Well the first post showed a FO4 isometric mockup, and it went from there.
I do think that isometric works better for RPG's where you have to control a party. FPS is great for playing and controlling just one person.
Well the first post showed a FO4 isometric mockup, and it went from there.
I do think that isometric works better for RPG's where you have to control a party. FPS is great for playing and controlling just one person.
You mean like Fallout 2 once you get the gauss rifle or a plasma gun?
I could be wrong but I believe what Gizmo is talking about is the relation between the players reaction time and Fallout 3s/4s gameplay which leans more on the side of First Person Shooters compared to what you had in Fallout 1 and 2.
For example, hacking and lock picking involve mini games in Fallout 3, shooting is done manually via aiming, just like in any First Person Shooter. So even if it is not the most fast paced game out there, it still requires a minimum in FPS skills. This gives the player a direct control over many actions in the game. And it allows you to negate the character skill in many situtations.
In Fallout 1 and 2 however the success of something like with quests or certain tasks depended completely on the skills of your character. Simply the skill checks. They have been a lot less unforgiving in Fallout 1 and 2 and the skills changed very often the outcome of quests. As seen with quests like the Assemble body for Skynet in Fallout 2 (...) depending on the Chosen One's Science skill a brain can be saved, these are the abnormal brain, chimpanzee brain, human brain (90%), and cybernetic brain (121%), with the cybernetic brain being the best and the abnormal brain being the worst
This is at least in my opinion a very important point and it will always mark the biggest difference between Fallout 1/2 and Fallout 3/4.
When I first saw the article, I thought this may be of interest to those who were familiar with some of the older games in the series, and the possibility of Fallout 4 being recreated as an isometric game is something that many would support. But as you stated, this may not have been the most appropriate place to post the link. As such, please feel free to move the thread if you feel it would be better placed in one of the other sections. In the meantime, I just wanted to say thank you for all the hard work that you and the rest of the mod team put in, and for helping to keep this as being one of the best run forums on the internet
What is it with fan/user made UI designs having to use up all of the screen. Jesus that screen looks cluttered, I cant tell what the main focus is. Sometimes a little whitespace is good. Maybe not as much as the original skyrim UI but damn, it isn't tetris, you dont have to cram everything you possibly can into a one screen mess.
First, gauss rifle was end game weapon, second, you could NOT just shot thru everything.
that ui's made after the original fallout's ui, and back in these days, screen resolutions were 320*200 to 640*400 (on a really hot machine like a dx2/100 with 1mb video ram ), so it was just utterly impossible to display what info's displayed in that in less space (or rather pixels)
I find UI's that you have to navigate through a lot far worse than the mock-up. With everything on one screen you can easily get to where you want to with a click rather than having to go menu, inventory, weapon, equip, go back to menu, then go to skills, click to the side, click to the side, click to the side, click to the side, there it is, now enter the constellation, now click the star you wanted to check out. The less tabs I have to go through the better. Especially when said tabs need a little animation or whatever to play before I can get to the tab I want to.
Fair enough, thankfully now with 1920x1080 being standard we have enough room. I never played the first 2 fallouts so I never really had to endure the tiny ass resolution.
I agree, thats however a problem of the UI, and the solution should not be to put everything on one screen. Its information overload. A standard practice for UI is give the user 5-7 options per screen. Humans cannot usually remember more then that without actively trying to remember, sort of like studying for a test. Its the same reason phone numbers are usually split into 2 or 3 parts of 3-4 numbers (North American, can't say for the rest of the world)
You shouldnt have only 1 option per screen as skyrim was so fond of, but you shouldnt have unneeded information. Take the Skyrim UI for example, you are in the Inventory, the status and data for the player should not be there, its inconsiquential for the current activites. Weight, gold, armor and attack should be, it will be directly affected by the choices the user makes on said screen.
1 option per screen is slow, and I really disliked far cry for that, but the solution should not be to cram everything on one screen, it goes from one extreme to another.
Only thing I like about that UI is that it had a toggle for switching between various views: grid / list and 3d item / character. The overall feel wasn't designed with Skyrim's thematic influence.
How cool would it be if they put a simple zoom out and lock camera feature into the game that mimicked an isometric view. .. .. Probably would be incredibly hard to play that way but it would at least look neat.