On the subject of "immersion," I actually kind of agree with what Yahtzee had to so say on the subject, on his Zero Punctuation review of Oblivion. (Can't really provide a link, since there's... well, advlt-oriented language over there.) To paraphrase, one (of many) definitions for what contributes to Immersion is, after a marathon session of Thief, finding yourself sticking to shadows on the way to the Supermarket, and checking for Light Meter. Or after playing too much Silent Hill, avoiding the mirrors in your bathroom and sleeping with all the lights on. (Or, what I find myself doing lately, playing too much Sims 3, and while taking a break to do some actual housekeeping, wishing I could just queue up a bunch of actions and hit "fast forward." )

I personally, find myself quite a bit less "immersed" in the worlds that Bethesda creates, despite all of their focus on the matter (and that's not to say they don't have some very particular strengths in that area - I've always been a big fan of Beth's level design and attention to detail, for instance.) It always tends to pull me out at regular intervals, with often wonky animations and stilted conversations. One of my more immersive experiences in a Beth game was while playing Oblivion, actually. Lurking around in a dungeon, sticking to shadows, and watching a pair of Skeletons stalk around. But it was more about the quality of the lighting, sound design, and heightened tension than any degree of supposed "freedom" I had in the game. (ie, it wasn't because I could choose to go on that dungeon crawl, or that I made the character, or because it was part of an "open-ended" side-quest.)

Anyway, Yahtzee said it in a much more witty way. (And I don't bring it up because I'm some sort of disciple of his or anything - I actually rarely agree with many of conclusions, I just think he's funny.)

This is only business and money. If there is a so hard demand for isometric, it would be; but this model is much more popular, and for me a lot more natural than the tiled isometric.

I think people cry a lot because they think they "own" the fallout franchise, as there should be some kind of consulting on "Vet players" as they define theyselfs, if they approve and so. A lot of people on places like NMA just hated it even before release.

As i said its a business. And Beth will make it the way its fun and sell a lot. Maybe that was the problem with Black isle and interplay; keeping the game for a few "choosen".. as they were not wanting to make money..

So this game maybe a little watered? It is smaller? So what is the problem, your guys want to stay playing FO the entire life? I know there are fanatical people still playing FO1 on daily basis. Video games are nice, but hell, there are a lot of games, a lot of ideas to play, we dont need to enshrine one game and become fanatical about how it is or how it should be. Just play and be happy. If you dont like dont play, there is a lot of things to do in life, not only playing FO.

A lot of people complained it when changing from MW to Ob. But far from this biased opinion, i stick with Todd, who stated that more than MW endless lore and text conversation, there is more in terms of sensing; the world is more alive and you can simply get info looking at the enviroment.

The same applies to FO3; you actually see the things, there is no need of the "Magic of imagination" of an semi-text isometric game. I think this is why there is a lot of passion about fo 1 and 2; it works much more on imagination than fo3, so people get a lot immersed on their own dreams. Look at the graphics of cities on FO2: the roofs are pristine clear and shine as they are recently build; the bricks are perfect; vault city looks new, there is a very good asphalt on several cities, even knowing that it demands oil to be made and the oil was after all the reason of nuclear war.

All video games strive to be immersive, if you are immersed you care what's going on, a fake looking explosion is not something you can relate to, it won't have as big an impact as a realistic one that you can relate to, you get a better sense of danger from an explosion that looks real

I believe this also pertains to all aspects of video games, books, movies, and pretty much any form of entertainment, if you can relate it to something you know in real life then you are inclined to care more about it, you can be immersed in a game of chess, but that doesn't mean the nature of chess is immersive, it just means you happen to have an emotional connection with it for whatever reason, mostly because of chess' historical value, it has gained a reputation as an easy way to challenge someone's intellect

You want dialog in an RPG that is realistic, you want realistic responses and realistic reactions, if the reaction of your dialog choice is unrealistic then it won't have as great an impact, I think that kind of thing is what made Fallout more immersive than Fallout 3, not being able to kill certain NPCs, not getting realistic reactions from characters in the game, it's off-putting to shoot someone and they don't die because it isn't realistic




I don't know how popular those games are, I don't play them, the only turn based strategy game I ever enjoyed was Civilization, and I always thought it would be much more fun in real time

I also don't see any sign of realism getting old, people are excited about this Natal thing, I think realism is always going to be hip.

