well if you don't believe me watch the various speedrun videos on youtube. It is possible to win the game with a pacifist character. Anyways I think the soldiers could attack him and turning the aggressive mode on, making him an excellent target for the turrets. If my math works, that's 12 enemies for Horrigan(excluding me), and all of them do around 10-30 points of damage/attack. It's no way he could survive it. Though luck is an important factor here, so probably he got really high criticals against them in your game.

Also I agree with you on the small guns part, but shit like this happen in every game, people just find out the easiest and most useful(damage-wise) character build. The energy weapons skill was useful though in my opinion. Nothing can beat the gauss rifle, but the yk pulse rifle comes really close.

It was hard for me personally to choose my favourite 'isometric tactical RPG' out of Jagged Alliance 2 and Fallout, but since I ended up going JA2 (and getting pretty hardcore into it) I sorta only remember a lot of the annoying things about Fallout. Don't get me wrong, it's a fantastic game, but it was buggy and it felt like the game pushed you into certain skill paths and such. I'm personally heavily anticipating Fallout 3 (even if I'm one of the few people who didn't love Oblivion for god knows what reason) and I'm hoping that it really brings the series into the future gameplay wise.

The only game I looked foward to more was Oblivion, and that's just because I'm a quivering Elderscrolls nutjob.

So with that said, you're DAMN RIGHT I'm excited about the concept of a post-apocalyptic Oblivion with guns.

were fallout fans seriously expecting/hoping for an ISOMETRIC FALLOUT 3 ten years after fallout 2?  really?  i don't understand why that would still be desirable.  at the very least you'd want a functioning 3d version, and i don't really see how making it mostly first-person 3d, in the same vein as oblivion, really negatively impacts the experience in any way at all.

anyway, morrowind and oblivion were some of the only games in recent memory that i got into, and i ultimately ended up having a lot of fun with both of them, so i'm looking forward to this, even if it does just end up being oblivion with guns.  i always wanted to like fallout, because it seemed really cool and i liked the setting and people raved about it, but it was so goddamn boring that i couldn't even force myself to play it.  i'm pretty excited for this game because hopefully it'll give me a an IN to the series that i can actually tolerate playing.

A lot of people really dig isometric rpgs, myself included. Games like Planescape, Fallout 2, Baldur's Gate 1&2 etc hold a great feeling in a lot of player's hearts. And it's not like throwing a bone to these types of people is without precendent, didn't Temple of Elemental Evil come out in like 2003?

Anyway without waiting for the rest of the old cranky fallout fanboy hivemind to post I will say I am cautiously optimistic.

yeah i agree let's use outmoded and unideal graphical styles for nostalgic purposes.  at least with 2d platformers, or 2d in general, there's the extremely valid argument that 3d shouldn't necessarily replace 2d completely, and they're two totally different styles.  there's really no reason whatsoever to make a game isometric instead of fully 3d in the same style as uh.... neverwinter nights or whatever.  isometric games pretty clearly only existed because of technological constraints, i think!  there's no practical reason to use it if actual 3d is feasible.

Well I think he was probably referring to a fully 3D game that is still basically played the same way as an isometric game.  Neverwinter Nights 2, for example, was fully 3D and everything, but the game was clearly designed to be played with the camera placed at an isometric position.  This was the default position of the camera also.

Anyway, I've said before that Fallout was probably originally envisioned to be more like Fallout 3 than Fallout 1 or 2.  The games are by their nature very lonely.  You can form a loose party but you have no direct control over your partners nor do you have very efficient control of their inventories.  You are supposed to feel alone and stranded in a desolate world where everyone else is out to cheat you.  In my opinion, the core concept of the Fallout series will be greatly enhanced by playing the game in first-person rather than third person, because you'll feel even more connected to your avatar and more isolated from everyone else.

