Editorial Bethesda developer explains why TB is obsolete

[Kraken]

Why dumbfuck him? Finally there's a decent discussion about TB vs. RT. Different opinions shouldn't result in a dumbfuck tag.

 

[Longshanks]

I'm a bit confused right now as it seems the post about this was made by a person called 'junction'.
It could well be that it is quote from Socratex200X, but then it fails to be in quote tags.

Yep it is a direct quote. Junction made a thread about the quote which was a misrepresentation of what was posted, so it was locked.
The dev wasn't really saying TBC is obsolete, though his post did have that tinge to it. Was more offering up the question as to whether the creator of P&P would have made it turn based, if he had access to the technology available today.

As for locational damage, I think there are some FPS games out there that are capable of making the character do locational damage. They are in RT, though, which means that the locationel damage probably are related to some sniperscopething or somehing like that.

True, not too difficult for gun-play, though it is if you want to minimise player skill.
How about for melee or hand-to-hand combat? It seems to me that targeting is much more difficult for these forms of combat, I haven't seen it in a real-time combat game.

I'm much more interested in if Bethsoft manage to do the setting properly. The release of the trailer seems to make me cautiously optimistic.

Hmm, another one of those eh?
Setting is really not difficult to get right, just copying Fallout's, there's also little reason why they wouldn't try to get it right.

It is gameplay and design (not just mechanics) where the difficulty and the lack of will (in my opinion) lies.

 

[hakuroshi]

A real RPG, I mean a really really real RPG, should not have RT or TB combat because both depend on player skill. Ideally, all combat is automatically resolved with the result depending on your character. Eventual moral choices in the combat should be presented through text-boxes. (Kill the unconscious villain? Shackle him?).

It would be an interactive movie or a book. Interesting, if done properly.

 

[elander_]

Here's an interesting thread on this subject from the ES forums:

http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index ... 08639&st=0

Quote from Gary Gigax:

...I would have never done anything at all differently, the time you have if your turn comes gives you a chance to think about the situation, and make important decisions you couldn't have in a real-time game... I enjoy only a very small amount of real-time games, but none of them are RPG-s... the best example for a turnbased game is chess: you can plan and then act... yes, some things are better visualized in PC games, but nothing can replace the feeling that you are really involved into your surroundings, and you can look around and think about it... no, I don't like to be caught 'flat-footed'... yes, that means in real-time you are unable to react as you would in reality, if your character would be really you...

But see it on the good side. Socrates question has raised a good debate and maybe if Fallout 3 becomes a good rpg like Bloodlines (with crappy action combat) it may inspire developers to make good rpgs and "fix"the action part.

 

[Oarfish]

A good point - most game 'Real Time' is anything but. Unless you count the ability to walk at 20 miles per hour and recover from a bullet wound while running around in a couple of minutes as real time. FPS games that have aimed for slightly higher realism - Hidden and Dangerous, Operation Flashpoint though critically acclaimed niche games have hardly gone on to define the genre. Hidden and Dangerous plays more like commandos than an FPS anyway, due to the near certainty of being shot to hell if you attack from the wrong direction.

 

[Human Shield]

A real RPG, I mean a really really real RPG, should not have RT or TB combat because both depend on player skill. Ideally, all combat is automatically resolved with the result depending on your character. Eventual moral choices in the combat should be presented through text-boxes. (Kill the unconscious villain? Shackle him?).

Not all RPGs are simulation games. Engaging the player is the point of a game, which can include direct tactical skill challenges and problem solving. It is engaging the player on a separate axis then action games. Also note that gameplay is driven by mechanics (not fan-fiction ESF bullshit), engaging the player with moral problems (as opposed to just letting them play out a character as a simulation) should be backed by system not simply checklist options.

However, there's nothing about Roleplaying that says one must be given as much time as one needs to make a combat action, or to consider a manuever.

Yes there is, that is why there are RPGs and there are action games and why hybrids are different then pure ones. People like action games and somehow think that RPGs are actually action games that had to cut corners. Since action is more immersive to them, and they are of the incorrect belief that immersion is the highest goal of RPGs, action is roleplaying to them.

