What if Fallout 4 was isometric?

Now thanks to Chris Bischoff (maker of Stasis) wonder no longer!





Interesting to think what could of been.

I'd hate it if they went back to isometric for this game.

After playing wasteland 2 , a game that didn't hit the mark for me, and currently playing new vegas again, i don't care much.

New vegas with some better graphic mods and some rare ammo mods is a game i'm enjoying a lot.

Those images look awesome! I wish that was the real F4 or some other post apocalyptic game.

I wouldn't want the main series to go back to isometric, but a spinoff title might be cool. Maybe some kind of side story…

Without a huge first-person open world, I don't think Bethesda are strong enough in terms of gameplay and writing to sustain a different style.

Originally Posted by Ripper
Without a huge first-person open world, I don't think Bethesda are strong enough in terms of gameplay and writing to sustain a different style.

You don't think it would be fun exploring their worlds in this style?

I'd say it'd be a lot less fun.

Less fun, definitely. But not unsustainable in my mind.

I don't think there's any doubt that it would be sustainable.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I don't think there's any doubt that it would be sustainable.

Well, Ripper doesn't seem to think so

Poor choice of words when I said they couldn't 'sustain' it - that sounds a bit absolute. I just mean that I don't think I would enjoy it, because, to me, the redeeming strength of their games is the immersion of first-person exploration in a vast world. I like isometric games, but I feel they rely upon strengths that Bethesda do not demonstrate in order to come alive.

Originally Posted by Ripper
Poor choice of words when I said they couldn't 'sustain' it - that sounds a bit absolute. I just mean that I don't think I would enjoy it, because, to me, the redeeming strength of their games is the immersion of first-person exploration in a vast world. I like isometric games, but I feel they rely upon strengths that Bethesda do not demonstrate in order to come alive.

I completely agree that first person is superior for Fallout, but I think the exploration is the main strength of Bethesda games.

But I also agree that they should stick to what they've been doing so well for so long. Moving to isometric would be a really strange step backwards, in my mind.

That said, I'm also a huge immersion freak - and I appreciate that some people prefer the tactical nature of isometric stuff.

My ideal fallout would probably be a bit like Dragon Age Origins but with much better developed iso combat system.
i.e An isometric combat system with a third person exploration of the world.

Having said that I find isometric spaces fun to explore also and a fair bit more expedient. Something about first person exploration makes ordinary interactions like picking stuff up and understanding the space much harder in my experience. Through I am spatially challenged at the best of times.

My ideal Fallout game would be first person, preferably done by Bethesda, with Todd Howard as the Director….Yay for me

Originally Posted by crpgnut
My ideal Fallout game would be first person, preferably done by Bethesda, with Todd Howard as the Director….Yay for me

Now all they need to do is hire some real writers.

One thing that occurs to me is that, if the world were the typical size of a Beth game, it would take an age to fully explore the map in an isometric view. The top down POV gives a very limited field of view compared to first-person, and crawling the the map to explore the whole world be would quite a task. This could cut both ways - making the world seem even grander, or becoming extremely tedious.

Originally Posted by Ripper
The top down POV gives a very limited field of view compared to first-person,

Err, I don't think this is quite the case really. Why do you think there are more strategy games released in more of a top down or quasi isometric point of view? One variable is most likely precisely because there is a greater field of view in this perspective and it enables a vision to see and enact tactics on a much wider scale.

To be more specific, Fallout Tactics wasn't in first person and if it was, one's vision as to what was surrounding the squad would be much more limited as a result, which would adversely effect its tactical options I would think.

Cute images though, I must say. I don't have a "perspective x" is more immersive than "perspective y" point of view, as the game always depends on other contributing factors for me as well.

I am not sure there is much difference in exploring a large, boring, partly procedurally generated world, with partly generic characters in isometric compared to 3rd-person?

Originally Posted by Pessimeister
Err, I don't think this is quite the case really. Why do you think there are more strategy games released in more of a top down or quasi isometric point of view? One variable is most likely precisely because there is a greater field of view in this perspective and it enables a vision to see and enact tactics on a much wider scale.

If you consider a strategy game, then yes - you might zoom out to view an entire continent. I'm talking about the typical quasi-isometric scale used in RPGs, and shown in the mockup images.

What I'm saying is that when you are viewing the world at that scale and perspective, you would essentially need to scour every inch of the map to discover all the features - there could be a huge tower just two screens to the left, but you'd never know it unless you walked accross that square of the map. I just think that first person is probably more suited to exploration in a huge open world.