But to me personally, being a HUGE Fallout fan, this (along with Prototype) is one of my most anticipated games this year. At first I had my doubts about it but they're all but gone now. If this game turns out to feel like a true Fallout sequel then I'm happy. But even if it turns out to just be post-apocalyptic Oblivion with guns then I'm still happy since I loved Oblivion and I'm a bigger fan of Sci-fi/modern games than I am high fantasy. Pretty much this game is a win/win for me.

While we are agreeing with each other I will repost this paragraph.  I feel exactly the same way; if they make a good Fallout sequel then I'll be thrilled, but if they make a good Oblivion mod I'll be thrilled too.

I've had a thing against First Person View(i don't find it any more Immersive(video games have made me hate this word so much) then others) games since the first time I saw Doom and personally very much prefer Isometric to FP(though fully controllable 3D camera would be even better), despite this I really wanted to enjoy the Elder Scroll games, but every attempt would just leave me extremely bored.  I've also hated every action rpg more and more since SoM, usually preferring turned-based games or pure action and I was really hoping for F3 to use a Fallout Tactics style battles system(able to chose between real time or turn based, and full control of your party) which is what the Van Buren beta was looking like it was headed for.  The only thing left that they could possibly get right is the writing and the whole cause and effect thing, but their past games and a lot of what I've read since they picked up the game has me worried about this as well.

so yeah, basically my problem is that fallout 3 takes everything i want in an rpg(the essential falloutly-ness) and replaces it with exactly what i don't want(Elder Scrolls).  If this game wasn't called Fallout, or maybe even if they left out the 3 and called it Fallout: Gaiden I might be looking forward to it(like to do for ever ES game only to be sorely disappointed), but as long as its called Fallout 3 I feel like a large portion of the Fallout fan-based is getting shit on(note everyone in this topic thats all for this game is an Oblivion fan, and only half of those are actually fallout fans).

I've had a thing against First Person View(i don't find it any more Immersive(video games have made me hate this word so much) then others) games since the first time I saw Doom and personally very much prefer Isometric to FP(though fully controllable 3D camera would be even better), despite this I really wanted to enjoy the Elder Scroll games, but every attempt would just leave me extremely bored.

I don't know if you've been paying attention to the news at all but you can swap perspectives and the battles themselves are turn based in the 3rd person perspective.  After playing games like Breakdown and Call of Cthulhu I can't stand NOT playing in first person but to each his own I guess.

The only thing left that they could possibly get right is the writing and the whole cause and effect thing, but their past games and a lot of what I've read since they picked up the game has me worried about this as well.

This is another overrated thing from Fallout in general.  There was a "cause and effect" but it did absolutely nothing to the storyline except change a sentence at the ending.  In fact, the entire ending was basically a "what did you do to the wasteland" montage which made my whole 20 hour experience with the game feel really cheap.  Yeah, you could run out the mexicans in new reno or whatever but SO WHAT.  You could abolish slavery but WHO CARES?  It did absolutely nothing to effect the game at all.  What would have been cool is if you took out the slavers then took over the slave pens for yourself to make some money on the side.  Or how about eradicating all the mutants would increase the number of human supremicist random encounters and the people would give you stuff for being so cool?  How about when you take out one of those rival martial arts gangs in san diego, the people in the street parade around you because you're so cool?

The writers have already been talking about shit like this but everyone ignores them because DUR HUR MORROWIND GUYZ.

I don't know if you've been paying attention to the news at all but you can swap perspectives and the battles themselves are turn based in the 3rd person perspective.

Oh my fucking god, I can not believe this.  I seriously expected better of you ABM.  Have YOU been paying attention to this game?  Yes you can switch perspectives but only first and third person are usable in battle, the top down view is just a point less add on and when using the VATS system you are forced into first person mode.  Also the battles real time with pause(VATS).

This is another overrated thing from Fallout in general.

