Are you ABSOLUTELY BATSHIT INSANE? No one would buy it but neckbeards on /v/, it would make no fucking profit whatsoever. What kind of stupid question is that? Plus they finally have a decent combat system with the FPS/VATS hybrid thing they've got going on, most people actually like it, why the fuck would you undo that to revert back to a super niche system?
>>275211954 Of course i do, do you have a single piece of evidence to even remotely claim that isometric turn based systems are popular in 2014? Can you compare the sales of Fallour 3 + NV to an isometric turn based modern game and justify picking that system over the system they're using now?
Let's be honest, Fallout 1 and 2 are leagues above 3 and NV in story, atmosphere and pretty much everything except the fucking combat. It's boring, it's shit, it's dated. Nobody outside of nostalgic 30somethings enjoy shit in a isometric view, and it's a retarded question anyway because there's no fucking way they'd risk making the next fallout in a style that doesn't sell well.
>>275211662 >it would make no fucking profit whatsoever. Yes it would >Plus they finally have a decent combat system with the FPS/VATS hybrid thing they've got going on, most people actually like it The original system was at least as good, plus had a degree of tactical depth which the current system necessarily lacks. >super niche system ...
>>275211954 >>275212223 ...so? You two claim this system isn't niche in 2014 and the game would sell a lot. I ask you to present me with some comparison of the F3 + NV sales numbers compared to a modern turn based isometric game, and you give me nothing. Really? What the fuck was that, some kind of neckbeard passive aggressive wet dream of sorts with no actual understanding of the market? How disappointing.
>>275212604 But turn-based isometric offers so much more tactical consideration than simple fps. If it was some obsolete formula it would have died out a long time ago. They're still making a spiritual successor to Planescape Torment.
>>275213540 >arguing based solely on what sells the most But that's the whole reason why F3 and NV aren't isometric and turn based. You must pick a reasonable compromise to make these games sell outside the /v/ target audience (10 people). Thus, they used the FPS + VATS system. That was their compromise, and it worked. Daydreaming about what would be the best system for patricians is completely useless, if we're talking about making games for complete patricians then who gives a fuck about the system itself, i'd give obsidian 50 years of development time and have them shit out one of the best fallout games ever made, with 500 fucking fleshed out interconnected quests in the first area alone, with about a million ways to solve each quest, not including additional skill based alternate solutions. Talking about this shit from that angle is absolutely useless. >>275213848 >If it was some obsolete formula it would have died out a long time ago. They're still making a spiritual successor to Planescape Torment. Yes, via kickstarter. Selling 1/100th of what 3 and NV sold, and they had to be crowd funded to even shit this product out. Again, how in the loving fuck can you deny that this isn't a niche system in fucking 2014?
>>275214173 And just more skill checks in general that result in more outcomes. I want to do a retard run where I go to turn on helios one but instead i hit the wrong button and divert all power to something completely useless, or if I have high science I can siphon some of the power to my hideout to recharge energy cells for free or something like that.
>>275214349 >By what criteria do you claim this? By the simple fact that they sold a shit ton. By the simple fact that if you make the average human being play Fallout 1 and 2, they start to puke their guts out and poke their eyes right out of the sockets. Again, do you have a SINGLE piece of evidence that using turn based systems and an isometric POV would make a new fallout game sell in 2014? All it needs to do is sell the same numbers F3 and NV did, that's reasonable, that's what any company aims for as a base line for any of their sequels, their next game must sell at the very least the same amount the previous game did.
You walk up to Beth and you present your shitty idea to them. They look at you and they ask "can you assure us F4 using this system sells at least as much as F3 and NV did?
>>275214998 >By the simple fact that they sold a shit ton. Selling a lot does not mean a better system. Holy hell, how can you argue this? What is this overriding obsession with sales figures? You sound like Bethesda: profit=quality.
>>275215151 >If it was niche they wouldn't have revived Baldur's Gate, Wasteland Give me sales numbers and compare them to F3 and NV and then tell me with a straight face these aren't niche in 2014. What you ACTUALLY wanted to name, the modern equivalent that tries to keep these games alive in the mainstream, is Dragon Age Inqusition. Yeah, that's right, THAT piece of shit is trying to keep this stupid shit going, THAT is the actual equivalent, doing as many compromises as they humanly can to appeal to the modern audience. And newsflash: even that is selling like shit, what a surprise. >XCom The new Xcom doesn't play like the old Xcom games, to the point that most classic Xcom fans hate it, they did a lot of compromises with the system, exactly like beth did with 3. >Diablo ...nigga diablo isn't turn based, i can't believe i have to explain this to you. Am i actually speaking to a person that plays video games, even? Hell i won't even get into the shitstorm that is Diablo 3 and the INSANE number of changes that game had if you compare it to 2. because if we get into that we can argue here all day and the discussion will completely take over the entire thread, i assure you.
