The second oldest Fallout gaming community, online since 1998, keeping warm in the nuclear glow.
https://duckandcover.cx./forums/
the camera angles and zoom were to be adjustable (or is it this new definition of isometric). approximate quote from JESawyer "people couldn't believe it was not 2D but 3D when I showed it to them."King of Creation wrote:They did keep the isometric view though.Screaming_Dude_in_Vegas wrote: Well anyone who thinks that interplay would have kept the isometric view is crazy
http://www.duckandcover.cx/gallery/disp ... m=12&pos=3
a FPShooting game? are you serious?ApTyp wrote:I'll take a well-made Fallout FPS over buggy Fallout RPG filled with highly questionable design choices any day.
) RPG over a smooth Fallout shooter. I could possibly accept a smooth Fallout FPPerspective RPG - sth to the effect of Bloodlines, rather than have some crap like RestrictedArea.1. It's "their", not "there".Xi wrote:Troika - Went out of business because they couldn't get a loyal following of true fans. There games weren't that good. Sorry.
I wasn't aware KOTOR 2 was supposed to be an RPG, but I didn't really ever care much about StarWars based moneymakers an awful lot.Obsidian - KOTOR 2 was such a great game! They rushed it to make money. Yeah, what a GREAT company for the FO3 license.
Huge following of fans dedicated to the Elder Scrolls series. That doesn't exactly say anything about why they're a good choice for the developer of Fallout 3. Those fans aren't even the target audience of Fallout (although both audiences may overlap).Bethesda - HUGE following of dedicated fans. More experience in the industry then either of the 2 previous developers. More money to throw at the project due to past successes. Independant developer.
Yeah, because reinventing the wheel is a great thing, right? Wrong.Now, Obsidian wouldn't be a terrible choice either, but they aren't trying to reinvent the wheel.
Possibly. If Bethesda doesn't learn from Interplay's mistakes, tho, there's no guarantee Fallout 3 will be any better than a possible "Fallout 3 done by Obsidian" could have been.They would rehash the same exact design of the old games quickly and only to turn a quick profit and get out.
Oh, right, and I thought a series of games would sell by consistency rather than innovation. Stupid me. George Lucas better put some Space Orcs in the Episode III or it might not sell.I know the reinvention of the wheel is scary for a fan, but if a company doesn't consistantly continue to change and grow, it will go out of business because it will fail to create anything spectacular.
Where did you fetch that the camera would be adjustable in the actual game? The screenshot has a very similar angle to that of Fallout (the region is to small as that I could make out whether it's actually rendered with perspective or really is isometric qua definition) and the other 3D ingame shots are aerial views that don't use the game interface.PiP wrote:the camera angles and zoom were to be adjustable (or is it this new definition of isometric). approximate quote from JESawyer "people couldn't believe it was not 2D but 3D when I showed it to them."King of Creation wrote:They did keep the isometric view though.Screaming_Dude_in_Vegas wrote: Well anyone who thinks that interplay would have kept the isometric view is crazy
http://www.duckandcover.cx/gallery/disp ... m=12&pos=3
Ahhh... but you die not because of the bad guy attacking you. You die even if you were a level 30+ because you need Wraithguard. Without Wraithguard, the weapons make you lose hitpoints like there's no yesterday, let alone no tomorrow. Compared to Fallout where the only thing stopping you is your ability to whup-ass. In some ways requiring a magic item might be a good thing... but see below.Thoth wrote:The same exact thing happens in Morrowind. You can waltz over to Dagoth Ur, grabbing Sunder and Keening along the way (kind of like how the designers of F1/F2 put towns between you and a destination) and fight him. Sure, you'd die... but you'd die the same way if you fought the Master.DarkUnderlord wrote:where right from the start, you can meander over to the Military Base and give 'em hell. Then waltz down to the Cathedral and give them hell too. Of course, you'd die horribly because you're only a level 1 but there were no limits preventing you from finishing the game when you were ready.