 

[Twinfalls]

Holy fucking Allah our new friend MVB is spewing bullshit tropes like a garden sprinkler all over this thread.

Trope#

1: "TB combat still has player smarts making a difference, therefore TB is just as bad as RT"

No. It is physical skills which must be excluded, ie reflexes or 'twitch ability'. An RPG must allow the player's intellect to affect the outcome. This is because it is a game. Otherwise, there would be no winning or losing or even 'doing well', let alone motivation. And what type of game is it? An RPG. Not an action game, not a FPS. "Oh but then the dumb barbarian gets unfair help from the brainy player". This is where stats/limitations come in. Yes, you use your brain to get your dumb barbarian to overcome hurdles. This does not magically validate real-time twitch skills in RPGs.

2.

the reason pnp rpgs are turnbased is because they grew out of the table top war strategy games of the time

Shut the fuck up. It matters diddly squat whatever the fuck TB systems came from. They could have come from Gary Gygax's festering toilet bowl for all I care. Why do you keep asserting that somehow the origins of TB invalidate its effectiveness?

The fucking wheel came out of the Stone Age. Do you go to car-enthusiast web-sites and tell them they should 'move on' from using wheels?

3.

But I don't think just because it probably is going to be real time automaticly means it's going to be "not fallout."

"It's not Fallout" is not the issue. "It sucks, and is nowhere near as good as a Fallout game should be", is the issue.

4.

Really, isn't it the narrative, the setting, the characters, the tone, the themes, and the morality of fallout that defines it and not the way in which it resolves combat?

See #3

5.

Why is it a crime for fallout to move beyond turnbased?

"Why is it worse for Fallout to move backwards to real-time?"

It's in the choice of words, you see.

6.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fallout fan.

"Don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are niggers"

 

[Jasede]

No. It is physical skills which must be excluded, ie reflexes or 'twitch ability'. An RPG must allow the player's intellect to affect the outcome. This is because it is a game. Otherwise, there would be no winning or losing or even 'doing well', let alone motivation. And what type of game is it? An RPG. Not an action game, not a FPS. "Oh but then the dumb barbarian gets unfair help from the brainy player". This is where stats/limitations come in. Yes, you use your brain to get your dumb barbarian to overcome hurdles. This does not magically validate real-time twitch skills in RPGs.

I see where you're coming from, but I still think an RPG that focuses just on moral choices (yeah, a lot like an interactive movie, but you can play every role you like and affect the outcome of the game by your actions) and has auto-resolved combat could be interesting.

 

[Twinfalls]

I don't disagree with that. I'm just pointing out how this notion that still persists, that player intellect being a factor is an "OMG violation of teh rule therefore twitch skills should be just as OK" is silly and wrong.

 

[denizsi]

By the way, the quote in the OP who the developer may or may not have originally written, addresses what I think is a general system issue in game design: focus of combat. More activities need to be tied to the system instead of instant skill checks, with combat stealing the thunder of others. Lockpicking a door, pickpocketing an NPC and just sometimes even dialogue could benefit from being subject to TB mechanics.

I've theorized a system for this, where pickpocketing, stealing, lockpicking and dialogue aren't entirely dependant on momentary success-or-fail stat checks. Ever since I've watched this 40s' b&w movie about a thief practicing his trade out of sheer obsession of reaching excellence in performance, I've been thinking that these things need to be more than trivial supportive actions. The movie showcased many intriguing complex thieving techniques in action, in detail, and I've seen nothing like that in any game but I'd like to. Even the simplest combat is a certain experience that takes time and thinking even if at minimum. Others skills are usually trivial at best. End of off-topic rant. I could go into details on my premature system, but it's better to keep it for another thread.

Why dumbfuck him? Finally there's a decent discussion about TB vs. RT. Different opinions shouldn't result in a dumbfuck tag.

You think it's a decent discussion only becasue of the low rate of insults and flaming. That doesn't make VBM's view any less retarded. However, asking for his dumbfucking might be a little much indeed, kind of like a preemptive strike.

