Editorial Bethesda developer explains why TB is obsolete

[Marsal]

This is almost as good as watching someone getting a ridiculous beating in UFC.

Like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTJF4H8mFyk

Van Buren, dude, tap already while your arms are still in their sockets.

Noooo!!! I'm enjoying the carnage! :twisted:

We can all see VD is overpowering, but MVB is at least trying. With Volourn being relatively quiet, we need fresh blood! :honourblade:

Also:

http://Mr.Van.Buren.YouAreMighty.com

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

I know. These are my explanations of why what you posted was incorrect, to say the least.

I didn't post whatever it is you that lead you to that explaination.

If the inventors of chess had all of the above tools and resources, I doubt they would have made chess. They probably would have made something like "civilization."

a) Chess is one of the most advanced strategy games ever created. No RT game has managed to come close to chess' levels of depth, complexity, and the number of tactical options, which explains why the game survived for centuries.

b) the concept of RT games certainly wasn't a novelty and it wouldn't have required a genius to make a board game where the players play as fast as their speed allows them, so a claim like the one above is absolutely ridiculous and can't be supported.

My position was never that chess was equalled by a RT game, jackass. yet you go on about something that was never my position.

as for B, it was also never my position at any time that a genius would be required to create a game where everybody performs according to their ability. yet again, you run off at the mouth about something you think I said.

That being said, no game designer made a pnp roleplaying game where your genius example rings true. Yet when computers came along, realtime roleplaying did manifest.

Sure nobody can really know if your "what if" would have happened. But history shows that it didn't happen, at least to any measure of success that would lead to people knowing about it.

So as you can see Jack, my position has never been A) that a RT game trumped chess or B) that your imaginary scenerario would or would not require a genuis.

What is plainly visible? That all roleplaying games and computer roleplaying games were turnbased until roughly Gen II or Gen III. It's a fact. If you want to use Dungeon Keeper as your marker, fine.

The computer made realtime Roleplaying possible. Technological advances combined with designer cunning, presented an alternative to Turnbased combat resolution.

And don't don't bring up 1987 to me, I cut my teeth on Akalabeth for god's sake.

My point was that DnD, as a ruleset, neither adopted nor created a RT version.

Again, it was never my position that the DnD ruleset was translated to RT. It was only my position that DnD the franchise ( we are talking about franchises ) had RT entries. That's it.

And you say you don't read anything into posts.

You are. However, that's not why I picked this quote. Here is why: "... doing away with a combat system invented before automated computing made "turns" more or less obselete. "

I've never backed off from this position. TB in many ways has been rendered obsolete by automation. It's not nessessary to take turns to resolve combat in an RPG setting any longer.

It's been many people's opinions that this is wrong. But it hasn't been proven wrong. They really just cried a lot and complained how real RPGs have to be TB or they're just not really RPGs.

What-the-fuck-ever

Anyway, stopping time is an abstraction, not having time to do anything other than clicking is a much worse abstraction, don't you think? Imagine playing BG2 without the pause. You simply need some time, either a pause or a turn end, to be able to play a game intelligently.

I didn't really need to pause all that often, at least not often enough to approximate the abstraction of time stopping so that you can ponder what exactly the best move is .... every 2 minutes.

Hell, I never pause in KOTOR, not even autopause.

It's nice that it's there for those that rely on it. But mandatory to be an RPG TB ain't.

Literalist? You mean that I actually read what people write instead of guessing what they could have possibly meant? Yes, I am. You said that "starcraft, which is nothing if not a real time chess game". If you want to take it back, be my guest. Overall, your line of defence seems to be constantly shifting your position and claiming that you actually meant something else or didn't mean that at all. Nice.

The fact that you imagine things people said combined with the fact that you also choose to take certain things absurdly litterly really makes me wonder if you're actually discussing this or you really are just arguing zealously for the sake of the faith.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

Fallout is TB for a purpose and that is role-playing.
So by that logic Dungeon Master isn't an RPG? I'm sorry. I'm sure you had a point here but I think you let it down. Just clearify and come back on this.

