weapons. I own a hatchet and a felling axe for cutting firewood, and though I've never ground a new edge on them or attempted to sharpen them, I really wouldn't call them blunt.
It may be a viable theory that a simplified game, a basic interface, a less intimidating learning curve may garner more players in general. But in my opinion equally viable is the notion that as well as more players overall, there are also more players seeking a quality game who will not be satisfied by anything less.
A game which appeals to this quieter but considerable section of the gamer demographic while bearing the badge of a very well respected development house stands to achieve financial success with both the more selective gamers and the general gaming public, as well as a great deal of respect and popularity for being willing to break the trend of simplied 'made for console' games, to take some small risk and step away from the 'EA image', the image characterised by Electronic Arts as greedy, moneymaking, franchise-ruining, developer-abusing bastards.
And how can Fallout take advantage of advances in computer hardware?
Simple questions, questions everyone has naturally asked themselves, but questions which I am certain could benefit from being explored more deeply.
Fallout 3 will be be a game in 3D.
Fallout 3 will likely make use of physics, most likely Havok physics if Bethesda were satisfied with that engine's performance in Oblivion. Alternatively, Fallout 3 could make use of AEGIA PhysX, if it's development period will take it far enough into the future that PhysX hardware will be more common in gaming PCs.
Sub-question:- What does this mean for Fallout 3? What can it do with Physics?
---- Vehicles?
---- Grenades and other physics related weapons?
---- Physics based flamethrower?
---- Shrapnel/bullet ballistics?
Large numbers of NPCs?
Larger towns?
Seamless exploration as an OPTIONAL alternative to the Fallout travel map. Possible integration: Travel map only takes you to a random place within a mile of the chosen destination, the rest must be travelled in person, on foot/in your vehicle to reach the location.
This brings up the possibility of gates being closed for the night, of sneaking in, of launching attacks from outside, of being trapped or locked in, of defending a settlement along with the populace against attack by raiders or creatures.
The wilderness is a big part of Fallout... The oppurtunity to actually implement an explorable wilderness as opposed to small, square and empty locations chosen from a random set when you choose a desert location would be... Nice?
Hope I've inspired some thoughts and ideas..
- Jakk
Edit: HUGE agreement with DarkUnderlord on the subject of his side-mention of melee implementation... Oblivion's long, slow melee looked vaguely acceptable when fighting heavily armoured swordsmen. When you have to hit a man in a robe or a goblin wearing rags forty times to take it down with a dagger, you really start wondering what's going on.
Melee combat is a major feature of fighting after the apocalypse in a world where technology is scarce and each bullet is valuable. But then again, Melee combat is pretty major in a fantasy universe where it's at least 90% of what goes in on the world, and that didn't stop Bethsoft implementing a simplistic, irritating, dissatisfying and boring form of melee into Oblivion.
DAC, now flaming-free.