Realism can help sometimes. The GTA series has continued to get more realistic and has (IMHO and that of most reviewers) improved game after game. I'd hardly call GTA IV realistic but compared to 3 it feels like comparing a flight simulator to Pac Man.

I think there is a sweet spot where a little bit of realism can drastically improve the fun level.

Just because I wasn't 100% happy with everything Bethesda did with the game, doesn't mean that I just wanted a carbon copy of Fallout 1, though. This concept get overlooked a lot, I think. Change is good - no one's arguing it isn't. But not all change is undeniably good. Back when glimpses of Van Buren were getting show around - that was exactly what I was hoping for at the time. But even that would be a little outdated by this time, admittedly.

To do it now, the way us "Vets" would have wanted, would realistically have been something that's neither Fallout 3, nor Van Buren. Just something that's a direct progression of advancement. Instead of slapping a completely different gameplay into it, and calling that a "step forward."

That's the thing, though - "immersion" is subjective, at best. Different people have different priorities. And "realism" is a relative word, as well. I don't find it unrealistic to play a turn-based game. It's an abstraction of real-world concepts, not a direct translation. (Meaning, that in the game-world, all actions are considered to be simultaneous. For example, the common misconception that turn-based means the character is just standing still while people shoot at him - which isn't "getting it," obviously.)

I don't find the real-time in FO3 to be any more realistic than the turn-based concepts from the original games. (Less so, when you get down to it - with things like instant stimpak usage and such...) But because it's all relative, I can't make any assertion that one is undeniably more realistic than the other.

Which is why I find my earlier anology to be more apt than your tree anology. There's no one concept of "realism" that will apply universally to every game or gamer. As such, there's no one "trunk" that everything is striving for. To say - "Fallout 3 fits closer to my sense of realism and immersion," is a valid opinion. To say "Fallout 1 was unrealistic and a dead-end gameplay mechanic because," and trying to pass it off as indisputable fact; is not a valid and logical conclusion.

All games are, yes, moving towards "better" graphics. But that can mean anything, as well. Crysis was made as an attempt to make it as realistic as possible. And that's one way to make use of the technology. World of Goo makes no attempt at all to be "realistic," but I find it just as immersive as any other game; and it uses a remarkable level of technology as well. You can have your preferences, of course, but no matter how far advanced videogames get - you're still going to have games like World of Goo, and games like Crysis.

Tell that to Blizzard, whose PC exclusive Diablo III will probably sell better than Fallout 3 on all platforms combined.



Uh, I liked Fallout 3 for what is was as I've made clear in this thread quite a few times already. I just don't think it's a good Fallout sequel, emphasis on sequel.

Turn based combat is like binary, it's a stiff mechanical version of the real thing, if it's trying to represent the real thing anyway then wouldn't the actual real thing be more effective? Instead of representing a big gun fight, having an actual gun fight just has to be more effective as long as it's done correctly, I just don't see anyway around that, plastic pieces on a chess board have to be less relatable than an actual fight between two castles, and if it's less relatable, it has to be less immersive, not to say that you can't be more immersed in plastic pieces, but the plastic pieces by nature are less immersive

The point isn't to lead with your imagination, the point is to have your imagination lead to new places, if you have to imagine that the mechanical gameplay is realistic then the realism is limited to your imagination, if the realistic gameplay can show you what you are incapable of imagining then it will be much more realistic and much more effective in immersing the player, it will also expand your imagination

Games like World of Goo immerse me like a task immerses me, not any kind of real emotional immersion, but a task I'm focused on accomplishing for the sake of accomplishing it, to me, that's just a waste of time, I don't play games like that.

Yes, but see - that's your opinion. You don't understand why I prefer turn-based videogames, and that's fine, too. The only point I'm trying to make is that it's a subjectve matter.

To revise my anology - let's say you have a really fast 2-seater convertible (representing your own opinions on what "realism" and "immersion" are, and what the role you like them to play in videogames.) It's very fast and pretty, and that works just fine for you. Now I come along, and I have a Mini-Van (representing my own views on what I like to see in a videogame.) Both are the newest models in their line (and probably even share a number of the same parts.) Your sports car is not "better" than my mini-van, though. It's simply a lateral movement in car design, not an inherent step forward.

You trying to tell me that turn-based games don't fit in videogames because they're "unrealistic" (which I don't agree with that, either,) is like trying to tell me that your car is "better" because it's faster. Yes, it is. But that might not be why I bought my van. Maybe I'm not looking for speed, but for something that can carry my groceries home from the store, or has better gas mileage.

In the same manner that there's more than one model of car, with different models being better at different things, and no one "Ultimate" car that everyone's been trying to make since the Model T (with things like mini-vans and SUVs just being failed attempts that should be left by the wayside as failed attempts) - there's no one "Ultimate" videogame design. Each incorporates different game design philosophies depending on what the designer wants to have in their game.

Which is why I stand by my statement - moving from turn-based to real-time in Fallout 3 is a lateral movement and not an inherent progression (much less a natural one.) You can have your preferences, and even say that you're glad they did this. But it will always remain nothing more than an opinion. Whereas by your original anology I read it as you attempting to convince me that it was an inherent step forward. Which it isn't. (Because there's a different between saying you like something better; and saying it is better.)

If Fallout "New Vegas" is going to be a Bethesda inspired game, then we are up for yet another round of "Fallout-Doom".

New Vegas will have similar gameplay to Fallout 3, it's official.

Yes, I suppose better and worse are subjective, you may feel that one book is better than another because it is less descriptive, even though that's the point of books, you may not like description and there is nothing wrong with that, but my argument is that it's more likely that a sequel to a non-descriptive novel will move towards more description than a sequel to a descriptive novel will move towards non-description, since the point of books are to be descriptive it is a more natural progression.

I feel that Fallout 3 was a step backwards... not a step forward. :shrug:

Oh dear...

I'm not sure I follow your anology this time. How do you define "descriptive" in this instance?

I still disagree with your notion that there's some sort of inherent "point" to the progression of videogames - you're making an assumption that a "game" is somehow a different animal because it's played on a computer, for one. It's just that - a game. No more, no less. The "point" of some videogames is to make it more "realistic." But that's not a generalization you can draw to all games, though.

For example - I've been playing a lot of Sims 3 at the moment. Sure, it ostensibly a simulation of every day life. But you'll notice notice that over the course of the series, it's actually moved further away from realistic portrayals, and more towards a stylized representation. The "Needs" in even Sims 2 (and to an even greater degree Sims 3) is noticeably de-emphasized in comparison to how it originally was in Sims 1 (where the game basically consisted of trying to manage your needs. And alternating between going to the bathroom, eating, and sleeping; and trying to find time between those and Work to work on some skills for an hour or so.) The natural progression of that game has consistently been to move away from the "realism" aspect of the game, and more towards a focus on interaction and socialization.

Or how do you integrate Super Mario Bros into this concept of "realism?" Are you saying that at some point we're going to be playing a photo-realistic Mario who can only jump so high, gets winded eventually, and will die if he jumps into a pipe that's too deep? Or what about games like Prototype? That's a patently unrealistic game. Or Viva Pinata - if the point of a videogame is incrementally increase the level of realism - where does a game about anthropomorphic stuffed animals go from there?

What about games where the mechanics (how you play a game) are a large part of the "fun" to be had? Talk to any avid Street Fighter fan, and they like that game not because it's terribly accurate as a simulation of a fight between two people, but because they enjoy learning those complicated combos and the intricacies of the strategies that result from that simple concept. Or again - I can play Chess on the computer. Is the very fact that it's a videogame mean that to progress, it has to add more realism somehow?

