View Thread : Bethesda Grabs Fallout


A Black Falcon
Good news, mostly. On the good side, Fallout lives. On the bad side, it's not a Black Isle-influenced developer -- it's Bethesda, makers of The Elder Scrolls, not Troika (main developer is the creator of the first Fallout. Makers of Arcanum and The Temple of Elemental Evil.), Obsidian (mostly escapees of Black Isle's other team (IWD, Torment), working on KOTOR II), Bioware, or, maybe, InXile (the founder of Interplay's new company... but not so much BIS people...). So that means that it'll be different... I wonder how much it'll end up playing like Fallout. Great, great RPG... I hope it stays like it is! But, reading this, that's unlikely. I doubt it'll be isometric, for sure, and turn-based combat? I wouldn't bet much on it. But I think that Fallout with realtime combat wouldn't be the same Fallout so I really, really hope that they keep a turnbased combat system.

Oh, and being the TES developers they'll have to work on making a coherent and not too long story. Fallout always has had a large open-ended element but it has also had a good main story to follow... TES doesn't exactly match up in that category.

July 12, 2022 - In an move sure to bring sizzling joy to PC gamers everywhere, Bethesda Softworks has just announced that it has obtained the rights to develop and publish Fallout 3, as well as additional games in the Fallout franchise, on the PC and across all consoles. The company obtained the rights from Interplay, the original home of the lauded post-apocalyptic RPG series.

Very few details on Fallout 3 have been revealed, but it's tantalizing to speculate on what Bethesda can do with the license, given their success with The Elder Scrolls series. A Bethesda spokesman clarified that the company has been looking at acquiring the Fallout license for some time. Additionally, Bethesda explained that the only definite platform for Fallout 3 is the PC, though given that the new license rights allow for development and publication on all consoles, it's safe to assume Bethesda has plans in this space as well.

"We're extremely excited about this opportunity and what it means both for Bethesda and for Fallout fans around the world," said Vlatko Andonov, president of Bethesda Softworks. "Fallout is one of the great RPG franchises. Millions of Fallout games have been sold worldwide, and fans have been eagerly awaiting the release of a Fallout 3 title. Bethesda's proven expertise in this genre, building on our experience and the tremendous success we have enjoyed with our cutting-edge Elder Scrolls series, will enable us to create the next chapter of Fallout that is worthy of the franchise."

Bethesda will develop Fallout 3 alongside the next Elder Scrolls title, both under the direction of Todd Howard.

"We are overjoyed," said Howard. "Fallout is one of my favorite games, and we plan to develop a visually stunning and original game for Fallout 3 with all the hallmarks of a great RPG: player choice, engaging story, and non-linearity."

As these things usually go, Bethesda's big announcement of course leaves plenty of questions to be answered, and the company is keeping most details under wraps for now, including game details and possible release schedule. Information is sure to be revealed as development progresses, and you can bet we'll be bothering the good folks at Bethesda for more tasty details in the meantime. Stay tuned.

July 12, 2022 - As our readers likely already know, Bethesda Softworks has just announced that it will develop and publish Fallout 3, as well as possible future Fallout titles, finally reinvigorating a PC RPG franchise which had too long remained dormant.

Fallout and Fallout 2, released in 1997 and 1998 respectively, quickly became two of the most acclaimed RPG titles created for the PC. Their gritty post-apocalyptic setting, compelling story, and superb art direction gained plenty of enthusiastic fans while raising the standard for the RPG genre in general.

Since the release of Fallout 2, hopes and speculation for a third title in the series have been rampant. Original developer Black Isle was allegedly at work on a third game, with many assuming that its mysterious "Van Buren" project was indeed Fallout 3. With that studio's closure, however, the fate of Fallout 3 became uncertain, with the only hope being Interplay's assurance that the Fallout franchise was far from dead.

Today's announcement should give Fallout fans -- and fans of RPGs in general -- plenty to be excited about. With the acclaimed Elder Scrolls series, and Morrowind in particular, the folks at Bethesda have proved themselves more than capable of developing masterful RPGs.

What does a Bethesda-produced Fallout entail? We caught up with the company's Pete Hines for more details.

IGNPC: We'll just start with the tough questions first. Exactly what is the game and when is it coming out?

Pete Hines: When it's coming out we're way too far out to talk about. What is the game? The real answer I can give is that we're intending to make Fallout 3, the sequel to Fallout 2. We've licensed the rights to Fallout, which includes everything except the MMO project Interplay announced a few weeks ago. Our intention is to do Fallout 3, and whatever you would think that to mean is probably exactly what it is.

IGNPC: Fallout 3 as a sequel to the PC titles, as opposed to Interplay's action-RPG titles.

Pete Hines: Right. We're not doing a follow-up to Brotherhood of Steel.

IGNPC: Interplay is still working on the Fallout MMORPG it had announced. Does this mean Interplay still owns the Fallout intellectual property?

Pete Hines: Yes. We've licensed the rights to Fallout 3 as well as sequels -- Fallout 4, Fallout 5.

IGNPC: Can you tell us how long Bethesda has had its eye on Fallout?

Pete Hines: A pretty long time. For the majority of five years we've said, internally, that if we could pick another game to develop internally, it's been that we could do a great Fallout game. It's something we've talked about internally for a very long time.

IGNPC: Is Fallout 3 something that Bethesda is making its own?

Pete Hines: Absolutely. It's being developed by us, by Bethesda Softworks. It isn't being developed externally. It's being managed by Todd Howard, who is also the executive producer of The Elder Scrolls.

IGNPC: So we can assume that whatever work was done over at Black Isle on Fallout 3 -- the "Van Buren" project -- is not being used?

Pete Hines: It's a little too early to talk about whether we'd be using any assets.

IGNPC: But gamers can assume this will be a continuation of the Fallout storyline.

Pete Hines: Yes.

IGNPC: Can we expect something similar to the work done on Morrowind, in terms of that style of game experience?

Pete Hines: Again, it's early to say, but it wouldn't be a leap of faith to say that we plan to use technologies in development otherwise. You could make some fairly safe leaps of faith that it would be similar in style. We're not going to go away from what it is that we do best. We're not going to suddenly do a top-down isometric Baldur's Gate-style game, because that's not what we do well.

IGNPC: You've confirmed that Fallout 3 is definitely coming to PC. Can you clarify console plans?

Pete Hines: Our intention is to do a multiple platform title. Which platforms that will be, it's too early to say.

IGNPC: I assume you also can't say whether we're talking about current- or next-generation consoles.