Overrated? Maybe, but they did it better then most games, which is what I liked most about the game in the first place(espically the ending, thats the reason why I loved KotOR 2's ending so much).  And yes I would love it if had all those extra effects you mentioned(and I'm fairly sure the games had more then you give them credit for), but from personal experience with their games, I'd have to say Beth is not the company to pull it off.

yeah i agree let's use outmoded and unideal graphical styles for nostalgic purposes.  at least with 2d platformers, or 2d in general, there's the extremely valid argument that 3d shouldn't necessarily replace 2d completely, and they're two totally different styles.  there's really no reason whatsoever to make a game isometric instead of fully 3d in the same style as uh.... neverwinter nights or whatever.  isometric games pretty clearly only existed because of technological constraints, i think!  there's no practical reason to use it if actual 3d is feasible.

i wouldn't say it's outmoded. RTS games use their version of it after all.

Oh my fucking god, I can not believe this.  I seriously expected better of you ABM.  Have YOU been paying attention to this game?  Yes you can switch perspectives but only first and third person are usable in battle, the top down view is just a point less add on and when using the VATS system you are forced into first person mode.  Also the battles real time with pause(VATS).

The turn-based thing was a mistake on my part but you can still switch to 3rd person a la Morrowind and Oblivion but unlike those two games the camera doesn't follow behind your character.  Don't believe me?  Here's a quote:

Fallout 3 has an improved third-person camera. In fact, not only is it perfectly playable from third-person, but you can zoom out the camera to make it almost isometric, in a nod to the previous two games.

They said if you want to play the game from a 3/4 perspective than you can.  This was said last year I don't know why I'm bringing it up now.

I'd have to say Beth is not the company to pull it off.

Holy crap, has no one like... payed attention to Morrowind or Oblivion?  The NPC's TALK TO YOU based on your race, gender, and class.  There are racist characters in both games who have low disposition if you're a certain race (specifically Argonian and Khajit) and there is a reputation system in place in the game where disposition is affected by how many quests you did in the area.

Fallout's NPC's were 1 of 2 things:

1: They said the same thing regardless of what you have done or what your karma is.

or

2: They refused to talk to you depending on what organization you joined.

Hmmmmm... sounds awfully close to what Bethesda does in their games. 

Pardon me but I'm not trying to knock Fallout down a peg at all I'm simply pointing out that all this crap people are saying Bethesda will ultimately skip has either not been done well in the original Fallout or has already been noted by Bethesda in an interview.  I'm concerned about stuff too (oddly enough my concerns revolve around battering, whether NPC's can be killed while you're away like in STALKER, and how travelling works because they never talked about it) but a lot fans (not pointing fingers, just fans in general) have massive Nostalgia-Goggles(tm) on which makes them think that the original game is this wonderful piece of unflawed art that can't be touched or improved upon.

They said if you want to play the game from a 3/4 perspective than you can.  This was said last year I don't know why I'm bringing it up now.

I am aware of that thats why i said "he top down view is just a point less add on", its there, but it worthless(unusable even, i believe) during battles.

The NPC's TALK TO YOU based on your race, gender, and class.

There's no race or class choice in Fallout, but there are plenty of times gender affects conversations, as well as stats, skills, traits and perks.  Also I believe karma does have an affect on how people treat you, I don't know for sure of any place that it happens, but I know there's a perk just for that(*Something* Presence I think).  And while Beth may have done more then I gave them credit for, I'm more worried about the actual conversations and their effects, something, without a doubt, Beth games have been lacking in.

and when using the VATS system you are forced into first person mode.

I don't know if you recall but in Fallout when you chose which part of the enemy to aim your gun at, it pulled up a big wireframe image of the enemy showing you your chances of hitting each body part.  I believe Fallout 3 will be the same, just that you are pointing a spot on the 3D model in front of you and not an anonymous wireframe.

Also seriously man what's your problem?  Why are you like so afraid of this game?  As far as I can tell its featureset is identical to Fallout 1 & 2 but it takes advantage of a now fully-3D environment.  The more I read, the more it seems like Fallout 1 and the less it seems like Oblivion.  It's so weird that a lot of hardcore Fallout fans who have been begging for a sequel for years are so unreceptive to what they are finally getting.

note everyone in this topic thats all for this game is an Oblivion fan, and only half of those are actually fallout fans

Well Fallout is my favorite PC game ever so

Holy crap, has no one like... payed attention to Morrowind or Oblivion?  The NPC's TALK TO YOU based on your race, gender, and class.  There are racist characters in both games who have low disposition if you're a certain race (specifically Argonian and Khajit)

wait...  what?

