Howard: Codexers 'A Lot Less Crazy Than People Think'

[bossjimbob]

Silent Storm featured improvements over JA2, which featured improvements over X-Com. And that's only tactical turn-based games. In 4X, you have Civ IV and GalCiv2, which are deeper and graphically better than, say, Civ II or MOO.

I'll take your word for it since I'm not familiar with those games other than by name recognition and brief play time. So where does that bring us? It seems that a variety of presentation methods have evolved over the years. Is one inherently better, or is it really a matter of preference?

Do you think that Fallout 3 is losing something significant by making the transition from 2D isometric to first-person 3D? If so, what?

 

[Jaime Lannister]

Do you think that Fallout 3 is losing something significant by making the transition from 2D isometric to first-person 3D? If so, what?

Good animation. Seriously, nothing is inherently lost. And it's completely a matter of preference. I happen to like both kinds of games. Some people on here won't touch first-person 3D games with a 10-foot pole, and they can't be expected to like Fallout 3. Fallout fans aren't "rabid", they just have different tastes (mostly) than Oblivion fans.

 

[bossjimbob]

Do you think that Fallout 3 is losing something significant by making the transition from 2D isometric to first-person 3D? If so, what?

Good animation. Seriously, nothing is inherently lost. And it's completely a matter of preference. I happen to like both kinds of games. Some people on here won't touch first-person 3D games with a 10-foot pole, and they can't be expected to like Fallout 3. Fallout fans aren't "rabid", they just have different tastes (mostly) than Oblivion fans.

Understood. I really enjoyed Oblivion and Morrowind. I also am enjoying the original Fallout and what I've played of older titles like Planescape: Torment. They all have different strengths and things that make them unique. I just find it humorous when folks get so bent out of shape over a game or series. (Rabid Nintendo fanboys are just as bad, but generally less articulate.)

So here's an unrelated question: what genre does Seven Cities of Gold belong to?

 

[Shannow]

First person and real-time are old tech too you know.

Sure, but first person has seen its share of iterative improvements over the years. Wolfenstein 3D had everything on a single plane. DOOM introduced a "faked" Z axis, even though you couldn't look or shoot up (it was automatic). Quake and Duke 3D brought mouselook. Shaders, destructable environments, blah blah blah. You get the picture.

Taking an isometric, turn-based RPG and turning it into a 3D action game with RPG leanings is certainly a different approach than the original, for better or worse. I have no serious attachments to the original Fallout that make my blood boil with every Fallout 3 announcement. I'm actually looking forward to it. And I've got FO1 and 2 on my laptop, so it's not like I have no reference point. I just don't get the caustic vitriol.

So FP (3d) is constantly worked on and improved while iso is declared old and obsolete. You don't see any inconsistencies in your arguments? Really?
And yes, when iso was used they usually improved upon older games. FP is older and thus obsolete *idiotsviewoftheworld*

EDIT: Why is it so hard for the FPS crowd to admit that they prefer FP? That there is nothing inherently bad, old or obsolete with iso but that they prefer FP?

 

[pkt-zer0]

Shaders, destructable environments, blah blah blah. You get the picture.

The funny thing about destructible environments is that Fallout 3 doesn't have them (even though you can launch mini-nukes), unlike, say, Company of Heroes or even UFO: Enemy Unknown (or X-COM, if you prefer that title).

 

[SuicideBunny]

Do you think that Fallout 3 is losing something significant by making the transition from 2D isometric to first-person 3D? If so, what?

ability to do proper turn based, and through losing turn based, losing the possibility to do fully destructible stuff with physics, silent storm style.

 

[Kiree]

Shaders, destructable environments, blah blah blah. You get the picture.

The funny thing about destructible environments is that Fallout 3 doesn't have them (even though you can launch mini-nukes), unlike, say, Company of Heroes or even UFO: Enemy Unknown (or X-COM, if you prefer that title).

Destructible environments are 80s technology and has since long been outdated. Including it would be backwards thinking, like Diablo 3.

 

[Kiree]

and through losing turn based, losing the possibility to do fully destructible stuff with physics, silent storm style.

Fully destructible stuff with physics is not much harder in real-time, easily doable with their budget. But it would have taken away from something else.

 

[SuicideBunny]

is it now? ss isn't that old, and it fucking choked even the highest end machines back then when it tried to calculate if the wall you just vaporized would make the roof collapse or not...

supreme commander is even younger, real time, and only sparsely uses physics, still chokes quite often on them.