 

[Calis]

I don't disagree with that. I'm just pointing out how this notion that still persists, that player intellect being a factor is an "OMG violation of teh rule therefore twitch skills should be just as OK" is silly and wrong.

Stating that any kind of twitch influence on combat success immediately disqualifies a game from being an RPG is just as silly and wrong though.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

I love some black and white and silient movies, but I'd never consider demanding that the industry should stagnate at my preference.

Sin City and Schindler's List were "stagnation"?

The mind boggles.

*sighs* Sin City and Schindler's list were made in their respective styles by artist choice on the part of the creative staff. That artist choice was not pummeled into the projects by vocal and fanatical "purist" whose primary objective was to force artistic choices onto a production by being abrasively negative and critical of every aspect of the work.

In other words. Nobody put up a messageboard and started ranting how schindler's list was going to suck and betray the genre because it was assumed that it was going to be in color when everybody knows that the genre it's in MUST be in black and white.

Trying to bully your preferences into somebody else's artist work is forced stagnation. An artist deciding on that choice because they think it's best for their work is just artistic expression.

I sometimes wonder if people here love to misunderstand things just because they think they have something clever to say but it'll only work if what they're responding to is taken out of context.

 

[JarlFrank]

A real RPG, I mean a really really real RPG, should not have RT or TB combat because both depend on player skill. Ideally, all combat is automatically resolved with the result depending on your character. Eventual moral choices in the combat should be presented through text-boxes. (Kill the unconscious villain? Shackle him?).

Reminds me of King of Dragon Pass again. Awesome game. No RPG, but combat [with armies, not single characters, mind you!] was always resolved automatically, giving you the choice of tactics [frontal assault, skirmish, maneuver etc.] and then just calculating the results.
There also came some events during combat, where one of your leaders gets into a dangerous situation and you have to pick what he does to get out [fight, flee, get help or whatever], and the result is calculated by his skills.
Awesome game.

 

[John Yossarian]

With all the talk here about choices and consequences, different ways to solve quests,
non-linear storylines and good writing, I wondered why mainstream gamers still thought of you as "the nutjobs who want turn base and isometric view in every RPG". Now I see why.Would Arcanum have been that much worse if it didn't have tb option? Or would PST have been that much better if it was tb? OTOH, how much better would Morrowind and Oblivion have been if the kept their combat but had all the other stuff the Codex likes?
Now of course, these games were not Fallout, but if being tb is a requirement for F3 being a "fallout game", you can forget about it. The best you can hope for is a good action RPG in the fallout setting, but this is not gonna happen either if noone pressures Beth into putting the other stuff in. Also, unlike tb, this other stuff is not something mainstream gamers hate, just something that while unnecessary, would be definitely nice to have. So why not try getting devs and Beth fanboys talking about this stuff, which has a chance to be in the game, instead of wasting your time bitching about tb, which has no chance in hell?

Edit: Fucking notepad.

 

[Twinfalls]

Stating that any kind of twitch influence on combat success immediately disqualifies a game from being an RPG is just as silly and wrong though.

Correct. Daggerfall is my favourite RPG of all time.

However, saying "A Fallout sequel with real-time combat would not be as good as one with TB combat (all else being equal)" is not silly and wrong, but accurate - which is the point.

 

[Calis]

Fair enough.

 

[Ander Vinz]

*sighs* Sin City and Schindler's list were made in their respective styles by artist choice on the part of the creative staff. That artist choice was not pummeled into the projects by vocal and fanatical "purist" whose primary objective was to force artistic choices onto a production by being abrasively negative and critical of every aspect of the work.

Maybe because named examples weren't sequels?

In other words. Nobody put up a messageboard and started ranting how schindler's list was going to suck and betray the genre because it was assumed that it was going to be in color when everybody knows that the genre it's in MUST be in black and white.

Oh, what a rubbish you're saying.

Trying to bully your preferences into somebody else's artist work is forced stagnation. An artist deciding on that choice because they think it's best for their work is just artistic expression.

Pete and Todd are such artists with fresh and original view.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

Dumbfuck Mr. Van_Buren already.