Pete Hines: Yes, that would be premature.

IGNPC: What does this mean for Bethesda going forward?

Pete Hines: We've got another very cool role playing license to work with, and we plan to continue to strengthen our position as one of the leading creators of cool role-playing games for multiple platforms. That's our desire, and we think that Fallout 3 points us in the right direction to do that.

IGNPC: Can you give us an idea of when we can expect more details?

Pete Hines: It's going to be a ways out. We haven't even announced the next Elder Scrolls project yet. Obviously we've been doing something for a while. From a development standpoint, from a gamers-making-Christmas-lists standpoint, it's very early at this stage to be talking specifics. When we have more info, we'll certainly let people know.

A Black Falcon
Exactly as I expected, the hardcore Fallout fans aren't exactly thrilled. This just came out yesterday and already they are up in arms...

www.nma-fallout.com

A Black Falcon
I'm sure SOMEONE here cares about this.

This sure should help with their fears... :rolleyes: Still, another nice interview. And I'm very interested in learning what kind of game they make out of this...

What will upset Fallout fans? Let's see. -Not definitely turn-based (maybe more action-ish combat?). -probably third person, not isometric -Troika or Obsidian didn't win the liscence. -Little use of Black Isle's Fallout 3 assets (from their mostly-finished Fallout 3 project canned early this year). -also coming to consoles, probably.

These are all legitimate concerns. Oh, Fallout 3 will probably be a good game, but will it be a good Fallout game or a good TES game with a Fallout skin tossed over it?

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/07/13/news_6102442.html

Q&A: Fallout 3 executive producer Todd Howard
Bethesda Softworks' veteran developer talks about the future of the legendary postnuclear role-playing game series.
screenshot
See it »

The past year has been miserable for Fallout fans. 2003 ended on a low note with Interplay's closure of Black Isle Studios and the cessation of development on "Van Buren," the company's code name for Fallout 3.

2004 opened with the ignominious release of the Xbox and PlayStation 2 game Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel. Hardcore PC gamers greeted it with hostility, critics were lukewarm, and console gamers reacted with resolute indifference. Sales were even poorer than those of Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance 2, Interplay's other tent-pole release.

Together, the one-two punch of the two games' failures pushed the already listing Interplay closer to financial insolvency. The company was sued by former business partners, threatened with eviction by its landlords, and even temporarily shut down by the California Department of Labor. When Interplay released its last quarterly earnings report two weeks ago, it revealed that it would run out of cash by the end of July if it did not receive outside funding.

Even though Interplay CEO Herve Caen had floated the idea of a Fallout MMORPG, a new console Fallout, and bringing back Fallout 3, Interplay's dire finances caused many to despair that the franchise would die alongside its owners. Others thought Caen would finally be forced to license Fallout, possibly to Troika or Obsidian Entertainment, two studios founded by former developers of the game.

As it turns out, the latter group was right. This week, Interplay announced that Bethesda Softworks would develop and publish Fallout 3 and other Fallout games for PCs, consoles, and all other platforms. Interplay will technically retain ownership of the Fallout brand and still holds the rights to a Fallout MMORPG.

But while the announcement sparked elation in some gamers, others fretted. Many forum-posters worried that Fallout 3 would merely become "Morrowind with guns," while others feared for the game's perk system, its uniquely dark humor, and its unapologetically mature content. Still others expressed concern that Bethesda's intention to develop the game for PCs and consoles could dilute its role-playing elements a la Deus Ex: Invisible War.

To help address Fallout fans' fears and to comment on one of the past year's most surprising publishing deals, GameSpot talked with Bethesda Softworks' Todd Howard. An Elder Scrolls designer since 1996, Howard was project lead of The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind and has since become executive producer of the award-winning RPG series. He will also oversee development of Fallout 3, upon which preproduction has already begun...

THE DEAL
GameSpot: It's been widely rumored that Interplay has been shopping the Fallout license for months. When did you first hear about it?

Todd Howard: We've been interested in it, well, forever. We just love the work they did on the first two games.

GS: Was it just the Fallout brand that attracted you, or are you a fan of the series itself? Have you played either of the first two games?

TH: I've played the first two many times but only dabbled with Tactics and Brotherhood of Steel. What I really love about the first two is the overall atmosphere, tone, and role-playing. Those two games really let me choose to play a certain character--and the level of immersion was outstanding. I was that guy on the screen wandering the wastelands trying to survive and helping humanity survive. And you could play it so many times and in so many different ways. The character system and the choices you could make were fantastic.

GS: Did you go to Interplay, or did Interplay come to you?

TH: We went to them first.

GS: How long did the negotiations last?

TH: Not long. It seemed like a great fit from the beginning.

GS: Do you know what other companies were in the bidding? Many people thought the Fallout license would end up with its former developers at Obsidian or Troika.

TH: I honestly don't know anything about that.

GS: Are you also vying for rights to the Fallout MMORPG? If not, why not?

TH: Interplay wanted to hold onto those rights, and it doesn't really fit with what we would do anyway, so we all agreed they should keep them.

GS: Will Interplay's retention of "all online gaming rights for the Fallout franchise" affect whether or not Fallout 3 has an online component?

TH: No. They only keep rights for a persistent online massively multiplayer game. We could still have a multiplayer or online component to our titles.

GS: Will Fallout 3 feature the Interplay logo on the box?

TH: I'm not sure. We're a long, long way from worrying about what logos are on the box.

THE GAME
GS: Will Bethesda's Fallout 3 retain any elements of the "Van Buren" game that was in development at Black Isle Studios? Reports are that it was nearly complete.

TH: No, we're going to start fresh.

GS: Will it have the same storyline as the Black Isle Studios’ Fallout 3?

TH: Unknown right now. I doubt it though.

GS: Do you have any plans to involve any former Black Isle Studios developers in the game's development?

TH: No firm plans, but anything's possible at this stage.

GS: Your release said that Fallout 3 will be developed alongside the next Morrowind. Will they be based on the same engine?

TH: We've been developing some new technology for a long time now that could be used in many games, so we plan on using that. It is not the Morrowind engine.

GS: Morrowind was a first-person, real-time, action RPG. Fallout and its sequel were isometric-view, third-person, turn-based RPGs. What will Fallout 3 be?

TH: Too early to say. We're looking at many options.

GS: Fallout had many unique elements for an RPG, including its extensive (and iconic) perk system and darkly comic tone. Will those be present in the sequel?

