Open Forum: A Challenge

[PsychoSniper]

Turn Based is key part of a cRPG.


Thats right, a Computer Role Play Game.

Thats what FO is.

It's designed to mostly emulate a PnP RPG in computer form.

The maps are hex's for that reason, adn the combat is TB for that reason.

The one change I would enjoy seeing made is each characther acting one at a time.

Instead, you pick what to do, the AI does teh same, then the turn starts.

Everyone acts ALMOST all at once

The quicker that person is, the quicker they act

If someone is killed or knocked down before acting, theyr action fails, or in the case of weapons it can have a negative effect (Someone has a minigun, and a dude with a super sledge knocks his ass down, a few rounds might go flying....)

But otherwise, I say keep it like it is in FO and FO2

[VasikkA]

Half of you aren't sticking to the subject, which is combat in Fallout 3. Yes, combat is only one aspect of the roleplaying experience, but a vital one since you're likely to spend a majority of the time fighting orcs and mutants of various sorts. Saying "turn-based is old" simply isn't a good enough argument, becuase real-time combat in games is equally as old.

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...

Just to correct you, RPG wasn't 'king of the hill' in the 90's. The genre had pretty much died since Ultima VII. Fallout started the revival of the CRPG genre.

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).

What are you suggesting, that Fallout 3 should compete with first-person shooters? That would be like shooting yourself in the knee - marketingwise. A game that tries to please all audiences ultimately fails to please anyone. Fallout 3's main market is the RPG crowd.

This is the reason behind the Wii games, where you are meant to not only roleplay a character, but be the character i.e. your swinging of the sword means that you as the character also swings the sword.

So instead of your character's stats and attributes the outcome is determined by your reflexes and swording skills? That's not roleplaying anymore, now is it?

This is tied in with the 'let's make games more cinematic' (you know like movies) trend, which again is tied in with the whole 'let's get the gamers more immersed' in the world, which actually means that the palyers should feel like they were living in say Tamriel or Cyrodiil themselves.

Immersion in videogames has nothing to do with cinematicness or realistic swordfighting. Immersion is created in your mind and not on the screen.

However, if you want realistic combat, turn-based easily offers the possibility of taking real combat factors into consideration(importance of cover, aimed shots) and offers a broader tactical variety. These elements are much harder to incorporate in a fast-paced real-time environment. In many ways turn-based depicts reality much better, but only with a different pace of time.

If you look at TB combased, its tradition is rooted in the military tradition of the early 1800's where TEAM A would shoot first, then B would shoot. And then there would be a pause to get the wounded away from the battlefield. The reason for this was very simply that rifles and canons should be loaded in the front, you had to put the bullets down the barrel of the rifle, then shoot. The same was true for the loading of the canons. Technological advances during the 1800's made this TB combat IRL obsolete and void.

Just as tech advances has made the TB combat in computergames, in rpgs,
void and obsolete.

Who says you can't improve and modernize turn-based combat? There is certainly much more potential for improvement than on the real-time front where cheap gimmicks like bullet time are considered as improvements.

----

One common argument is that turn-based combat is too time-consuming and that gunfights that last longer than 2 minutes tend to get mind numbing anyway. Killing a pack of wolves in a real-time game generally takes less time than in a turn-based game, becuase the A.I. doesn't have to calculate your actions, your allies' actions and the enemy's actions separately, but instead does it simultaneously!, thus saving a lot of valuable playtime. Time that could be spent on homework, literature, hanging out with friends or playing Yahtzee. Now, since most of you know that an RPG must offer a certain amount of effective gaming hours to be called an RPG, that time must unfortunately be filled with something else. An optimist would say that the excess time is filled with witty dialogue and intelligent puzzles. That would be marvelous. But guess what game developers consider as their favorite kind of stuffing? That's right, they compensate shorter combat with MORE COMBAT against enemies that are MORE FREQUENT resulting in battles that are LESS SIGNIFICANT and thus LESS SATISFACTIONAL. Does that sound like a better alternative to you? At least MMORPG players will be at ease.

