Interview The Fall Q&A at No Mutants Allowed

[Spazmo]

Tags: Fall: Last Days of Gaia; Silver Style

<a href="http://www.nma-fallout.com">No Mutants Allowed</a> have put up an interview with <b>Carsten Strehse</b> of <a href=http://www.silver-style.de>Silver Style</a> about their upcoming post-apocalyptic CRPG, <a href=http://www.the-fall.com>The Fall</a>.
<br>

<br>
<blockquote>We are using a special menu which we call “Battle Bar”. It includes all controls for Auto-Pause, Auto-Behaviour, the most important camera controls for combat and a controller for the speed of the battles.
<br>

<br>
The Auto-Pause offers the player 15 different events, where the fight can be paused automatically (some examples: “Enemy spotted”, “Char has only 25 % healthpoints left”, “No ammo for the equipped weapon” etc.). One of the Auto-Pauses is very interesting for the TB fans, since it pauses the combat after each battle-round. Every time all PCs and foes had one action, the combat gets paused and you can plan the tactic for the next round. During the pause you can change weapons, armors or prepare for using items.</blockquote>
<br>

<br>
Sorry, pal, the "auto-pause = turn based!" argument didn't work for BioWare and it sure as hell won't work for you.

 

[JanC]

Re: The Fall Q&A at No Mutants Allowed

Sorry, pal, the "auto-pause = turn based!" argument didn't work for BioWare and it sure as hell won't work for you.

Maybe for TB purists it doesn't work, but I like auto-paused a lot better than fully realtime. I just couldn't play Diablo at all - it went too fast. However, BioWare's real-time/pause on space bar thing was at least playable for me. It is better than nothing.

 

[simmschn]

I really do not understand the fundamental difference between turn-based combat and combat with forced autopause after each round. For me these are in the end exactly the same, only during development they are different. Classic turn-based combat ist mostly implemented directly with this combat style in mind at the beginning of design and development. In contrast the autopause is an addition to a fully realised real-time combat, often the rounds are distingushed by time or actions. But in the end, they are the same, it simply doesn't matter if you use a bottom-up or top-down approach.

By the way, I read some time ago, that the combat in Fallout 1 was real-time at first and then they implemented a forced auto-pause after each round and then they had their turn-based combat.

I think they only use the slogan "optional auto-pause" because it sounds better as "turn-based" for the mainstream players. But behind the curtain nothing changed at all.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Just you play UFO: Aftermath, Sim. You will come to loathe the system and understand why every single one of us loathes it. The only time pause and play was done right was when Bioware did it with KOTOR - even so, it's still less desirable than turn-based.

You just can't count on a studio like Silver Style to pull off the same level of quality. All of their old games prove that the contrary certainly is possible.

 

[Volourn]

Exitium, I don't know why you like BIO's pause and play system in KOTOR yet like it less than the IE games or even NWN. In the IE games you have more characters to control at the same time, and in NWN you have way more combat options so both of those games handle combat much better than KOTOR. Hmm..

I like tb combat; but I also like the pause n play system. I don't care for full fledge RT though. Disgusts me for the most part except in some very rare games.

 

[Jed]

But in the end, they are the same, it simply doesn't matter if you use a bottom-up or top-down approach.

Any game worth its salt combat-wise is designed around its game engine. Switching between the two design concepts on the fly tends to make crappy combat, for example, Arcanum (which is a great game in spite of the combat).

By the way, I read some time ago, that the combat in Fallout 1 was real-time at first and then they implemented a forced auto-pause after each round and then they had their turn-based combat.

Nope. Fallout was designed to be an old-skool CRPG from the beginning. Why do you think it has hexes?

 

[simmschn]

I never played UFO:Aftermath, only the old UFO games. But a few weeks ago I saw it on my brother's computer. I didn't see any rounds in this game, it looked like real-time with pause option, like Lionheart.

I still don't understand. If you have real-time combat, then you implement rounds by actions or time and then you force an pause after each round in which you select the actions for the next round(s), then you have turn-based combat. That is by definition turn-based combat.

When you stay true to this logic, than Kotor was turn-based, but you could choose to not give new orders. Instead the old commands like "attack" would have been chosen automatically.

Real-time combat for me is a combat system which can not be seperated in rounds and in which you cannot give commands during pause.

 

[Volourn]

Stop spreading rumours. Arcanum had decent combat. It's not as bad as the exaggerators think it is.

 

[simmschn]

Nope. Fallout was designed to be an old-skool CRPG from the beginning. Why do you think it has hexes?

I think hexes have nothing to do with turn-based combat. You can easily have real-time combat with hexes or turn-based combat without them. Hexes are only a easy measurement for movement in this game. They are easy to implement and the player understands quickly how far he can move with his unit if he has only 8 hex-movement points left.

Today turn-based games often don't have hexes, they use circles around the unit which show how far you can move. I think strategy games had this idea first, but today you can see it at "RPG games" like ToEE too.