Well I can get a fireball spell and twitch like mad with it, while bunnyhopping, circle-strafing, and such. Seems pretty close to a first-person shooter.

You couldn't do these in Daggerfall.

Van Buren was Fallout 3 before interplay went bust and sold the property. It was going to be both real time combat and 3d. Isometric was at least a likely option as the camera appeared to be positionable

Now this is addressed at all the fuckers who thought isometric vs. orthographic / paralllel projection debate was retarded: he writes as if Isometric = 2D and 3D is a whole different beast, and the replies to that are no less. Saying "It was going to be 3D but iso was a likely option" is ridiculous. What does he mean anyway? The tech demo was 3D with dynamic orthographic projection already, so it is already both isometric and more than isometric. This specific debate doesn't even amount to anything coherent. You are so clueless you can't even fucking communicate! Why? Just because you are perfectly happy being arrogant illiterates, not learning some technical but simple details. If only you cut the dickheadness and took the time to learn and spread the correct terminology.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said isometric = 2d. I know what isometric is. What I said was ..

"at least isometric appeared to be possible as the camera was positionable." Meaning that even if the perspective was orthographic that it was at least possible that one could position the camera to approximate an isometric veiw.

True Isometric in a 3d game is oxymoronic, as isometric perspective is only there to cheat a 3d effect on a 2d plane. My only point was that if somebody wanted to recreate the look of "classic" fallout, that one could recreate the perspective with clever camera positioning.

Is this really how you wanted to nail me in this debate? By aurguing and insulting me through bickering over terminology and whether or not it used 100% accurately?

I used the term loosely because I knew people would, generally, get what I meant without any fuss and most did.

You just look like somebody taking things out of context, inventing hidden meanings, and then going off on a tyraid because they think they've finally "got" me. Congratulations, I didn't stick to the precise meaning of isometric when illustrating my point. I took a shortcut to immediately draw the image in people's minds and you made sure I paid the price.

Now if you could just tell me what this has to do with turnbased vs realtime, I'll be truely humbled.

 

[Twinfalls]

The best you can hope for is a good action RPG in the fallout setting, but this is not gonna happen either if noone pressures Beth into putting the other stuff in. Also, unlike tb, this other stuff is not something mainstream gamers hate, just something that while unnecessary, would be definitely nice to have. So why not try getting devs and Beth fanboys talking about this stuff, which has a chance to be in the game, instead of wasting your time bitching about tb, which has no chance in hell?

You didn't learn much from the Oblivion fiasco, did you? Which of the tons of 'good stuff' that Bethesda developers and fanboys talked about ("please make it more like Daggerfall" - "Sure, that's what we're doing"), actually eventuated in the game?

Zilch.

It is completely pointless to try to 'influence' Bethesda into making anywhere near a decent RPG or even a decent game. It's not going to happen, no matter what they say along the way.

It's actually more useful to knock down sophistry, straw men and general bullshit about RPGs, such as 'TB is obsolete'. So this type of argument is more useful than anything you have suggested.

 

[Human Shield]

*sighs* Sin City and Schindler's list were made in their respective styles by artist choice on the part of the creative staff. That artist choice was not pummeled into the projects by vocal and fanatical "purist" whose primary objective was to force artistic choices onto a production by being abrasively negative and critical of every aspect of the work.

In other words. Nobody put up a messageboard and started ranting how schindler's list was going to suck and betray the genre because it was assumed that it was going to be in color when everybody knows that the genre it's in MUST be in black and white.

Trying to bully your preferences into somebody else's artist work is forced stagnation. An artist deciding on that choice because they think it's best for their work is just artistic expression.

I sometimes wonder if people here love to misunderstand things just because they think they have something clever to say but it'll only work if what they're responding to is taken out of context.

Did you hear about my new sci-fi-horror story? It is about a little-league hockey team that pulls through as a team and wins the big game, it is called The Mighty Ducks.

Don't you fucking dare tell me it isn't sci-fi horror, you can't force your preferences on me it is artistic expression.