That useless trinket is Wraith Guard which is useless because it doesn't work when you don't get it from the God through the "proper way". What's the proper way? Follow the linear main quest. Alternatively, there's some dude somewhere else who can apparently do it for you but the "You fucked up!" messages didn't exactly inspire me to look for alternatives. In fact, the message made it clear in my mind that there simply was no alternative. I also don't recall anyone in the game seeming to mention that "Oh by the way, you get Wraithguard and I can show you a thing or two" though admittedly, I may have simply missed it.Thoth wrote:That "useless trinket" is the same item you get if you progress through the entirely optional main quest.DarkUnderlord wrote:Even if you kill the Voodoo God floating in his temple, you get a useless trinket and the "You fucked the game up!" message.
That's kind of like saying that the whole point of Half-Life isn't to finish the game, it's to just run around and kill stuff. While you might have a point, I find it hard to believe that the "Main Quest" isn't the point in a game. If the main quest isn't the point, the game has no point and you end up in little more than a levelling treadmill akin to most MMORPGs. Granted a lot of work went into the back-story of the world and there is a lot of (fairly useless, boring and mundane) stuff to do. This world is supposed to be under attack though and you're supposed to be it's saviour. Personally, I do that first then play whack-a-mole just for kicks once I've saved everyone.Screaming_Dude_in_Vegas wrote:The main quest WASN'T the main point of morrowind. If somone plays morrowind primarely for the main quest, then they've got the whole Idea all wrong.
I agree that side-quests and other fun stuff to do apart from the main quest are vital to a good game, my personal point of view though is that the main quest should be what typifies the game and makes it worth playing. Morrowind's linear, railed, "one way" main quest certainly typified the game. Morrowind was also worth playing (I lost a lot of hours to it) but strangely, once I had finished it, I didn't play it again at all. There was no replayability for me because every quest was the same as Morrowind lacked multiple solutions to pretty much all of its quests. Compared to Fallout which I've finished several times and often in as many different ways as I could.Screaming_Dude_in_Vegas wrote:Morrowind (In my mind) was very much like fallout in that you missed so much if you whent strait for the main quest. I liked both games because they kinda keep everything fresh with tons of "sidequests" which actually become the coolest part of the game.
I hope you're right. As you say, It's going to be interetsing to see what Bethesda do with Oblivion.Screaming_Dude_in_Vegas wrote:Oblivion seems like it will be more like Fallout, with "only" 50 or so quests, but they'll actually be cool and such (as aposed to morrowind which had like 300 quests, but I'd realy only want to play 15-30 of them), so I think it's a sign that FO3 won't suck. It may not be as good as the originals, it might be as good but diferent, which will throw some people off, but I don't think it will be outright bad.
Where were you when this (see below) was at DAC, NMA, and BIS Feedback Forum?Ashmo wrote:
Where did you fetch that the camera would be adjustable in the actual game?
linkyJ.E. Sawyer wrote: The engine used in Jefferson and Van Buren (...) The result is a level that looks sharp enough that, honestly, many people mistake it for 2D until the camera is rotated.
What about a Fixed isometric camera perspective like the originals?
The camera is locked at an angle. Moving the mouse to the edges of the
screen results in panning. Right and left arrow rotate the camera around its
focus on the terrain by 45 degrees. Up and down arrow go to directly
overhead and back down to 38.5 (IIRC) degrees, respectively.
What about a zoom function?
Yes, you can zoom in and out within constraints. It can be as close as NWN
or almost as far out as an RTS like Age of Mythology.
yup, but it wouldn't have to be a bad role - consider Silent Storm; I'd just adore a new Fallout with such an engine (as far as engines go)Ashmo wrote:
Fallout with an adjustable 3D camera wouldn't be the same, because the adjustable camera would have to be taken into account for the entire game design and perspective would finally play a role in the design of quests, combat and everything.