If you want you can program a Command&Conquer game with hexes. The movement would look like really funny (jump-jump-attack-jump-...).

 

[Rosh]

I
I still don't understand. If you have real-time combat, then you implement rounds by actions or time and then you force an pause after each round in which you select the actions for the next round(s), then you have turn-based combat. That is by definition turn-based combat.

Ur-hurhurhur! I attack, enemy attack! It stop at end of my attack so I can select new target, it must be turn-based!

The Infinity Engine is not TB in the least bit, while Prelude to Darkness has an outstanding TB system. I suggest you look at the mechanics of both a lot closer than you have already.

By the way, I read some time ago, that the combat in Fallout 1 was real-time at first and then they implemented a forced auto-pause after each round and then they had their turn-based combat.

Most incredible pile of bullshit. Ever.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Why would they have hexes if it was intended to be RT? Think about that one for a moment. Who the hell is gonna be able to pay attention to how many hexes you can move during an RT fight? Who the hell is gonna CARE how many hexes you can move in an RT fight? Certainly not enough people to warrant putting hexes into a game if it was originally intended to be RT. Fallout 1 was TB from the start as was Fallout 2.

Hexes in RT..... psh. Right.

 

[Rosh]

Hexes are from the old tabletop strategy games, most commonly found with fantasy or sci-fi figurines, but more commonly found in the tabletop warfare strategy games. They are used as a means of movement, and most RT games have a noticeable lack of movement grids. Which usually means they have to resort to a floating node pathfinding and AI system like the IE uses, which usually suck ass.

 

[simmschn]

I
I still don't understand. If you have real-time combat, then you implement rounds by actions or time and then you force an pause after each round in which you select the actions for the next round(s), then you have turn-based combat. That is by definition turn-based combat.

Ur-hurhurhur! I attack, enemy attack! It stop at end of my attack so I can select new target, it must be turn-based! .

YES! This is exactly turn-based combat! In you system each turn/round is determined by an action:
1. turn: I attack
1. turn after your attack: enemy attack
end of round one
you choose action for round 2
2. turn: ...

That is exactly how turn-based combat works in its basics. Have you never played a turn-based game??? Perhaps you have really looked to close to your precious combat mechanics, so that you can't see the basic principles.

By the way, I read some time ago, that the combat in Fallout 1 was real-time at first and then they implemented a forced auto-pause after each round and then they had their turn-based combat.

Most incredible pile of bullshit. Ever.

I remember that they first implemented real-time combat (with your hexes), but of course they planned to make TB combat from the beginning. Real-time combat was just their first step to implement turn-based combat. Is it so hard to understand?
Today games often feature real-time and turn-based combat, so this method will be used more often. Even the Fallout 3 developers first made the real-time combat, they just started a few weeks ago with turn-based combat. This is the natural way! You should inform yourself a little better. All the important developers are now posting at certain forums.

 

[POOPERSCOOPER]

simmschn should be banned, just for being an idiot.

 

[simmschn]

If you have no good arguments left, bann him and call him an idiot!
Pooper, I am really sorry for you. I hope you don't feel any pain for being yourself.

 

[Spazmo]

I never played UFO:Aftermath, only the old UFO games. But a few weeks ago I saw it on my brother's computer. I didn't see any rounds in this game, it looked like real-time with pause option, like Lionheart.

You lose at the Internet.

 

[Elwro]

I really do not understand the fundamental difference between turn-based combat and combat with forced autopause after each round. .

Try to imagine 2 teams of punks shooting each other. Let them do it in real-time-with-pause first, then in tb.

*waits 10 secs"

See the difference? I thought so. Did everyone shoot simultanously in the first case? Yes. Did everyone shoot one-after-another (queue-like) in the second case? Yes.

That's the difference. And it's a big one.

 

[simmschn]

But then ToEE would NOT be turn-base game, or? They had this feature that certain enemies with a equal value (dont' know how it was called) can move and fight at the same time. When you fought against 10 zombies, they often moved and fought together. They used it to make the combat faster.
Have I misunderstood you?

 

[Transcendent One]

But would it change anything if they didn't move simultaneously? Troika simply implemented the feature to speed up combat, cause assuming the couple zombies will not affect each other on their turn, it makes no difference whether they move one by one or at the same time.

 

[Rosh]

That is exactly how turn-based combat works in its basics. Have you never played a turn-based game??? Perhaps you have really looked to close to your precious combat mechanics, so that you can't see the basic principles.

Sequence, moron, sequence. Combat in RT and TB will always play out differently because of the sequence of events. Movement and actions are a different matter, entirely.

There's also reasons why combat feats aren't really in NWN, like AoO. Last I checked, I could be wrong, but that was one of the sore points, is that because they went to RT, they had to ditch the combat related feats and then said it was the best implementation of the D&D rules.

I remember that they first implemented real-time combat (with your hexes), but of course they planned to make TB combat from the beginning. Real-time combat was just their first step to implement turn-based combat. Is it so hard to understand?