What is there about in Dungeon Master that you consider an rpg? It's a primitive rpg, from which other rpgs evolved into TB games. Doesn't that makes you look a bit retarded for defending that RT is more advanced than TB? And yet we are your friends and patiently try to explain why you are wrong.

As for shit hitting me in the eyes in realtime ... at least I didn't have to wait for everything on the map to move indivisually and then get hit with shit in the eyes.
Saying that stupid AI only happens in realtime betrays the number of times I've taken a burst of 9mm in the back.

And that happens because you don't control your companions in Fallout. One more reason in favor of a good TB game.

So are you going to tell me what game is better at roleplaying than a good TB game or not?

I really dont' know what you're on about.

And that happens because you don't control your companions in Fallout. One more reason in favor of a good TB game.

Are you saying fallout isn't a good TB game? Are you saying that Fallout is a good tb because you dont' control your companions? Is it that TB eliminates getting shot in the back by an AI companion? What are you saying?

Really, I don't know what your point is, and thus can't really debate you. But, um, thanks for the effort?

 

[Vault Dweller]

i did. greater level of variables and outcomes for those variables which you need to predict or at the very least recognize and prepare for.

Variables don't equal depth. I hope you agree that playing roulette is slightly less complicated than playing chess, despite the high level of betting options and outcomes.

not sure what a game played by mayans prior to spain getting all up in their grill has to do with little kids making rules up on the fly...

Since you are playing stupid, let me explain.

MVB: If only the chess creators could make a RT game...
VD: Well, it doesn't take a genius to make a RT game...
ML: Just because kids play RT games, doesn't mean it's easy to make a real RT game with rules and shit.
VD: People had complex RT games with rules and shit 3,000 years ago.
ML: But what does that have to do with kids playing RT games?!! Hmm?

so, there can be real time dnd games but dnd cannot be real time?

There are no real time DnD games because the rules require and are based on turns. There are, however, real time games with DnD labels on the box that do NOT offer real DnD experience. Does that answer your question?

And if you were interested in anything other than proving me wrong, we'd have had a lovely conversation.

there's no room to have 'a lovely conversation' with the tone and content of what you've written. it's reactionary and obtuse.

Unlike yours, of course.

detached people don't refer to minor mechanics changes as 'fucking over the series'.

There are a lot of people who think that TB and isometric are not minor mechanics. I'm sure they would appreciate to learn more on the subject, so please continue.

nor do we tag people for disagreeing with us.

It's not about disagreeing. It's about posting some dumb shit. I'm not a chess zealot, and yet I'm about to dumbfuck Crichton for this post.

we weren't talking about which was 'more' or 'less' of an abstraction. i was. you were claiming the linear passage of time was unrealistic.

I was? Link?

 

[mister lamat]

i think he's saying that dungeon master was in fact a paradox. since it was in real-time it created a tear in the universal continuum throwing the past into chaos and causing all games of a role-playing nature to swap over to a turn-based system of play... it's quite fascinating.

here i just thought it was some shite game i played on my atari along side pq1.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

MVB: If only the chess creators could make a RT game...

God you're such a jackass. I never said that. Never. You're like a blackhole where logic and substance goes in, but never comes out again.

I said;

If the inventors of chess had all of the above tools and resources, I doubt they would have made chess. They probably would have come up with something like, "civilization," instead. After all, force on force competition is what chess was designed to model.

Civilization was never realtime.

 

[Commissioner]

Totally bullshit, Real-Time has been around as long as Turn-Based. Real-Time isn't even harder to program than turn-based, in fact, it's probably slightly easier. If I was to write a turn-based game I'd want to get Real-Time working first and then build TB on top of it. Even Van Buren had RT implemented before they moved onto TB.