 

[Kiree]

Check out Red Faction: Guerrilla.

Also, Pontifex, a way lower-budget game, featured some quite complex bridges collapsing convincingly, in real-time, back in 2001.

 

[SuicideBunny]

is it any different from the previous ones? because those only had little destructible stuff and it was involving only the simplest of physics (stuff falls down).

and yeah, pontifex did that, but it only calculates on a plane, and has absolutely no other stuff going on. with a real time rpg you have pathfinding, stat modification, ai scripts, and so on. silent storm level of physics including calculation of wall penetration would kill most machines during any firefight, i believe, but we won't know for sure until someone tries it.

 

[Kiree]

is it any different from the previous ones? because those only had little destructible stuff and it was involving only the simplest of physics (stuff falls down).

Yes, it's different, looks like it matches Silent Storm, and then some.

silent storm level of physics including calculation of wall penetration would kill most machines during any firefight, i believe, but we won't know for sure until someone tries it.

Calculation of wall penetration? I did that in a mod for UT, spent about one hour. It was really fast and seemed accurate enough. Rendering 3D bullet holes would be expensive, though.

 

[mondblut]

Taking an isometric, turn-based RPG and turning it into a 3D action game with RPG leanings is certainly a different approach than the original, for better or worse... I just don't get the caustic vitriol.

Well, you see, this site is called RPGCodex, not FPSCodex.

 

[SuicideBunny]

Well, you see, this site is called RPGCodex, not FPSCodex.

which is why we all hate deus ex, system shock, and bloodlines.

Yes, it's different, looks like it matches Silent Storm, and then some.

looks? so it ain't out yet?

Calculation of wall penetration? I did that in a mod for UT, spent about one hour. It was really fast and seemed accurate enough. Rendering 3D bullet holes would be expensive, though.

only being part of it but i call quits since we ain't goin' anywhere with our exchange...

 

[Kiree]

looks? so it ain't out yet?

Right.

only being part of it

My point was, it's a part not even worth mentioning.

 

[bossjimbob]

So FP (3d) is constantly worked on and improved while iso is declared old and obsolete. You don't see any inconsistencies in your arguments? Really?
And yes, when iso was used they usually improved upon older games. FP is older and thus obsolete *idiotsviewoftheworld*

EDIT: Why is it so hard for the FPS crowd to admit that they prefer FP? That there is nothing inherently bad, old or obsolete with iso but that they prefer FP?

I never said that. Read my follow up post to Jaime Lannister.

And I'll readily admit that I prefer FP to isometric. It's just a preference. I never said one was inherently better than the other, though the former is generally regarded as "easier on the eyes" by many people, which is why I would think a lot of game developers choose that route. It seems to be a more viable design in this day and age, at least to western audiences.

No, iso/turn-based is not dead. It's just different and not as "sexy" to marketing folk.

 

[bossjimbob]

Taking an isometric, turn-based RPG and turning it into a 3D action game with RPG leanings is certainly a different approach than the original, for better or worse... I just don't get the caustic vitriol.

Well, you see, this site is called RPGCodex, not FPSCodex.

Maybe you should build a sister site.

 

[SuicideBunny]

ninjaedit: btw, fallout 3 looks way better if you view it as fallout tactics 2: the fps.
all of those moronic story elements make sense now... well, they don't, but tactics was full of shit too, and they obviously based their world on it instead of the original fallouts.

only being part of it

My point was, it's a part not even worth mentioning.

small shit adds up.

hm, the new rf looks interesting. i remember enjoying 2, even though the destructible environment wasn't what it was cracked up to be..

 

[BethesdaLove]

"Fully destructible stuff with physics is not much harder in real-time, easily doable with their budget."

I call bullshit. Ofcourse it depends on the degree of the aformentioned.

Look at Bad Company. They dont have:
1. pieces interacting
2. fully destructable buildings.

Why? Power...

What they have are breakpoints, partly static building skeletons and so on.

Fracture on the other hand has another thing: it has a surface mesh for the whole map you are on. Dont know about buildings. So your nades can modify the ground. It looks crappy though.

Star Wars Unleashed has their "Molecular blabla tech", dont know the name. That is pretty intensive stuff but still, materials dont stay in the enviro and by far! not everything is destructable. Why? Power...