TH: Oh, yes. Most definitely. "Bloody Mess" is the best perk ever, where your enemies die in ultraviolent ways.

GS: Morrowind is a huge game with a sprawling environment. Will Fallout 3 have a world of similar scale?

TH: Too early to say yet.

GS: What impact will developing Fallout have on continued work on the Morrowind franchise?

TH: We've been working on some new Elder Scrolls stuff for a while now that has yet to be announced, and [we] have been expanding our group and prepping for our "second project," and this is it. It really helps to have multiple projects going for a studio, as it allows us to move staff around at key times. So, if anything, it helps our Elder Scrolls development as well.

GS: Will Interplay have any say in the project's development?

TH: We have total control over it. That being said, I think there are people there who have very good insight into the franchise, and their experience can help.

RELEASE PLANS
GS: Fallout is one of the most beloved franchises of all time. Are you worried about meeting gamers' high expectations?

TH: I worry about meeting our own expectations. We take this stuff as seriously as anyone and are more critical of what we do than the fans. We're very careful in how we handle franchises. I think people can look at how we've treated the Elder Scrolls and know that we'll give the same care to Fallout. We pride ourselves in keeping franchises relevant and bringing something fresh to the market with each game. That being said, I'm sure there's a vocal minority that wants to kill us for even attempting to do it. But they wanted to kill Peter Jackson too, so you have to ignore that and just do something great that you'd love to play.

GS: Pete Hines, your director of marketing, has said that preproduction on the title is already under way. How much work as been done on the game so far?

TH: We're in the "messing with stuff" phase. Nothing is pinned down until we play it. And then we always change it.

GS: Bethesda's license agreement is for PCs, consoles, handhelds, and other media. Which platform will Fallout 3 arrive on first?

TH: Way too early to say. We always like to hit as many as possible at the same time, but that's not always possible.

GS: There is some concern in the PC gaming community that if Fallout 3 is developed for both the PC and consoles, it won't have the same depth as other PC RPGs. What can you say to allay this concern?

TH: Play Morrowind on PC, and then play it on Xbox. Anyone who says a console game can't have depth hasn't played enough of them. The platform is 100 percent irrelevant.

GS: According to your Web site, Bethesda is hiring developers to create RPGs for "future-generation consoles." Given the Elder Scrolls' long development cycle, should we expect to see Fallout 3 on a next-generation console? Or is it far along enough in development to be released on current-generation consoles?

TH: I can't say what platforms it will or won't be on yet. We hope to hit as many as them as we can.

GS: When can we expect to see Fallout 3?

TH: When it's done (trademark of id Software).

Smoke-X
I told you there's a God.

A Black Falcon
I do think that this is good news. But like the hardcore Fallout fans (I'm not really one, but Fallout is a great game), I'm cautious... TES is a great series, but it's quite different from Fallout. I really want it to stay isometric, but that seems quite unlikely because first-person is Bethesda's strength, not isometric... that could be a major issue. How well would Fallout work in first-person? It'd have to have some kind of third-person combat... Fallout with action-style combat like TES would NOT work. It has to be slower and strategic. Turnbased ideally, though a pausable realtime or something like that could work too... but NOT hack and slash! That just isn't Fallout.

Bethesda also really needs to work on story and focus for this, TES hasn't been too good with keeping up great storytelling or with any semblance of focus in the game. Yes, Fallout is open-ended, but there's also a clear and compelling main story to be following. I hope they succeed at it. They have some definite issues to work over, but I think they can do it... but it'll never please everyone, of course. And I wouldn't be too surprised if they make some compromises towards what Bethesda does well that don't sit too well with Fallout fans. But either way, this is a lot better than nothing...

Smoke-X
Somehow I don't think Fallout 3 will be as "mature". Daggerfall was but I think the fact they're planning to put it on consoles will change matters. Still it's better than nothing, right?

A Black Falcon
"Mature"... that's a good question. I don't know. I'd love for it to be like Fallout 1... that has adult content, but in an adult fashion. I know it got everything wrong, but the console Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel is also a great example here. The geniouses who thought that Fallout would make a good action-RPG also thought "mature" meant "let's see how many swear words we can cram into our game"... I don't want it to be mature in THAT sense. But I do wish it'd be M-rated if that means that it would have some of the stuff that they include in the two main Fallout games. It'd be too bad to have it neutered... however, I think most of it could fit in without TOO much change. They are M-rated but not for nudity or huge amounts of swearing so the stuff it does have seems to be stuff that they might get into a T-rated game if they cut some... I think they can get across the essence of Fallout. Though it would be better if they didn't compromise.

Consoles. Another great issue. VERY bad idea from a sensible standpoint, but very good one from a cash flow standpoint, so it's inevitable. But... Fallout for consoles? You couldn't do that and have it be like Fallout... you have to console-ize the control scheme. Which can work, as KOTOR and Morrowind prove, but you then, usually, have to make some compromises for the control scheme on PC too. And it goes beyond that... it hints towards a combat system less like Fallout, for sure, and that'd be a real tragedy.

Great Rumbler
I really want it to stay isometric

What's the big deal about hardcore Fallout fans and isometric view points?

A Black Falcon
Not just Fallout. I prefer strategic RPGs to be isometric. Or if you do have a 3d camera, have it far out. I just think that it works far, far better for RPGs. Probably a big part of that is because the first RPG I truly loved was Baldur's Gate (if you don't count Quest for Glory), and that's a isometric, pausable-realtime game. And from the rest of the Infinity Engine games to Fallout 1 and 2, Interplay proved that it was the master of isometric RPGs. Now its spinoffs do the same -- Troika (run by the guy who made Fallout) with Arcanum and Greyhawk: The Temple of Elemental Evil, for instance. Obsidian (from the people behind Torment and Icewind Dale)? They're doing something they are very familiar with by making a game in an engine made by Bioware... :) Okay, that game's more third person behind than isometric. But it's still third person.

For a classic example, how about Betrayal at Krondor (a good example that everyone should have played because it's been free since 1997)? First-person in the adventuring, with the party all moving as one like in Might & Magic or Wizardry, but once you get into combat it moves to a third-person view... and makes for better combat than Wizardry had, I'd say.

Now... there HAVE been serious RPGs that run all in first-person. See the aforementioned Might & Magic or Wizardry serieses. But the real concern here is that Bethesda's RPGs don't have combat inspired by Wizardry. They have a very fast-paced, simplistic combat system that is pretty much hack and slash. And that'd be a disaster in Fallout. Just like it would be in Baldur's Gate (... okay, Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance wasn't a disaster, but compared to real BG it doesn't come close to comparing...).