The kids of today don't like Turn-Based because it slows the pace of the game down and reduces the dependency on reflexes and increases the dependency on strategy and tactics. With their shitty attention spans if they're not getting a kill a second they're likely to just give up. My uber FPS skills honed on Counter-Strike should have no place in an RPG, or at least a game that bills itself as an RPG.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

i think he's saying that dungeon master was in fact a paradox. since it was in real-time it created a tear in the universal continuum throwing the past into chaos and causing all games of a role-playing nature to swap over to a turn-based system of play... it's quite fascinating.

here i just thought it was some shite game i played on my atari along side pq1.

Let's not even mention Zelda then. That paradox would probably launch this site into civil war over if it's an adventure game or an RPG.

The anarchy would be delicious, but bethesda would get off too easy I think.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

Totally bullshit, Real-Time has been around as long as Turn-Based. Real-Time isn't even harder to program than turn-based, in fact, it's probably slightly easier. If I was to write a turn-based game I'd want to get Real-Time working first and then build TB on top of it. Even Van Buran had RT implemented before they moved onto TB.

Not realtime gaming, realtime RPGs. And it's a fact that textbased / turnbased rpgs were the first crpgs.

Realtime RPGs didn't come along until later. Many say with "Dungeon Master."

 

[Vault Dweller]

My position was never that chess was equalled by a RT game, jackass.

"...I play Warhammer 40,000 dawn of war too, an example of realtime chess."
"...I also love starcraft, which is nothing if not a real time chess game. "

You were saying?

What is plainly visible? That all roleplaying games and computer roleplaying games were turnbased until roughly Gen II or Gen III. It's a fact. If you want to use Dungeon Keeper as your marker, fine.

The computer made realtime Roleplaying possible. Technological advances combined with designer cunning, presented an alternative to Turnbased combat resolution.

Did you know that Pong was a real time game? That's 1972. What? There is no combat in it? Well, I'm sure you understand that hitting or missing the ball is a basic combat scenario. That proves that the alien technology was always available and the reason the first RPGs were turn-based had nothing to do with tech limitations.

Again, it was never my position that the DnD ruleset was translated to RT. It was only my position that DnD the franchise ( we are talking about franchises ) had RT entries.

The franchise? You definitely have a way with words. Anyway, DnD isn't McDonalds, there are no DnD franchises. The name and basic rules were licensed, just like Bethesda originally licensed the Fallout setting and SPECIAL as names to appear on the box.

I've never backed off from this position. TB in many ways has been rendered obsolete by automation. It's not nessessary to take turns to resolve combat in an RPG setting any longer.

See above.

What-the-fuck-ever

Hell, I never pause in KOTOR, not even autopause.

Because the combat sucked and was too easy. You could just click on enemies until they give up and die.

 

[mister lamat]

oh for the love of christ...

Variables don't equal depth. I hope you agree that playing roulette is slightly less complicated than playing chess, despite the high level of betting options and outcomes.

two actions, you bet and the ball goes in a hole. two outcomes, you win or you don't.

has nothing to do with what i was talking about. opening with kingcomrade gambit... ballsy.

VD: People had complex RT games with rules and shit 3,000 years ago.
ML: But what does that have to do with kids playing RT games?!! Hmm?

the ball, the hoop, the field... none of that is imaginary. you know that putting a ball through a hoop is a representation of putting a ball through a hoop and just that, right? seriously... that's all it is. ball goes through, you score... that's all there is to it.

now, two little kids in their backyard playing cowboys and indians... way different. first, neither is a cowboy... one could be an indian of the oriental or occidental variety. hell, they both could. not the point. second, no mum is gonna let kid a put a bullet through kid b... you see the breakdown?

if you want to say rules existed in games for centuries... again, duh. no one is arguing that point. seriously, no one is. the contention is that prior to the computer there was no way to adequately represent armed conflict in that manner that didn't devolve into an intense, unenjoyable clusterfuck. hence, none of those system, had they even bothered to invent them, survived.

physical sport is incredibly different from wargaming... which is why the warhammer kids got their asses kicked by the jocks in high school.

