Actually, that's not PCGUK, it's PCG Sweden, and I already posted (the essence of) that quote, along the directly-opposed statement from French magazine PC Jeux, who emphatically state how happy they are that it *isn't* Oblivion with guns.
On the one hand I sort of wonder who's right, but on the other hand I totally don't care because I love both Oblivion and the original Fallout games.
I'm with you on this one.
And in fact, what I love most about Fallout is the atmosphere and roleplaying, not the combat, which I find tedious and far too inconsistent to ever be considered tactical. If that's honestly what people are latching onto about Fallout, they wouldn't know a good game if it chewed off their right arm to reduce their melee attack power. The elements are great, but the combat is far from perfect, and is probably the weak link where the other masterful pieces of the game are concerned.
To keep combat somewhat fast(er) for FO1 and 2, in the Options menu, I keep the turn-based combat speed somewhere in the middle or above for the old Fallout games. Makes it feel closer to real-time with pause -- even though the game's doing all the pausing for you, since it's turn-based.
That said, I think a better-developed game in the vein of the originals, i.e. with grid-based tactical combat, could still be totally awesome, but I think a better-developed Oblivion-style game that fixes some of the problems with the former game would be just as awesome, and that has the added advantage of finally getting Fallout away from the inherent flatness of the isometric perspective.
I think what they could've done it picked up Aurora Engine, an engine like Aurora, or developed an engine like Aurora. What they could've done was had a 3D NWN-style camera set-up -- which is a completely unlocked cam system where you can pan, rotate, spin, zoom in, zoom out, and manipulate it basically anywhere/anyway -- this would pretty much solve the problem of keeping the game isometric.
Also, I would've liked to have seen a Fallout game have a Bioware-style RPG, where it's in real-time with the option pause the combat at anytime to make tactical decisions. This was basically the plan for Van Buren (actually, Van Buren was to give the player the option to have it be in either real-time with pause or turn-based) and Troika's now-canceled Post-Apoc RPG (since Troika's gone).
Of course, for controls, if they so wanted to and felt so inclined, FO3 could've been like NWN games allow -- where even though it's full 3D and in complete 3rd person, you have have the option to play it with the cursors to move around in direct-style mode or just do the KB/mouse click and point routine (which would be like Witcher giving you the option to switch b/t OTS and isometric mode for your cam mode -- which is also what NWN allows, since they both are based off Aurora).
Of course, by doing all this, there might be no way they'd toss in a 1st person mode. Though, given Aurora's power (or engines like it), I'm sure it could be thrown in -- and if there was an extra first person mode tossed in here by the designers in here, you'd now probably be forced to play the game with direct-style mode for controls (a la Oblivion).
See, I think there's a lot BethSoft could've done, if they didn't want to take it the route they are taking in -- which looks to completely alienate the old-school Fallout fans that don't want to be much change in their control-style and camera viewpoints. But, those above style of games I'm dreaming up here that Fallout 3 could've -- that's just not what BethSoft usually makes, so nobody can really expect BethSoft to actually go that route. The above style of Fallout I'm imagining, if it were done that way, would've probably been better put in the hands of Obsidian, Bioware, or (here's a thought!) maybe even CD Projekt. Oh, man that last suggestion -- CD Projekt making a Fallout would be VERY interesting, given the kind of controversy Witcher stirred in many regards, actually...
Regardless of what BethSoft's doing or not doing with Fallout 3, since I am pretty open-minded and do like many styles of gameplay (direct-style a la Oblivion; click-and-point style like say Fallout games; real-time with pause like most of Bioware's RPG games; turn-based like Fallout 1 and 2), I still happen to like a hell of a lot where BethSoft is going with FO3.
The verticality of FO3 even just in what we've seen so far has been unbelievably great looking, and to lose that would be to lose a most wonderful evolution in the aesthetic that the original games pioneered. I wouldn't on any level want to go back.
That's something I saw in some of the vids. Plus, being thrown into first person, my God. The game is going to feel way more up-close and personal then ever. And yeah -- now, we can actually look up from our perspective (whether in fixed OTS 3rd or 1st)
My guess is that the game is going to be an evolution of Oblivion with guns; I imagine it will feel very similar to Oblivion but will have a much, much improved scaling system (in that only a few things scale, and the world will seem more logical for it), better characters (due to there being less of them), a better story, more variety in locales to explore, vastly improved combat, and way better loot that's more useful, varied, and fun to utilize. That's the impression I get from things I've read, heard, and seen so far. But given the fundamental differences between the two franchises, how similar could it really be, anyway? I mean, you've got an XP-based leveling system entirely different from TES games, the Perk system which has no comparable component in the TES games, a more tactical and meaningful combat system that from all reports from anyone who's played the game is nothing like Oblivion in any respect... well, what's left? Most likely the way questing works, the way character interaction works, and the general way the world is set up (which is probably a lot like Oblivion, with various hotspots around the map that can be fast-traveled to once explored, and might feel a little patchy in terms of the overall world). And a lot of that stuff is kind of standard across various RPGs anyway.
I'm agreeing with you on this one, Que. It's going to be more than people calling it straight-up "Oblivion with guns." no, that's just the combat system, fixed viewpoints (1st and 3rd), and direct-style of controls forced on you. They seem to be be doing all this other stuff that Fallout did, which probably was not tackled as much in Oblivion -- ridiculous amounts of consequences and results b/c of your actions and choices. This is one of the best things about Fallout, if you ask me.
Like you said, it's going to be more of an evolution of "Oblivion with guns." Also, I think this is going to be a major evolution for Fallout, especially in terms of having real-time combat and the direct style of controls.
Anyway, those are just my ramblings. It's really late and I'm still up playing the first Fallout, which is truly a masterpiece. It starts slow, but man does this thing pick up speed as it goes. I'm a bleary-eyed mess right now, and yet I press on past 3AM...
I played a lot of Fallout 1 yesterday, as well. I'm just that stoked for BethSoft's FO3.