Japonese RPGs is a popular subspecies of RPGs even in civilized parts of the world like North America and Europe. I'll be philosophical about the Japanese at some later time, but fact is that their RPGs use a combat system similar to our turn-based. I hate to use the jRPG argument, but despite the retardedness of their combat system they haven't compromised it during all these years just to attract the mainstream FPS crowd into their rotten cult of mega-eyed furries. They know their fanbase and prioritize game design choices according to that. However, I assume their combat system has been improved and refined over the years to meet 'modern standards' while keeping its fundamental nature, whatever that means.

What will most likely be Bethesda's argument following the initial shitstorm they will get upon revealing the first next-gen details of their next-gen Fallout game? Todd Howard has repeatedly stated "We do what we do best here at Bethesda" so they'll probably stick to that. Well, combat certainly isn't what Bethesda does best. Combat in Oblivion was simplistic, superfluous and unchallenging; standard CRPG combat, that is. I haven't read many reviews and opinions praising the combat in Oblivion, so I'm probably not on my own here. Besides, pure real-time isn't even the standard combat system in modern CRPGs. NWN2 has round-based with pause, KOTOR has sit-on-your-ass-while-the-AI-fights-for-you automatic borefest. The FPS/RPG hybrid combat in Deus Ex and Vampire: Bloodlines hardly wasn't mind-blowing and as satisfactory as their FPS competitors. In that light, perhaps considering alternatives to real-time wouldn't be such a bad idea.

Bethesda is in a unique position. They have a strong reputation in the gaming press, a powerful marketing machinery and are dealing with a well known brand with Fallout 3. Most importantly, they are an independent developer and publisher and not some small company fighting for their existence and sucking off to major publishers. They have the power to choose where they want to go with the series; if it means making bold game design choices or milking the "we do what we do best" cash cow, it's beyond my knowledge. Perhaps I'm naive, but I'd like to think a game developer wants to make a game that feels like something totally different from what other current games have to offer. Graphical innovations only stay fresh for a few months, but gameplay innovations(or revamps) last forever. Games that are in 100% compliance with market surveys never end up as classics. And classics sell more than shareholders can ever imagine. Ain't that the truth Emil?

[frissy]

Well Arcanum had RT and it was still a cRPG. The RT element was bollocks, but it didn't hinder my character develoment in it.

Yes, TB is a key element of a cRPG, but only because it's a highly working solution for it. You're almost implying that if a cRPG doesn't have TB combat it's not a cRPG. Some cRPG's don't have combat.

The core of an cRPG is the living another role (basically) and the best possible way to experience that would be to experience the way you experience your own life. Right? I don't see myself going into pause or taking turns. TB is the easy way to achieve it (if you can say that) compared to a working RT (which still hasn't seen the light of day) in such manner.

Then comes the problem of keeping the gameplay in balance so it aids the basic idea of the game. TB does that for cRPG's, because it works brilliantly in roleplaying, but is it close to the "real thing"? No. Not by far (I don't see us pausing...unless you have a stroke...)

Sports games that are any good, usually mimic the sport as much as possible. Racing games that are succesfull usually mimic the physics closely.Shooters that are rather succesfull mimic weapons and recoil, and rag dolls etc.


I personally think that pulling a trigger in a FPS mimics more the real thing (shooting) than TB in Fallout mimics it's own "real thing" (life, role).

[Urizen]

immersion doesn't mean what it did 5 years ago. tipsy now, willelaborate when sober

[Cimmerian Nights]

It's not a realism issue at all. It's an issue of your character's strengths and weaknesses being put into play rather than your own personal physical and mental skills being called into play. RT is dependant on quick reactions and precision targeting. TB is dependant on the skills and attributes of the PC rather than the player himself. In this way Steven Hawkins can role-play Mike Tyson, and vice versa.

[noflashbang]

Turn-Based requires good game design skills, TB requires thought because that is the primary draw, to be tactical and Etc.

RT does not, you can simply spam enemies and pass it off as "Tactics"

When all you do is essentially use canned routines, tactics, Etc.