Did you see my new RTS game when you match up colored blocks that fall from the sky, 3 colors together and they pop. Is has no elements from puzzles games, stop ranting about my expressions!

I'm also writing a Batman movie based on the DC comics character, it has space marines fighting aliens in space. Don't try and fucking limit my expression, my interpretation of the Dark Knight is just as correct, you fanatical purist!

With all the talk here about choices and consequences, different ways to solve quests,
non-linear storylines and good writing, I wondered why mainstream gamers still thought of you as "the nutjobs who want turn base and isometric view in every RPG". Now I see why.Would Arcanum have been that much worse if it didn't have tb option? Or would PST have been that much better if it was tb? OTOH, how much better would Morrowind and Oblivion have been if the kept their combat but had all the other stuff the Codex likes?

WTF is so hard to understand that there is a difference between RPG mechanics and action mechanics. You can make a good game as an action-RPG but saying that action gameplay = RPG gameplay is wrong. Saying that TB is just a poor man's action game and since we can make action games therefore TB is worthless is wrong.

Such people can only see things along one axis in which newer gameplay replaces and outdates all previous forms. RPGs with action are just newer and better RPGs, strategy games with action are just better strategy games, puzzle games with action are just better, etc...

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

The best you can hope for is a good action RPG in the fallout setting, but this is not gonna happen either if noone pressures Beth into putting the other stuff in. Also, unlike tb, this other stuff is not something mainstream gamers hate, just something that while unnecessary, would be definitely nice to have. So why not try getting devs and Beth fanboys talking about this stuff, which has a chance to be in the game, instead of wasting your time bitching about tb, which has no chance in hell?

You didn't learn much from the Oblivion fiasco, did you? Which of the tons of 'good stuff' that Bethesda developers and fanboys talked about ("please make it more like Daggerfall" - "Sure, that's what we're doing"), actually eventuated in the game?

Zilch.

It is completely pointless to try to 'influence' Bethesda into making anywhere near a decent RPG or even a decent game. It's not going to happen, no matter what they say along the way.

It's actually more useful to knock down tropes, sophistry, straw men and general bullshit about RPGs, such as 'TB is obsolete'. So this type of argument is more useful than anything you have suggested.

I don't think anybody's arguing on whether or not bethesda is on a downwards spiral as far as certain things go ... those certain things being most things.

I and some few, brave others just don't think being turnbased is integral to fallout or roleplaying at large.

Sure bethesda is going to fuck up Fallout, I just don't think real time is the linch pin.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

*sighs* Sin City and Schindler's list were made in their respective styles by artist choice on the part of the creative staff. That artist choice was not pummeled into the projects by vocal and fanatical "purist" whose primary objective was to force artistic choices onto a production by being abrasively negative and critical of every aspect of the work.

In other words. Nobody put up a messageboard and started ranting how schindler's list was going to suck and betray the genre because it was assumed that it was going to be in color when everybody knows that the genre it's in MUST be in black and white.

Trying to bully your preferences into somebody else's artist work is forced stagnation. An artist deciding on that choice because they think it's best for their work is just artistic expression.

I sometimes wonder if people here love to misunderstand things just because they think they have something clever to say but it'll only work if what they're responding to is taken out of context.

Did you hear about my new sci-fi-horror story? It is about a little-league hockey team that pulls through as a team and wins the big game, it is called The Mighty Ducks.

Don't you fucking dare tell me it isn't sci-fi horror, you can't force your preferences on me it is artistic expression.

Did you see my new RTS game when you match up colored blocks that fall from the sky, 3 colors together and they pop. Is has no elements from puzzles games, stop ranting about my expressions!

I'm also writing a Batman movie based on the DC comics character, it has space marines fighting aliens in space. Don't try and fucking limit my expression, my interpretation of the Dark Knight is just as correct, you fanatical purist!

I shouldn't force my loves on your work. That doesn't mean you're right, it just means that you're wrong on your terms. Which to me is fair enough.

 

[Twinfalls]

Sure bethesda is going to fuck up Fallout, I just don't think real time is the linch pin.

And who, precisely, is saying it's the lynch-pin?