You sure are dense. The mechanics are TOTALLY different.

There is no purpose to making RT combat and then putting it into TB. That is the statement of the completely uneducated. The AI routines, calls, etc. are so differently placed in RT and TB, it isn't even funny. TB takes best advantage of being able to AI crunch in steps, utilizing resources to do a good pathfinding algorithm to move the NPCs, a combat algorithm for their behavior, and more, all done in stages because TB can afford to do that. RT has to crunch all the shit constantly, therefore cannot take advantage of anywhere near the capabilities of a TB system because it has to do everything at the same time, for every involved actor, plus have to compete for framerate and other back-end concerns.

So how stupid would it be to develop a TB system by starting with a RT system and going to a TB one? Yes, stupid enough that you thought of it. Congratulations, you're a moron.

Today games often feature real-time and turn-based combat, so this method will be used more often.

News flash. Those that have used TB and RT together often are clunky or result in some mechanic being compromised in various ways. M&M, Fallout Tactics, X-COM: Apoc, etc.

Even the Fallout 3 developers first made the real-time combat, they just started a few weeks ago with turn-based combat. This is the natural way! You should inform yourself a little better. All the important developers are now posting at certain forums.

Yes, definitely an idiot.

 

[simmschn]

@Rosh: I will not answer to your posting, because then I have to use certain phrases and I would get banned from the forums. I will not give you this pleasure!

Let me just tell you, I think you are primitive. I hope this statement is okay with the rules here.

And if you don't believe me with that Fallout 3 statement look at the forums at NMA, Black Isle or Silver Style. I can't remember in which of them it was told. The ex-developers of Fallout 3 post in all three.

 

[Elwro]

But then ToEE would NOT be turn-base game, or? They had this feature that certain enemies with a equal value (dont' know how it was called) can move and fight at the same time.

Well, as Rosh said, the key word is 'sequence'. [I'm talking generally, not only D&D here] In the beginning each combatant makes an Initative roll. Suppose I'm fighting Orc 1 and Orc 2. My roll: 8. Orc 1's: 13. Orc 2's: 14.
In real time: Orc 2 decides he wants to kick my ass so he begins his attack. The moment Orc 1 is to make his decision his buddy is just beginning to lift his club. Orc 1 decides to attack me, too. So if Orc 2 kills me, Orc 1 would just waste his efforts.
In turn based: Orc 2 decides he wants to kick my ass, so he runs up to me and tries to hit me. He either 1) kills me or 2)doesn't kill me. When Orc 1 is to make his decision, he bases it on this outcome: if 2) - he attacks me, if 1) - only AI knows what he'll do.

If I remember D&D rules correctly, if you have a tied Initative roll, the actions should be performed simultanously. So if 2 Zombies have the same Initiative, they just stagger in your direction in the same time. BUT EVERYONE ELSE STANDS STILL! and that's why it doesn't violate any TB principles.

edit: come on, simmschn, I don't think anyone would ban you for swearing here.

 

[Spazmo]

@Rosh: I will not answer to your posting, because then I have to use certain phrases and I would get banned from the forums. I will not give you this pleasure!

No, no, please! Be as big a meanie as you want. Hell, we encourage it. I'll even help you out here. Start with "HAY fuks u ugly horseman" and go from there.

 

[simmschn]

But would it change anything if they didn't move simultaneously? Troika simply implemented the feature to speed up combat, cause assuming the couple zombies will not affect each other on their turn, it makes no difference whether they move one by one or at the same time.

Ah, now I think I know what you want to tell me.
But if you make a real-time combat system and you implement it in a way that turns can be separated, for instance every 2 seconds a turn or each (sub-) action a turn. In real-time you wouldn't see any turns, some enemies shoot, other approach, some flee. When you fight exactly the same fight with a pause after each turn, they would all do it in the same sequence. The only difference I see is your own user action, without a pause you even can give a command during a turn? But if the times between two turns are very short, this disparity would become neclectable??

If that is true a real-time game would be a turn-based game with infinite turns.

But I have still a problem in creating an example of a fight where the sequence between RT and TB is different. When I give the commands at exactly the same (or the nearest) time indices there should be no recognisable difference.

Personally, I think the major difference is, that TB combat allows more strategies, because of the forced pause after each turn. But then there would be no difference between "turnbased" and "real time with pause after each turn".?????

 

[simmschn]

@Rosh: I will not answer to your posting, because then I have to use certain phrases and I would get banned from the forums. I will not give you this pleasure!

No, no, please! Be as big a meanie as you want. Hell, we encourage it. I'll even help you out here. Start with "HAY fuks u ugly horseman" and go from there.

Oh. I really would love to. :D
I have never been banned from a forum and I don't want to start. But if the admins of this website (Saint Proverbius??) give me an unlimited and completely unrestricted insult permission, I will use the new gained powers of the dark side. :twisted: