Open Forum: A Challenge

[Syreen]

Because the PnP market is the same as the CRPG... oh wait, it's not.

Final Fantasy is pseudo Turn-Based and also has strong brand recognition - and a home market far more friendly to turn-based games.

Take a look at ToEE's sales if you think that pure TB plays well in todays market. There are plenty of ways to do pseudo turn-based systems - LSN's for example - which maintain a lot of TB's tactical interest and will sell better than pure TB's.

[Matt_Helm]

There are plenty of TB games out there if you look for them, they just don't sell enough to make an impact on the market.

And why is that? Your assumption seems to be that turnbased has a big enough market impact to make the difference between a hit and a flop. Problem is, your argument backing this up already assumes the conclusion, it's reasoning in a circle.

You're not really answering the question KoC posed because you're not making any valid comparison between equally marketed game. Fallout and Diablo were never marketed in the same way...Fallout wasn't actually marketed at all.

The only people making TB games are the obscure companies, therefore it is easy to see that the money is not flowing in that direction. If there was a track record of success for TB games then that would not be the case. The last TB RPG from a major publisher that I can remember is ToEE, it got a lot of publicity and flopped. Yes, it had technical issues but so have other games that went on to be a success.

You are wrong about Dialbo marketing, btw. I heard about Fallout before it was released, I played the demo to death. I discovered Diablo by accident while wandering the software aisle. Diablo didn't have any marketing that I recall. If you remember, at the time Diablo came out the CRPG had been declared dead and buried and it's success was a surprise to the market.

Now, as to Diablo 2 vs Fallout 2, yes, Diablo 2 had more marketing behind it.

If you want to compare marketing, how about comparing the sales of TB vs RTS strategy games? We're down to only a few well financed and publicized TB strategy titles (HOMM, Civ, is Disciples considered mainstream or indepenent?) that don't sell as well as the stupid RTS games that keep coming out. Why is that true? Why did the original C&C sell so many boxes (and outsell the prior generation of TB strategy games) that it spawned the whole RTS craze?

If there were a lot of players going to game company forums and asking for more turn based games don't you think we'd see more of them being released? Why has it taken this long to see a sequel to JA2, or even a clone? Why haven't we seen a TB "spiritual successor" to Fallout?

Is your point that people want TB games but don't know how to ask for them?

[PsychoSniper]

Execpt everyone see,s to be forgetting one BIG fact.


FO is supposed to emulate a PnP RPG.

EDIT: Clarification (for which I shall be flamed I bet)


Should have wrote a bit more ............. basicly, in the end what it comes down to is this.

If we knew the game was going to be made proprly, with respect to the RP element and the setting and such, the turn based / realtime argument wouldnt be too big (ok, it would be big, but not that big) as in the end the essense of Fallout would be preserved. FO and FO2 wouldnt have been changed much (minus certain stratiges and exploits) if combat was realtime, as they'd still retain the essense of the setting and the RP element.

That said, we DONT know that it will be made properly.

We've got two interplay blunders that butcherd the setting and essense of Fallout, and Bethesda saying they're going to 'do what they do best', when the games theyve made arnt that good, and are in fact combat games with a weap RP element.

[Brother None]

The only people making TB games are the obscure companies, therefore it is easy to see that the money is not flowing in that direction. If there was a track record of success for TB games then that would not be the case.

And that's exactly the same kind of reasoning I just pointed out is not valid.

Let me try to follow your line of thinking here: we start by saying TB games are obscure and irrelevant, big companies stop publishing TB games...Hey look TB games aren't a commericial success so big companies shouldn't publish them!

Talk about a vicious cycle.

What you're doing is reflecting on the situation as is. You're just displaying the current reality of publishing, not the current possibilities open to it. That does not answer KoC's question.

You are wrong about Dialbo marketing, btw. I heard about Fallout before it was released, I played the demo to death. I discovered Diablo by accident while wandering the software aisle. Diablo didn't have any marketing that I recall. If you remember, at the time Diablo came out the CRPG had been declared dead and buried and it's success was a surprise to the market.

Do you specialize in fallacious arguments? Not only are you arguing from personal experience, which is irrelevant, you're also comparing a sequel to an original game, which is stupid.

If you want to compare marketing, how about comparing the sales of TB vs RTS strategy games?

Strategy? Sorry, but y'know, wrong genre. Strategy and RPGs have different markets.

But wait Max Payne was realtime with bullet time and was a success so RPGs should be realtiem with bullet time too!