>>275215851 An RTS. Another game that uses an entirely different system that has nothing to do with this discussion, and it still sold like shit compared to F3 + NV so it doesn't even help your cause in the first place.
>>275215773 >Give me sales numbers and compare them to F3 and NV and then tell me with a straight face these aren't niche in 2014. YOU'RE STILL DOING THIS. What on earth... You are everything wrong with the industry.
>>275216215 >YOU'RE STILL DOING THIS Because this is the entire crux of the conversation. OP question was: >Should the next fallout game revert to the isometric view with turn-based combat? Answer: no, because it wouldn't sell, because isometric turn based systems are a niche in 2014, it would sell like utter shit compared to F3 and NV. It would be a stupid decision because of this reason.
>>275216417 >no, because it wouldn't sell >because isometric turn based systems are a niche in 2014 Both incorrect.
>it would sell like utter shit compared to F3 and NV Completely and utterly irrelevant. Previous sales figures being the main driving force of a game's design is repulsive. It's something that should be discouraged as much as possible.
>>275216880 You're going in retarded circles, i've proven to you that the system is niche and sells like shit, your whole argument is "no, i like it, thus it should be this way, sales don't matter, nor do they factor in a system being niche or not even tho that doesn't make any sense whatsoever and it's the very core distinction about something being niche or not, popularity". Basically you're baiting at this point.
>>275217110 >your whole argument is "no, i like it, thus it should be this way, sales don't matter, nor do they factor in a system being niche or not even tho that doesn't make any sense whatsoever and it's the very core distinction about something being niche or not, popularity". Making things up doesn't make them true, anon, no matter how hard you try.
Has anyone toyed around with ExaGear with FO1 or 2? Like I said, I'm not a fan, but was curious to get it running. I've tried it with FO2, it works, but the UI is extremely cumbersome. It makes me wish for a ported version with a UI made for small touch screens.
>From its release in October through the end of 2008, Fallout 3 shipped over 4.7 million units. According to NPD Group the Xbox 360 version has sold 1.14 million units and the PlayStation 3 version has sold 552,000 units as of January 2009. The Xbox 360 version was the 14th best-selling game of December 2008 in the United States, while the PlayStation 3 version was the eighth best-selling PlayStation 3 game in that region and month.
>Fallout 3 was one of the most played titles in Xbox Live in 2009, and Games for Windows – Live in 2009, 2011 and 2012.
Compare it to any modern isometric turn based game, struggling to get funded, forced to use kickstarter to even exist.
>>275217751 You're right. I don't like isometric point of view and turn based combat. Although, under the right circumstances such as a mobile game, >>275217878 , I will play that in that style since mobile is very limited at the moment.
>>275218303 >The plebbest of plebs. Referring to what, exactly? If you're going to troll, at least point out a specific element that you disagree with. You just seem to be making random comments with no content.
i wouldnt make it isometric exactly like it was in the originals because thats just nostalgia bating having it in first person is fine, but i would like to see it retain the turn based system, and im not sure how that would work in fps mode
maybe make it play like valkyria chronicles, but as an rpg instead i think that would be pretty cool
>>275219041 I wouldn't mind an isometric ARPG either. Maybe even a remake of 1 and 2 using the ARPG system instead of turn based, but keeping it isometric. Keep it diablo-like more or less but you press a button and enter VATS mode like in 3 and NV, it would work out pretty well.
>>275219291 I'd go for that. I just dislike the turn based combat, but the camera angle is fine. Something isometric with a well developed combat system, maybe centered on melee to show how scare ammunition is.
Definitely in a new area too, like maybe a nuclear winter type area up near the border of Canada or some shit.
