Yes, it most definitely should. And it should also have turnbased combat. Tim Cain and MCA at the helm of it. Voilá.

The series should step away from the blunt and dulled FPS [censored] one way or another no matter who makes it. No use in forcibly copying Bethesda's design - easier money, but way too many limitations to do what they'd do better by other means.


Indeed.

The new kind. Fallout seems to be now about finding stuff behind the next hill and the "immershun" of "living it" first hand simulation rather than intriguing and reactive RPG design.

TBH I could live with BGS making TES only

I could appreciate Fallout more if they had 2 separate teams to develop these 2 franchises.

But at this point I guess the "BGS Falloutesque" fanbase is much larger than "Isometric Interplayesque" so I don't see this happen.

Yeah NV was terrible and only "finding stuff behind the next hill and the "immershun" of "living it" first hand simulation" correct.

Generalisations can be a very bad thing espescially if they are wrong used.

Nevermind...

Nope. No wrong context. You clearly wrote:

NV is definitly a member of the "new kind" Fallout you are talking here, whatever this is in your mind.

In the style of the originals was the key phrase. And New Vegas, while clearly being a "new kind", has had a majority of its criticism put towards not having heavy enough "check behind the next hill" aspect (and to lesser extent having too much dialog and too many choices). Go figure.

Yes I was being serious. Consider the potential of William's style, and then consider the size of the market for pop-songs. Then consider the fans that would seek William's work (by name) and find bubblegum.

*Of developers... It's a small world they live in; don't expect them to burn bridges; and to be sure, Obsidian was on the leash with the New Vegas project.

I think so ~hope so... It was the same way with FO3; and it's a good feature for both titles. Lacking that, the user would have to place their own buildings; possibly model them too. Vacant structures allow modders to plug their mods into the existing landscape... Though it doesn't help the console players who cannot benefit from that potential; and who are left with lots of static decorations.

That's why simple generalisations are bad, yes....

Do I see a chance for a turn based, isometric Fallout ... not realisticly... game development cost money, a lot of it. Wasteland 2 didn't do so well as expected.

We will see with Pillars. I wish Obsidian the best btw. but I am skeptical if it will be a commercial success. Yes the "Fans" that wan't a isometric Fallout are very loud but if they are enough to keep a franchise alive? I don't think so.

WL2 sold out, and they made more available. What do you mean "didn't do so well as expected."?

None of these games will out sell a mainstream shooter; the market isn't there. It's like trying to sell vinyl records, betamax tapes or HD-DVD's. The quality is there, but not enough customers to use or appreciate it.

They were enough back when the series started. The player base has only grown. Pillars, successful or not has proved you can still develop good-sized RPGs with a Fallout 1 budget in this day and age.

Didn't do so well as expected? What was expected? They can afford to port it on consoles (by request). I don't think stuff like that gets made if there's no market to speak of and sells are bad.

Then check out how Divinity: Original Sin did.

There is definitely a market to keep the niche alive if the design hits the spot. This should be more than clear by now.

Is it realistic to expect another iso/tb Fallout ever again? I don't think so with Bethesda in charge; but never say never (especially seeing how things are unfolding in the market).

Actually, that wasn't a game mechanism designed to mirror real life. It was a consequence of the primitive AI only identifying targets in combat. Basically, NPC's and companions were only aware of "enemy" units and totally ignored the possibility of "friendly" units. You see the same thing happening with enemy units that are capable of ranged attacks. The AI pretty much leaves you with the choice of micro-managing your companions, or disarming them all and handing out melee weapons. Game AI's were really, really, really stupid back then. Things have improved since then and the AI's are now really, really stupid. Some of them have actually gotten to just being really stupid.

Actually, that wasn't a game mechanism designed to mirror real life.

It's true...

However this is not ~technically I mean.

That's what the AI was designed to do; Fallout did not have companions in the initial design document.
Party members were an after thought ~that came a bit late. They tried it out, and the testers loved it; but there were no hooks into the AI, so they implemented it with script, and there was no way for them to pass it along to the AI that that friendly characters were obstructing the shot.

And they used the same mechanism for Fallout 2. Which is what the post I was responding to was about.

And on that note: I actually enjoyed watching Marcus turning other companions into hamburger considering the number of times those used pieces of toilet paper shot me in the back in the original Fallout.

I'd be happy to have an Isometric Fallout once again. 2/3rds of the central titles have been done in that style, you can complain about crusty old timers resistant to change all you want but that's is where the series started.

I'd be happy with another FPS Fallout too, if Bethesda would just hire some new voice talent, avoid the big name voice they always waste a ton of money on, and hire some competent writers.

Compare the Robo-President self destruct conversation to either of the same kind of end conversations in F1 or F2. Both required you to have actually encountered certain things, have high relevant stats/skills and were convincingly written....F3 was just the most elementary "circular logic kills robots" text possible.

Bethesda can do better, and if they can't then they can and should hire someone else to do the writing.

I am probably older than you and crustier than you and I don't feel that way.

But I am not the one that needs convincing. I do not run BGS or work for them. Point in fact I have never worked in the game industry. BGS has a formula that they like. You and others don't like it. Convince them, they are the ones that would do this, not me.

If you and others really do want this, then you have to take the fight to BGS. You have to DO something. Pissing and moaning on a forum, even a Bethesda forum, is not going to get it done.

I didn't post that as a reply to you, I skipped most of this thread, so if you took it as a direct response to something you wrote earlier it wasn't intended that way.

I don't see any point to going back to isometric now. The damage has already been done - would going back to an isometric camera with turn based combat really accomplish anything at this point? Considering the recent resurgence of isometric RPGs, and their success it's not like those of us who like those types of games have to show the industry that there's a market for them anymore. I wouldn't complain if Obsidian did make an isometric Fallout, but I don't think it's necessarily something that they should do.

No, I didn't take your post as a reply to mine.

And I should say that the only reason I selected yours to respond to was it is (or was at the time) the last of the "good enough for my grandpappy" nostalgia posts.

It would accomplish a certain type of game and what ever side effects that might or might not have on the series as a whole; and there's nothing else it would need to (as far as I'm concerned).

But more who like it, since fo3 was way more successful than fo1 and 2. So the whole opinion argument doesn't work. Its YOUR opinion that the fallout series should have stayed the same, despite disappearing for a decade and essentially being dead and finished, but this is a rather eccentric and unpopular opinion. The majority like the change.

Nice generalizations, but two can play that game and we would both still just be making generalizations. You don't speak for the majority, neither do I. Not that simple.

Incidentally there was a thing called Van Buren until there wasn't. The claims of the series death were premature.

Not sure where you're getting that from. Seems like a straw man. Easier to reply when you break any opposing views into such a simple argument. Not sure who this hypothetical grand pappy is, I was referring to my own experiences, but once again continue to reduce opposing viewpoints and throw taunts around. The charm has worn off for me though. So long.

It would right a wrong, though it would certainly cut sales back quite a bit. FO3 certainly sold a bundle, but it should never have been able to; it should never have been made like it was.

http://fallout.gamesas.com/eng/vault/diaries_diary1-08.01.07.php

>Looks for isometric

>Looks for turn based

Not seeing them, in fact, the system they were going to use, but ultimately dropped due to disputes about the violence level in the game, was only going to be there in such a token manner as to appease the GURPS people, and whatever made the game the most fun was supposed to come first, regardless of if it followed GURPS or not.

The system chosen was simply chosen to make the game fun, not because the series HAD to be that forever. The overall game was always intended to be more important then the mechanic system used in it.