There are no real time DnD games because the rules require and are based on turns. There are, however, real time games with DnD labels on the box that do NOT offer real DnD experience. Does that answer your question?

and i wasn't huddled around a card table with some fat fuck who smells like cheetos and reeks of mountain dew when when i played toee. also, no compendiums, no human gm, no notebook, no dice on the table, no bitching about rules... was it a 'real dnd experience'?

that's like saying eisenhorne isn't a real 40k experience.

Unlike yours, of course.

as i said, my tent is large. all are welcome.

There are a lot of people who think that TB and isometric are not minor mechanics. I'm sure they would appreciate to learn more on the subject, so please continue.

what some people consider minor aspects of the series others consider major. when an author needs turn-based combat and an isometric view to write a story that interests me, i'll let you know. must be fucking agony to have to perch in a corner of the celing and wait for the damn computer to take it's turn writing though.

I'm not a chess zealot, and yet I'm about to dumbfuck Crichton for this post.

chess ain't as complex as an old avalon hill game. saying that it's not longer top dog in terms of recreating armed conflict from the comfort of one's home ain't exactly shocking news.

so... i dunno really... go fuck yourself i guess. get out that admin bat and beat'em all into spouting your line.

I was? Link?

Games are loaded with artificial concepts: hit points, no eating/drinking/sleeping, spells memorization, carrying enough junk to open a store, defeating armies and dragons, etc.

RT is as artificial as anything else on that list.

i've often remarked that the linear passage of time is very similar to defeating an army of dragons. both happen in my daily life.

 

[elander_]

I really dont' know what you're on about.

What you don't understand the word role-playing? You don't understand why TB games are better for role-playing than RT games?

Are you saying fallout isn't a good TB game? Are you saying that Fallout is a good tb because you dont' control your companions? Is it that TB eliminates getting shot in the back by an AI companion? What are you saying?

Good Lord. Is it so hard to read? Yes TB eliminates getting shot in the back by an AI companion because then he isn't an AI companion anymore. When it becomes a part of your team you are in full control of him and it becomes a better TB game this way because it eliminates silly AI crap.

That's not the point. I wasn't trying to make an AI argument but a role-playing argument. But if you know of an rpg whose RT combat is better for role-playing than a TB game let me know.

i think he's saying that dungeon master was in fact a paradox. since it was in real-time it created a tear in the universal continuum throwing the past into chaos and causing all games of a role-playing nature to swap over to a turn-based system of play... it's quite fascinating.
here i just thought it was some shite game i played on my atari along side pq1.

That is almost as good as you chess vs. baseball theory. But say what great rpgs did you play where RT improved your role-playing better than TB? It's good to have theories but i like to know where people stand when thay say they are Fallout fans.

Not realtime gaming, realtime RPGs. And it's a fact that textbased / turnbased rpgs were the first crpgs.
Realtime RPGs didn't come along until later. Many say with "Dungeon Master."

Which was never my argument. My argument was that Fallout come after Dungeon Master and there were much better action rpgs at the time before Fallout was made. Then why didn't the Fallout devs used something similar to Dungeon Master or Diablo for Fallout?

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

Ok....I've got a few questions for Mr. Van Buren.

A few stipulations first though.

-We're talking about Fallout 3 and the Fallout series mostly.
-Fallout's only turnbased feature was combat (well...to an extent dialogue was as well).
-"Real time" doesn't include "real time with pause"

Alright....let's do this.

1. How do you account for the greater weight given to player skill (read: micromanagement, reflexes, etc.) over character skills in a real time environment? Does that not make it less of an RPG?

2. What is so "modern" about a real-time system? Is it not more or less how the system, whether it be turn-based or real-time, is developed that makes it modern? Surely Final Fantasy is less advanced than Baldur's Gate and Diablo is less advanced than Fallout in terms of combat mechanics....

3. Why change a series staple? Turn-based combat was a large component of Fallout to many.

4. What's wrong with change? There is a glut of real-time "RPGs" out there, why not make a turn-based one for a change?

5. Finally, what exactly does real-time add to Fallout that turn-based can't?

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

My position was never that chess was equalled by a RT game, jackass.