How 'bout first-person Final Fantasy where the combat system involves walking up to enemies and hitting the attack button, while casting spells sometime (okay, a simplification of TES combat. But you get the idea.)?

On another subject, I was hoping Smoke would show up because he's the only other real PC RPG fan here... :)

Dark Jaguar
<img src="http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2004/20040714l.jpg">

A Black Falcon
Not ALL the rights... Interplay can still make that MMORPG-that-will-never-come-out... :D

OB1
Why on earth do you weirdos want it to stay isometric? A 3D fallout would be amazing. It wouldn't have to be in first-person, you know.

A Black Falcon
And you know what? Isometric doesn't preclude the use of 3D, OB1. For evidence of that, see Greyhawk: Temple of Elemental Evil (3D characters, 2d/rendered background maps) or the killed-in-action Black Isle Fallout 3 ("Van Buren"), which had a 3d engine but looked really great and did a fantastic job of looking like classic Fallout. I'm not saying it has to be sprites... I'm saying that it has to be third person, and preferably third person and upwards, not behind the character. For battles at least -- that's what the Betrayal at Krondor example is there for.

OB1
If the camera is at an isometric perspective then it has the same limitations of a 2D game, which would be dumb. Playing from a behind-the-character perspective in a game like Fallout where you have this great world that's just begging to be explored changes the game dramatically. Just look at the GTA series. GTA 3 plays pretty much the same as GTAs 1 & 2, but the shift of perspective made the experience completely different.

A Black Falcon
Fine for the exploration, but it'd have to pull to overhead for combat for the combat to be much like Fallout, I'd expect... unless you're suggesting something like KOTOR? As in KOTOR uses the same basic combat system as Baldur's Gate but moves it to behind-the-character and not isometric so it plays quite differently... still, I think that overhead works much, much better for strategic combat like Fallout has to have to be Fallout. And it really should be turn-based! Realtime (even pausable realtime) Fallout wouldn't be the same...

On a related note, I played the Greyhawk: ToEE demo. Very interesting... first turnbased PC D&D game I've played. I know that as a pen and paper game it's turnbased, but BG made it pausable realtime to speed up combat a lot. Getting used to the turnbased system takes time... I keep trying to move weaker characters or injured guys out of the way before the enemy can attack but not being able to because it's their turn... slower and more deliberate than BG, but very good. And quite probably more strategic than BG, because it forces you to deal with movement as a component of attacks ('how far can i move this turn and still attack', the 5-foot step, etc... adds a lot of components of the boardgame back in. BG is faster playing (even if you pause a lot it's still faster), and also very strategic in its combat, but ToEE's system is great. And truer to real D&D... though I think it's good that some games do the realtime combat too. Unlike this, I'm used to it. :)

OB1
If you really need to have it pull back for combat then that would be very easy to do.

A Black Falcon
OB1, I know you've played realtime D20 with KOTOR, but I doubt you've tried it in turnbased... play the ToEE demo. It's intresting and quite a change of pace from Bioware's familiar style of D&D RPG... though not so much that it's unplayable. Just takes a little getting used to. I'd say play a Infinity-engine demo, but none of those games HAVE demos, so a little problem there... :D Same with Fallout, as far as I know.

Or Fallout. What I mean is that if you haven't seen what kind of combat this is (and while ToEE isn't a perfect comparison to Fallout (party vs. single character being the biggest difference), it's not that bad... which should be somewhat expected when the same guy was the main person behind both titles...) you can't really judge what mode of displaying it is best.

http://www.atarisupport.com/newfaq/dungeonsdragonsthetempleofelementalevil.php?browser=1&pageDisplay=DOWNLOADS

OB1
What does that have to do with pulling back a camera during combat. Behind-the-character view for walking around, pull back for combat. Simple.

A Black Falcon
These are the two BIS Fallout 3 screens that came out after its cancellation.

http://www.nma-fallout.com/fallout3/fo3-ext1.jpg
http://www.nma-fallout.com/fallout3/fo3-vault1.jpg

Now THAT is doing 3D Fallout great. Dead on.

What I'm worrying about is what Bethesda will do. TES' combat is so different from Fallout... so simple and arcadish, compared to the much more complex turn-based system at work in Fallout. I would never want to see Fallout play like that. Graphics... 3d isn't bad if they do it right, but it's got to look like Fallout! For Fallout I think the best choice would be a fixed-camera (maybe some raising/lowering it too) overhead view. Like Fallout 3-BIS had. Or Warcraft III or Conquest in the RTS genre. But this game will not have that. This will have a first or third-person (behind the character) camera. As Bethesda said, they'll do what they're good at... and that is first person. But first person Fallout... it just seems so wrong... and it'll have a high chance of losing some of Fallout's unique character. Of course for that plenty of other things will too...

Anyway. In Fallout, when an enemy comes on screen the game pauses. The character with higher initiative gets to go. You can move some and do actions, with a limited number of action points per turn. If it was realtime it'd lose some of the strategy... unless it was a pausable realtime, in which case it'd be close. Faster playing, but close. But that also runs best from isometric... :( I mean, have you ever seen a first-person game with turnbased combat? Me either...

OB1
Dude, you have have different cameras for walking and action. Yeesh.

A Black Falcon
*sigh*... I give up on you, you don't seem to be listening to what I'm saying.

OB1
I listened, and concluded that you are dumb.

A Black Falcon
You have not shown that you really know what I am talking about... and just repeating yourself won't convince me of that. Have you ever played a (strategic) turnbased PC RPG? A PC Interplay-style RPG (as in other than KOTOR for X-Box)? I haven't heard you say yes to either question. And that lowers your credibility on the issue.

Yes, a first-person view camera and a battle mode where you (either as option or as only choice) go to a third-person(-and-above, hopefully) view to control your character could work. It'd be kind of confusing though because I'd expect a first-person view (or a close-behind third person view, same thing) to control with the keyboard (which works far better for such systems) and a third-person turnbased combat system is made for mice... it has the potential to be a hassle if not done really well. Or if combat is too often... make it (relatively) infrequent and it works well, like Betryal at Krondor (you really should play that game, given how it's free and all and works well in DOSBox...).

Anyway, it's not that simple. And as I've said many times you also have to consider what Bethesda is good at and what they might do. They are good at first-person. I have yet to hear any way that Fallout could work as a true Fallout RPG in first-person, so I think my concern on the issue is very well founded.