Please don't back away from your previous assertions that TB is obsolete and that RT is a progression 'beyond' TB, unless you have accepted that you are wrong.

 

[Section8]

I love turn-based for the amount of micro-managed strategy it allows. I also hate the amount of time it takes to micro-manage said strategy. Turn based is great for "thinking man's" games, games that require the player to agonize over every possible action and consequence in order to proceed successfully to victory over one's adversary.

I don't think RPGs have to fit this model. I don't think fallout has to fit this model. Given the nature of the setting, the frequency of conflict expected, and the time all that would absorb, I'd prefer that it wasn't turnbased.

So the argument here is what? You don't have time for turn-based? Well, I don't have enough spare time to warrant any more than a single game every two months or so. Should I be petitioning publishers to make less games because I don't have time for them all?

Either that, or you're strutting out the age old "I'm willing to accept boredom and tedium as long as they are {passive|fast paced}". Maybe you are one of those folks who wants a vaguely interactive piece of fiction, and anything between plot points you view as nothing more than a time sink, and there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, Bioware excel at making just your sort of game.

But what about the rest of us who enjoy Fallout for what it was?

You're right in saying RPG combat doesn't have to fit the "agonising" choices model, but you have to admit that it's a pretty good fit, given that an RPG should be mainly concerned with meaningful choices. Why should combat not be an extension of that?

And, to the dev in question, the reason pnp rpgs are turnbased is because they grew out of the table top war strategy games of the time ... which were turnbased. DnD and games like it began their lives as derivatives of those games.

Well, that and the fact that needless complexity bogs down P&P games with crunching the systems instead of actually playing the game. That's why you have die rolls instead of trying to calculate sword arcs, collisions, bullet tragectories, etc.

As you obviously understand from your "demand turn based" comments, in some cases, complexity requires abstraction to keep within reach of the end user's brain functions. By taking away time pressures, turn-based systems can provide simple interfacing for complex systems. With real-time systems, you either need to do away with complexity to the point where it is managable in real time, or you have to automate. I fail to see how either is an advantage in a game style where the ultimate goal is to provide as many meaningful choices as possible.

Those games in turn were born from chess, through many twist and turns. I'm pretty sure that there were egyptian strategy games the predate chess, but I think people get the point.

Yes, but you'd be a fool to think any of the games you've mentioned in your timeline supercede one another. Tabletop wargames are not Chess v2.

There's the quick and the dead. But don't worry, Fallout 3 probably won't be multiplayer so no need to worry about latency and because Fallout has never made any attempt to model physics at all, you won't have to worry how realistic they are or aren't.

It's funny you should bring up latency. The is zero latency in a turn-based game. However, interface latency is present in all real-time games, and is incorporated as part of the challenge the game provides. Starcraft is all about latency, all tactics aside, every second that a building or a unit spends idling is one second closer to losing the game.

As for physics - there's an area that could actually be improved without gutting the existing systems and replacing them with a poor substitute.

As for locational damage, just because no/few realtime games have bothered to model it at present doesn't mean that Fallout 3 can't have both locational damage and still be real time

There are good reasons why no/few realtime games bother to model locational damage. Again, add it to the system, and you need to extend the interface in some way, or automate it.

You should agonize over the morality of the role you're playing and the choices you're making, you should take as much time as you need to consider the drama of the character you're playing.
However, there's nothing about Roleplaying that says one must be given as much time as one needs to make a combat action, or to consider a manuever.
As I've said in a previous post, the use of this game mechanic is born out of the fact that tabletop PnP RPGs were derivative of tabletop strategy games.
But there's nothing about Roleplaying that says one must be given the strategic rules and considerations of a strategic/tactical war game in order to play a role.

Of course here's nothing that emphatically states that. However, you're missing a couple of critical points here.

First of all, as you say - "You should agonise over the role you're playing". Again I ask, why shouldn't peripheral aspects of the game be an extension of that same skill set? I certainly don't mind the variation that games such as System Shock 2 offer, but in general it makes sense to keep aspects of the game such as combat closely related to the core of the game.

