Should the next fallout game revert to the isometric view with

yes. Just so we could drown in the sweet sea of console-shooter peasant tears

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?

>>275211662
>super niche
you really do believe that, don't ya?

>>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
...

I don't care, I have accepted my fate, and will buy it no matter what. I am a fool, a fool in love

>>275212223
Do you have a single piece of evidence to back up your claims aside "i like it more"?

of course not what a stupid fucking question. Isometric turn based combat wasn't chosen because it was good, it was chosen because it was the best they could do 15 years ago.

>>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.

>>275212963
>>275212440
>arguing based solely on what sells the most
Absolutely repulsive. You're Satan Hitler.

>>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?

I want other NPC's to have speech/bartering skills

where if your character is dumb/doesn't pass a check they take advantage of you in some way

>>275214059
>and it worked.
By what criteria do you claim this? This compromise isn't nearly as good as the combat in the older games.

>>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?

What do you respond to this simple question?

>>275214059
Oh stop with this niche rubbish. If it was niche they wouldn't have revived Baldur's Gate, Wasteland, XCom, Diablo etc.

>>275211330
I could seriously go for an isometric fallout.

The best way to go about it now is to make a spin-off series.

>>275215151
Thems all niches, bitches.

>>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.

>>275215151
Also Age of Empire 2

No, but it could exist as a completely fleshed out/worked out option, for dorks who want shit to be "authentic," in this regard.

I had way too much fun running and gunning in New Vegas, and those were the devs that might've even done that.

>>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.

>>275211330
No.

There's no salvaging the series at this point.

Let it rest in peace.

>>275217110
>i've proven to you that the system is niche and sells like shit
No you haven't...
This is called delusion.

File: 1289022265995.jpg (2KB, 126x126px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 126x126px

>>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.

>>275217228
The definition of delusion is genuinely thinking that isometric turn based games aren't niche in 2014.

Somewhat related, there are fans of the isometric gameplay; http://fonline-aop.net/site/index.php?p=game

I'm not a fan of isometric. My favorite style of gameplay is immersive first person view, rpg elements, open world exploration, and bonus points for sci-fi/cyberpunk themed.

I'm currently replaying Fallout 3 with 4k resolution, weather mod, ambient sounds, etc... It's the sex.

>>275217441
Do you mind pointing out where you've proven that isometric turn based is niche and sells like shit? I seem to have missed it.

>>275217549
Isometric isn't a gameplay, it's POV.
You're talking about turn based, perhaps.

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.

>>275217680
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout_3#Sales

>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.

>>275217549
The plebbest of plebs.

The graphics will probably be shit. I don't how modern top-down games look nowadays (X-COM). One of the greatest things about the first two Fallouts was the badass death animations.

If they just redid Fallout 2 but with separate gun models and slightly better graphics I'd pirate it.

i dont care what they do as long as they dont have full voice acting

>>275211662

>yfw you will never bb red ryder legend rifle a power armoured enclave git in the fucking eye socket For Massive Damage and a funny OHK

>>275214646
>you will never get a game with a complete low int rewrite like Arcanum

>>275212167
I'm 16 and played fallout 1 and 2 to the end and enjoyed them. The violent death animations were better than any modern game.

>>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.

>>275211330
No, but it shouldn't be a first person game either.

It should be a third person ARPG.

>>275218805
>I'm 16
BAM, down you go.

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

i do like that we're getting more isometric games, i don't trust bethesda to make anything though. fallout is dead to me.

>>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.

>>275211330
yes
FO3 and NV were shit.

one only had an interesting world design, and the other only had good dialogues
in both cases that is not enough to make a decent game.

Every time Bethesda posts something on facebook, it gets flooded with "WE WANT FALLOUT 4" posts.

I'm sitting here thinking, who are these casuals and why do they want another Bethesda Fallout? Did they not play New Vegas, or did they not realize it was Obsidian?

If anyone should make a new Fallout, it should be Obsidian. Hands down.

>>275218034
This is proving nothing. You've merely posted Fallout 3 sales. This doesn't equate to proof of anything.

>>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.

>>275219359
I enjoyed both FO3 and NV, but put more hours into FO3. It could have been the country music and deserts that killed it for me. I still enjoyed it, but just not as much.