RTSes require you to use whatever race is less nerfed, or in the case of singleplayer, automatically win/lose

TBSes require/allow you to pay attention to everything happening and act accordingly.

RT is good fir when you are not micro-managing anything whatsoever.


TB is good

FAKE EDIT:just read your incomprehensible bullshit pertaining to the Wii, I like how you fuckers ignore what Shiggy himself said in order to salvage a retarded argument.

FAKE EDIT2: you are so goddamned stupid.

1. TB was used in the past because of tech limitations. NOT because it some how leads to MORE stratigic game play. Game devs might use TB to allow for this now, but game design has to allow for this. FO was not devolped to use this side of TB. This can be seen by the fact that there is no cover system, most battles use a rinse and repeat system to combat: move into range of target(making sure not to use to many AP), shoot target till dead, and finaly the fact that the AI uses the exact same afore mentioned tactics to combat.

2. Anything you do in a TB system I can do in a RT system. Run, jump, hide, take cover, sneak, kill, throw, ect. The differnce is how much time you have to PLAN these actions.

3. Simply spaming enemys is a tactic that can be used in any game, RT or TB(see #1).

4. "RTSes require you to use whatever race is less nerfed, or in the case of singleplayer, automatically win/lose"-This is a game DESIGN issue not an issue with the (RT) system.

5."TBSes require/allow you to pay attention to everything happening and act accordingly."- And you don't have to pay attention or act in a RT game? lol

6."FAKE EDIT:just read your incomprehensible bullshit pertaining to the Wii, I like how you fuckers ignore what Shiggy himself said in order to salvage a retarded argument." - I said nothing about Wiis. I hope this statment was made to all, not me.

7.

[aries100]

I should have made more clear that my comments
regarding the 'wii', the 'cinematic experiences' and several other comments were just that, comments.

In several posts at varius sites (rpgwatch.com, the codex, bioware's boards etc.) I have fought and argued (nearly) with varius developers about
how I dislike (and might I say distate) for games becoming more and more like movies or like world simulators.

A roleplaying game is a game in which you play as another character rather than the character you play in real life. In a roleplaying game, I can be a
sod if I want to ot I be a thief or...; What I certainly don't want to be is myself --- living in another world.

My comment about the 'wii' was tied in with this; you get to live YOUR life in another world, a world like Tamriel or YOU get to go space thinly disguised as Commander Shephard. I don't how the Wii console handles combat, so I can't really comment on this, but if it does it the way that Vasik suggested, well then, that's too bad . I like combat sequences in games to be dependent on
my character's stats and abilities, not on my click- fest with the mouse...

My last post (before this one) was more of comment on how & why TB combat probably isn't coming back right now. I'm sorry, if I wasn't very clear on that point...

[RPG of the year!!]

1. TB was used in the past because of tech limitations.

Really?

That's funny, considering the first computer games in existence featured realtime gameplay. I guess the technology limitations that necessitated TB combat hadn't been invented yet by the late 50's and early 60's.

Gee whiz!

2. Anything you do in a TB system I can do in a RT system. Run, jump, hide, take cover, sneak, kill, throw, ect. The differnce is how much time you have to PLAN these actions.

So you can do everything you can in an RT system than you can in a TB system, with the exception of... Taking turns.

Over Noflashbang's Head, meat The Point. The Point, meet Over Noflashbang's Head.

3. Simply spaming enemys is a tactic that can be used in any game, RT or TB(see #1).

Clearly, the potential for spam is equal between RT and TB combat systems. After all, what's the difference between simultaneous-action styled gameplay, and your-turn-their-turn-your-turn-their-turn styled gameplay?

Not much LOL! UR SO RITE!!!

4. "RTSes require you to use whatever race is less nerfed, or in the case of singleplayer, automatically win/lose"-This is a game DESIGN issue not an issue with the (RT) system.

...And as we all know, the combat system has no influence on game design whatsoever. RT has nothing to do with the design issues that 99% of RTS games share in common.

Yup.

5."TBSes require/allow you to pay attention to everything happening and act accordingly."- And you don't have to pay attention or act in a RT game? lol

Good job ignoring the word 'everything', you superstar of debate.

[wamingo]

Is it too late to add?
The question you pose here is obviously an excuse for the popularity of the TB system. The question you ought to be asking is how an RT variant would make a better (or more popular) system than TB, and/or, how RT would not destroy fallout.

You guys make "Real Time" sound like a word that his been said so much it no longer holds any meaning. CTB from Fallout Tactics is basicly Real Time + Stamina system of sorts. How did CTB destroy Fallout? Surely it did not. The lack of being an RPG is what made Tactics un-fallout.
RT doesn't necessarily mean mashing a button to fire your weapon quake style.

The combat system is the only subject where I disagree with the NMA/DAC crowd. I hold no love for the oblivion with guns, which bethesda is undoubtedly about to dish out to us, so don't go think I be one of those... But the turnbased subject bothers me. People say fallout can't be fallout without TB but the only arguement seems to be that TB has proven to be successful before, so why can't it again. Those two things hold no relevance to one another obviously.
I won't state that TB can't be successful. But I will claim that Fallout has nothing to do with how the combat system treats time. I will agree that going from isometric/bird view to 1st person would probably violently rape Fallout, but going from TB to CTB did not so why should it.
CTB was not perfect of course; controlling several characters at the same time without a pause function, like BG, could be quite awful. Fallout 1/2 however only had 1 character to control, lest not forget. I clearly recall people calling Baldur's Gate's pause function gay, but it was essential to the system, and BG was loved by many. How would it have destroyed Fallout. Playstyle? A subjective matter to be certain.
And perhaps that is what this is all about; Subjectivism.

I'll be perfectly honest now. The TB of fallout helt me from playing fallout until after I found out what a brilliant setting and feel it had. To others it might have been the role playing part (choices) or the character system or maybe something else. I can't for the life of me see how Fallout's TB Combat system can have been the main attraction to anyone though, but I'm willing to let in a little doubt. Certainly fallout wouldn't be fallout without combat (!), but the type of combat system matters a lot less than people seem to think - as long as it keeps the crisp feel and style, which fallout is known for, intact.

I'm going to say something now which some might think of as blasphemy - Combat in fallout is actually utter shite. It's the graphics and style that made it interesting/different. It's what sets it apart from all the fantasy games. But also the only thing. Most RPG's has the same combat system. Level > lower level. Bigger gun > smaller gun. Fight until health is low then rest or drink health pot and repeat process. Difficulty is left to chance and dramatic changes in levels/equipment. In other words incredibly predictable and uninteresting. Fallout is really nothing more than turn based diablo. There, I said it. Button mashing made simpler! (is that even possible?) Eventually you run around with a plasma rifle aiming for the groins owning everything and that's it. That's Fallout combat for ya. Delivering the bigger critical... Yawn.
The only exception, or partial exception I can think of is World of Warcraft (and perhaps other MMO's?). When you fight bosses and other players in WoW you often need more than button mashing. Timed challenges like interruption, needing to root it, taunt it, and such. There's not many games that has this type of combat.
If Fallout's Combat is not going to be a tactical game like FOT (cover and stances) then it needs to go the WoW way or it will stay shit boring and mindlessly repetitive yet again. And TB will make it worse for all but the 11 angry men.
Personally I would prefer slowed down CTB with cover and stances, in a birdview and party members controlled by AI still. The possibilities in combat is so much greater in real time than in turn based. Two explosions going off at once is usually so much more interesting and makes for far more visually pleasing gameplay.
Again, subjective, of course.

Alas, it is no secret that mainstream prefers explosions.
Today, in the A* Hit game based market there's only room for so much innovation, everything else needs to be evolutionary (not revolutionary (or re-invention (of eg TB))) otherwise chances for a ridiculous price tag is too high. Having a potentional 1 million buyers for a game with TB does simply not match having 1.5 or 2 million with RT. And when mainstream prefers explosions, RT is where the money will be gambled. Small/independant developers might do it, but bethesda sized will not.
Afterall, RT (and even CTB) allows for vastly more explosions and interesting fights than TB ever could. It's a playstyle and it's entirely subjective.

I guess my answer is a question in turn. How would an RT variant like CTB make fallout less fallout?

[Brother None]

People say fallout can't be fallout without TB but the only arguement seems to be that TB has proven to be successful before,

Actually, the only argument is that Fallout, originally announced as "the GURPS project", was intended to be as close an approximation to the experience of playing GURPs as technology would allow. Hence the choice of turnbased.

I agree that combat in Fallout was not perfect, but that had more to do with a lack of focus on expanding and deepening the combat system from the developers' side than with the core philosophy, including TB, being wrong.

[RPG of the year!!]

People say fallout can't be fallout without TB but the only arguement seems to be that TB has proven to be successful before, so why can't it again.

Then I guess you haven't heard that Fallout was desgined to mimmick a turnbased pen & paper RPG, from which the SPECIAL system is inseperable. It must have been hard to miss the clue, considering how frequently it gets thrown around.

You're welcome.

[PsychoSniper]

Actualy, it was far more than the un-RPGness of FOCraptics that made it not fallout.

Things like the lack of a setting prehaps.........




For the rest of it.

FO isnt like other so c alled RPGs.



If beating a boss depends on how fast you can mash a button, than the characther system is renderd null.


The whole point of TB combat is becayse FO is supposed to emulate PnP RPGs as closley as possible for a cRPG.


And combat is one of the smaller points of the game.

Its supposed to be based more on the experince of playing your characther and reading the dialouge.


Combat in FO isnt as bad as you seem to think, either, as unlike many other rpgs FO's combat relies on your characthers stats. Nothing else.


No FPS crapfest like in morrowind were your reaction times and all that stuff depends on how fast you can use a xbox controller, or Dungeon Siege were combat is the entire game, in FO everything depends on JUST your stats. Thats the whole essence of a RPG.


The only thing that could make it better would be to change it from one person acting at a time, to everyone makes one turn at once, and their reaction time effects who shots first and such.

And if something happens before your react and you get knocked back n such, your turn gets nullified.

[Thor Kaufman]

Actualy, it was far more than the un-RPGness of FOCraptics that made it not fallout.

Things like the lack of a setting prehaps.........




For the rest of it.

FO isnt like other so c alled RPGs.



If beating a boss depends on how fast you can mash a button, than the characther system is renderd null.


The whole point of TB combat is becayse FO is supposed to emulate PnP RPGs as closley as possible for a cRPG.


And combat is one of the smaller points of the game.

Its supposed to be based more on the experince of playing your characther and reading the dialouge.


Combat in FO isnt as bad as you seem to think, either, as unlike many other rpgs FO's combat relies on your characthers stats. Nothing else.


No FPS crapfest like in morrowind were your reaction times and all that stuff depends on how fast you can use a xbox controller, or Dungeon Siege were combat is the entire game, in FO everything depends on JUST your stats. Thats the whole essence of a RPG.


The only thing that could make it better would be to change it from one person acting at a time, to everyone makes one turn at once, and their reaction time effects who shots first and such.

And if something happens before your react and you get knocked back n such, your turn gets nullified.

Actually, reaction time is included, it's called "Sequence", though, the higher the sequence, the faster you act. That's why high perception characters get the first turn more often.

[ilcattivo13]

RT doesn't necessarily mean mashing a button to fire your weapon quake style.

When a game is RT and FPP (like Fallout 3 will be) it really does.

[PsychoSniper]

Actualy, it was far more than the un-RPGness of FOCraptics that made it not fallout.

Things like the lack of a setting prehaps.........




For the rest of it.

FO isnt like other so c alled RPGs.



If beating a boss depends on how fast you can mash a button, than the characther system is renderd null.


The whole point of TB combat is becayse FO is supposed to emulate PnP RPGs as closley as possible for a cRPG.


And combat is one of the smaller points of the game.

Its supposed to be based more on the experince of playing your characther and reading the dialouge.


Combat in FO isnt as bad as you seem to think, either, as unlike many other rpgs FO's combat relies on your characthers stats. Nothing else.