You could develop a game where in order to speak with NPCs, you play tetris. Every time you clear a line, your character gets a line of dialogue to choose from. You could replace turn-based combat with a racing game where you steer your car with an interactive digital vagina that you plug into your USB port. There are no rules saying you can't make a game in that vein, but it just ain't the most sensible option. Or sensible at all, for that matter.

Secondly, as my experience with hack and slash P&P has taught me, if all you ever do is combat, you find ways to define your character through combat. A cleric can be stingy with healing spells. The can be selfish with them. They can brave certain death to land a vital heal on the tank. They can angrily beat a surrendering opponent to death due to religious differences.

Are those actions not character defining? Do they not evoke personality?

You seem to have this belief that RPGs are about talking to NPCs, and anything outside of that is "downtime" that is best served with due haste to get to the next NPC interaction. It's truly a shame that the gaming world proves you right on so many counts, but RPGs can be so much more.

Hell, even DnD has made the leap to real time.

And just how did that work out? The only real time D&D games I've enjoyed have been the wacky japanese arcade games. On the other hand, ToEE is a fantastically fun turn-based dungeon crawler once you squash some bugs. Compare and contrast ToEE's combat to any of Bioware's steaming turds, and come back and tell me D&D making the leap to real-time was a change for the better.

Another thing you might want to think about is why that leap was made to begin with. Multiplayer. Simple as that. So given that it's pretty safe to assume Fallout 3 won't be multiplayer, why introduce a system when the major advantage it provides is not present - yet the major drawbacks will be?

Why is it a crime for fallout to move beyond turnbased? Must fallout be turn-based in order to be Fallout?

You could write a Fallout book, or a Fallout movie, and they would be just that. A Fallout book, and a Fallout movie. They could nail the setting 100%, and be perfect in every way. They could be the next Moby Dick or Citizen Kane. Would you accept either as a substitute for a Fallout game?

You could make just about anything and keep it true to Fallout's setting. But since I want Fallout 3, a continuation in the series of Post-Nuclear RPGs, is it really that unreasonable that I don't want radical departures from what I loved about the first Fallouts?

Really, isn't it the narrative, the setting, the characters, the tone, the themes, and the morality of fallout that defines it and not the way in which it resolves combat?
I mean common, at what point does this all become rediculous?
I love some black and white and silient movies, but I'd never consider demanding that the industry should stagnate at my preference.

By that logic, we should all be eating synthetic proteins, because the technology to create them exists and therefore food in a traditional sense is redundant.

Besides, who is making the fucking demands here? Do you see us posting on Halo/Gears of War/Oblivion/Need for Speed/Sims/etc forums saying "I like turn-based, therefore the games you know and love should be arbitrarily changed to better suit my desires!"

Are we really that unreasonable for having the gall to suggest that something we like should stay the way we like it?

I'll tell you what unreasonable is. Unreasonable is suggesting that something beautiful and unique should be homogenised in order to be more like everything else. Unreasonable is sneering down your fucking nose while telling people that their valid preference is "stagnation". Fuck you, botanic gardens! Concrete is the future! Nature and beauty are things of the past. I would never consider suggesting nature get in the way of the progress of construction!"

I'm having a lot of trouble keeping the mask from slipping here, but let's press on. Maybe you'll learn some fucking manners if nothing else.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fallout fan. I love FO1 and I love that it's turnbased but just because I love it, doesn't mean that I don't want to see where else fallout can go and in what other ways fallout can be experienced.

I have to agree, but if the moral choice I have to agonise over boils down to "you can have news ways in which Fallout can be experienced, or you can have the logical progression and improvement of the existing ways", it's going to take me about .01 seconds to make my move and end my turn. Especially when I have absolutely no faith in the creative minds devising "other ways" for Fallout to be experienced.

I've never heard fallout called "that really great turnbased game." One might think that there's a reason why it's other features are the most often touted. Really, if somebody asked you to name the single greatest thing about fallout ... would you really say "is that it's turnbased?"

It's not the greatest thing about Fallout, but that doesn't mean it isn't great. For instance, in the following set -- [100, 100, 100, 100, 99] -- the fifth variable is the fifth greatest. It's likely to pale in comparison to the other four, and rarely rate a mention. But it's still a very significant part, and great in it's own right.