Is your point that people want TB games but don't know how to ask for them?

Asking is not the problem. Listening is. The gaming market does not work the way you seem to think it does.

[Syreen]

Also, platform matters.

There IS a widely played mainstream TBS series which I really should of remembered immediately. It's called "Advance Wars".

[Mad Max RW]

First person and turn based is just as retarded as isometric and real time. FO3 is first person/behind view. OK, I can deal with it. So make the combat really fucking good. A first person shooter with well planned stats can be good (see: Deus Ex). Unfortunately Bethesda has no grasp on combat. AI in all their games sucks and will forever suck.

I have an argument in favor of TB. The entire Civilization series. What's so obscure about that?

[Frater Perdurabo]

I'd say the first clue lies in the market. If TB sold well then there would make more TB games. TB games in this modern era fall into two classes: franchise games (Civ, HOMM, etc) or independent/east bloc games (Space Empires IV, Silent Storm, Massive Assault, Laser Squad Nemesis, etc). While all of us know about Silent Storm, to take a recent example, if you go to a game store and mention it you will likely receive a lot of blank looks from the other customers and the staff. The lack of activity at the Nival forums shows that no one cares about the game.

Look at how long it took to play through a mission in JA2, most stupid kids don't have an attention span long enough to sit still for the amount of time it took to sneak a team through the darkness to make silent kills. The market is overrun with morons that only want to run-n-gun as fast as they can, careful and deliberate strategy is not something most idiot children are really even capable of conceptualizing. My teenage nephew, who is a brighter bulb than most, is a gamer and he thinks that turn based games are slow and quaint. It's "boring" to sit and plan out moves and consider options. If a game doesn't sell well with the teenage market it will not do well overall.

Consider this: which made more money, Fallout or Diablo? Fallout 2 or Diablo 2? Investors look for maximum potential profit and if you don't think investors are important to getting a game published you don't have a right to any opinions on this topic.

I think it is time to face the fact that we are anachronisms and left-overs from another age of gaming as far as the mainstream American market is concerned. Sitting around thinking that we are enlightened with a truth that has escaped the rest of the world is not really constructive. I also think that events will demonstrate that no one cares if anything has been proven to us on any level.

Now I am depressed. I'm going to play Panzer General.

Guys stop bashing him merely because he's from Glutton Creeper. Rant cut short, his point was that nowadays there is less interest in the market for Tb games. Yes, marketing has something to do with it, but it won't change the fact that:
a) 12-year olds don't like TB
b) TB doesn't suit XBox

First person and turn based is just as retarded as isometric and real time. FO3 is first person/behind view. OK, I can deal with it. So make the combat really fucking good. A first person shooter with well planned stats can be good (see: Deus Ex). Unfortunately Bethesda has no grasp on combat. AI in all their games sucks and will forever suck.

I have an argument in favor of TB. The entire Civilization series. What's so obscure about that?

Basically my point. However, you cannot compare a strategy game to a CRPG.

[atoga]

But wait Max Payne was realtime with bullet time and was a success so RPGs should be realtiem with bullet time too!

now that you mention it, bullet time is not all that different from TB combat. hire this man.


ps. frater, matt_helm: no one is arguing about what the structure of the market 'looks' like, nor is anyone disputing that TB isn't suited for XBox (does xbox have any tb games in any genres? aside from board games like monopoly, i doubt it). kharn is right in saying that the argument is circular. if you look at the state the market is in then of course you're going to presuppose that TB isn't the way to go; but that doesn't mean the market couldn't have gone another way. also, the mere fact that TB is unpopular doesn't make it unfeasible. presumably if fallout were released today (graphics and size of game updated to be appropriate for the market, but everything else being the same) it would at least turn a profit.

ofcourse, if i was a dev i probably wouldn't put my money behind a title with TB, unless it had some other bitchinly cool, innovative features (along with dope particle fx and bumpmapped textures).

also, i think a TB/third person (but not first person, that is important, and it has to be a third person where you can zoom out and move the camera angle around and shit like that) combination is quite plausible.

[Mad Max RW]

Basically my point. However, you cannot compare a strategy game to a CRPG.

I understood that. My point is to counter his mention of RTS vs. TBS game sales. Civ 4 has remained in the top 10 since release. I can't remember the last time I saw an RTS do as well. Maybe Starcraft.

