Mismatch wrote:
word.
Fallout 1 & 2 are, as I stated elsewhere, the only RPG's Ive played where combat has been fun.
Now, realtime combat would probably just fuck things up.
There are a number of reasons why.
<b><i>1.</i> Targeting</b>
We all, I hope, loved the targeting option in FO, such delight it was to place a well aimed kick in Lynnette's crotch.
In realtime targeting would be weird, since you would be shooting at the same spot all the time until you targeted another area.
And, furthermore, you would ha to be quick to target, operating under timepress.
Some of you may think <i>"Hay firstperson solves the targeting bit, just point and aim!"</i>
No, it does <i>not</i>. Such firstperson aiming would suddenly take the players skill into account, and not only the characters. And suddenly it wouldn't be a RPG anymore.
<b><i>2.</i> It looks bloody stupid.</b>
Ever played another war?
Some ww2 rpg with some nice touches in it.
However combat was bloody awfyl.
Realtime.
The characters stood still and just shot towards eachother....
<b><i>3.</i> The think factor.</b>
As many have stated earlier, the FO combat was chesslike and demanded thought.
This would be lost in realtime.
I am rather sure that other reasons can and will be mentioned, these three factors are the ones that came to me instantly.
Essentially realtime combat would remove everything that made the combat in FO good. And, seing how combat is often needed in the wasteland, the game would suffer rather much from realtime combat.
No.
I try.
And yet I feel...
Nothing.
1: Targetting.
Solved, indeed, in first-person.
Yes, this brings in more player skill versus less 'character skill', but is easily solved and has been solved in other major FPS RPGs such as Deus Ex and Vampire: Bloodlines. Just because you can aim well with a mouse, it doesn't mean your character has a steady hand with his weapon.
The luck rolls and statistics would remain in the process of targetting different bodily zones in that a higher skill might give a higher chance of causing a critical hit for more damage.
Hypothetically that critical hit, based on a combination of skill and luck could be caused by the bullet hitting an old scar, striking a weak spot in the bone, or fragmenting upon contact.
Visually, this critical hit could result in a larger spatter of blood or, please, please please Emil... Dismemberment?
Wouldn't you just love to end dialogue with some bastard who isn't playing your way, pull out a sawn-off shotgun and fire it into his knee, severing his lower leg completely as he collapses to the ground shrieking...
I will miss clicking 'Groin', but it's a sacrifice I can make in favour of a better game, personally =P
You say it wouldn't be an RPG anymore? I do not define an RPG by the complexity of it's statistics, nor by how obvious it's dicerolls are for every action you make.
I define RPGs as games with an involving story, with elements of non-linearity, with an atmosphere that sucks me in and lets me feel like I'm really playing that 'role', be it chosen by the developers or left to me to choose.
2: Looks bloody stupid.
Yes, if you apply real-time combat to a woodenly animated stat-based RPG, it will look rather shatty. It's a fucking stupid thing to do, I wholly agree >.> I think any game which makes itself look stupid is a result of bad design choices and feature implementation, not the fault of the feature itself.
3: Plays like Chess
I play games from every genre bar those of sexual gratification or sports. Some of my favourites are, admittedly, multiplayer FPS games. While singleplayer is often less of a challenge due to primitive AI, action-combat games are NOT bereft of thought.
Whether standing 'frozen in time' debating whether to open my inventory, use two stims and reload my SMG, or use my action points to move to cover beyond that pile of tires in Fallout 1...
Or in hypothetical 3d FPSRPG Fallout 3 crouching behind a rusted out car arguing frantically with myself whether to dash across to my car at the risk of getting hit by the raider with the hunting rifle, or to toss my last plasma grenade over the roof and unload an SMG magazine in that direction during the confusion and hope my shots find their mark...
There is just as much strategy in an FPS. You simply aren't given the luxury of infinite time in which to make your decisions and count the hexes between you and your foes, and better cover.
I do love the thought involved in a fight in Fallout.
I would agree that most FPS games do not involve much thought.
There's a simple reason why; realism is very rarely a factor in these games. There's no need to think about them because they are quite ridiculously easy. Because bullets are only dangerous en masse over a period of time. A FPS game in which one bullet can be a significant danger is HIGHLY strategic.
Try not to flame me for the reference, but a fairly good example would be 'Halo' on a higher difficulty setting. The game involves moderately intelligent AI who work as a team, use surpressive fire wisely, flush you out with grenades and many of whom are a significant individual threat. Playing singleplayer Halo, if you can get used to the fucking controller on that horrible console, is both strategic and atmospheric.
And these three factors, if ignored, would ruin the combat? Would remove everything that made Fallout's combat good?
I enjoyed Fallout's combat because of the detail of the enemies, the atmosphere of the setting in which I fought and of whom I fought against. Better in an FPS because you can see your foes up close and witness complex animated behaviour (As far back as Unreal, you could witness idle enemies cleaning their claws, stretching their muscles, arguing and playing dice at random).
I enjoyed Fallout's combat because of it's sounds and visuals, the meaty sound effects of gunshots and screams, and the completely uninhibited violence. Both have these have been achieved very nicely in the Soldier of Fortune games.
I enjoyed Fallout's combat because of the variety of weapons, ammunition types, equipment. All done before in an FPS.
I enjoyed Fallout's combat because of it's strategic element, which as I've already mentioned, is something I believe is more than readily available in the FPS genre as long as they don't make it like Oblivion, where each foe must be dispensed by simply hitting it repeatedly with arrows, magic or a sword for 10 minutes before it will die..
What I didn't enjoy was being unable to duck, to run, to dive, to climb to a vantage point on a rooftop, to see my enemy up close, to feel the breathless excitement of a tense battle. It was excellent combat, but it wasn't perfect.
Real-time FPS combat can do virtually everything Fallout's did, and more, if implemented well.
You feel nothing? Try harder. Imagine a random encounter in Fallout 1. Now imagine it in high detail. Now imagine seeing it from the eyes of your character as you raise your weapon and place a targetted shot into the eyes of the closest bandit, seeing his head explode backwards in a fountain of gore and shards of bone.
... Feel anything yet? *slips a viagra into your chocolate milk*