No FPS crapfest like in morrowind were your reaction times and all that stuff depends on how fast you can use a xbox controller, or Dungeon Siege were combat is the entire game, in FO everything depends on JUST your stats. Thats the whole essence of a RPG.


The only thing that could make it better would be to change it from one person acting at a time, to everyone makes one turn at once, and their reaction time effects who shots first and such.

And if something happens before your react and you get knocked back n such, your turn gets nullified.

Actually, reaction time is included, it's called "Sequence", though, the higher the sequence, the faster you act. That's why high perception characters get the first turn more often. :chew:

Yes, but Ive had extremly high squence and still not reacted that fast in combat before.

The fact is once combat starts, every characther basicly gets pegged with an order they go in and sequence seems to not matter as much.

Been my experince at least.



As for the people saying FO lacks a cover system, the hell it does.

You duck around a corner or whatever cover there is and you're out of the line of fire.

If you happen to be out in the open, there IS NO COVER to get behind.

Its the same way in real life.

You take cover if you can, other wise you just return fire as quick as possible.

[wamingo]

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how heritage (GURPS) has much anything to do with fallout. Fallout is a setting. It's this setting that most people love. Perhaps you went from GURPS to Fallout, but how important this is, is extremely subjective. SPECIAL, the system, is not dead necessary to fallout either. You can easily have a system that includes the abilities; strength, perception, endurance, etc without being deep in GURPS.

For Fallout 3 to be considered a proper sequal it needs to do nothing but Look and Feel like fallout. That is IT. TB is such a minor thing, RT done right it could make no difference, or better, and most likely far more popular.

-
Exactly, it's all about Stats.
Stat based combat today is generally dull. Uneventful. Praying for chance. Reload mania. Watching a texbox with dmg stats. Graphics and humour and that sort, can, to an extent make up for the dullness - as is the case with Fallout. I enjoyed killing hubologists very much for instance.
But to make it genuinly not dull, you have to either add tactics or reaction type sorts or both. If you played FOT in CTB mode it had both. If you played it in TB mode it had just tactics. Fallout 1/2 had neither. FOT wasn't perfect, but it was a step in the right direction, imo.
You can hardly call firing and moving back behind a corner in the same round "tactics", "clever gameplay", or "fun". The ai was not clever enough to use it either - kind of an argument killer...

-
People keep saying FOT was crap because deathclaws had hair. But comon now. Clearly the only thing that made FOT a poor successor was its complete lack of being an RPG. Which is kind of a big thing. By RPG I don't mean character/class based gaming. I mean threaded dialogue, threaded quests, non-linearity, the Adventure part of rpg gaming. FOT did a decent, not great, but decent job at keeping the setting intact, it just wasn't an RPG. Who here wouldn't have played and enjoyed Fallout 1/2 with the FOT engine and graphics (+RPG)? Of course you would. Don't be silly.
Ok perhaps there were less hookers and bad language, but a detail, surely. More hookers wouldn't have made FOT more popular (much). Being a proper rpg definately, Definately, would.

[PsychoSniper]

You're partily full of shit.


A: Hairy deathclaws and other setting fuckups DID make FO:Craptics NOT a FO game.

They butcherd the setting, which made it not feel like Fallout.

B: TB IS essentel. Why ? Becasue, FO is supposed to feel like a PnP RPG in cRPG format.

Thats a BIG part of the feeling of the game, along with things such as dialouge.

Dialouge really blows in the TES series, and Im doubtful right now that bethesda could manage to do propper dialouges.

[Thor Kaufman]

I concur, FO is supposed to be more adventurelike and relaxed sort of, not some button-mashing shooter

[PsychoSniper]

Exactly. It's supposed to be like you're playing a PnP RPG, or as close as a cRPG can get to such.

And in what PnP can you button mash ?

[Lysandus]

horsepoopy

TB combat is more than just tactics, it lends to a thoughtful style of gameplay.

You could make the arguement that chess would be just as fun in RT, but it wouldn't be anything like the original game.

Do you think a TB Tetris/Doom/Quake would manage to capture the same feeling solely because it has a similar setting?