Editorial Bethesda developer explains why TB is obsolete

[Volrath]

F3 being RT doesn't threaten me in the least. Truth is, bethesda would screw it up even if it was TB. Maybe that's one reason why I just don't care one way or the other.

Then stop arguing about it you fucking moron.

 

[Section8]

Well since nobody is interested in playing with my lengthier arguments, here's a nice quickie:

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.

The real advantage of computers is that they can process data at rates so far beyond that of a human brain that there's no real comparison. So really, "real-time" processing in itself is obsolete. Why hobble a machine with vast computational power by limiting simulation to real time?

The answer is pretty simple. At the end of the day, an RPG developer isn't out to make a simluator that determines the outcome of combat -- they're making a game. Their primary goal is not harnessing the awesome power of the modern PC, their primary goal is creating something a human can interface with and enjoy.

The "TB is obsolete" argument is rubbish, because even though computers are capable of handling much more complex systems, the end user is still a human who hasn't evolved a great deal since the 1970s.

 

[Briosafreak]

He was just asking for ideas, and not talking about fallout 3 but P&P games in the beginning, so give him a brake.



I'll join in when they anounce the Gears of War: atomic Edition or the Fallout KoTOR combat though

 

[Claw]

Yeah smart guy. You've said that I've said "some really dumb shit" but you never illustrated why it's dumb.

So without "why" the fact that I've said "retarded things" is only your opinion. Prove it's retarded and invalid and I'll submit.

Otherwise we're mearly having a difference of opinion.

Well, many reguler posters have grown pretty tired of having the same discussions over and over again because someone wasn't there the last time. The perspective issue specifically has been discussed quite recently. In your defense, the guys arguing with you didn't put up a great effort. Still, your "I'm right and you just don't understand" approach is unimpressive. You're not right and I don't really see you make any effort to understand your opposition's points.

Now, what I really ment to say:

I think you're confused. Isometric perspective mathmaticly allows for the cheating of 2d assests to appear as if they're actually 3d.

What? No. Isometric means a visual projection, a method for representing 3D objects on a 2D plane. Like drawing a picture on a piece of paper. It doesn't matter what you base this image on, thus rhe assets (as well as the virtual world) you refer to are outside the scope of the term. The term only refers to the visual representation, aka the image on your screen. It doesn't "automatically" look 3D just because "3D assets" are used. Those assets are just a bunch of information processed by the engine. When a 3D engine simulates a real perspective, it's just another mathematical "cheat" as you call it, using perspective projection instead of isomtric projection. Yet both are a 2D projection of 3D information.

That's why you can't have true Isometric perspective in an actual 3d game. Sure you can move the camera to recreate the feeling of Isometric. But because your assest and the space they're in are true 3d, it's not really isometric.

That's like saying it's impossible to draw an isometric image of any 3D object.

 

[Section8]

Oh and another quickie while I'm here:

I have a mate who "hates" games that aren't high-fantasy. Sucks to be him, but he makes up for the shortcoming by boning more women than any man deserves to.

Anyway, long story short, I sat him down one day and persuaded him to play some Fallout. He loved the gameplay, hated the setting. He's perfectly entitled to his opinion that drastically altering the setting to his preference would make a better Fallout 3, but there's no way in hell he could argue why that would be a reasonable move on Bethesda's part.

Sound familiar?

I give you a little more credit, Mr. Van Buren, because obviously making the game high fantasy is a much more drastic change than a new combat system. But...

We have presented arguments as to why we think TB combat is a better fit for Fallout, and you've studiously ignored most of them in favour of what comes across as a lot of waffle, and reciprocation of the jabs from Vault Dweller and Twinfalls.

If you're here to argue, that's fine. Who isn't? But I'd rather have actual debate as opposed to Monty Python's argument sketch.

 

[Jasede]

No you wouldn't.

 

[sqeecoo]

You are reaching too far trying to prove that he had a non-stupid point there.

I don't think so, in this particular case. But he is really digging himself deeper and deeper, so I won't try to defend him. He should just admit he misused some claims, and stick to his reformulated position, which is defendable.