"...I play Warhammer 40,000 dawn of war too, an example of realtime chess."
"...I also love starcraft, which is nothing if not a real time chess game. "

You were saying?

What is plainly visible? That all roleplaying games and computer roleplaying games were turnbased until roughly Gen II or Gen III. It's a fact. If you want to use Dungeon Keeper as your marker, fine.

The computer made realtime Roleplaying possible. Technological advances combined with designer cunning, presented an alternative to Turnbased combat resolution.

Did you know that Pong was a real time game? That's 1972. What? There is no combat in it? Well, I'm sure you understand that hitting or missing the ball is a basic combat scenario. That proves that the alien technology was always available and the reason the first RPGs were turn-based had nothing to do with tech limitations.

Again, it was never my position that the DnD ruleset was translated to RT. It was only my position that DnD the franchise ( we are talking about franchises ) had RT entries.

The franchise? You definitely have a way with words. Anyway, DnD isn't McDonalds, there are no DnD franchises. The name and basic rules were licensed, just like Bethesda originally licensed the Fallout setting and SPECIAL as names to appear on the box.

I've never backed off from this position. TB in many ways has been rendered obsolete by automation. It's not nessessary to take turns to resolve combat in an RPG setting any longer.

See above.

What-the-fuck-ever

Hell, I never pause in KOTOR, not even autopause.

Because the combat sucked and was too easy. You could just click on enemies until they give up and die.

To say that one thing is like another thing isn't a quality judgement. A quality judgement would be "StarCraft is as good as Chess." Which I never said.

Any tactical/strategy game, is to some degree or other, chess.

 

[elander_]

5. Finally, what exactly does real-time add to Fallout that turn-based can't?

RT can add a lot to Fallout that TB can't. I think a better question is what RT can add to an intelligent role-playing game more than what TB can. These are two different styles of gameplay. If they both can support role-playing then fine. The problem is some people are full of shit when they talk about advancements in RT but they don't backup anything they say and keep dodging the issue.

 

[Human Shield]

You guys are going around in circles.

I haven't seen an argument outside of the fetish of "immersion" of how RT is good for roleplaying. RT doesn't match the history and it doesn't match the theory. Depending on how the RT is done you have historically either gotten a twitch-based action-RPG or an RPG with poor combat. Explain how RT can meet top-level TB/Phase based design.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

Did you know that Pong was a real time game? That's 1972 ... That proves that the alien technology was always available and the reason the first RPGs were turn-based had nothing to do with tech limitations.

The fathers of RPGs the war/strategy games predate pong by decades. Gygax himself modeled combat in DnD after the wargames he loved to play and make.

This has already been said and it is fact. Combat in the "first" RPG, Dungeons and Dragons, got it's combat from a strategy/war gaming legacy.

The tech did not exist, especially to the common man, at the time gygax was getting his gaming feet wet. Turnbased was all that was known as a gaming/sim dynamic. And it's not like Gygax was computer savy when pong hit the scene. He stuck to what he knew.

It's all true, live with it.

The franchise? You definitely have a way with words. Anyway, DnD isn't McDonalds, there are no DnD franchises. The name and basic rules were licensed, just like Bethesda originally licensed the Fallout setting and SPECIAL as names to appear on the box.

You are just a small, little man aren't you? And you're wrong to boot.

From Merrium Webster: Franchise; the right or license granted to an individual or group to market a company's goods or services in a particular territory.

The mere fact that other companies have been allowed to market DnD, easy example being videogames, proves that it's a franchise.

Is the meaning of franchise really how you hope to knock me down? if so, not only was it weak sauce, but it also failed. Sucks to be you.

anyways, you've got nothin' left dude. You're clutching at straws and trying to play "gotcha" with word games. And you're failing at it.

Now are you done with the weak sauce and actually want to have an exchange of opinion, or do you still want to try and take me to the cleaners over my opinions?

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

You guys are going around in circles.

