Darth Onasi wrote:Well for one thing I'm never entirely sure where my companions are.
Your FO1 and FO2 companions were a lot worse, but I will admit that they tend to run off too much without telling me. I suppose I overlook this because I'm happy that they're finally not dying to forcefields and other inanimate objects, that they're actually survivable, and that I actually got my companions in FO3 very, very late in the game. My Fallout companions, even in 1 and 2, were mostly useless outside of their associated quests--which were fun, and I miss in FO3. I got sick of Marcus tearing me open with a minigun or killing Dogmeat, to be honest, and he was my favorite. Tell them to stick close, glance back every once and a while, and you should have no trouble.
Darth Onasi wrote:Fallout's perspective was hardly out of necessity; both Arena and Daggerfall predate the original Fallout. If the designers had wanted to go first person, they would have.
Probably not to achieve the effect they wanted, which was Wasteland style gore and a spread-out party. Wasteland had way better party management though. I just think the effect they were going for can now be better served outside of an isometric map--and I say that mostly because Fallout 1 and 2 had no interest in controlling your party, so the tactical map and turnbased format is just a waste and unbalances the game. They obviously didn't choose to have every NPC in leather armor look the same, but they did simply out of a need. They could have theoretically created unique sprites for Tycho and the Vault Dweller and Dogmeat, but they didn't, and I wouldn't say they were uninterested in those things--just that it was too much work for not enough gain, from their perspective.
Darth Onasi wrote:How on earth does it not suit Fallout when the two original games were built on it?
My personal preference is third person (which Fallout 3 does *not* have in any truly playable way, it is clearly built around 1st person gameplay) but if I had to choose only between 1st person and isometric for Fallout, I'd go with isometric every time. 1st person just feels too restrictive and ultimately dull.
It doesn't suit it because it was just the best available option. Hell, what do you think Fallout is? A tactical RPG? A D&D turnbased dice game? An adventure game with miniguns? The game is what we'd now call a standard Baldur's Gate style CRPG engine with a turn-based third-person simulation for a first person shooter built into it. It specifically included pre-shot accuracy feedback (something most normal RPGs never do), a lack of NPC control (only necessary to de-tacticalize the game), and a huge emphasis on aiming, bursting, and time management. This all sounds like a way of simulating a first person shooter combat sequence in a turn-based form. Now, you need to ask. Why make it an abstracted shooter game when it could be a real shooter game more easily?
Why don't you tell us? There has to be some actual reason why, if Bethesda had simply remade Fallout 1's story exactly and in perfect, stunning 3D, you would feel it inferior to the original simply because your camera wasn't top-down.
One thing I can think of is that you prefer a slower gameplay experience, where you can aim, sip your soda, take the shot, and then turn around to see what the dog is up to. And I think that would be a legitimate complaint--they've turned a game that could be played relatively leisurely and made it an adrenaline game. I'd assert that the shooting is very forgiving with VATs though, and very similar to FO1's aimed gameplay. But while I think that's a legitimate, worthwhile point to bring up, trying to say it's restrictive or less immersive is simply incorrect.
These are not Aristotle's Ideal Forms afterall, just because FO1 had turnbased isometric gameplay doesn't mean that's what's best for the game. It's too bad you prefer third person isometric gameplay, but I can't imagine
why. As Zook has asked, how could first person be any more restrictive than third person? You can see the area around you better, and more easily find items than play hunt-the-pixel. It's much easier to build a sense of suspense and tension using first person gameplay, as well as have great stunning vistas and so forth. You simply cannot gaze upon the ruins of the Boneyard, or feel the bitterness of leaving Vault-13 for that first time... your only actual glimspes of the Wasteland are top-down or in postcard format. So in any objective sense, first person is far more powerful a tool for setting a stage. It also makes more sense for gunplay, since it really brings cover into effect, something that FO1 and FO2 could barely do at all. A modern isometric game could, but why bother when you can do it yourself in first person?
Oh, by the way, I forgot to paste the Speed Run. It does make Fallout 1 look like a total joke though. It's just to dispel some of the mythos around the game, especially the red herring of noncombat play.
Yeah, you can win without combat, but it's not like you were really playing the same game as the rest of us.