About you being wrong, I can't say I have the time to search for examples. However, I think you are wrong when you try to show that chess is more complex than SC. Chess is a very simple game, as far as the rules and technology go. Calling SC more advanced, or complex (as a rule-and-toolset) is justified (but the conclusion he draws from this is wrong). However, *playing* chess is more complex, because of its simple nature - you can predict moves quite far in advance, and strategize. SC gets twitch-based, not strategic, once there are a lot of troops in the field.

Also, your roullette example is forced. You have many options, fine, but all of them have the same chance of winning.

 

[Vault Dweller]

About you being wrong, I can't say I have the time to search for examples. However, I think you are wrong when you try to show that chess is more complex than SC. Chess is a very simple game, as far as the rules and technology go. Calling SC more advanced, or complex (as a rule-and-toolset) is justified ...

How so?

However, *playing* chess is more complex, because of its simple nature - you can predict moves quite far in advance, and strategize.

Isn't that what makes the game so complex? The rules don't have to be complex, it's what you can do with the rules that counts.

Also, your roullette example is forced. You have many options, fine, but all of them have the same chance of winning.

Not really. You can bet on a number, on the color, on two adjoining numbers, on three numbers on a single horizontal line, on four numbers in a square layout, on two adjoining streets, on 18 numbers, on the first, second, or third group of twelve numbers, etc.

Needless to say the odds range from 1/36 to 1/2.

 

[sqeecoo]

Calling SC more advanced, or complex (as a rule-and-toolset) is justified ...

How so?

Well, it requires a computer to play, for one (as opposed to chess that only needs some wood). More things also have to be balanced: every unit has armor, cost, damage, hp etc., while chess has much less and simpler units. So: more complex (advanced) tech, more complex rules.

However, *playing* chess is more complex, because of its simple nature - you can predict moves quite far in advance, and strategize.

Isn't that what makes the game so complex? The rules don't have to be complex, it's what you can do with the rules that counts.

Yup. But you were claiming it's stupid to say SC is more complex than chess. It's not more complex, but the *gameplay* of chess is more complex than in SC, the *tech and rules* in SC are more complex than chess. So while I think it's quite silly to say SC just complex chess, I think it's fine to say SC is (in some aspects) more complex and advanced than chess.

Also, "advanced" usually connotes technological advancement, or complexity of *construction*. So when you say "Chess is one of the most advanced strategy games ever created." I'd have to dissagree, within the context of this discussion. Saying it is "one of the most complex..." would have been fine.

Also, your roullette example is forced. You have many options, fine, but all of them have the same chance of winning.

Not really. You can bet on a number, on the color, on two adjoining numbers, on three numbers on a single horizontal line, on four numbers in a square layout, on two adjoining streets, on 18 numbers, on the first, second, or third group of twelve numbers, etc.

Needless to say the odds range from 1/36 to 1/2.

Yes, but aside from using a calculator to calculate whether winning something has better chances, there is not very much to do, because luck decides the outcome. In chess, you consider not just luck, but what your opponent might be thinking, the relative positions of all the pieces, and their possible movements. Complexity of choice is not only in the number of choices, but also in the criterium you use to choose.

However, I must admit I used too strong an expression when I said you were "often wrong", so I'll humbly take that back. I still think you were trying too hard to prove that his claims were ridiculous, based on arguments that can be rationally criticised quite well, even if I would agree with most of them.

However, my opinion of Van is going down fairly quickly, and I admit you were right to illiterate him (although it might have been a bit early, from my perspective). So I don't really feel the need to defend him any more.

EDITS: to get the quote boxes right

 

[mister lamat]

You go to a casino to play roulette. You have 100 bucks. You want to go home with at least 300. How do you bet? How many strategies can you use?

one, go to the atm, take out another $200 and then go home.

you asked me for an example of a game played in... omfg... real time that was more complex and intricate than chess, i gave you the game of baseball. asked why i think it's more complex, i give you the almost infinite number of things that can happen when a ball leaves a pitchers hand... and that's just one small part of the game.

then you talk about roulette betting systems. fantastic. i'm not sure what if anything that has to do with whether or not you believe baseball to more or less tactical and nuanced than chess. all that really does is allow me to include bookmaking in my example of baseball really...

so, we'll just chalk that up to me. try and stay on topic or at least keep it relevant. *kiss kiss*

if you want to talk about why you think chess is more tactical, complex and strategic than a game of baseball, i'm more than happy to do that

You've never heard of war games before? Peter the Great, the Russian Tsar, formed two regiments out of friends and commoners, representing armies, gave them real weapons and played war games, developing tactics and strategies, that he later used in real wars.

you know, i thought of using the 'wargame' example when you asked me for an example of a 'real-time game that was more complex than chess'. seriously, military manouvers, logistics, terrain, time... all of it. chose not to and here's why. it completely lacks any and all relevance to a discussion about games played either in the comfort of one's home or with a group of friends. seriously, it does. i'd imagine the biggest hurdle would be the lack of an armed military at my beck and call... and well... the list just kinda grows from there.

see, from the comfort of ones home it's rather hard to play a real-time game which tries to emulate warfare without the aid of a computer. you can read up about the guys from GW trying it in and old copy of white dwarf... doesn't end well. as far as i know, every attempt to recreate warfare in simultinaity sans cpu on a level that relates to the discussion we're having has ended in an a completely unenjoyable clusterfuck.

addendum: for the poor russian footsloggers who got clubbed over the head or injured in the 'war games' it was probably 'a completely unenjoyable clusterfuck'... you've gotta take all the participants experiences into account.

Using the Spartan war games as an example would have been too easy.

no, not easy really. you're just a fucking idiot if you think it would have been a good idea.

You are pretending that you are confusing DnD with PnP experience.

is dnd not a pnp game by it's origins? wouldn't then pnp be the only 'true' dnd experience? are the gold box series? what about baldur's gate? toee? dark alliance? nwn? birthright? those shite rts' they made a few years ago? that mmo no one plays? they're all differing games, a couple aren't even rpgs yet they say 'dnd' on the box... that's odd.

they're all true dnd experiences, every last one of them. wizard of the coast say so and their word is law. contract and copyright.

just because you like toee or spanking it to the covers of r.a. salvatore novels and getting a little of your drizzle on drizzt does not make them any more of a 'true dnd experience', just one you agree with. me, i barely even stand to be in the same room as a dnd game... so the only real 'true dnd experience' for me (if we're only using what we like as a definition of 'true'. your rules not mine.) is honestly not to play it. that's rather quizzical.

Please do. Keep in mind that Fallout was never a story-driven game though, so you may want to use another argument here.

so... being a fan of the fallout series cannot be based on it's story and setting? really now, you're not only going to define what a 'true dnd experience' is but also a 'true fallout experience'? ballsy.

*I* never said anything about the linear passage of time, so do me a favor and don't pretend that I said something and then attack it as my argument.

you said...

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.

while the measurements may be of an artificial construction the passage of time is not. seriously, it's not. i really don't know how to explain that any clearer. a second will follow a second will follow a second ad infinitum. kinda the way the universe works... and as far as we know a universe without dragons...

that's what you said and all you've said on it. lacked clarity, had no relevance and was rather daft. were you trying to be funny?

And more importantly, Section8's post. I'm curious as to how his arguments might be countered.

he's responsible for hairy deathclaws.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Well, it requires a computer to play...

Doesn't prove anything. You need to have a computer to play Warcraft too, yet there is a DnD Warcraft game:
http://www.warcraftrpg.com/home.html

Overall, the SC/WC rules are simple enough to be easily translated into PnP "manual" gameplay. Not to mention you can play chess on your computer as well.

More things also have to be balanced: every unit has armor, cost, damage, hp etc., while chess has much less and simpler units. So: more complex (advanced) tech, more complex rules.

No. In chess every unit could be hit by any other unit, so the game relies on position and "retaliation", for the lack of a better word. I.e. I can take this unit, but I will lose my unit as well. The units are limited and can't be replaced, so losing a unit is not a simple decision. Starcraft relies on the "rock, paper, scissors" mechanic, which is way more simple than chess, obviously. There are quite a few lethal combos that "pwn" everything. Chess' rules don't have that.

Yup. But you were claiming it's stupid to say SC is more complex than chess. It's not, but the *gameplay* of chess is more complex than in SC, the *tech and rules* in SC are more complex than chess. So while I think it's quite silly to say SC is complex chess, I think it's fine to say SC is (in some aspects) more complex and advanced than chess.

I don't think you can separate rules from gameplay, just like you can't claim that SC is a more complex game because it has 3 sides, and chess has only two.

Yes, but aside from using a calculator to calculate whether winning something has better chances, there is not very much to do...

If that was the case most people would have bet on the highest odds. Roulette has the highest number of "systems" - different ways to play the game.

 

[Vault Dweller]

<snip>

Arguing with you is painful and not because you are good at it. You don't pay any attention to other people's arguments, you dismiss what you don't want to deal with and you often talk about completely different things. An example would be you claiming that MVB's position was that RT may work in an RPG, completely disregarding 9/10 claims that he made. Or bringing up hairy deathclaws in response to Section8's comments.

This post is no exception. It contains more bullshit, more unrelated claims, more insults. In other words, there is no reason to reply to it.

 

[Koby]

Section8, it seems like MVB doesn't want to come out and play with you so allow me to fill the gap for a moment.

The real advantage of computers is that they can process data at rates so far beyond that of a human brain that there's no real comparison. So really, "real-time" processing in itself is obsolete. Why hobble a machine with vast computational power by limiting simulation to real time?

The answer is pretty simple. At the end of the day, an RPG developer isn't out to make a simluator that determines the outcome of combat -- they're making a game. Their primary goal is not harnessing the awesome power of the modern PC, their primary goal is creating something a human can interface with and enjoy.

The "TB is obsolete" argument is rubbish, because even though computers are capable of handling much more complex systems, the end user is still a human who hasn't evolved a great deal since the 1970s.

You give too little credit to the awesomeness of the modern PC and it can be harnessed, all you have to do is come up with a new and creative ways to harnessed it (assuming you don’t let your programmers run amok).

One of the better arguments made for TB, a corner stone argument if you may, is the separation between character and player, well let's take it the other way: even turn-base combat is TOO player involving. We need to separate the player even more then the character when it comes to battle.

Turn base combat allow the player to infuse TOO much of his skills (intelligence, tactical, etc) and "share" with the character TOO much information that at times the character don’t have access to (especially in a game with a tactical view point – seeing more enemies coming from behind the corner for example).

We need to take away the turns from the player, and yes I do mean allowing the character and NPC to resolve the battle on their own, preferably in real-time . I started putting down some random thought about how to implement it here (last post) but I don’t think that for a cRPG this is going far enough.

The original idea was suppose to infuse more realism into squad based tactical games, and it has come from the motion that any side with more then a single opponent has an inherent advantage (that doesn’t even out in case of many vs. many), for example in a PC party vs. a 'boss' I would first attempt to (fantasy setting is being assumed, I'm just illustrating here) cripple in some way the opponent with my wizard, *IF* it isn’t successful I make my cleric cast some kind of buff on fighter, and then I move the fighter, *IF* this is successful I lash my fighter on him and then I have my cleric free for some other activity.

This is wrong!

For me personally it is a crack in my immersion (every time I use that word I feel dirty). Its not a game breaker, but it feels very awkward in many situations, for example when I executing some plan and at the middle of my turn it get skewed because of a ridicules failure or success, but (this is the bad part) I get a free ticket to fix it (a free advantage in case of unpredicted success) since I have more characters that haven’t made their turn. Preplanning 4 mercs to shoot some 50m away target and having the first marc luck out and score a unintentional headshot is only fun for a fraction of a second before you realize the other three mercs are standing ideal waiting for you to give them the now obsolete order. I'm not asking for teh uber realism here, just enough realism for just little bit smoother suspending of disbelief.

*****
Going back to cRPG, also note that (and I feel it is safe to assume this) the vast majority don’t role-play their character in tactical combat, they are too busy winning the battle, don’t get me wrong, I think that battles are en excellent opportunity to role play you character but offering tactical battle in cRPG is somewhat counter productive. It's completely understandable that when a player gets into battle, he will want to win it MORE then he wants to role-play it, because, let's face it, losing a battle duo to forfeiting the opportunity to maximizing your party capabilities from tactical PoV at the expense of role-played it, well, that isn’t a lot of fun. Offering tactical combat in cRPG can potentially (and probably does in same games) presents a situation where the player need to chose between either wining or going out of character. This is not a good case of 'choices and consequences'.
*****

My <s>original idea</s> somewhat incoherent mental draft for a fix (in the link above) is suited for tactical because these games are all about... well tactics, so it should remain turn based, cRPG on the other hand need a better separation between character and player, therefore the solution needs to be more, umm, extreme.