I haven't seen an argument outside of the fetish of "immersion" of how RT is good for roleplaying. RT doesn't match the history and it doesn't match the theory. Depending on how the RT is done you have historically either gotten a twitch-based action-RPG or an RPG with poor combat. Explain how RT can meet top-level TB/Phase based design.

Meet it in what reguards? If you keep it broad RT VS TB, it's just apples and oranges.

But one way RT surpasses TB is that combat no longer takes all day. The perspective doesn't matter. RT is more efficient at resolving a combat encounter, at least as far as time goes.

after that it's just a matter of preference. There's no better or worse really, just preference.

I don't really care if Fallout 3 is TB or RT or CTB. Because the way combat is handled does not make or break fallout for me.

I'd rather have RT than TB, but that's just because I've already played TB fallout, and it was good. I'd like to see a RT fallout. I've liked other Realtime games, and realtime fallout is at least something I haven't done before.

Given that combat resolution didn't make any of the Fallout games for me, one can see why I don't really care if it's one or the other.

 

[Krafter]

Sorry I'm late to this party, I just now read this, ugh.

As a turn-based guy, we are officially screwed. Not that there was ever any hope, of course. I understand that there are going to be people who like real-time, and people who like turn-based. I'm cool with that.

My beef is with the whole "Turn-based is obsolete! LOL!" line of thinking, especially when it comes from the people respnsible for making the games themselves. Stop with the crappy justifications. It is simple - you prefer real-time, or you are chasing real-time dollars. "Turn based is a limitation" is a laughable excuse, at best.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

Ok....I've got a few questions for Mr. Van Buren.

A few stipulations first though.

-We're talking about Fallout 3 and the Fallout series mostly.
-Fallout's only turnbased feature was combat (well...to an extent dialogue was as well).
-"Real time" doesn't include "real time with pause"

Alright....let's do this.

1. How do you account for the greater weight given to player skill (read: micromanagement, reflexes, etc.) over character skills in a real time environment? Does that not make it less of an RPG?

Only in RT:FPS. RT:3rd person typicly just requires you to move and attack. Much like TB, only without the T.

2. What is so "modern" about a real-time system? Is it not more or less how the system, whether it be turn-based or real-time, is developed that makes it modern? Surely Final Fantasy is less advanced than Baldur's Gate and Diablo is less advanced than Fallout in terms of combat mechanics....

I don't really care that it's "modern." It was just a topic that popped up. I don't really even care if it's RT. My whole gist the whole time has been that "RT won't ruin fallout," That RT doesn't unmake an RPG.

3. Why change a series staple? Turn-based combat was a large component of Fallout to many.

I'm not making the game, and bethesda hasn't said what F3 is one way or the other. I just don't care if it ends up being RT. It won't break the game for me. Other people it will, and they're fanatical about it.

4. What's wrong with change? There is a glut of real-time "RPGs" out there, why not make a turn-based one for a change?

Again, I don't really care, one way or the other. A combat resolution system doesn't define my RPG experience.

5. Finally, what exactly does real-time add to Fallout that turn-based can't?

My biggest gain is just the fluidity and efficiency of combat and time spent in combat. For others, it's other things.

 

[Joe Krow]

there needs to be a 'heretic' tag for those who don't speak with 'the one voice'.

No shit. Tell them you think indie games suck. That will get you tagged in no time.

(They suck :!: )

 

[elander_]

Again, I don't really care, one way or the other. A combat resolution system doesn't define my RPG experience.

My biggest gain is just the fluidity and efficiency of combat and time spent in combat. For others, it's other things.

This is a better explanation and with this i can understand your opinion and accept it as a more reasonable opinion than the way you were talking before.

What you are asking for can be achieved by improving turn-base rules or by making combats having less opponents and be more interesting and challenging.

There's no way to say that RT will not screw up roleplaying because a system that tops the best TB games for roleplaying purposes has never been made. Not saying it cannot be done but if it was i never found one. The one that come more close for me was System Shock and this is a very old game with tech that is more than 10 years now. Funny thing isn't it?

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

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"

I wanted to respond to this blatant hostility at the time, but I got side tracked.