Here's an interesting comparison of contemporaries - Ask a Fallout fan what the worst thing about Fallout is. My money would be on - "It's too short. I wish there were more Fallout goodness." Ask a Planescape Torment fan what the worst thing about Torment is. Anyone who doesn't immediately say "combat" is kidding themselves.

Turnbased in and of itself is an arificial restriction. In no place in nature does one find a natural chronology based on externally imposed pauses. Turnbased has to be one of the most artificial gaming dynamics in existence.

No, that would be hitpoints.

Ever notice how things that could be improved in traditional RPG models just completely skip under the radar of everyone who posts with the "best intentions of modernising RPGs"? Could that have something to do with them being hypocrites who are interested in pushing their (questionable) preference under the guise of "progress"? Maybe we'll never know.

Abstraction can be a good thing. In no place in nature does one find anything where you can press a key, and sound a musical tone. Does that invalidate the "artificial" nature of the piano? Should pianists be given strings and hammers and told to make the best of it? Or does the abstraction of pitch to a linear sequence of keys become a tool to allow a person to easily interface with complex variations of pitch and timbre?

Or, to become even more abstract - sheet music. Nowhere in nature do you see a visual, mathematic representation of sound. Does that invalidate sheet music? And to tie that in with my previous example. One person can play a piano in real-time. One person cannot play an entire orchestra of instruments in real-time. However, one person can write music for an entire orchestra through the abstraction that is sheet music.

Characters in Fallout 1 didn't play themselves. Their skills and turnbased combat didn't magicly work themselves out without any player input. To say that it's the character that's doing everything and player skill doesn't actually even matter, is at least partially a fallacy.

You're exactly right. In order for the game to be interactive, the player must contribute something to the character. So, why shouldn't we assume that if a player enjoys creating a character that they will also enjoy other activities of a similar bent?

Would it be sensible to include a level in an FPS where the player is forced to win at a game of chess before they can proceed? Of course not, because people don't play FPSs with that expectation, and even more relevant - it's not likely to be enjoyable for someone who wants to play and FPS, and not chess.

RPGs, being a much broader genre features a broader range of preferred gameplay activities, but we're not talking about RPGs in general. We're talking about Fallout.

But anyway, I'm about spent. I hope you take something away from this grandfatherly chat about what game were like in my day.

--

Can we assume that stats are also an artifact of PnP limitations? Morrowind seamlessly integrated real time with your character's abilites. Your success in whatever you tried depended primarily on your characters stats. Say what you will about the game, I think it worked.

Well actually, what I will say about the game was that it didn't work. Why is tedious combat against rats in Fallout such a crime against humanity, when all combat in Morrowind basically amounts to the same thing? Repetitive non-choice shouldn't be in any game, RPG or otherwise.

Morrowind (and Oblivion) would have been much better games if they'd incorporated better action challenges (see Mount and Blade) or something to challenge the grey matter, like tactical combat. The problem is, direct first person control lends itself toward action challenges, which is incongruous with RPG fundamentals. That's not to say a game can't be a hybrid of very different game styles, of course, but it works out best if you draw clearer lines when it comes to integration of mismatched game concepts. System Shock 2 and GTA:SA are the best examples I can think of. Deus Ex is mediocre at best, just to pre-empt that argument.

 

[aries202]

As for my comments on the settings which is nice to see is somewhat similar to the old Fallout games, I too, want a very good gameplay and very good story.

If you hop to adventuregamers.com and find the Fallout thread in the general section, you get treated to the whole war...war never changes speech from the first Fallout game.

I have my serius doubts about whether Bethesda Game Studios are capable of doing something like this, maintaining the high quality of the text in this Fallout 1 intro.

If we look at Morrowind and Oblivion, too, Bethsoft really hasn't any experience in writing and developing a story-based game. And that's where my main concern lies right now.

A minor concern lies in Bethsof's ability to create a game that has choice & consequence similar to the previus Fallout 1 + 2 games.