Let the player have some choices*, prior to battle, and then let the character intelligence, experience (arguably much more important in battle them intelligence), skills** and persona*** determine his own action.

(*) Choices for the player can be quite numerous: reserve spells and potions/ammo and grenade or give it everything you got, stick together or allow bigger distances between PCs (chase after?), take many large risks vs. be cautious (don’t burst fire into crowds with friendlies), remain stealthy as much as possible (on/off), coordinate resources/effort vs. every one for himself and any other kind or combat meta-management. This could be streamline to preexisting (meta)scripts and/or custom scripts made by the player.

In the course of the battle the player should only be allowed to change the script issued or order to flee.

(**) Experienced soldieries/mercs are expected to understand the intricacies of a *battle* (many vs. many) and therefore be more effective, especially if you have more then one on you party, thieves and mages/scholars not so much. This however can change with experience.

Also, this is an opportunity to better describe the character through skill and game mechanic (tactics skills).

(***) I think there was very good reasons why NPC were NOT player controlled (in fallout that is), (since the memory of fallout2 is fresher Sulik is "charge in and power sledge first, ask question later" type, Vic is quite the opposite, it would be out of character for him to charge in dueling 2 pistols, he is more of a stay back and play it safe with a rifle/shotgun type, Marcus seems to be more the type that will position himself in a key position and than rain devastating fire on un-tactical disciplined mobs (put more though into his action/is more experienced), and so on. If these character where to be player controlled, combat would have been... different, but not in a good way (even though there where moments that I wanted to kill Sulik with my own bare hands ). I'm pretty sure that the decision to make fallout party NPC non player control was very thought-out decision.

(putting the 'what if' cap on) In BG, Jaheira probably won't stray too far from Khalid, ready to cast a healing spell whenever he is starting to hurt bad (or, now that I think about it, seeing what she thinks of him, make sure that he is constantly buffed). Same go for Minsc and Dynaheir, if ever Dynaheir ever gets in trouble in the middle of a fight, Minsc will lash Boo at them, and of course Edwin can take the opportunity to cast an area of effect spell on Dynaheir and then later claming he was trying to protect her.

I had a few more things to say but after typing all this out, I seem to have forgotten what they where .

 

[Sarvis]

you need some way to represent it in an organized way that still preserves all the tactical decisions the avatars would make were they in said adventures.

Which is exactly what you lose by moving to real time combat in a computer game. The original limitation was the 1 DM trying to process commands from multiple players, but the limitation now is 1 player trying to produce commands for multiple characters... or worse yet, having no tactics at all because of AI controlled characters.

And the argument that removing TB combat from Fallout could very well destroy it is a valid one and worth asking. But I don't think that makes TB combat any less of a work-around than it originally was designed to be.

Fallout's combat will suck either way if they insist on AI controlled party members.

If ToEE just looped animations to make it look like stuff was happening they would be satisfied.

I've always thought that would be a good idea anyway. Define a few standard dodge/parry animations, and have enemies get "attack" animations which always match to those points and synch them up. It would create a lively and exciting battlefield, while still giving people full turn based control.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

And what about the stats/skills that are negated by RT? Do you believe them to be unnecessary? Do you see some way of representing them in RT?

Specificly which stats or skills are negated? All of the skills in Fallout can be used in realtime. Everything from smallguns on down the list.

The only stat I plainly see being negated is initiative. And even that can be compensated for. Hell if they added a pause to RT, you just put in an autopause when a mob goes hostile to you.

This would give you plenty of time to comprehend to the danger you're in, prepare yourself mentally for combat, and react accordingly.

If you wanted to model it deeper, make the pause equal to your initiative statistic in seconds. Now there's a reason to have initiative in RT, and measurable degrees of it.

That dynamic isn't required by me however, and I'd probably just turn it off if it was an option.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

F3 being RT doesn't threaten me in the least. Truth is, bethesda would screw it up even if it was TB. Maybe that's one reason why I just don't care one way or the other.

Then stop arguing about it you fucking moron.