-Most casuals actually don't realize NV was made by obsidian
-Most casuals like FO3 more because the world had more shit to do in a smaller, more manageable map that had more assets and a more appealing landscape compared to the western-like desert of NV
A combination of these factors makes FO4 very much wanted. Not only that, but even among more hardcore fallout fans, there's a diehard faction that argues that FO3 had a better setting, regardless of the quality of the writing.
I don't care either way, i think FO3 and NV both had good things about them. My biggest problem with FO3 is definitely all the balancing issues, glaring shit like power fists being utter shit late game, issues that were resolved in NV. If there is such a thing as FO4 i'm afraid beth is gonna fuck up the core balance and thus make the game unfun for certain builds.
>>275211662 are you mad Original Sin and Wasteland 2 showed that isometrical is desperatly wanted(those games had absolutely no marketing) Problem is ,new generations of console owners dont get that all their precious JRPGs were isometrical and even japanese people dont lie this neew breed of JRPGs where you look at peoples back
I didn't really enjoy Fallout 1, 2 and Tactics turn based combat. It really didn't matter how well you built your character. Your weapons and armor were the decisive factors in combat. You could have 10 agility and max guns but only do 20 damage and sometimes enemy armor will almost completely negate it. Instead if you use a turbo charged plasma rifle it's like 60 damage and it virtually ignores all armor.
Fallout 3 and New Vegas are guilty of the same thing but it's not quite as bad.
>>275220315 >It really didn't matter how well you built your character. Your weapons and armor were the decisive factors in combat. Except i just did a run where i went full unarmed and i was knocking people unconcious by punching them in the head and then killing them by punching them in the face as they were down over and over. No weapons.
>>275211330 I wouldn't mind but I don't like the sexagon grids honestly since they fuck up vertical movement. The grid also makes melee combat kind of unintuitive especially with weapons with knock back. Combat with many enemies also takes way too long to watch them all move individually
>>275211330 Have you not heard the news? The next Fallout, Van Buren, is being done by the Wasteland 2 guys. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-12-10-wasteland-developer-inxile-trademarks-van-buren-and-meantime
>>275221451 I'm gonna go ahead and say it: Wasteland 2 sucks. Wasteland 2 sucks because Unity looks, and feels like a piece of shit. It's horrible compared to how FO1 and 2 look and feel. They're gonna use Unity, and it's gonna suck ass because of that.
>>275211662 >Plus they finally have a decent combat system with the FPS/VATS
The erratic movement and the shitty aiming in these games make the FPS part fucking atrocious.
I'd go as far as to say that I'd prefer they go full FPS with some RPG elements thrown in and a HEAVY enphasis on exploration, because the formula is extremely fucking flawed.
Yeah, crucify me, I don't care. I loved the first two games but at this point they aren't going back and the current hybrid system just sucks donkey dicks unless you mod it to include something like bullet time that at least lets you aim a little better (VATS is just cheat mode).
>>275211330 There already is one OP, it's called wasteland 2. And guess what, it's not as popular as fallout 3 or nv. Fuck you, fallout 1-2 are shitty games. They only got popular because of fallout 3.
Guess what, I bet 90% of you faggots never heard of the fallout series before fallout 3.
fucking hipster trash the lot of you.
give some fucking first person action, at least that would be fun.
>>275224265 >you're never gonna get another isometric fallout cause that shit won't sell. No, it will sell, just not as much. That's doesn't mean it isn't a viable decision. We wont get an isometric fallout because Bethesda is the type of company that will only take the road that puts profit before anything else, no matter by what insignificant margin.
>>275211330 I don't think so. It makes traveling any real distance become a massive hassle, and as a result the first two fallout games had mostly empty maps that weren't fun to explore. The combat wasn't good either, my favorite part of Fallout 2 is right at the beginning when you spend at least ten minutes per fight failing to hit the radscorpion with a spear.
>>275222638 They dont HAVE to go full FPS. Just make it more FPS heavy, introduce elements from games like Borderlands, where the gunplay feels smooth and changing weapons could be done with either a flick of the mouse wheel or pressing a button (see 1 through five).
Also I think the last thing Fallout needs is removing, or even marginalising the RPG elements. It started out life as an RPG game, and it should retain those elements even in more modern installations.
Fucking hell they only need to get three aspects down right. 1. Fun and engaging gunplay 2.Proper RPG elements and 3. Make exploration actually and properly fun, kind of how it (sort of) was in Fallout 3
Thread replies: 99 Thread images: 9
Thread DB ID: 25870
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.