Thats a bad example. HL2 was a completely liniar game (though it maximizes on what can be done best with liniarness). Levelmills are bad. See I allways think that the point of morrowind (and fallout for that matter) is to go around, find a quest/dungeon (the last one only in morrowind) and check it out. When I re-play the original FO I basicaly get the chip so the timer will stop ticking, and forget the main quest entirely. The lack of a timer in FO2 means that I just tool around, and occaisionaly ask a question about the GECK. It's much more fun to help out ghouls and protect Moo-Moos...err...Brahmen. I'm not saying that fallout is Turn based, post neucliar morrowind, nor is morrowind real-time, fantasy Fallout, but they both share the same basic Idea in the way the games are best played, which is do what you wan't, when you want.That's kind of like saying that the whole point of Half-Life isn't to finish the game, it's to just run around and kill stuff. While you might have a point, I find it hard to believe that the "Main Quest" isn't the point in a game. If the main quest isn't the point, the game has no point and you end up in little more than a levelling treadmill akin to most MMORPGs. Granted a lot of work went into the back-story of the world and there is a lot of (fairly useless, boring and mundane) stuff to do. This world is supposed to be under attack though and you're supposed to be it's saviour. Personally, I do that first then play whack-a-mole just for kicks once I've saved everyone.
The point of the example wasn't linearity, it was what you do in the game. If you take ALL the story out of HL2 and reduce it solely to the "run, shoot, kill" then it diminishes the impact of the game. It might still be fun but it's not as interesting as a game with a solid "main quest" or more appropriately a strong "purpose" which drives the player forward and makes them want to see the game through to the end. A strong purpose gives a game a great sense of accomplishment when finished and adds substantially to the fun factor.Screaming_Dude_in_Vegas wrote:Thats a bad example. HL2 was a completely liniar game (though it maximizes on what can be done best with liniarness).That's kind of like saying that the whole point of Half-Life isn't to finish the game, it's to just run around and kill stuff. While you might have a point, I find it hard to believe that the "Main Quest" isn't the point in a game.
No reason to be an asshole about it.PiP wrote:Where were you when this (see below) was at DAC, NMA, and BIS Feedback Forum?linkyJ.E. Sawyer wrote: The engine used in Jefferson and Van Buren (...) The result is a level that looks sharp enough that, honestly, many people mistake it for 2D until the camera is rotated.
you can also check this to read what Sawyer thought about the impact of 3D engines used in games, and in VanBuren itself.
So you can zoom (fluently?) in certain constraints and rotate the camera by A FIXED ANGLE?Also maybe consider the qute from VanBuren FAQWhat about a Fixed isometric camera perspective like the originals?
The camera is locked at an angle. Moving the mouse to the edges of the
screen results in panning. Right and left arrow rotate the camera around its
focus on the terrain by 45 degrees. Up and down arrow go to directly
overhead and back down to 38.5 (IIRC) degrees, respectively.
What about a zoom function?
Yes, you can zoom in and out within constraints. It can be as close as NWN
or almost as far out as an RTS like Age of Mythology.
So your hard-on for 3D relates to making Fallout better how?yup, but it wouldn't have to be a bad role - consider Silent Storm; I'd just adore a new Fallout with such an engine (as far as engines go)Ashmo wrote:
Fallout with an adjustable 3D camera wouldn't be the same, because the adjustable camera would have to be taken into account for the entire game design and perspective would finally play a role in the design of quests, combat and everything.
that you still have the cheek to address me with this tone... -after you wrote the disdainful "Where did you fetch that the camera would be adjustable in the actual game?" apparently having no glimpse of reality (i.e. the info from VanBuren FAQ.)Ashmo wrote: So your hard-on for 3D relates to making Fallout better how?
I don't have the nerve to browse through the text for the info you want, so here, have the whole thing - it may contain what interests you.Ashmo wrote: Mind quoting what Sawyer said about the impact if it relates to Fallout in any way? I can't access NMA from here.
Van Buren Interview-part 1
What are the benefits of using a full 3D engine as opposed to using an engine like Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel, which had 3D sprites on pre-rendered backgrounds?
Well, for one thing, it gives the player more ways to view and interact with the environment. 2D isometric engines can cause the player to struggle when attempting to interact with things in the enviroment due to occlusion of walkable terrain behind foreground objects and "wall backs". A fully 3D environment also allows for a more cinematic use of the camera in cutscenes.
Instead of simply having to scroll back and forth or go to a pre-rendered FMV, a 3D engine can move the in-game camera on three axes, change FOV, and other nifty tricks.