I don't remember any racist characters in Oblivion (I didn't play much of Morrowind), IIRC the NPC's that hated me, always hated whatever class I picked, or it was a town against a certain class.  (again, IIRC...  it's been a year or so since I played Oblivion)

Also for 1998 (Fallout 2) having NPCs that treated you different depending on gender was about as close as any game has gotten, that I'm aware of.  Though I guess this is spoiled by the only real difference being dialogue choices and the enemies taunts (they'd refer to you as bitch if you played as a female...  not sure if they have a specific insult for a male)

I don't remember any racist characters in Oblivion (I didn't play much of Morrowind), IIRC the NPC's that hated me, always hated whatever class I picked, or it was a town against a certain class.  (again, IIRC...  it's been a year or so since I played Oblivion)

In Morrowind, playing as an Argonian would automatically lower your disposition with some characters and they'd refer to you as a 2nd class citizen.  It wasn't much, but my point was that the only difference in Fallout's dialog was whether or not an NPC (and the non-important NPCs said ONE SENTENCE when you talked to them) would talk to you or blow you off.  Oh yeah, you could have sex with that caravaners secretary if you were male.

Baldur's Gate actually had some variance in dialog based on current events, your parties reputation, and your race and gender but once again none of it had anything to do with the game itself.  It actually brings up a good point on "interaction" in videogames because there is only one game I can think of where an NPC's opinion was directly influenced by your character and that's the original Black and White... and even in that game villagers were either impressed by your creature or they were frightened which only impacted how quickly they were converted.  Fable also had a NPC reaction system but just like Black and White it simply boiled down to "are the villagers afraid of you or do they like you?" and it affected absolutely nothing else.

If Fallout 3 actually has real cause and effect choices that actually change the game's story on the fly or cause NPC's to react to you differently based on what you've done (killing mutants causes villagers to call you mutie-killer or just something basic like that) then I will actually be impressed.  It would be really really awesome if, for example, you kill a den of deathclaws but a nearby town starts to get infested with killer mole rats because you just whiped out the mole rats predators.  THAT would be a real example of cause and effect and I will proudly flaunt in Fallout purists face that Bethesda did something Black Isle promised to do but failed to deliver on (or at least did poorly).

As far as Karma goes, it was a limiter of sorts on the quests you could take.  There were a handful of quests in Fallout 1 (like... 3 or 4) that couldn't be accessed until you had a high karma.  In Fallout 2, I'm pretty certain Karma did absolutely nothing for the game except maybe change a single sentence in the ending. 

The lead designer of Fallout 3 said in an interview last year that they were focusing most of the game's dialog on karma so every NPC will react to you uniquely based on your karma rating.  One particularly interesting thing he said was that the game supports the middle ground as opposed to either extremes which is cool to me because the choices in fallout aren't always good or evil (great example is supporting one of the miners in Fallout 2; one miner supports drugs from new reno while the other supports the fascist new california republic).  A lot of RPG's like KotoR and Mass Effect (although Mass Effect's good/evil system was pointless other than making conversations sound cool) focus on two extremes but it's great to see Bethesda wants the game to have the same storytelling style as the original Fallout.

Of course, Fallout purists don't read developer interviews and judge the game completely based on material that was announced 2 years ago.

I've still got a soft spot for isometric RPGs, like Baldur's Gate and shit but no, I wouldn't want NEW games designed like that. The Aurora Engine in NWN2 is about as "old school" as I'd like a new western RPG to be (though I wouldn't mind one that was better coded, for shit's sake, it's got to be one of the buggiest, slowest engines ever). I mean, I'd be down for Fallout 3 even if it was like NWN2 with guns/post apocalypse, but I am also definitely down for this. Bioware makes enough traditional western RPGs that we don't need this to be one too.