The only way I can see to avoid making it reliant on the player's aiming would be to switch to a turn based third person mode when entering combat. No one minded the transition between real time and turn based in the original Fallout. The slowing down made it feel a bit like a shoot out in one of those westerns where everyone walks around, and they don't dive through windows and jump out of helicopters like in action movies.
Using action points for movement with no grid would be tricky. All the maps could be made to be compatible with a hex overlay. That would mean repositioning the PC and every NPC to their own hex and would move people out of LOS and probably get them stuck in strange places. So I would propose a circle around the player showing their maximum movement range in that turn. As they move or do other actions it decreases. To be strategic it would need other rings to show how far they could go and still be able to fire. Perhaps one ring per action point remaining. Keys could be used to limit the number of action points the player wants the PC to use in moving so they don't accidentally click over a line. That is all assuming there are no obstacles in the PC's path.
Or you could get rid of the rings. Instead you would have a line drawn between the PC and the cursor. Along the line would be marks indicating how many action points the movement would take. Waypoints could be set using these lines to plan the movement in advance and make sure the PC doesn't run into any obstacles. Keys could still be used to limit the action points expended. I think that would be fairly quick and easy to use but I'm sure a developer would underestimate gamers and reject it. I like fine control of my PC in RPGs but I hate micromanagement in 4X games. I think the difference is that in 4X games you have to fiddle with a hundred variables before you end your turn and something happens. In RPGs you move a couple of guys and then it's the enemy's turn. In X-Com the more soldiers I have on a mission the more likely I am to click a spot far away on the map and have them move as far in that general direction as they can, rather than moving them square by square for maximum efficiency. Do developers think of those negative large scale management experiences when they reject turn based combat?
Another problem is the lack of map edges to run off. You could be chased by enemies indefinately which would be torturous in turn based combat. Stamina could be used to stop enemies chasing you or let them catch up. But what if your stamina is matched with an enemy as well? In Morrowind things would chase you for ages but it wasn't as slow paced as a turn based game. But Morrowind combat is not very strategic and often you just click mindlessly on an enemy until one of you runs out of health. It's bad enough trying to keep your cursor on an enemy who keeps moving around you. With guns Morrowind would be like Quake (complete with bunny hopping to increase your acrobatics skill).
So back to why I posted. Has anyone played a game which has solved these problems? A first person shooter that doesn't involve aiming or reflexes?
I don't see any other problems with a first person view. I think some people are imagining the Fallout 1 maps recreated in 3D and explored in first person. They are thinking about small, horizonless, flat maps. It wouldn't look like Fallout 1 but if you got the architecture and stuff right it would seem like you're in the same universe only more immersed in it than in Fallout 1.
Real time first person games with guns that aren't twitchy?
-
Someguy353
- Scarf-wearing n00b
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 1:32 am
