Fallout Extreme part II: Gameplay

Tagaziel

Panzerkatze
Orderite
After a short while, the cybernetic overseer of Vegas sewers (also known as Ausir) provides us with yet another bit of information about Fallout EXTRRRRRREME:<blockquote>The game was not going to be just a shooter, but rather "a game of action,tactics and strategies where moving into position, planning and falling back" is just as essential as having the biggest guns around. The world map was divided into territories, each of which had different layouts, population of various enemies, different geographical strategic significance etc. Strategy would come into play based not only on the tactics employed for a given mission, as the dynamics of each mission would be different based on whether the player entered the territory from the west, south, north, etc. To get to a particular territory, one could e.g. choose either to charge through an enemy stronghold or to sneak around through adjacent territories in order to flank the enemy.

Missions would also be interconnected and your choices would have consequences. E.g. if the player destroyed a bridge in the territory of one mission, the enemy forces might be weakened in the next one, because of lack of reinforcements. Conquering and holding territories with productive towns would be essential for establishing and maintaining supply lines. If there were a supplied camp nearby, the player's access to various kinds of weapons, ammo etc. would be constant and reliable. The player could close off a territory, forcing enemy troops to pass through another territory, where an ambush could be set up. It's actually a shame that Fallout Tactics did not have stuff like this.

After completing a given mission, the player would move their characters to outlying camp areas, where new characters for the team roster (up to 16 characters) could be recruited, and different roster members could be assigned to the active four-person team for the next missions. Members of the roster not on the active team could be sent as scouts to adjacent territories or deployed into newly conquered territories to hold fort. If a character died, they would clear space in the Roster, allowing the player to recruit new members.

At any time during a mission, the player could switch and control any of their four squad members, each of whom had different perks and specialize in different weapons. In the meantime, the other characters could be issued various standing orders. However, characters also had personality traits that would determine how they would react under different stresses. Each character would gain experience points, which would allow them to increase combat skills or unlock perks.

Aside from the single-player campaign, there were going to be several mutliplayer modes: team campaign, death match, capture the flag, assault, squad death match, squad capture the flag and squad assault.</blockquote>Link: Fallout Extreme part II: The Gameplay at The Vault
 
The gameplay was actually not as bad as the story. In itself, it could have actually been a cool game.
 
Yeah, just like Tactics "was actually" going to be "Fallout mixed with Jagged Alliance".

Excuse me for still not being thrilled about Faust.
 
Brother None said:
Yeah, just like Tactics "was actually" going to be "Fallout mixed with Jagged Alliance".

Excuse me for still not being thrilled about Faust.

Not saying I'm thrilled. Just saying that some ideas here are not that bad. Story-wise it was still worse than FOBOS2.
 
EXTREEEEEEEME!!!!

Yeah, I'd like to see someone pull off Jagged Alliance on a console. That would be so EXTREEEEEEEME!!!!!!

Fallout: Ausir; The most EXTREEEEEEEME experience.
 
I agree that it sounds pretty nice. Something more advanced than campaign in Star Wars: Battlefront 2. Only to use those ideas properly... ;]
But of course - story is a different thing. Very naive and "somewhat" stupid.
No thanks.

*Cheetah pawstep.*
 
Ravager69 said:
I seriously doubt half of those ideas would make it to the final release.

My thoughts as well. Now while the gameplay sounds great regardless of the storyline since this was only the concept phase you can expect for some (maybe most) of the ideas to get cut while actually creating the game. BN is right it would have ended up like Tactics probably.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
 
Lies and bullshit.

I mean come on, this was supposed to be a console game. Console gamers are a very different crowd from PC people, and so are those games. Any gameplay depth would have to be drastically reduced in order to accomodate for console gamers, and I'm pretending here that controller issues don't exist in the first place.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen one decent tycoon-type simulation or good RTS on any console, ever. Capitalism? Supreme Commander? Those types of games just don't happen in the console world. So we can easily assume that all depth and complexity would be shrunk to the mindless and the repetitive.

Frankly all this seems to be a very early draft for a gameplay concept of what Fallout Tactics should have been. In fact I think F:T had some of those features planned, but they got cut as global features and reintroduced as mission-specific, hard-coded scenarios.

Even if they'd make Fallout: eXXXTRAEM I'm pretty sure most of the features would be cut, or be of miserable quality in the first place.

Judging by their attempt at the storyline I wouldn't hold my breath they'd be able to do anything more than a post-apo sub-par Fallout:Tactics, only with more cool shit and fail.
 
archont said:
Lies and bullshit.

I mean come on, this was supposed to be a console game. Console gamers are a very different crowd from PC people, and so are those games. Any gameplay depth would have to be drastically reduced in order to accomodate for console gamers, and I'm pretending here that controller issues don't exist in the first place.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen one decent tycoon-type simulation or good RTS on any console, ever. Capitalism? Supreme Commander? Those types of games just don't happen in the console world. So we can easily assume that all depth and complexity would be shrunk to the mindless and the repetitive.
No, we can't. Because there's a very simple reason why that complexity doesn't exist in console world: controllers aren't suited to micro-managing and oodles of menus. So all those games automatically get pushed to the PC, and not consoles.
 
I started drooling while reading that.

Of course, like everyone has been saying, the game wouldn't been anywhere near like that in reality.

I was planning to install X-COM, but this gave me the urge to fire up JA. Good thing I just finished Incubation. :wink:
 
archont said:
I mean come on, this was supposed to be a console game. Console gamers are a very different crowd from PC people, and so are those games. Any gameplay depth would have to be drastically reduced in order to accomodate for console gamers, and I'm pretending here that controller issues don't exist in the first place.
No. Simply no. Sounds to much like console bashing for me, sorry you know the kind of "console gamers are to dump for PC games" or something like that.

I have played a few consoles for a long time starting with the Nintendo, Super NES, Sega Mega Drive and as last console the N64. My brother in law was a great PS 1 and PS2 fan so I got my hands on that a few times as well. There are many very interesting and complex games out for consoles. Its not "just" the gamers fault that so many games get streamlined and dumbed down. This is a trend that started simultaneous on the consoles and PC since the focus went from gameplay towards visuals.

There are so many different players, not just on consoles but on all platforms. Some definetly are achetypical "dump" and dont care about games loosing good gameplay and play time in favour for great visuals. But this counts for all platforms.

Sander said:
No, we can't. Because there's a very simple reason why that complexity doesn't exist in console world: controllers aren't suited to micro-managing and oodles of menus. So all those games automatically get pushed to the PC, and not consoles.
I guess thats a lot more accurate since one has to keep the differences in hardware in mind. But I still think that even simple controls dont exclude complex gameplay or depth. See the Metal Gear games for example. If you now like those games or not but you have to agree that they do indeed have a lot of content and the gameplay is in many way challanging.
 
Back
Top