i would be curious to see someone in a mod replicate ONE area of fallout, say shady sands or junktown. Keeping all the exact same dialogue and C&C and building placement and interiors and people etc.

it would be feasible for someone to do, and the end result I would find at least amusing.

http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=4821 if you are interested to look at it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6WYb0XMmwE

You don't understand? You do know that GURPS was a PNP game that takes place in the mind right(?), and that you just centered on one of the biggest flaws in Fallout 3 IMO (and doubtless in others). That very aspect was removed from the games ~and that's the problem.

Consider that if F3 was only slightly more detached, that the whole 'toilet drinking' fiasco, would be a non-issue [would be non-existent]; Consider too that the buggy AI that causes a group of Deathclaws to "conga-line" their way 70' along the edge of a sidewalk (and back) rather than step over a 6" curbside, could also not exist, and NPCs talking to you with beer bottles in their mouth ('cuz they are also drinking at the time); and the whole Morphine /MedX thing ~gone even groinshots and (~the other thing) could have been restored to the game; not to mention their VATS bugs that shoot obstructions despite having a clear shot at the body part you were aiming at.

This list goes on... How about losing most if not all clipping errors like your gun being buried in your PC's shoulder blade, or sitting in chairs with a Fatman slung on the back.
How about Targetable melee attacks that need not hit the enemy with pinpoint precision in order to not look hokey. ~more?.....

And all of them start off from that position, right ?

to cliffworms:

hey thats pretty wicked cool, but do all the characters have the same dialogue etc? or have you just done the construction??

you should team up with someone willing to do the scripting and dialogue and tackle junktown, that would be incredibly impressive.

Thanks!
It's a modder's ressource, so it's only the construction and a list of NPCs that can be placed in the Vault (Including Max Stone, Natalia, Albert, The Overseer and other named NPCs I forget)

I'm a lone wolf when it comes to modding and remaking a town from Fallout 1 is just too much for me to take.

Dream? ha! that was an hours fun in Flash; a quick concept not some grand blueprint ~Fallout itself was supposed to be the blueprint
(not just the Box cover).

~and... Fallout is a turn based franchise the guys that designed it STILL would prefer to make it TB (and said so).
They were even working on a concept before a different deal went sour (and they ultimately lost the company because of it).
(See the first link in my SIG)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqzFJsmads4&feature=channel_page

Ha! Amazing. I probably wouldn't of bought it though. Fallout 1 and 2 are Fallout 1 and 2. Fallout 3 isn't.

Did you notice that Diablo 3 uses the same sort of framed close-up (I did, when they released the vids ~after I'd made that clip).
IIRC Leonard Boyarski is a major influence on D3.

Here is another concept clip that I made (much earlier)...
http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/5159/f3qv9.gif

I was never really into Diablo anyway. Fallout 1, 2, and Tactics are really the first games like that I've played. Unless you count RTS. Speaking of tactics, WHY. CAN'T. I. BEAT. THE. FIRST. LEVEL. I thought everything out and still ended up dead. Maybe I shouldn't of made my character melee.

My team has the sniper (which I use quite a lot), and my main PC is a wannabe Ninja with focus on Melee and stealth.

When Diablo came out I got the demo and thought, "This thing is cool, but Ill never by it...". Later I did buy it for $10 and 'bout kicked myself for not buying it sooner. (its no Baldur's Gate, but then it doesn't pretend to be).

Care to give me any tips? Maybe in a PM, so we don't spam up here.

Pretty horrible. But hey, its a way to do the things. Im happy Beth take the most detailed way. A way we dont need to have 'CGI heads for important chars', because FO3 have high detailed enviroment, heads, and all the world. Much better to actually look an item on the ground than to use a clunk interface to do all things.

Fallout's heads were a hallmark, and incredible at the time ~ Fallout 3' heads (in this age) are not; but they could have been! ~should have been.

They could have looked like this in conversation if only the UI was different and the game not an FPS...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIGWAYS5uRw

*Just by doing it [nearly] the same way Fallout 1 did :shrug:

[Either 3d ~or even 2d; Think about it... the gameworld freezes during dialogs, and they don't have to account for moving lights]
Those heads could have actually been BINK videos and none would be the wiser.
(Come to think of it... that is very close to how Fallout 1 managed it :facepalm:)

Terrible Gizmo, that clearly wouldn't sell at all. Hence it is total garbage, for shame.

Do you really believe that fallout 1/2 AI was state of art? Just because it is turn based? Its the same to do a line and throw dices.

"NPCs talking to you with beer bottles in their mouth " This is really much problem? Oh i forget, there is not much in terms of animation o FO1/2. Its more like static pixels. You want to play a game or run a simulation? I dont think fo1/2 is the very pinnacle of reality simulation.

