Fallout 3 as Deus Ex? Or Doom RPG (mobile game)?

[kingcomrade]

So,
The Codex has mostly decided that Fallout 3 will be a first person real time game. So, what if it were in the same pattern as Deus Ex or System Shock? Yeah, it's not Fallout, but it could be enjoyable.
I don't know how well Fallout would translate into first person, though. There's so much that you would have to change.

On the other hand, have any of you played the Doom RPG game? The concept sounds really interesting, and I'm wondering how well it would fit Fallout?

Also, an unrelated question. Why do first person RPGs never have enough ammo lying around? Fallout 3 shouldn't have that problem, because there was tons of ammo lying around in the original anyways. But seriously. In SS2 (haven't got SS1 working yet), I'm fighting off hordes of enemies with a wrench through half the game. Weapons are one of the things that make RPGs (or any game) fun.

 

[Vault Dweller]

So, The Codex has mostly decided that Fallout 3 will be a first person real time game.

No, Bethesda did.

So, what if it were in the same pattern as Deus Ex or System Shock? Yeah, it's not Fallout, but it could be enjoyable.

Like you said, it won't be a Fallout game. Hopefully it would be enjoyable, although Oblivion development doesn't give a lot of reasons to be optimistic.

I don't know how well Fallout would translate into first person, though.

Splendidly, I'm sure.

 

[Chefe]

I think Bethesda read too much into the opening movie for Fallout. The third game should not be in the first person. No way, no how. It wouldn't be Fallout. If you're not going to make a Fallout game, don't call it Fallout! Simple as that.

 

[Claw]

I care little for a game that is "not Fallout, but it could be enjoyable" as there are tons of that sort around already.

I'd rather have a game like Fallout that doesn't bear the name than the opposite.

 

[Zomg]

I think I'd find kill-based XP or learn-as-you go weird in an overt FPS hybrid. The two biggies both used exploration and plot-progression XP. They were also probably a bit too linear and constrained (individually loaded levels, etc.) But I think I'd be fairly enthusiastic about that type of game if they kept the style (kitsch futurism and '50s iconography, etc.) and the wistful tone. And dialog trees.

 

[Jaesun]

I would not mind a Fallout FPS that was somewhat like Deus Ex.

As long as it is not called Fallout 3.

 

[Mech]

I would not mind a Fallout FPS that was somewhat like Deus Ex.

As long as it is not called Fallout 3.

The name is that sacred eh?

 

[roguefrog]

Why do first person RPGs never have enough ammo lying around? Fallout 3 shouldn't have that problem, because there was tons of ammo lying around in the original anyways. But seriously. In SS2 (haven't got SS1 working yet), I'm fighting off hordes of enemies with a wrench through half the game.

This is by design in System Shock 2. Limited resources + respawning enemies + weapons breaking = harsh survival. SS2 is just as much a survival horror game as it is a FPS or RPG. And personally I wouldn't have it any other way. It's these elements that make it challenging. And a challenging game that is scary is a hundred times more effective then one thats only scary. Add your assortment of freaks, complete feeling of isolation, great audio and atmosphere, and you've got the scariest game ever created.

 

[Chefe]

The name is that sacred eh?

Well, people want to defend what they consider to be their favorite games, and what they consider to be one of the greatest games (roleplaying games, in this case) of all time. To turn Fallout into a FPS would be horrible. It wouldn't be the same Californian post-apocalyptic universe we've all grown to know and love.

Think about it this way. I take it you like the Elder Scrolls series. Anyways, imagine that Bethesda went out of business and sold the Elder Scrolls license to Obsidian. Now, imagine if Obsidian turned around and make The Elder Scrolls V into a Final Fantasy Tactics type game with the morality system from Knights of the Old Republic. Sure, it could be one helluva game, but it wouldn't be the same Elder Scrolls, and you would probably feel cheated for having your favorite series turned into this whole other monster.

 

[Mech]

The name is that sacred eh?

Well, people want to defend what they consider to be their favorite games, and what they consider to be one of the greatest games (roleplaying games, in this case) of all time. To turn Fallout into a FPS would be horrible. It wouldn't be the same Californian post-apocalyptic universe we've all grown to know and love.

Think about it this way. I take it you like the Elder Scrolls series. Anyways, imagine that Bethesda went out of business and sold the Elder Scrolls license to Obsidian. Now, imagine if Obsidian turned around and make The Elder Scrolls V into a Final Fantasy Tactics type game with the morality system from Knights of the Old Republic. Sure, it could be one helluva game, but it wouldn't be the same Elder Scrolls, and you would probably feel cheated for having your favorite series turned into this whole other monster.

Not paticularly. I would actually like the irony of the whole situation. Think of all the jokes you could make!

 

[Chefe]

Yes, but then the series would be destroyed forever.

I mean, more destroyed than what's going on now. Like, dead.

 

[kingcomrade]

Guys I know, we've had this sentiment over and over. Fallout 3 will not be a Fallout game. But it IS going to be called Fallout 3, and it isn't going to be third person, isometric, or turn based.

I'm asking questions about how Beth might translate various Fallout mechanics into a first person game, and I was thinking that if it were like Deus Ex or System Shock how well you think it would play. Or how you would do it.

I personally think it wouldn't be much like a Fallout game. When you're in first person, the view of other characters is a lot...different from a hex-based isometric game. I'm wondering how they would handle random encounters, if they stick with the same style of world map. You just appear on an empty plain with a bunch of enemies spawned around and you play a round of Quake 3?