For some people, the actual fun in a videogame is the same to be found in any game. It's how that game is played. I don't see any evidence that the "goal" of videogame progression overall is to make it more realistic. Rather, the "point" of videogames is to make use of increasing technology to make it more fun. For some, that's going to make it more realistic (to the point where you're actually performing each and every task in the game without a controller.) For others, it's the strategic considerations you take into account while playing the game. That's what people don't "get" about turn-based games. It's the way the game actually plays where the fun is to be had. In the very same way that I have fun with the rules and strategies that result from a good game of Chess without wishing I was just running around swinging a sword at my opponent.

So New Vegas is officially Fallout-Doom, well that is extremely disappointing, and I know that I for one, will not buy this product.

Hopefully there will be significantly less complaining because of it. I hope all the diehard old fans just stop paying attention to it altogether, but that's too much to ask.

Metallica makes Fade to Black, [censored] cry and cry. Then Load comes out down the line and even the fans who didn't care then cry and cry. Fallout 2 is made and fans of 1 cry and cry. Fallout 3 is made and the sins of 2 are forgotten and is now loved in favor of the hatred of a better game.

It goes on and on, you're just repeating annoyance from the past that happen everytime.

Well, it will most likely have similarly bad gameplay, but it might at least have better writing, quests, choices and consequences, etc.

Yeah, but it will probably be weak as Obsidian doesn't know how to make good games. Fixed for truth by the way.

Even if it's just "okay" writing, quests, choices and consequences, etc., it will still be leagues better than Bethesda's.

Doubt it.

You have a right to disagree.

As for your "Obsidian doesn't know how to make good games" comment, I enjoyed Obsidian games a lot more than any Bethesda game I played.

Heh... we could make a whole bunch of examples - that'd be totally funny! Like realistic Tetris! (Someone please explain to me where those complete rows of bricks go!)

Seriously though, that whole idea of realism in games is weirdly twisted. People claim turn based combat is not realistic while, for example ... feral ghouls are?
I remember a few years I read in some other forum (it was about the Neverwinter Nights 1 I think) someone passionately argued that it was completely unrealistic for arrows to have a vampiric effect while it was perfectly fine for swords! That must have been one of the weirdest posts I've ever read.

Beats me why people insist so much on realism... I'd only assume that whomever insists that in any case realism=better just doesn't have enough imagination.
So in that sense I would as far as to say that FO1&2 were better than 3 because they didn't have as much freakin' realism! Damn reality keeps creeping into my videogames... stay out, out! :stare:

Heck, Fallout 3's real time combat is far from realistic in itself. Your character can absorb over a hundred bullets and keep on ticking. This is why Bethesda's "immersion" is called "immershun" in a lot of RPG communities. No matter how hard Bethesda tries, their games will never be truly realistic or immersive, especially since they keep stepping further away by progressively dumbing down their releases.



For once I agree with Ausir, I found KotOR II, Mask of the Betrayer, heck even the Neverwinter Nights 2 OC more enjoyable than any of Bethesda's games (including Arena and Daggerfall). Bethesda's writers are amateur at best, the Elder Scroll games have always had poor, cookie cutter storylines with no real direction in their narrative and Fallout 3 has more plot holes than KotOR II and bad dialogue even after Broken Steel. Fallout 3 is an improvement over TES sure, but only in the aspect of story direction. The TES protagonists had the fortune of only needing to use one word to ask questions or give responses most of the time, the Fallout 3 protagonist does not. Fallout 3 is littered with horrendous dialogue, my personal favorite being "I'm looking for my dad - middle aged guy, seen him?".

At least it will not be a semi graphical text-based isometric.

Yeah. No matter how people complain, the game is making a lot of money, and Beth will produce on the same plataform, and it will be this way a long time, probably with some updates on FO4. The only chance for a isometric game is if some old fanatical billionaire fan buy the rights and produce it own game, with the seal of approval of NMA.