OB1
Of course I've played Fallout. Not for very long, but I've played it. Pretty twisted game though...

And what's with this first-person stuff? I never said it'd have to be FP.

A Black Falcon
BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BETHESDA HERE! B-E-T-H-E-S-D-A. Elder Scrolls. Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind? Ring a bell?

Seriously, have you read even a quarter of what I've written, or have you kind of skimmed over it without much of it sinking in like seems to be usual?

Of course I've played Fallout. Not for very long, but I've played it. Pretty twisted game though...

Isn't it awesome? Fantastic game! One of the best RPGs out there...

OB1
Your logic is so damn weird. Just because Bethesda owns the rights to Fallout now doesn't mean they're going to turn it into Morrowind! Did Rockstar turn Read Dead Revolver into a open-ended crime game when they resumed development from Capcom? No! What stupid logic.

A Black Falcon
"Read" the articles post, idiot.

IGNPC: Can we expect something similar to the work done on Morrowind, in terms of that style of game experience?

Pete Hines: Again, it's early to say, but it wouldn't be a leap of faith to say that we plan to use technologies in development otherwise. You could make some fairly safe leaps of faith that it would be similar in style. We're not going to go away from what it is that we do best. We're not going to suddenly do a top-down isometric Baldur's Gate-style game, because that's not what we do well.

And you act like my concerns have no foundation. Sure, they say they haven't decided anything yet. But things like that seem to hint at the direction they well might take. I posted those interviews for a reason!

OB1
Well I didn't read it...

A Black Falcon
You often seem to not read things and then react strangely when I base things upon previous statements... read that whole interview! Both of them! It's why I made this thread, after all. :)

This is, I think, the latest thing they've said.

Sure, that was a phone interview and he slightly misquoted me. What I said was, "I don't know if we'd suddenly..."

All the other interviews I've done were by email.

It's too early to say because it's too early to say. Nothing's been decided. Sure we have intentions and ideas, but nothing firm yet. There are certainly things we fully INTEND to do, and I could simply and easily answer those questions, but since no team has sat down and decided yet for sure, then it doesn't make sense to give definite answers, even if it's as simple and fundamental as the SPECIAL system.

This is a good read. It's long, but worth reading, I'd say.
http://www.rpgcodex.com/content.php?id=21

OB1
Well the truth is that I don't really care...

A Black Falcon
That's a good article that compares (PC) RPG combat systems -- turn-based, real-time, pausable real-time, and phase-based...

OB1
zzzzzzz.....


:p

A Black Falcon
If you like RPGs you should care.

OB1
I don't like top-down PC RPGs all that much. The perspective takes away from the immersion and leaves me with little motivation to explore the world.

A Black Falcon
That makes no sense at all. Less immersive? Huh? And 2d top-down SNES games are so much more so? You're just biased... Or do RPGs only become immersive when they have cool 3d first-person graphics? If that's what you mean, then you're superficial. :)

Oh yeah, and which of such games have you actually PLAYED? You still haven't answered that question!

OB1
Of course it's less immersive, you'd be crazy to think otherwise. Do you know what to immerse means? Which GTA game makes you feel like you're actually in Liberty City, GTA1 or GTA3? The third one of course, because you're actually seeing your surroundings in three dimensions, from a perspective close to how you'd see it in real life. A high, distant camera angle is just that: distant. It's more realistic and immersive when you see similarly like you would in real life. It makes a gigantic difference in terms of presentation and feel.

And I already told you that I played Fallout.

A Black Falcon
But how about immersion with words? Doesn't that count for anything? There are more things to consider than just graphics... Fallout's got that, defintely. As do plenty of other RPGs. Some more so than others of course... but the point is that dismissing a whole genre because of graphics is incredibly stupid.

And I already told you that I played Fallout.

I know. Anything else? Anything else by Interplay, Black Isle, Bioware, Troika... the old SSI games... Origin... etc...

OB1
Who said I'm dismissing the whole genre? The only reason I played Morrowind was because of how open-ended it was, and because of how immersive the world was. Without the immersiveness the open-endedness wouldn't have mattered to me, so with that game the perspective made all the difference. Same goes for GTA 3. I'll play Zelda or FF because of great gameplay or story, and the Fallout games just don't have enough to keep me interested for very long.

A Black Falcon
"Who says I'm dismissing the whole genre? I'm only dismissing 90% of it!!111!"

And you completely ignore my point about literary immersion. Torment wasn't utterly engrossing because of the fantastic graphics (they were good, but nothing I hadn't seen before), you know... Fallout isn't on that level (nothing is, of course), but it also definitely provides a lot of immersion with its great story and world.

And I think that you're dodging my question about which other games you have played because you haven't played any for any amount of time that can be counted. It's the only explanation I can think of.

OB1
*sigh*

Talking to you is like talking to... well, ABF. That's the worst example I can think of. Sad, huh?

Look up the word "immerse" and come back to me.

I've played lots of PC RPGs, the Fallouts, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Knights.

A Black Falcon
Neverwinter Nights is a textbook case of bad camera design, IMO... you SHOULD NOT have to constantly rotate the camera like that! So annoying... if the camera doesn't work well with no user control, the camera is bad. And irritating, to me... I'd have much rather seen it be like Baldur's Gate. Or, if you want 3d, ToEE... with 3d characters but 2d backgrounds... or even 3d backgrounds, if they could have fixed the camera and improved the graphics.

Anyway. You are a fool.

im·merse Audio pronunciation of "immerse" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-mūrs)
tr.v. im·mersed, im·mers·ing, im·mers·es

1. To cover completely in a liquid; submerge.
2. To baptize by submerging in water.
3. To engage wholly or deeply; absorb: scholars who immerse themselves in their subjects.


Yes, I do believe that "immerse" includes such things as being immersed in a work because of its story and literary brilliance.

OB1
ABF, you are a fucking moron. To immerse yourself into something means to "to plunge into something that surrounds or covers". Obviously, being surrounding by more than just an x and y axis is by definition more immersive. Being immersed into a story is a metaphorical definition of the world, which is most definitely not what I've been talking about.

And BTW, KOTOR showed that the Baldur's Gate style of game works wonderfully in three dimensions.

A Black Falcon
And BTW, KOTOR showed that the Baldur's Gate style of game works wonderfully in three dimensions.