1. characters get help from their players in both rt and tb. It's not that one is invalidated by the fact, but that neither is invalidated by the fact.

2. "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?"

Depends, is there a more efficient alternative to wheels that reduces the time I spend on the road?

3."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.

That is only your opinion, and you're welcome to it. My opinion, however, differs.

6.

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

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

You're a petty, bitter, nothingness of a person. If you think because I don't think that RT will ruin a goddamned video from a franchise I enjoy is equal to racial slurs then you've got bigger issues than a fucking videogame.

You can eat my shit, princess, and I don't care if you do it in RT or TB.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

Only in RT:FPS. RT:3rd person typicly just requires you to move and attack. Much like TB, only without the T.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. Player skill, especially micromanagement can take over easily. Look at Lionheart. It was an isometric game that used S.P.E.C.I.A.L., but was in real time. Later on in the game, if you couldn't twitch, you died, no matter how skilled your character was, just because of the real time aspect.

My whole gist the whole time has been that "RT won't ruin fallout," That RT doesn't unmake an RPG.

Alright. This is how I see things. Real time brings more player skill into the equation, more player skill means less of an RPG, less of an RPG equals less of a fallout game. Now I don't think it will break Fallout, but it will damage it, if only slightly.

Again, I don't really care, one way or the other.

Not to be churlish or anything, but you've just argued on an internet forum for around 8 pages. You obviously have to care somewhat. And by the fact that you have spent time defending real time, one may conclude you do indeed have a preference for that style.

I just don't care if it ends up being RT. It won't break the game for me. Other people it will, and they're fanatical about it.

Fair enough. But the problem is, it will break others, and guess what....they aren't "fanatics", they just have a different view upon things.

My biggest gain is just the fluidity and efficiency of combat and time spent in combat.

See, I'm not so sure I can agree on this being a global positive. First off, there is no concrete evidence a fully optimised turn-based system will consume a significantly larger amount of time than a fully optimised real-time one.

Second, time isn't the only thing to consider. This might take awhile, so be prepared. The point of a game is to amuse oneself. The point of a role-playing game is to do so by taking on the role of someone or something else and acting as they would. Walking in their shoes and "living" their experiences is supposed to be amusing. A good RPG should at least try to make as many parts of this life amusing, that includes combat. Here's the big thing; what is better, an expedient combat system, or a deep, and complex one? Would you rather have combat take longer and derive fun from it, or just get it over with? Wouldn't it be more efficient to make combat as fun as possible, just like everything else so you are always having some fun? Is it efficient to treat combat as some sort of annoying speedbump in your path to get to other stuff a la KOTOR or "jRPGs"?

Food for thought.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. Player skill, especially micromanagement can take over easily. Look at Lionheart. It was an isometric game that used S.P.E.C.I.A.L., but was in real time. Later on in the game, if you couldn't twitch, you died, no matter how skilled your character was, just because of the real time aspect.

I think lionheart, like bloodlines suffered from bad developement overall. Being turnbased wouldn't have saved either one. At least in my opinion.

Alright. This is how I see things. Real time brings more player skill into the equation, more player skill means less of an RPG, less of an RPG equals less of a fallout game. Now I don't think it will break Fallout, but it will damage it, if only slightly.

Fair enough. I've conceded this point many times before.

Not to be churlish or anything, but you've just argued on an internet forum for around 8 pages. You obviously have to care somewhat. And by the fact that you have spent time defending real time, one may conclude you do indeed have a preference for that style.

10 ... 10 pages. I think I have a post on every page. If not, I'll settle for 8. The fight that matters to me over all of this is the one about "True RPGs are only TB. RT makes it something else." I disagree on that point, and that's the one that keeps me coming back.

Fair enough. But the problem is, it will break others, and guess what....they aren't "fanatics", they just have a different view upon things.

I got labled with a derogatory brand, and some emotional midget basicly called me a hypocritical "racist" ... because I consider myself a huge fan, but not a purist. There are at least a few fanatics, and they are zealous.