Of course, the benefits of fully 3D character models is versatility for
equipment socketing and animation. Adding a new animation onto a layered sprite character is a time-consuming process that involves rendering out each frame of the animation for each equipment combo the character can have during that animation. That problem is entirely avoided in 3D with the proper setup. A character with dozens of different equipment combinations can have an animation added with almost no difficulty.
In your opinion will the engine used in Van Buren capture the atmosphere of the universe it will entail?
Yes. I think it already does. The engine is capable of rendering very detailed scenes. In giving demos to people, I often forget to rotate the camera early one. A few people have asked, five minutes in, "So are only the characters 3D? I thought the whole engine was 3D."
2D scenes will always have pixel-perfect accuracy, of course, but if our engine is good enough to make a number of people think they're viewing a 2D scene, that's not too bad.
So, it will really come down to the style and quality of the art that our team produces. They are capable of some great stuff, so I have no doubt that we will be able to capture the appropriate atmosphere.
Is the basic story for Van Buren laid out in this early stage of development?
Yes.
Are there probable plans to release a demo in the future?
I have no idea, to be honest.
Its no secret Van Buren will be a hybrid between Turn Based and Real Time, can you clarify for all the thousands of Black Isle Studio fans reading this, the reason for making it a hybrid as opposed to one or the other?
TB is a niche that most publishers are unwilling to mine with what is supposed to be a "Triple A" title. Publishers generally cannot be convinced that it will sell well enough to justify the money put towards the project.
Publishers almost always want RT in games. If a developer tells them, "Well, we can only do one or the other," RT is the option they will pick. Given the choice between having a RT and TB component at 80-90% of their potential or RT at 100% without any TB component, we'd rather have the former.
How soon can we expect the first screenshots to be released / ”leaked” ?
I have no idea.
When will Van Buren be officially announced?
I have no idea.
Hypothetical Fallout Questions
If another Fallout game were ever made and you just happened to be the lead designer by chance, would it continue with the bloodline of the Vault Dweller / Chosen One?
Probably not.
Would the game be a sequel, prequel or neither if you had the choice and why would you make this choice?
I'd make it a sequel. I suspect most of the old time players would like to see how life in the wasteland has evolved since the destruction of most of the Enclave. A prequel could be cool but -- not right now.
Should you be able to choose different races as main characters, thus breaking away from tradition?
I think so. I honestly don't think ghouls or super mutants are so fundamentally different from humans that they can't be made into balanced, fun characters.
Are the Fallout Bibles still relevant now that Chris Avellone is no longer a BIS employee?
Sure, they're relevant. That doesn't mean we would be slavishly devoted to them.
What is the “official” ending for Fallout 2?
Oil rig goes boom. Enclave cries. Dogs and cats live together in harmony.
How many times has Fallout 3 been in pre-production but cancelled?
Twice, I think.
To sum up all the debate, make a list of a few things that, in your opinion, would need changing regarding the SPECIAL system, given the opportunity?
The number of skills and what they encompass (especially the science skills), the critical hit subsystem, the DR/DT/armor subsystems, range penalties, called shots, and the unarmed combat subsystem.
What’s the BIGGEST problem with the SPECIAL system, in your humble opinion?
The number of skills and what they encompass.
What makes Fallout a unique RPG J.E?
PLAMSA RIFLES!1!11
Well the point about HL2 being liniar is that if you took out the "main quest" their was nothing left. If you took out the main quest in FO or MW, you could find purpose soon enough. In morrowind you would find the guilds, and you might want to become head of one of those, in fallout you'd get so manny people offering you quests you realy would be able to do plenty of stuff. I mean the main quest is all well and good, but to me just seems boring to re-play in an RPG, where the whole idea is story/character. I guess if you were to take away either all the side quests or the main quest from either fallout or morrowind, I would definetely take out the main quest. I mean it's the only thing that realy sets these games apart.DarkUnderlord wrote:The point of the example wasn't linearity, it was what you do in the game. If you take ALL the story out of HL2 and reduce it solely to the "run, shoot, kill" then it diminishes the impact of the game. It might still be fun but it's not as interesting as a game with a solid "main quest" or more appropriately a strong "purpose" which drives the player forward and makes them want to see the game through to the end. A strong purpose gives a game a great sense of accomplishment when finished and adds substantially to the fun factor.Screaming_Dude_in_Vegas wrote:Thats a bad example. HL2 was a completely liniar game (though it maximizes on what can be done best with liniarness).That's kind of like saying that the whole point of Half-Life isn't to finish the game, it's to just run around and kill stuff. While you might have a point, I find it hard to believe that the "Main Quest" isn't the point in a game.
