Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by DarkUnderlord, Jul 16, 2004.
I kinda hope Fallout 3 is a RTS done in first person.
In the words of Pauline Hanson, "Please explain."
How about user selectable? You know, have all the modes and the ability to toggle between them.
That will be to much workfor the lazy sods probably so it is not likely to happen.
I wondered if i should vote FP realtime, just to see if people got angry, but then i realised that it was important buisniss we were voting about.
It's this kind of hybrid that killed combat in Arcanum.
I was just trying to fan the flames, Jar. I apologize. Just wondering if I could get a FO freak to go ape-shit on me.
Really, I would like another isometric top down 3rd person. Hey, TOEE did it. What was so wrong with that? I personally don't like first or even third person over the shoulder based RPG's. (Hmm, I've only played one, but it was shit, so....)
You want ape shit? Post that here: http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum
I give you a day. Two if you're lucky. Three if you're a weak spineless wimp and back down, chicken.
Buk, buk, buk bukark!
DU what are you dooing? They will kill him you know.
I think that it should be Isometric top-down turn based. Furthermore, I think that they should use sprites instead of 3D models, as they did with the first two Fallout games.
The problem with it going 3D is that it would raise the requirements to play the game, thereby minimizing the potential buyers. Furthermore, unless they wanted a view that's almost high enough to view the clouds so you can't see any detail, the 3D models would have to be very low-poly models with low-res textures, or else it would slow some of the people who play on junkyard antiques down too much to really get anything done in the game, but would give us high-end computer owners blindingly ugly graphics.
A good example is with StarCraft and WarCraft 3. StarCraft seems to have better graphics, because it uses sprites, which allow for better quality while still not taxing the computer's power much. In WarCraft 3, as those of you who have played it know, the models are very low-poly, and the textures are of very low quality; this is merely so that the graphics won't lag old computers. Now, besides the ability to add custom units and the zoom-in feature, what is the real use of having the graphics be 3D? All it really does is make it uglier for everyone, unless they plan to release FO3 with SDK tools, in which case a 3D graphics engine in the game would be a logical and useful addition.
I think it's easier to make 3D people.
Of course it is, but as was mentioned, it could look nice and still work well if you just made the 3D models with high-res textures and smooth-poly models, then took images of the model moving and made a sprite out of those frames.
Yes but that would still mean more work for the designers, and I think, don't know really, 3D is faster with a good graphic card while 2D requires something else too.
3D is fater with a good graphics card, which not everyone has. And damn, if the designers can't take enough time to convert a 3D model to a sprite, this game is gonna be a horrible piece of shit.
Besidea, as far as I know, sprites don't need anything special. That's why Fallout and StarCraft will work on pretty much any system (well, almost) that you will find. To have true 3D graphics, a graphics accelerater is needed, and although everyone with a computer newer than five or six years should have one, not everyone has one that new.
They don't even try to sell computer games to people with a computer five or six years old.
When Fallout or Starcraft came out, they most certainly did not work on computers five or six years old.
Games get releases based on newer technologies.
If they wanted to make sure everyone could play the games, they would make them rogue-likes at best.
They write computer games for people who have recent computers.
StarCraft and Fallout were so compatible because they didn't have anything better at the time, and the reason they wouldn't work on computers six years old is just because the games themselves are about six years old, if not more.
All I'm saying is that, unless the view is too high to see much detail, we'll have horribly low-poly models with ugly textures. Personally, I'd much prefer to have sprites with realistic quality.
What systems are you talking about? 286? On high resolutions WC3 didn't look bad and besides, you didn't really need a high end computer to run them.
Playing around with the zoom feature was bad though, it allowed you to see how shitty the graphics really were.
Compare unit icons between StarCraft and WarCraft 3, then tell me which ones you think look better.
And, the zoom thing is half of what I said; it doesn't look so bad when you're too far away to see any detail, but it shouldn't be a zooming view, or else, as you mentioned, you'll see how lousy the models really are.
Out of curiousity, how would such a thing work?
I'd think that the combat in Final Fantasy could be called second person, but I'm not sure.
Second person may be like seeing yourself through the eyes of your companions.
That would be confusing as hell.
Separate names with a comma.