True. But Neverwinter Nights showed what not to do. With the exception of the great multiplayer, that is. :)

ABF, you are a fucking moron. To immerse yourself into something means to "to plunge into something that surrounds or covers". Obviously, being surrounding by more than just an x and y axis is by definition more immersive. Being immersed into a story is a metaphorical definition of the world, which is most definitely not what I've been talking about.

Very sorry that the definition of the word included the way I was using it... won't let it happen again...

Seriously, are you saying that 3d is the most important factor for immersion? I'd completely disagree there. Story is, no question. Graphics are very important, but definitely secondary... or have you never been immersed into the world of a book?

Oh, and so you feel this about all console RPGs too? All the ones before 3d are worse because they don't have cool 3d immersiveness? Umm... I thought you were smarter than that... but I guess not.

OB1
Very sorry that the definition of the word included the way I was using it... won't let it happen again...

Seriously, are you saying that 3d is the most important factor for immersion? I'd completely disagree there. Story is, no question. Graphics are very important, but definitely secondary... or have you never been immersed into the world of a book?

Oh, and so you feel this about all console RPGs too? All the ones before 3d are worse because they don't have cool 3d immersiveness? Umm... I thought you were smarter than that... but I guess not.

I'm not talking about metaphorical immersion, you dolt. I made that very clear.

In the case of a top-down or isometric 2D game, 3D is definitely better, absolutely. If you wanted to you could just pull the camera back and restrict your POV.

A Black Falcon
Metaphor? I wasn't really talking about it that way, no. It's not just a metaphor... it's a form of immersion!

In the case of a top-down or isometric 2D game, 3D is definitely better, absolutely. If you wanted to you could just pull the camera back and restrict your POV.

So are you saying you like Neverwinter Nights' camera better than Baldur's Gate? If so... :S ...

NWN's character models may be better than BG, but the environments? BG wins hands down (the Infinity engine also easily beats Fallout's and it's tile-based graphics too, imo. There's a reason that it lasted through five titles across five years. It's quite good.). And I vastly prefer the camera in BG, as I said, because of how much of a pain it was in NWN... what about you?

OB1
Metaphor? I wasn't really talking about it that way, no. It's not just a metaphor... it's a form of immersion!

YES--the metaphorical form of it!!! :screwy:

So are you saying you like Neverwinter Nights' camera better than Baldur's Gate? If so... ...

NWN's character models may be better than BG, but the environments? BG wins hands down (the Infinity engine also easily beats Fallout's and it's tile-based graphics too, imo. There's a reason that it lasted through five titles across five years. It's quite good.). And I vastly prefer the camera in BG, as I said, because of how much of a pain it was in NWN... what about you?

Hey guess what, Einstein? Just because NWN had a crappy camera does not mean that all 3D games have crappy cameras. Look at KOTOR, it has a great camera.

A Black Falcon
Hey guess what, Einstein? Just because NWN had a crappy camera does not mean that all 3D games have crappy cameras. Look at KOTOR, it has a great camera.

As I said, the best thing Bioware did in KOTOR was put in a decent camera...

YES--the metaphorical form of it!!!

Not much more metaphorical than 'immersion' based on looking at 2d images pretending to be 3d, I think... :)

OB1
As I said, the best thing Bioware did in KOTOR was put in a decent camera...

Yes dork, so your point is moot.

Not much more metaphorical than 'immersion' based on looking at 2d images pretending to be 3d, I think...

Nothing drawn on a monitor can be "truly" 3D, but if you can't tell the difference between 2D and 3D games then you're pretty damn retarded.

A Black Falcon
Yes dork, so your point is moot.

Which point, exactly is that? That I like isometric views? That I think it works really well? Oh, and KOTOR DOES follow what I say. Its combat isn't isometric but you also don't just fight in the exact same view that you play the game from the rest of the time...


Nothing drawn on a monitor can be "truly" 3D, but if you can't tell the difference between 2D and 3D games then you're pretty damn retarded.

My point is that saying that a whole half (two thirds, really, at least) of a genre is bed because of GRAPHICS is incredibly, incredibly stupid, and not something I'd expect from someone like you...

OB1
Which point, exactly is that? That I like isometric views? That I think it works really well? Oh, and KOTOR DOES follow what I say. Its combat isn't isometric but you also don't just fight in the exact same view that you play the game from the rest of the time...

Your point was that because NWN had a bad camera, all 3D RPGs must have bad cameras. Completely inane comment, but I expect as much from you.

My point is that saying that a whole half (two thirds, really, at least) of a genre is bed because of GRAPHICS is incredibly, incredibly stupid, and not something I'd expect from someone like you...


Ok stupid, it's obvious yet again that you do not possess the proper amount of intelligence and comprehension skills to understand what I'm saying, so if you make me repeat myself one more time I'm locking this thread.

I never said the genre is bad you twit, I said that it does not interest me because a) the combat itself is not good enough for me and b) the perspective makes exploration uninteresting, and exploration is the main reason I play games of that type.

A Black Falcon
Have we dealt with this now, in our MSN conversation? Well the anger part at least.. :)

As I said, NWN was just an example of a poorly done 3d camera to illustrate the fact that I prefer cameras to not have to have user interaction. This applies to third-person games too, I think... it just is not fun, in my opinion, when you have to constantly mess with a camera to get the best angle.

For some games that I disliked in part because of the camera... Earth 2150/The Moon Project, Ground Control, Dark Reign II, Neverwinter Nights, Force Commander, and others.

It's a somewhat different question, sure, but relevant to this discussion I think.

Oh, here's some shots of Temple of Elemental Evil. I'm sure you will say that it'd have looked better in a full 3d engine and a lower viewpoint, but I will not agree. Those beautiful 2d backdrops are amazing and are far nicer looking than anything they could have done with polygons, artistically... same goes for TBSes like Disciples. That couldn't be done anywhere near as well in 3d. Look at Warcraft III... it has stunning Blizz art styles, but because it's 3d it necessarially sacrifices on detail. If it was 2d it could have been much more detailed... yes, it'd sacrifice some things like ease of animation and stuff, but it would be more detailed. Resident Evil would be another good example here. Only now are we getting near the point where 3d can truly compete and I'd still say that 2d defintely has some unique qualities 3d doesn't seem to be able to quite match...

http://www.atari.com/toee/screens/pc/screen0002-b.jpg
http://www.atari.com/toee/screens/pc/screen0005-b.jpg
http://www.atari.com/toee/screens/pc/screen0001-b.jpg

And Betryal at Krondor. :) As you can see, first-person adventuring and zoomed back third-person combat.

http://www.mobygames.com/game/shots/p,2/gameId,285/

I never said the genre is bad you twit, I said that it does not interest me because a) the combat itself is not good enough for me and b) the perspective makes exploration uninteresting, and exploration is the main reason I play games of that type.