But that's besides the point. Turnbased is alive and well on the PC, and very few instances the console (pretty much all jRPG's). Our problem is developers who formerly made RPG's moving to console thinking everybody will come with them. They forget gamers have different tastes. Trying to make a game for everybody, like Bethesda is doing, will only lead to a watered down experience no matter if you're into classic RPG's or action filled clickfests. Fallout fans aren't the only ones who will be unhappy. Do you know any casual gamers who beat Oblivion? And it has all the stuff that should grab their attention, right? Bethesda and many others don't get it. They're going for the GTA crowd, and that crowd doesn't care.

I don't believe the argument for or against turnbased makes any sense. It's the dumbing down of largely American game developers we should be analyzing.

[Mr. Teatime]

There are no hard facts that TB won't sell. It's simply far easier to follow the crowd and do RT, which there is no evidence for not selling. From a publisher's point of view, it's just less risky

[aries100]

In the linked thread over at the forums on rpgwatch.com I also wrote this:

"I concur & agree that FO1&FO2 were great games, when they were released a decade ago, but if they were released to day...well, I just don't think they quite are going to cut it (or make it through) in today's market. Certainly not with the stark competition from FPS games like Prey, Farscape, Halo 1+2 or even HalfLife, Counter-Strike and Touch Detective for Nintendo DS Lite.

Many more games are being released today than 10 years ago; this means that you really really have to, as a developer/publisher, to stay ahead, and gain more info, data and knowledge and knowhow all the time, to keep making games, people actually are going to buy."

Clarify I now must it seems...very well, then.(this wasn't a baseless claim, though, as the quote above clarifies a bit).

Living in Europe, I have been gaming since 1997/1998 on the computer. I remember the times when we had to wait 6-9 or even 12 months before games such as BG1 was released in Europe (or at least in Scandinavia where I live).

Fallout was released in 1997, 10 years ago, and back then, RPG sort of was the king of the hill, which made way for the original BG1 series. This
turned a threathening decline for RPGS into a triumphant area of joy...and happiness...

I 1997/1998 there weren't that many titles being released in Europe, and you had to order ultima series, if you wanted to play them.

Today, games are released almost simultaneously all over the world and there are many more games being released, at least in Europe, than before.

In 1997/1998, grown men playing computer games (such as I) was seen upon as nerds and geeks who didn't have the social skills necessary to cope in the real worlds. In the last decade this has changed, since every young man (and women) now plays some sort of computergame, either on the Nintendo, Xbox or the PC.

In short, the gaming market has shifted from the maybe 'nerdy' types to the more mainstream market. The more nerdy market being sites such as this one (ducks flying rotten vegetables --- many it seems ), the codex, and yes, nma.

These, imo, are the sites who seem to want a return to the UI + gameplay of yesteryear, from at least a decade ago, which in this case primarily mean 'turnbased combat.'

Turnbased combat were done in Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor and in TOEE and I think maybe in Arcanum as well. (and I do mean good old turnbased combat not round based combat like in BG1+BG2).

Even 5-6 years, games with classical old school turnbased combat couldn't quite cut it, which meant that Troika (and other game developers) are not anymore in the market.

Some of us believe that Planescape: Torment is the best rpg ever made. Yet, during 4 or 5 years of selling, this game 'only' sold about 400,000-500,000 copies of the game. If we then multiply this with say 2 or three, then we maybe have the hardcore RPG audience, totalling maybe
1,500,000 people.

Today, sadly , this isn't enough to pay for the development costs of producing & developing a game. IO Interactive, the Danish game devs.
behind the Hitman Series, used about 80 mill. DKK (Danish Crowns) to develop Hitman: Blood Money. [80 mill. DKK= about USD 12-16 mio].

Sadly --- this has meant that there seems to be some sort of a consensus to develop games more for the mainstream market than the hardcore rpg (or adventure game fans).

However, this development has also led to that the FPS genre has evolved from the traditional shooters such as the original doom (1993) to
FPS which have sort of a decent story (Prey, Farscape, Far Cry, Gears of War, Lost Planet and more).

In 1997/1998, Fallout 1+2 did not have to compete with these games nor did they have to compete with games on Nintendo's Game Cube, Wii, DS, and Game Boy. In 1997/1998, PC-gaming was sort of the king of the mountain; Today PC-gaming is in very heavy and staunch competition with say Xbox 360, PS3, and Nintendo's varius consoles.

It is, therefore, clear to me, that game developers need to flesh out into varius platforms as well as try to reach a bigger gaming audience than the hardcore audience, especially since the RPGs of today competes with many more games than 10 years ago.

Lastly, I want to say that I do only talk about turn-based combat not marketable in today's market, not the other great things from fallout 1+ 2.