 

[Zomg]

I personally think it wouldn't be much like a Fallout game. When you're in first person, the view of other characters is a lot...different from a hex-based isometric game. I'm wondering how they would handle random encounters, if they stick with the same style of world map. You just appear on an empty plain with a bunch of enemies spawned around and you play a round of Quake 3?

They could set it in a post-nuke city (or similar centralized location) rather than having a wasteland map. A realistically-scaled city could be a tremendous amount of locations. I think taking a different post-apocalyptic angle, in addition to probably being a better fit for first person (endless wasteland scrub plains wouldn't be too exciting in first person), would help the game get out from under the shadow of Fallout 1 by doing something that FO never tried (I don't count New Reno).

Fallout was way ahead of its time the with the emotive first-person talking heads so character interaction in general wouldn't necessarily be that different.

 

[Chefe]

They could set it in a post-nuke city (or similar centralized location) rather than having a wasteland map. A realistically-scaled city could be a tremendous amount of locations.

That would be really cool.

Not for Fallout, of course, but it would be cool for a different IP.

(endless wasteland scrub plains wouldn't be too exciting in first person)

*cough*Morrowind*cough*

Fallout was way ahead of its time the with the emotive first-person talking heads so character interaction in general wouldn't necessarily be that different.

Writing, man. It's all in the writing!

 

[Jaesun]

I would not mind a Fallout FPS that was somewhat like Deus Ex.

As long as it is not called Fallout 3.

The name is that sacred eh?

Not at all. A game entitiled Fallout 3 would imply a continuation of the series. Fallout is a (somewhat) party based, turn based, isometric, Post Nuclear Role Playing Game.

Switiching the game to a 1st person, non party based, non turn based combat etc... would be absurd as if Baldurs Gate II was realeased as a first person shooter. Even The Ultima Underworld series was renamed as such.

A "re-invention" of the series is fine. But to imply it is a continuation of an established series is absurd.

Maybe Bethesda should call it Fallout: Underworld? :shock:

That said, I AM however... (*cough* biased) unhappy of Bethesda's aquisition of the Fallout license. If Bethesda is going to do a (spiritual succesor) of the Fallout series (Morrowind with guns!) and claim it is a continuation of the series of Fallout & Fallout 2, I'm a bit hesitant. However the same argument could be about Ultima 8, in that in that you no longer had a party (which duh lore wise) you played the Avatar alone. You did however have (somewhat) the same environment of other Ultimas. They could have done Ultima 8 in the Ultima Underworld engine, but chose not to.

I just see do not see a game called Fallout 3 in the Morrowind/Oblivion engine as a succesor of the series. I guess we shall wait and see what it is Bethseda/Take2/Marketing Department decides upon.

 

[Lumpy]

I would not mind a Fallout FPS that was somewhat like Deus Ex.

As long as it is not called Fallout 3.

The name is that sacred eh?

I guess so.
But the fact that, because of Bethesda, nobody (like Troika) will be able to make a real Fallout 3, should be worse than that.

 

[kingcomrade]

Yes, people, I know, I agree, and we all get it. Fallout: FPS won't actually be a Fallout game. You're really beating a dead horse. But let's talk about the game anyways.

I was thinking they would do the cities or other locations, then whenever you leave the cities it goes to a Fallout style worldmap. That's what I mean by, when you have a random encounter, does it load up a small flat area where you play a match of Quake 3? Or what?

I'm asking this because I'm sure we're just as creative as anything Bethsoft could come up with, so it might give us an idea of what the game could be like. Or at least exercise our imaginations.
reeeeeeeeeeaaaaading raaaaiiiiinbooow

 

[LlamaGod]

kingcomrade likes shitty games so i'm not listening to him

edit: he's also a BNOL

 

[Jenos Idanian]

As far as I'm concerned it's a fallout game as long as it stays true to the fallout universe:
-50's scifi;
-trying to maintain continuity in the storyline (even though fallout did'nt do this completely);
-different endings based on your action etc. etc.

The first person aspect only has abig impact on the combat part of the game. Combat usually is the weakest part of a rpg game (see BG, KOTOR, arcanum), so that isn't much of a concern to me.

If Bethesda would make F3 like the first part of Bloodlines, it could be a very enjoyable crpg.

 

[Chefe]

If Bethesda did a reinvention of the universe, it might not be so bad. Like how Fallout was a reinvention of Wasteland. They just need a different name. Of course, they'll probably call it Fallout 3 and fans the world over will get pissed off because the thin bearing the Fallout name is a fucking FPS.

 

[Ausir]

Not at all. A game entitiled Fallout 3 would imply a continuation of the series. Fallout is a (somewhat) party based, turn based, isometric, Post Nuclear Role Playing Game.

Fallout is not really party-based. Sure, the companions are nice sometimes in Fallout 2, but they're mostly just pack mules in Fallout 1, and weren't even initially intended to be in the game (it's just one guy wrote the script for Ian and Tim Cain liked it).

 

[roguefrog]

I have a feeling that they won't call it Fallout 3 but do what Ion Storm did when they brought Deus Ex 2 and Thief 3 to consoles. Drop the number.

 

[Ausir]

I hope they don't call it just "Fallout". "Fallout: Something" would be OK, though.

 

[Micmu]

Final Fallout 3: Counter-Strike

 

[kingcomrade]

Ok nevermind I guess snarky and repetitious comments are all this is going to get.