The story thing I put as an arguement in another thread... I guess this part goes there then? I will say that obviously I disagree with every point of course... Okay, a few things. First, combat. You cannot generalize PC RPG combat like you can console RPG combat because the combat systems vary wildly from game to game. You must be specific... it is impossible to just generalize all PC RPGs because unlike console ones there is not one system of doing things. Next, one of the oldest styles of RPGs is the dungeon hack. You versus the badguys with a weak story at best. Icewind Dale and its sequel are modern titles in this style. But PC RPGs can also have great stories that are as deep as most console titles... though console titles can in some ways get deeper because generally in console games you have a pre-created character set while usually in PC games you get to create the main character and sometimes the whole party. That necessarially reduces the amount of storytelling you can do with the main character... though Baldur's Gate II does a brilliant job of having the main character be player-created but have a deep and involving story be going on with them as the centerpiece. BGI was definitely weaker on the story front, but it was Bioware's first RPG (and second game) so you can't expect them to be perfect...

Fallout I just cannot understand how you can call the story weak. Unless you didn't try to find it and were annoyed by how it didn't make sure you knew the plot like console games do, which seems to me the most likely thing given what you were saying about non-linear stories...

OB1
Your point may have been valid five years ago, but now artists have much more freedom with 3D games then they ever had with 2D ones, so 3D is definitely the better way to go if art is your only excuse.

A Black Falcon
Not just art... I honestly think that Baldur's Gate (or ToEE there) work better in topdown than third person or something like that. Yes, you aren't as close to the action and things don't look as 'realistic', but it looks great and you get a nice view or the area... maybe you dislike topdown/isometric, but I definitely do not. And I hope that RPGs continue to use it, because it's a great way of doing many kinds of RPGs.

OB1
What would you rather do: Travel on foot and by speeder through Coruscant, exploring the planet, or flying above the planet, getting a nice distant view but not really being in Coruscant?

A Black Falcon
Both of those forms would make for fun games, OB1... yes, first or third person full 3d gives you more of a 'you are there' feeling. But top down isn't any less fun! If you mean immersion by 'I think I am the character' maybe 3d does often have more of it ('often' because as I said a well presented and detailed story can also immerse you into a character, no matter the game form). But on the level of 'which game would I rather play', plenty of other things are factors that go ahead of graphics...

Like, Zelda. Yeah, OoT was an amazing experience I didn't get from LA. But LA was a fantastic experience too! I wouldn't say that LA would have been a better game in 3d because it's a fantastic game in 2d... as in, each form works, but I'm not going to say that RPGs or RPG-ish games should always be 3d, behind-or-in-the-character games. I don't think they should.

OB1
If they kept the exact same tone and feel of LA, I think it'd be much better in 3D. The game is already extremely immersive, but add another dimension to it and I'd explode from immersovicity.

A Black Falcon
LA would be a totally different game in 3d, though. I thought that the series had a definite change in tone when it moved to 3d.. yes, it works similarly, but it's different. LA would be so different that while it certainly could have just as much immersion and 'magic', it'd be a different game for it. Knowing what I do I'd rather it stays in the form it is in.

OB1
It could still be the same basic game, just with a better combat system (or not, if you don't want to) and redesigned puzzles for the dungeon. The reason why Zelda felt different when it lept to 3D was not because it was no longer 2D, it's because they changed the look and tone of the series. They could have kept the same art, the same music, the same atmosphere, etc., but they chose not to. If you look at what gave LA it's special feel, it really doesn't have much to do with the perspective.

A Black Falcon
I guess I just like 2d in this genre more than you do. :) Sure, you could do that and 'improve' the game. It might even be more 'immersive' by how you mean it. But I just don't see the point... it's great as it is!

OB1
And it can be even better in 3D!

A Black Falcon
Not really. Different. Better? Nah.

OB1
Well you're nuts.

A Black Falcon
Nuts to think that 3d isn't always better than 2d? If I'm nuts, then I'm nuts in pretty good company I think. :)

OB1
You're like those filmmakers who still think that HD is the devil and film is the only way to go, mainly because they are afraid of new technology and rely too much on tradition, warranted or not.

A Black Falcon
HD vs. film... does film have any advantages? I don't know... but on the subject of games, I would absolutely disagree that 2d has no advantages over 3d. There are circumstances where 2d works better! (and I mean either 2d artwork or 2d presentaton (that is, like a side-scroller, or a flying shooter where you just move on two axes (no vertical dimension)) I don't know how anyone could possibly disagree with that.

OB1
You say that out of ignorance, simple as that. You don't even understand the capabilities and advantage of #D games, you just think that everything 3D has to be a FPS or something. Guess what textures are, ABF? That's right, 2D images. And did you also know that Four Swords is a 3D game? That's how they were able to do all of those crazy effects that would never be possible if it had used a 2D engine.

A Black Falcon
OB1, we clearly have a miscommunitation here. I'll try to be more clear and I REALLY hope that you both read and try to understand my post. You don't do that far, far too often.

The problem might be the term '3d'. It has in this thread meant several things... I should try to be more clear and stick with one definition, which should be 'the use of polygons'. No connotations of any specific perspective... just the use of polygons.

You obviously missed or misunderstood this.
(and I mean either 2d artwork or 2d presentaton (that is, like a side-scroller, or a flying shooter where you just move on two axes (no vertical dimension))

Also, earlier I was talking about topdown or isometric versus close-behind-character third person or first person. I said that some games are better in third person. Then the terms '3d' and '2d' were used, improperly. Polygons are not the deciding factor here. They are a different, and mostly just graphical preference, issue. I'm talking about more substantive gameplay issues here. Which is why 'topdown/isometric' and 'third-person-behind/first-person' are better terms to use, I believe. Clearer and they describe what the actual issue being discussed is.

Of course, earlier I commented on how I hate 3d-topdown games which require a lot of camera manipulation, but as I said I have played some 3d-topdown games that do it right so it IS something they can do right if they want to try. It's an issue that doesn't exist in fully 2d games, but it isn't something that totally precludes a isometric 3d game from ever working. They just need to be sure to do a good job.