[aries100]

If you think that all that made fallout great was the turnbased combat, well then, imo, you're wrong. Fallout was great because it took the post apocalyptic angst/anxieties of the 1950's and turned it into a (sometimes humorous) game.

It takes the idea of how it is to live in a post apocalyptic world, and places you, and your character, in the midst of this fantastic world, where you must learn how to survive doing varius quests, fending for yourself, exploring the countryside... hmmm does this remind you of something....???

[aries100]

According to this info from wiki's Fallout pages:


"Van Buren

The logo to Van BurenMain article: Van Buren (Fallout)
Van Buren was the code-name for Fallout 3 while it was in development at Interplay. It featured an improved engine, new locations, vehicles, and a modified version of the SPECIAL system. The story broke off from the Vault Dweller/Chosen One bloodline of the first two, and instead centered around a prisoner. The game started with him mysteriously appearing in a new jail that was under attack. Plans for the game included the ability to influence the various factions. The game was cancelled in December, 2003, when budget cuts forced Interplay to lay off the PC development team."

Especially the part about a person being in prison, hmmm ??? and the part about the abiilty to influence varius factions, hmmm ?? as well as
some other stuff, hmmmm ???

Somehow, I've remembering some game where you start in prison, and can influence different factions...Hmm, wonder what that's game is called ??

Look, I'm as crushed as you are that Bethsoft has aquired (bought) the Fallout license; I do also fear that we will basically will get a xbox 360 game, which, for all purposes and all we know, will be Oblivion with guns.

However, we haven't seen anything from Bethsoft
regarding the content in Fallout 3 (yet). Or what is more important to me: the story, the main quests and the side quests in FO 3. These were, in both FO1+FO2, excellent.

The reason simply being that Bethsoft do not make story-driven games like some other companies do. Bethsoft makes games where you, as the gamer, can do anything at anytime and go everywhere at anytime -- if you so choose.

I don't think that's going to change, just because they now are making (a licensed Fallout 3) game.
Sad that is .

[PsychoSniper]

According to this info from wiki's Fallout pages:


"Van Buren

The logo to Van BurenMain article: Van Buren (Fallout)
Van Buren was the code-name for Fallout 3 while it was in development at Interplay. It featured an improved engine, new locations, vehicles, and a modified version of the SPECIAL system. The story broke off from the Vault Dweller/Chosen One bloodline of the first two, and instead centered around a prisoner. The game started with him mysteriously appearing in a new jail that was under attack. Plans for the game included the ability to influence the various factions. The game was cancelled in December, 2003, when budget cuts forced Interplay to lay off the PC development team."

Especially the part about a person being in prison, hmmm ??? and the part about the abiilty to influence varius factions, hmmm ?? as well as
some other stuff, hmmmm ???

Somehow, I've remembering some game where you start in prison, and can influence different factions...Hmm, wonder what that's game is called ??

Look, I'm as crushed as you are that Bethsoft has aquired (bought) the Fallout license; I do also fear that we will basically will get a xbox 360 game, which, for all purposes and all we know, will be Oblivion with guns.

However, we haven't seen anything from Bethsoft
regarding the content in Fallout 3 (yet). Or what is more important to me: the story, the main quests and the side quests in FO 3. These were, in both FO1+FO2, excellent.

The reason simply being that Bethsoft do not make story-driven games like some other companies do. Bethsoft makes games where you, as the gamer, can do anything at anytime and go everywhere at anytime -- if you so choose.

I don't think that's going to change, just because they now are making (a licensed Fallout 3) game.
Sad that is :( .

Actualy, we CAN look at how they will handle it.


Star Trek: Legacy.

Its basicly a 360 port that wasnt finished for PC.

And they've blacklisted the mere MENTION of some trek gameing fansites from their fourm too.


We can expect similar treatment of Fallout.


Im just suprised DaC and NMA aint allready blacklisted.

[Brother None]

PsychoSniper; NMA is blacklisted. So is the RPGCodex. DaC...well...DaC has Teatime on Bethesda's payroll, so no need to blacklist it. I newsposted your Star Trek bit, by the way, Psychosniper. It's interesting.

aries, I already adressed your remark from RPGWatch there; your remark that Fallout would compete "Prey, Farscape, Halo 1+2". I, and someone else, already pointed out that this is only the case if you develop Fallout as a RT competitor of those games. The competition between Fallout and Halo isn't there inherently, but it can be created if you target the same market.