>>275219359
Two things:

-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.

>>275219359
They liked FO3 more because FO3 was their first FO game

>>275219762
To each their own. I enjoyed both but after playing NV I realized it has superior writing, better quests, better weapons, a more finely tuned stat system, the whole nine yards.

I'll admit I liked the setting of FO3 better. Perhaps if 3 had the writing and mechanics of NV, but retained it's setting and characters it would have been more well received.

To be honest, I don't much mind the first person perspective, either. It's a different animal than the prior Fallouts, which isn't a bad thing.

>>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

Omeone should mod FONV to be iso turn based, it is relatively a lot of work

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
The first weapon I was referencing there was the 10mm pistol

>>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.

File: Jose Whedono.jpg (160KB, 752x1200px)

160KB, 752x1200px

>tfw the writing in Fallout along with voice acting will never ever be as good as the first one

>>275220469
I did a pure fists run on New Vegas. Ended up punching my way through Deathclaw Canyon really late into the game using the Golden Boxing Gloves and a shitload of stimpacks.

Good times.

>>275212193
I never played it when it came out and yet playing it relatively recently I enjoyed both games a whole lot, 70 hours in Fallout and 225 hours in Fallout 2.

>>275212331
>teleports behind you

"A dead fool."

>>275220469
Yeah fists are probably an excepton but what was your armor?

>>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

>tfw no Van Buren

>>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

>>275221130
Why not use fluid turns that don't restrict movement like what Baldur's Gate has.

>>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.

File: fa.png (85KB, 827x841px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 827x841px

Literally the worst perks they could think of

>>275219926
>powerfist was completely useless late game
Everything you said was wrong, but this was the wrongest.

>>275211330
I'd be fine with the current 3D first-person style if they used a good engine and had good animations. Something on par with Metro 2033 would be nice.

>>275220315
builds were way more important in the originals, same thing with perks

if you dont have the proper stats for something, like a gun, youre going to miss almost every single shot with it

like, you could easily ruin an entire run just by not picking the right stats

that just doesnt happen in the new ones

>>275211662
You are retarded. Please free the gene pool of your stupidity.

>>275221921
There were just as many worthless perks in Fallout 3 that only gave a small bonus to skills.

>>275221921
what are you talking about? there are quite a few good perks in there

theres just a lot of useless ones thrown in with them

File: 1372990524459.jpg (148KB, 601x601px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 601x601px

>>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).

>>275220469
Were you playing fallout 2? Because that's what anon was referring to when he said those things.

File: murdersite3-1411154227984.jpg (2MB, 1680x920px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1680x920px

>>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.

>>275223272
so something can only be good if its popular?

>>275223272
>a pleb projects his insecurities onto 4chan
Good show, anon.

A lot of companies went out of business making TB RPGs during the Golden Age.

TB is an acquired taste at best an incredibly tiny niche at worst.

File: 2345678997.png (335KB, 445x566px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 445x566px

>>275221921
I want to punch them in the mouth for every "extra damage u guys!" perk. That's what skill points are for, you unimaginative cunts.

File: no sauce.png (113KB, 404x404px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 404x404px

>>275223637
for stockholders, yea,
popularity=money
money=let's fund this shit.

you're never gonna get another isometric fallout cause that shit won't sell.
ie. wasteland 2

>>275224265
it was a rhetorical question,
but what i'm getting at is that something doesnt need to make a lot of money for it to be considered good

so calling people hipsters for liking something that isnt as well known as something else is bullshit, just like using the arguement of fun like its something that is objective

>>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.

File: 240px-Wasteland2art.jpg (18KB, 240x229px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 240x229px

>>275225279
why don'tcha just wasteland 2? it's made by the same team that made fallout 1 and 2. quit complaining, they already made the game you "wanted".

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/REVULSE.MSG
spooky

>>275224265
The source for that image is one of playshapes (The guy behind Legend of Krystal and Mario is Missing adult flash games) unfinished works.

>>275223272
Just because you didn't play them back in their time, kid, doesn't mean they weren't popular.

Fucking children, I swear.

>>275227492
Don't bother responding to stupid posts, anon. It's better that way.

>>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