See my post in the other thread where I posted images of Tim Cain's new 3d isometric post-nuclear RPG. Or go to the first page of this thread and look at the two pictures of the canned Black Isle Fallout 3. THAT is what this game should look like. You clearly disagree, but I'd like to see you talk about it in relation to those shots and to Daggerfall/Morrowind, not just a general 'you are stupid for disliking 3d' that I so obviously will never agree with. 3D certainly has uses, but so does 2d...

OB1
OB1, we clearly have a miscommunitation here. I'll try to be more clear and I REALLY hope that you both read and try to understand my post. You don't do that far, far too often.

The problem might be the term '3d'. It has in this thread meant several things... I should try to be more clear and stick with one definition, which should be 'the use of polygons'. No connotations of any specific perspective... just the use of polygons.

You obviously missed or misunderstood this.


Yes, and Four Swords uses polygons.

Also, earlier I was talking about topdown or isometric versus close-behind-character third person or first person. I said that some games are better in third person. Then the terms '3d' and '2d' were used, improperly. Polygons are not the deciding factor here. They are a different, and mostly just graphical preference, issue. I'm talking about more substantive gameplay issues here. Which is why 'topdown/isometric' and 'third-person-behind/first-person' are better terms to use, I believe. Clearer and they describe what the actual issue being discussed is.

Of course, earlier I commented on how I hate 3d-topdown games which require a lot of camera manipulation, but as I said I have played some 3d-topdown games that do it right so it IS something they can do right if they want to try. It's an issue that doesn't exist in fully 2d games, but it isn't something that totally precludes a isometric 3d game from ever working. They just need to be sure to do a good job.

See my post in the other thread where I posted images of Tim Cain's new 3d isometric post-nuclear RPG. Or go to the first page of this thread and look at the two pictures of the canned Black Isle Fallout 3. THAT is what this game should look like. You clearly disagree, but I'd like to see you talk about it in relation to those shots and to Daggerfall/Morrowind, not just a general 'you are stupid for disliking 3d' that I so obviously will never agree with. 3D certainly has uses, but so does 2d...


There are no longer any real advantages with 2D over 3D. This is not 1995.

A Black Falcon
Yes, and Four Swords uses polygons.

It looks two dimensional for the most part, though... but for this discussion it's the perspective that matters most and it has one that works great.

There are no longer any real advantages with 2D over 3D. This is not 1995.

:bang: :bang: :bang:

How do you take a long explanation of why this discussion is only about 2d/3d on the periphery and not as the main point of the discussion and respond with a one line post about 3d not being worse than 2d anymore? Did I say 3d is worse than 2d? Why can't you make a response that actually says someting instead of repeating the same stupid line again... too hard? :rolleyes:

Anyway, if you refuse to talk about any of the points relevant to this discussion and just want to talk about two dimensional versus three dimensional art (something I barely touched on in that post! Or did you just read the last line?), as I said, they both definitely have their uses. When a game looks great in 2d I generally do not wish it was in 3d. If it looks great in 2d, it looks great... why make it "better" in some way that may or may not work and has a good chance of totally changing the game?

OB1
It looks two dimensional for the most part, though... but for this discussion it's the perspective that matters most and it has one that works great.

It looks 2D but it's not. Now the game doesn't use very many polys (basically two polys for every object... I'd rather not explain it right now), but it is technically a 3D game.

How do you take a long explanation of why this discussion is only about 2d/3d on the periphery and not as the main point of the discussion and respond with a one line post about 3d not being worse than 2d anymore? Did I say 3d is worse than 2d? Why can't you make a response that actually says someting instead of repeating the same stupid line again... too hard?

Anyway, if you refuse to talk about any of the points relevant to this discussion and just want to talk about two dimensional versus three dimensional art (something I barely touched on in that post! Or did you just read the last line?), as I said, they both definitely have their uses. When a game looks great in 2d I generally do not wish it was in 3d. If it looks great in 2d, it looks great... why make it "better" in some way that may or may not work and has a good chance of totally changing the game?

You said that 2D has advantages over 3D, which is false.

A Black Falcon
It looks 2D but it's not. Now the game doesn't use very many polys (basically two polys for every object... I'd rather not explain it right now), but it is technically a 3D game.

To make the camera zooming easier, I guess? The point is that it looks like 2d, which is really all that matters...

You said that 2D has advantages over 3D, which is false.

You cannot simplify that into such a simple statement. It is impossible. If you want to reply to my comments you should actually reply to them and not fire off an innacurate one-line response, because it doesn't work.

What did I say? I said that isometric/topdown has advantages over behind-the-character third person or first person, yes, I said that. And detailed why that is true. You never addressed that, and it's my main point here. As soon as I gave some substantive reasons that I think that isometric works better than first/third person, you abandoned the discussion... :disgust:

What else? That both drawn artwork and polygons ('2d' and '3d') have their uses in games and that there are places where each one works great. You seem to only want to talk about this issue, sadly... and you're simplifying my position beyond recognition. And you seem to be not really paying attention to what I am saying and combining multiple issues together that aren't the same, as I've now tried to explain several times.

I also talk about my preferences for cameras (movement, etc) in 3d games, but you haven't really discussed this issue either.

OB1
To make the camera zooming easier, I guess? The point is that it looks like 2d, which is really all that matters...

To make everything easier, actually. They're just flat polys with textures on them. Makes programming and animating so much easier.

You cannot simplify that into such a simple statement. It is impossible. If you want to reply to my comments you should actually reply to them and not fire off an innacurate one-line response, because it doesn't work.

What did I say? I said that isometric/topdown has advantages over behind-the-character third person or first person, yes, I said that. And detailed why that is true. You never addressed that, and it's my main point here. As soon as I gave some substantive reasons that I think that isometric works better than first/third person, you abandoned the discussion...

What else? That both drawn artwork and polygons ('2d' and '3d') have their uses in games and that there are places where each one works great. You seem to only want to talk about this issue, sadly... and you're simplifying my position beyond recognition. And you seem to be not really paying attention to what I am saying and combining multiple issues together that aren't the same, as I've now tried to explain several times.

I also talk about my preferences for cameras (movement, etc) in 3d games, but you haven't really discussed this issue either.

I've addressed this, I'm sick of going around in circles with you.

A Black Falcon
I've addressed this, I'm sick of going around in circles with you.

You've addressed it? Then quote yourself or something... :)


To make everything easier, actually. They're just flat polys with textures on them. Makes programming and animating so much easier.

Yeah, that makes sense. Polygons are easier to deal with.

OB1
You've addressed it? Then quote yourself or something...

You do it. I'm really bored of this. Honestly.