So it's an open choice, not a pre-existing challenge.

Considering the drought of true-form RPGs that gamers are suffering under, why does everyone pretend it's a bigger risk to release a game that fills this big gap than it is to try and compete with other huge games?

[Frater Perdurabo]

Basically my point. However, you cannot compare a strategy game to a CRPG.

I understood that. My point is to counter his mention of RTS vs. TBS game sales. Civ 4 has remained in the top 10 since release. I can't remember the last time I saw an RTS do as well. Maybe Starcraft.

Warcraft III?

But that's besides the point. Turnbased is alive and well on the PC, and very few instances the console (pretty much all jRPG's). Our problem is developers who formerly made RPG's moving to console thinking everybody will come with them. They forget gamers have different tastes. Trying to make a game for everybody, like Bethesda is doing, will only lead to a watered down experience no matter if you're into classic RPG's or action filled clickfests. Fallout fans aren't the only ones who will be unhappy. Do you know any casual gamers who beat Oblivion? And it has all the stuff that should grab their attention, right? Bethesda and many others don't get it. They're going for the GTA crowd, and that crowd doesn't care.

I don't believe the argument for or against turnbased makes any sense. It's the dumbing down of largely American game developers we should be analyzing.

Agreed.

If you think that all that made fallout great was the turnbased combat, well then, imo, you're wrong. Fallout was great because it took the post apocalyptic angst/anxieties of the 1950's and turned it into a (sometimes humorous) game.

It takes the idea of how it is to live in a post apocalyptic world, and places you, and your character, in the midst of this fantastic world, where you must learn how to survive doing varius quests, fending for yourself, exploring the countryside... hmmm does this remind you of something....???

Yeah, that's why I won't mind RT combat.

[Slaughter_Manslaught]

Frankly, I think that this discussion is stupid and dumb-assed. Why, you ask me? Why have JUST TB or CTB (CTB kicks RT ass)? I think that having BOTH could be interesting, and give two alternatives to the gamers. TB is loved by the old hardcores, while newer players will value CTB. Simple. Each on they ways.


So... I think that just as long as Fallout 3 have a FALLOUTY feel and setting, a good engine, non-linear gaming, good story and dialogs and all these things that made the FO series good, 'TB OR CTB' is not going to be my greatest concern. Obvilion Engine (what's the name? I don't remember it) can be used for Isometric view, right?


Like these guys said:

aries100 wrote:
If you think that all that made fallout great was the turnbased combat, well then, imo, you're wrong. Fallout was great because it took the post apocalyptic angst/anxieties of the 1950's and turned it into a (sometimes humorous) game.

It takes the idea of how it is to live in a post apocalyptic world, and places you, and your character, in the midst of this fantastic world, where you must learn how to survive doing varius quests, fending for yourself, exploring the countryside... hmmm does this remind you of something....???

Yeah, that's why I won't mind RT combat.

[Stainless]

One of the biggest problems with implementing both an RT and TB system is that we might get another Arcanum system.

[POOPERSCOOPER]

"You are wrong about Dialbo marketing, btw. I heard about Fallout before it was released, I played the demo to death. I discovered Diablo by accident while wandering the software aisle. Diablo didn't have any marketing that I recall. If you remember, at the time Diablo came out the CRPG had been declared dead and buried and it's success was a surprise to the market. "

I wanted to quote this for its awesomeness with logic skills. Seriously, people pay this guy to make board games?




"Turnbased combat were done in Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor and in TOEE and I think maybe in Arcanum as well. (and I do mean good old turnbased combat not round based combat like in BG1+BG2).

Even 5-6 years, games with classical old school turnbased combat couldn't quite cut it, which meant that Troika (and other game developers) are not anymore in the market. "

I can tell that english is not your native language but your just talking out of your ass for many of your supporting facts. Troika made 2 RT games(arcanum was really just RT with a TB option tagged on) and 1 TB game. Toee was straight TB and it was there best selling game despite major bugs and shit, don't think "lol all games have bugs" and consider them all equally stable because that just Matt_Helm type thinking.


Planescpae sold 400-500k? News to me, I'm pretty sure it sold 90k initially(actually i'm certain because furgus said it) then probably a bit more with the repacked deal but not as many as you claim.

[MrBumble]

There is no solid evidence that a turn based Fallout 3 would not sell well but I easily see why Bethesda would not do it : there never was any turn based CRPG that sold better than Oblivion which also was acclaimed by the noob console trash fanbase and gamesites as being the best rpg ever. Nough said ?