But a First Person Shooter is, or do you want to tell me that an FPS game isn't played in First Person? And that's what I am mainly talking about. Yeah! I do know that other types of games can be "shooters" as well. But those are not what Bethesda makes.

More important than in previous Fallout games where the skill of the player was not in any way relevant where Fallout 3 and 4 are leaning heavily on the shooter side. You can't deny that your "shooter" skills - from "FPS" games, so to avoid any possible confusion ... will matter a lot more in Fallout 4 than in Fallout 1/2.

I am not even giving this any value. I am just stating the obvious.

The point where it becomes important is when someone claims that Fallout 3 and 4 are improvements over Fallout 1 and 2 where I would ask, how? They are not improvements - if we leave 3D graphics out of the picture. They are just a shift from one design to another. Improvements are for example Jagged Alliance 1 and 2. Batman Arkham Asylum and Arkham City. Oblivion and Skyrim etc. I could also take a motorcycle and turn it into a car, calling it an improvement. But those which enjoy motorcycles and everything that comes with it, might beg to differ - and that for a reason.

If I would buy a car, and remove two of it's wheels, with no other changes to the design, or mechanics, with the intention to improve it and calling it a motorcycle, would you see that as a good change?

But like I already explained to someone else, we are not talking about a change really, at least in my opinion, but simply a shift. A step to the side not forward - as far as the Fallout franchise goes. I will say this again, moving from Morrowind to Oblivion was a change. Moving from Fallout 2 to Fallout 3 was simply a shift in the direction. Fallout 4 from Fallout 3 again is an improvement - I guess.

This might seem like discussing semantics. But It stops being semantics when you design the next Elder Scrolls title as Angry Birds, with all the Elder Scrolls art assets and terms. I think it doesn't need a lot of imagination to figure out what this forum would be like, full of complains that Bethesda has lost their mind ... but ... Angry Bird sells a lot of games and it makes money, so why should an Angry Elder Scrolls not work?

What? You said:

That simply isn't true.

No, you stated that modern Fallout games are twitch-games. That also isn't true. "player's skill matters a little" is something entirely different than "twitch-gaming".

That J. Sawyer interview tho.
"We had this idea where Cass gets drunk with the player and they would wake up being married by the King"


On Topic: It looks really cool, if something like that happens then perhaps I will try to make myself enjoy a turn-based game.

Isometric games, IMO, really lend themselves to party based games, which FO obviously isn't.

For mine, I enjoyed the shift to FP in FO3. I found it made for a better experience.

I used the word in a very generic way, seriously you know what I meant. Don't be so obtuse. Ask people around you what a shooter is for them. I am pretty confident that most will say something along the lines like "Call of Duty!" or something similar. And I told you already, you are right, it actually is a very broad term, but most people will associate FPS gameplay with the word shooter. Anyway, to please you let us not talk about that any longer and just say FPS then.

Also, this is what Wikipedia says about Twitch gameplay:

Twitch gameplay is a type of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gameplay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scenario that tests a player's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_game such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooter_game and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_game often contain elements of twitch gameplay. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-person_shooter such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quake_III_Arena as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_hell shooters require quick reaction times for the players to shoot enemies, and fighting games such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_Fighter require quick reaction times to attack or counter an opponent. Other https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_genres may also involve twitch gameplay. For example, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puzzle_video_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetris gradually speeds up as the player makes progress.

While Fallout 3 and 4 are not Quake 3 Arena and just to avoid any confusion I never said they are. But, I think they can be played as "First Person Shooters" and that reaction time matters - outside of their VATS System of course. It did for me at least when I played Fallout 3. Because I played both Fallout 3 and New Vegas like Shooters, and it worked perfectly. And it matters A LOT more compared to Fallout 1/2. As it says, other games can also involve this kind of gameplay. Like The Witcher series for example. Particularly Witcher 2 - and I guess Witcher 3. This is one of the big differences between games like Planescape, Fallout, Arcanum, Baldurs Gate etc. and well Fallout 3, Oblivion/Skyrim, Witcher 3 and so on. They require at least a certain level of reaction time from the player.

Mate, words have mostly set meanings and no, you can't change the definitions at will. A game played from first-person perspective is not also known as (that's what AKA stands for) shooter. Not all first-person games are shooters, not all shooters are first-person games.

Defining attribute of twitch gaming is fast-paced gameplay, I don't know a Fallout game I'd ever call fast-paced. In F3/FNV you either overpower the enemy with your skills/guns/armour or not. The fact that there are plenty of bullet sponges and the existence of VATS moves it even further away from "twitch gaming". But, of course, reaction time matters a lot in comparison to turn-based games

Wow, I have to move on.

Well, we are both thickheaded. So I take that as your way of saying, yeah you are kinda right

I dunno, I think Fallout 3 had the same feeling as the first two Fallouts. It had that Fallout "vibe".

Wish I had spotted that too.

OMG... is it 2007? 2008?

Are we really still going on about isometric view and Fallout?

Says something about it, doesn't it.

(Not just that it's being discussed here, but that it is being discussed elsewhere too and made news articles of.)

Well the first line in that "news article" pointed out that Fallout actually existed as an isometric game at one point (because frankly the game was relatively unknown prior to FO3). What it says is not really what you think it does.

Also, half a dozen regulars on this forum posting the same complaints, grudges and opinions over and over DOES say something (but mostly about the posters, not the subject matter).

I just self-edited, and edited out anything quoting my post. Long day, busy one and I am tired - didn't mean to get svcked into the same-old same-old.

Well, cheer up. You can play any Fallout game and not be playing an isometric game. Fallout, Fallout 2 and Tactics were all trimetric games, which actually looks better than isometric.

Everything says something, the door opens in all directions.

I never liked isometric view. It's exactly why I can't stand the original fallout games. Never liked isometric and I just never will. Trust me, I've tried and tried to like em.

I would support a new isometric Fallout game as a side project or something fan created...but not as a something that I would sink a lot of time into or spend more than $10-15 dollars on

I'm just wondering the reasoning for discussing an isometric game in a forum about a First person view game. Seems so off topic for this section.

Looks far more like Fallout to me. It's sad that a mockup looks better than what a triple-a studio is capable of producing.

Only criticism I would have of them is the somewhat shoddy work on the UI and the amount of clutter in the areas. (Something I liked about Fallout 1/2/T is that the maps were very open in how you could move around, those screenshots look like movement would be rather limited. The radscorpion in particular looks like you're trapped between it and the debris.) But that concept behind the UI? The level design? The cartoonish art design? The perspective? Everything screams Fallout to me.

This^ 110% this. Fallout 4 is not isometric. Thank the Gods for that.

Off topic:
How about "Arcana: of steam works and magic obscura" reimagined as an open world first person game like FO3/nv/4

Boy, that screen's a little bit too busy for my taste.

Haven't played an isometric game in a while. My favorites were Final Fantasy Tactics and Super Mario RPG.

I fail to understand this, at least in relation to the change in perspective. If anything, an isometric view gives the player access to stuff the PC can't. It allows the player to see more of the world around their character than the character would be able to.

It is not, you just don't get it.

Isometric view has something relaxing about it, or maybe it is that detail rich image, or better overview of the scene.
However I was always imagined fallout 3 to be a 3d game, but not a dumb shooter where you can just shot your way through almost all the time.

I do get it. I like isometric games. It's just that this is a section for Fallout:4 which is not an isometric game and it never will be. I played many isometric games long before I played a first person perspective game. I love the change up.

And there are still many good isometric games to play and discuss. Fallout:4 is not one of them and this is a Fallout:4 section of the forum.

I'm with you on this one,