The fact is, and i understand, what you want is to have a loose game, just a base to dream and have all happening on your mind. That is why you hate detailed enviroments. You just prefer icons, and loose small graphics.

Are you serious about that? Really ? If so, you are REALLY stuck back in the 90's. Today even an 8800 card can handle this level of detail, and best, we have high quality faces at all time on the game. No need to "redered BINK videos". Lool.. im still think you are joking...

:foodndrink:

~and for my next silly idea, I went and suggested to Sawyer that Bisely do some art for New Vegas
http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/biz00214-1.jpg
http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/Hulk01-1.jpg
http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/4horse02.jpg
http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/judge_dredd___original_cover_art_fo.jpg
http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/14712_4_002.jpg

And are you not stuck on the "new" as opposed to what simply works ~what's to care which so long as you can't tell the difference anyway? Fallout 3 uses rendered Bink videos already (did you not know?)

I find that one very ironic myself :rolleyes:

Postem's really got a hardon for Fallout 3's graphics I gather.

At least FO3 isnt a Pen and paper with calculator game.

What's wrong with PnP games ? Let me guess, lack of 'immersion'. One good thing about that ported to PC, is the tightness of the marriage between the character's skill and the game, I find. Fallout 3's about the same really, a bit loose with the calculator compared to earlier ones though.

POstem, go back to what you where doing. Your original posts had very good points, but now you're starting to attack Gizmo a little bit. Don't become one of the people you and I were talking about.

i meant more stylized, and yes 'Dawn of War' ISO like perspective is still my preferable one for RPG's, thou i dont think that this specific title will represent FO the best as its scope is more tactical and the little details are amiss here plus its going to be annoying to represent a house and enter it in here.
(for those who dont know what we talking about here is a http://www.gametrailers.com/video/review-dawn-of-war/45941 )

as for my perfect game style you will probably disagree but this how i would like it to http://www.gametrailers.com/video/review-hd-assassins-creed/27616?type=flv jump to 2:40, notice ignore combat, notice the amount of detailed interactive environment, the amount of action you can do and how everything reacts to you, the options to hide, this freedom not some 3 and half corridors...

but since no matter what both FO4 and FO las vegas will be represented in First person its irrelevant to the topic.
and here is a http://www.gametrailers.com/video/tuesdays-with-mass-effect/34339 where tech put in to a great engaging, not only the diverse modules they also focus on animation, facial expression syncing it to the dubbing and the presentation.


by the way i remember you from the time FO3 was still in development, you made that nice dream fallout vid on youtube

Sorry it got personal and i didnt realized it. It wasnt what i mean.

I'm of two minds when it comes to the "talking" head stuff, and whether it has a place in modern games.

On the one hand - I can't help but think it's rather superfluous at this point. There's a pretty obvious reason for why Fallout 1 and 2 used them. You can get sufficient fidelity from just the base game models in a game like Fallout 3 to serve all of the same purposes the talking heads had in Fallout 1 and 2. I'd also say there's an argument to be made for not jolting the player around with superfluous shifts, and keeping the graphics all on an even keel. (That used to be a big deal back in the day, when they started using the game engine to produce the cinematics, for that very reason. I-76, for example - purposefully kept the cinematic in-line with the in-game graphics, even though they were hardly remarkable for the time.) There's certainly something to be said for keeping the graphics and interfaces consistent throughout, I think.

On the other hand - what we have in Fallout 3 basically is a talking head interface. With static backgrounds and limited animations. I would say that in a third/first-person game, that bringing up the iconic dialogue interface with the techy doodads and such would be superfluous (maybe not in a hypothetical FO1/2 remake, but in general...) I think that would be too jolting and superfluous a transition - akin to the game telling you NOW YOU'RE GOING TO TALK TO THIS GUY! ) You'd still have to find a way to transition between the models, however, without it looking obvious. I can't think of anything particularly elegant, and I'd have to see it in action before being able to really judge different ways of approaching that.

As far as graphical fidelity, and how it might be improved with this sort of interface - with Fallout 3; it's still largely subjective, but I'd say that the Fallout 3 heads and Fallout 1/2's talking heads are about on par, at best. The heads in the old games were nice, and they have a lot of character - but they have that mush-mouthed, lippy thing going on that really dates them, I think. Since this topic is about remaking Fallout 1 and 2 - I'd think you'd sort of need to do talking heads, just because the old ones had them. But I'd imagine that by the time Fallout 4 rolls around, we'll have a significant enough graphics increase to really make the talking head thing even more superfluous. I think it works fine in a pulled back camera where you don't really see the characters faces otherwise. But in a first/third-person game I don't really see the point. ("Hi, I'm an NPC. This is what I look like. You can get right up close to me and see what I look like and examine me from all angles. Oh wait, you want to talk to me? Hang on a sec... THERE, THIS IS WHAT I REALLY LOOK LIKE! Count my pores! I said count them!!" )