Isometric TBRPG or New Vegas-styled FPSRPG?

Discussion in 'Future Fallout Game Discussion' started by Ben Soto, Mar 17, 2016.

  1. Earth

    Earth Vault Senior Citizen

    Apr 7, 2013
    A specific railroaded Fallout FPS adventure actually sounds quite fun.

    If Fallout were owned by a competent company then spin-offs like that could be really cool. But the core should always remain isometric RPG. An FPS adventure (where I dunno, you're a prisoner captured by the Super Mutants or Enclave or whatever and you have to fight your way out Half Life-style) would be fun but shouldn't detract from what Fallout is about, which is character creation and gameplay reflecting that.
  2. Crossfire

    Crossfire Banned

    Jun 14, 2016
    Either. It doesn't bother me provided, whichever it is, it's done well.
  3. eissa

    eissa Artanis "Altáriel" Nerwen Nos Finwe

    Jan 7, 2016
    i remember there is thing called fallout warfare which is planned as Fps set in pre-war era?

    Edit: sorry it is actually called Fallout Extreme, Fallout warfare is a tabletop game
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2016
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  4. Kohno

    Kohno Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    Jul 30, 2009
    I'd wager a TB game could be made that can be played in both ISO and FPP. Dungeon Keeper already that kind of perspective switch back in '97 (and FPP TB RPG's exist in M&M and Wizardry series').
  5. Black Angel

    Black Angel Grand Inquisitor of the Ordo Hereticus

    Mar 21, 2016
    Just recently I noticed there were some Codexers who hold this opinion, too. Iirc, their solution would be to design a system that doesn't really try to emulate PnP RPGs, but STILL try its best to prevent the gameplay from relying on player's skills.

    Meh, go play Dungeon Rats, then. Even though I, new to the system, had to rely on savescumming a bit, other, more experienced players manage to go through the game just fine without having to rely on luck. Even though it seemed that Iron Tower Studio didn't manage to design a better turn-based system than Styg, Dungeon Rats certainly felt a good Turn-Based game that absolutely rely on no luck at all (and by testification of others, hugely improve upon Age of Decadence's system). There are many other factors in the game: positioning, facing, use of tools other than your weapons, whether or not your equipment impose penalty upon you etc etc.

    Hell, I certainly rely on no luck at all when playing Underrail. I reloaded only when I die. Luck plays very, very little role, especially if you really are a pro (not me, though, since like I said I had to savescum a bit in Dungeon Rats because I'm still new to the system).
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  6. naossano

    naossano So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Oct 19, 2006
    Not telling you that isometric is better, nor that isometric is older than 3D (just do a bit of research, see that they coexisted for decades), but i am more an isometric player, regardless if it is for simulation games, stategy games, tactical games, RPG. I like managing my units, i like to have a clear view on the areas, where the units are, where they go, what they do, and have a seamless mouse-based control of things.

    I think FPS view, on the other, not only have cluncky control, but also messy overview of what his happening. Not only it relies on player *skills*, but also their constitution, their arbitrary reflex and number of fingers, but also don't translate well anything other than lanscape\scenery porn or quick action. Sometime, a nice atmosphere can be brought up, but the same three things can apply with isometrics. On the other hand, isometric can bring much more, as it is less cluncky and messy. You have a clear view of things, can manage more things. An turn-based goes even further with giving each action its own time, so you can't miss a thing. You have time to appreciate what is happening. Plus, there are gaming situations that could simply not happen outside turn-based gameplay. Think of the missions like the APEX in Shadowrun Dragonfall. All your team members are in different locations, real or in the matrix, and they all have to handle enemies coming toward them and preventing them to reach their friends or the macguffin they defending. It allows you to control all the characters in a situation which everything happen in *the same time* at different places.

    Also, i dislike current trend of continuous gameworld. Not only, there is too many of them, but also it has many flaws.

    - World building isn't always good, while it matters even more.
    - Quite often, there is *fast-travel* instead of means of travel.
    - There is too many fillers between relevant locations (when there are some relevant locations)
    - At the same time, the time to travel between those location is boringly too long, and way to short to not suspend disbelieve.
    - The locations themselves are often too tiny or/and with too much filler inside.
    - You cannot reasonably have too different cultures, too many settlements, and too different weather at walking distance to each other.
    - This isn't *open* world. It is claustrophobicly enclosed world. You are restricted into one arbitrary area and cannot travel anywhere else, or they would have to implement ingame all the meters\miles of grass\sands\rocks between your location and your destination. So you just there, in one areas, watching the same acres of grass\sands\rocks forever...
    - I am quite a walker myself. I like to do it in real-life. While i don"t mind the idea of walking simulator, i don't want it forced upon the games i like, especially while the system flaws are currently so glaring. And i doubt the walking simulator would have any chance of success as long as you have to virtually create the place. It won't beat the fun of actually walking.
    - Those games rely so much on technology porn and and photorealism that they never age well. They feel outdated within a couple of years. They feel more like engine prototypes that need their next update (that the playerbase end up doing for the dev), than some other games which relied more on a less visually realist design and survived better the impact of time. ( for instance, Fallout 4 already visually need an update to reach the unreacheable goal of copying the reality, while the design of the Worms series don't need graphic update as it still manages to visually convey what it conveyed at release)
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2016
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  7. naossano

    naossano So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Oct 19, 2006
  8. Plzstandbuy

    Plzstandbuy Lonely Drifter

    Dec 7, 2015
    Well I have to say that I'd be happy for either one. Though personally I think the FPSRPG would simply be more successful from a marketing and business standpoint. I think New Vegas really needs to be the standard model for any new games. It pleased both new and old fans, and was a great game even on it's own merit.

    Though I don't have high hopes for Bethesda ever getting anything through their thick skulls. Fallout 4 made a lot of money, but hype and brand recognition had a lot to do with that.
  9. ArkBird

    ArkBird FO3 Fanboy

    Mar 3, 2016
    I'd go third person shooter and make VATS an integral part of combat
  10. Berna

    Berna First time out of the vault

    Jan 28, 2017
    i'm more of a fps fan. So FPSRPG
  11. R.Graves

    R.Graves Confirmed Retard

    Apr 21, 2016
    In NV's case fpsrpg worked out perfectly fine but I do love turn based isometric... Either or really.