Why do you assume the serious Fallout fan is the target audience of Fallout 3? The history of Fallout shows that the serious Fallout fan increasingly lost the required gravitas to dictate what kind of Fallout game they wanted. Fallout 2 wasn't memorable for the common gamer, F3 died before being born, and Tactics did moderately well despite the complaints from the serious Fallout fan. BOS, an utter flop, wasn't a flop because of the serious Fallout fan - it was a flop because of the typical gamerHuge following of fans dedicated to the Elder Scrolls series. That doesn't exactly say anything about why they're a good choice for the developer of Fallout 3. Those fans aren't even the target audience of Fallout (although both audiences may overlap).
As gaming history shows, adherence to earler games in a series only matters if the bulk of the target audience knows and accepts the earlier games. For someone who has little idea of Fallout's plot - likely a decent (if not majority) chunk of the target audience - the fact that (for example) Super Mutants are sterile may just be something that can be rationalized away.You can be as innovative as you want if you are creating a new stand-alone title, but with sequels the prior titles define the boundaries of the game universe
You can use Sunder/Keening without Wraithguard, and without dying. I've killed Daggy at level 1. Got sunder, got keening, got Daggy.Without Wraithguard, the weapons make you lose hitpoints like there's no yesterday, let alone no tomorrow.
And when you get it, every NPC's next convo with you will say something along the lines of "dude, thats weird. Go to X and see whats up". Go there, it becomes Wraithguard.That useless trinket is Wraith Guard which is useless because it doesn't work when you don't get it from the God through the "proper way"
Why blame the game because you didn't want to go down another path?Alternatively, there's some dude somewhere else who can apparently do it for you but the "You fucked up!" messages didn't exactly inspire me to look for alternatives.
Actually, the entire game of Morrowind is Dagoth Ur's invitation to you to join him - remember Carcass of the Saint? It is only when you finally meet him, face to face, that he decides he cannot accept you as a friend again. You have read the in-game books, right?Morrowind lacks those options.
This seems to be the approach of many a Fallout Forum. Personal attacks get you no where with your arguement.1. It's "their", not "there".
2. They went out of business because they couldn't find a publisher for their PA title which would have featured a nifty 3D engine among other things. The publishers didn't think a PA RPG would sell.
You've confused pedantism for insult, you egregious cretin.Xi wrote:Personal attacks
Yay! Blargh saved the day!Blargh wrote:You've confused pedantism for insult, you egregious cretin.Xi wrote:Personal attacks
For the record and your enlightenment, that was a personal attack. You fucking fruit.
You people do forget that while the Devs aren't fallout junkies, they HAVE played the games, they REALY liked them, considering how much lore (backround) they have for their own series, I'm sure a good portion of them know and apricate the backround of fallout. They bought the licence because they were planning on doing somthing Falloutish, and had always wanted to work on FO. It's like if you or I had a chance to develope the next fallout game, and we had the technical skills and resources to do it.Xi wrote:Ashmo Wrote:This seems to be the approach of many a Fallout Forum. Personal attacks get you no where with your arguement.1. It's "their", not "there".
2. They went out of business because they couldn't find a publisher for their PA title which would have featured a nifty 3D engine among other things. The publishers didn't think a PA RPG would sell.
The publishers didn't believe that Troika could turn a profit because they hadn't done anything substantial to date. Sorry. It sucks to see a developer go, but like I was saying, you have to consistantly reinvent the wheel. That's no easy task.
Thoth - Exactly!
There truely isn't a large enough Fallout Fanbase to even consider catering to such a minority. What has Bethesda done so far though? They read this very same forum, NMA, etc, etc.... They really are a good developer. Only a blind person would miss that!
Grr, fuck it, im being too nice.