Now, you gotta take into account not only physics (for which its is probably cheaper to take middleware) and material (as far as I know this material thingy is middleware and part of havoc) and the ground (like in fractrue) but the whole engine... A.I , pathfinding , probably being the most intensive tasks not counting the eyecandy. And thats another problem, you have to go down with eyecandy significantly to be able to do the destruction stuff if there are like 10 agents in sight.

So my guess is, that the budget is not the main problem (still a big one) but the power needed. If you would build such an enigne, you would have something like crysis^2 on a mashine from 2 year ago =P

imho

 

[Kiree]

"Fully destructible stuff with physics is not much harder in real-time, easily doable with their budget."

I call bullshit. Ofcourse it depends on the degree of the aformentioned.

Look at Bad Company. They dont have:
1. pieces interacting
2. fully destructable buildings.

Why? Power...

What they have are breakpoints, partly static building skeletons and so on.

Fracture on the other hand has another thing: it has a surface mesh for the whole map you are on. Dont know about buildings. So your nades can modify the ground. It looks crappy though.

Star Wars Unleashed has their "Molecular blabla tech", dont know the name. That is pretty intensive stuff but still, materials dont stay in the enviro and by far! not everything is destructable. Why? Power...

And why don't they have the power? Because devs spend as much of it as they can on making pretty pictures.

Now, you gotta take into account not only physics (for which its is probably cheaper to take middleware) and material (as far as I know this material thingy is middleware and part of havoc) and the ground (like in fractrue) but the whole engine... A.I , pathfinding , probably being the most intensive tasks not counting the eyecandy. And thats another problem, you have to go down with eyecandy significantly to be able to do the destruction stuff if there are like 10 agents in sight.

True. It has been admitted that Red Faction 3 won't have as nice graphics as some of the competition. The significance of that is subjective, though. Some players will notice and care, but I'm sure most won't.

So my guess is, that the budget is not the main problem (still a big one) but the power needed.

I'd say the main problem is that it's just not seen as an essential feature. Which is not really a problem at all, just a question of priorities.

 

[Chefe]

Well, Chefe, now that you saw past the hype, can you please tell us what is it you saw worthy of yours (and hopefully ours) attention?

A fully explorable and massive world set in the vision of a post apocalyptic 1950s. You get to check out what Washington DC looks like 200 years after WWIII. You're free to check out whatever you want in first person, outfit your character with different gear, and have a number of skills to assist you on the journey. You can mingle with the locals and pick up quests where you have some control over the outcome. It is a sequel to the first two Fallout games and will presumably expand on the threat of the supermutants and how people are continuing to cope and grow in this desolate world. It looks like there will be some pretty odd characters who you can interact with as well.

It's the exploration and escapism in total freedom I'm looking forward to. I know it's not going to be terribly deep with dialog (it might, but odds are against that). Combat, however, can probably be a little heart pumping if you don't cheat with VATS (and hopefully the high end gear they give to reviewers isn't available so easily).

For example, you put up the strawman yourself. You praised Beth for not fucking up. Then somebody points out that not fucking up "all the time" is not exactly an achievement, only for you to turn around a call "strawman!"
Seems very trollish to me, but suit yourself.

A strawman is setting up something that a person didn't say and then attacking it. Calling someone on that doesn't mean you are setting up a strawman as well.

It's amazing I even have to explain this, but whatever. Look, I said I agree with the approach to where you first build the world and then work quests into that, instead of taloring he world to the quests. Bethesdalove came back and said I shouldn't be praising them for not being retarded, that doing things that way doesn't give them permission to make crap quests, and that they make games for idiots. Am I in bizarro world now or something? Did everyone here turn into fucking idiots? Those two questions, by the way, are rhetorical.

If you notice, I even included links describing what those concepts meant. Hopefully there will be no more confusion.

 

[BethesdaLove]

There is no confusion. You are supporting the enemy with you money.

 

[mondblut]

which is why we all hate deus ex, system shock, and bloodlines.

Well, I do. Or rather never played them (except Bloodlines) and am not going to. As for Bloodlines, I hated it for being an FPS and loved for everything else, and liberally used cheatcodes wherever it switched from Arcanum mode to Quake mode. I don't need no fucking FPS in my RPG, that's for certain.

 

[ushdugery]

Chefe made you swallow troll jism