It's not that point I find myself arguing over and over again. The point I find myself argueing over and over again is contrain to the

"An RPG must be turnbased to be an RPG, Fallout must be tb in order to be fallout."

I disagree with this position, and will discuss it to whatever length I see fit.

Now kindly, engage in the debate or fuck off. I don't personally care if you stay or go, but I wouldn't turn you away if you have an opinion on the topic.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

spanking it to the covers of r.a. salvatore novels and getting a little of your drizzle on drizzt

That's a genuine good one.

Starcraft relies on the "rock, paper, scissors" mechanic, which is way more simple than chess, obviously. There are quite a few lethal combos that "pwn" everything.

Mass carriers equals win.

The only stat I plainly see being negated is initiative. And even that can be compensated for. Hell if they added a pause to RT, you just put in an autopause when a mob goes hostile to you.

If you're going to make it real time with pause, you might as well make it turn-based in most cases, especially so in Fallout's case.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

If you're going to make it real time with pause, you might as well make it turn-based in most cases, especially so in Fallout's case.

Why?

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

If you're going to make it real time with pause, you might as well make it turn-based in most cases, especially so in Fallout's case.

Why?

You kill the whole fluidity aspect with a real time with pause system. And seeing as fluidity is one of the only advantages real time has, then what's the point of sticking with it?

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

I love the "It's all true, live with it" part. You may have a future as a comedian here. As for the actual point, one more time, the tech did exist and the first computer games were real-time. The easy choice would have been to make a real-time RPG, not a turn-based one.

*sigh*

Do you even read? Here's the chronology, jackass.

1. Board|PnP Strategy / wargaming. Existed decades before your pong example. One could argue centuries, before.

2. Gygax, the creater of DnD, the "first" RPG played these war/strategy games and made his own long before home computing.

3. Chainmail, a pnp/tactical strategy game, would be created in 1971 by Gyagax and friends. This tactical/strategy game would later be the basis of dungeons and dragons.

4. Pong would hit arcades in 1972. It has no war/strategy gaming elements, and no RPG elements. It's table tennis, without the table. It's, in essense, the first sports videogame.

To say that PONG technology is fully able to support a CRPG, let alone a RT CRPG. Is rediculous in my opinion.

5. Dungeons and Dragons would be published in 1974, still before widespread home computing.

6. The FIRST CRPGs are born in 1975 as a result of Mainframe computing. The first being "Dungeon" on the PLATO system.

These games are derived from DnD, which was derived from the pnp TB tactical/strategy game Chainmail, which was in turn derived from the strategy/war games of times gone by.

7. CRPGs, NOT JUST GAMES BUT SPECIFICLY RPGS, would continue being turnbased until roughly 1987 when some would argue that the first RT RPG was born, Dungeon Master.

Since people aren't going to read the above anyways, I'll boil it down.

pnp TB war/strategy games>Gygax's pnp TB Chainmail>RT gaming's PONG hits arcades but not the home yet, it's the first sports game>pnp TB DnD> 1975 Gen 1 TB CRPGs on mainframes>1987 after generations of CRPG evolution and progressive complexity in TB, Dungeon Master the first RT RPG is born, roughly GEN III or higher.

This is not an imaginary, "it could have been done though," scenario this is documented and recorded fact available from any number of sources.

DnD, the basis for less than arguably the first several generations of CRPGs, was more or less already made before home computing / homegaming. It's play dynamics were determined by the most accessible gaming technology of the time; pens ... paper ... dice and Turns to model combat progression amongst non-automated players.

There were no realtime RPGs before computing came along. It's fact. Was it possible technologicly to conduct a realtime roleplaying game before 1987, who can say? But nobody took the leap until then, I would imagine for obvious reasons, but somebody's going to argue how obvious it is, despite the fact that time has already told.

Realtime gaming was around, but not realtime RPGs. Why everybody keeps saying "realtime gaming was around" is missing the point. To say pong made RT RPGs just as valid an option as TB is like saying "The wheel made cars just as likely an option as a wagon."

The car took refinements in several different areas over a considerable amount of time to come to fruition. You needed the right technology, the right industrial savvy and lines of thought, and you also needed time for people to get used to the idea that you didn't need a wagon any longer.

Take Pong's technology and limitations and make me a RT RPG and I'll shut up. The fact that the first CRPGs were done on Mainframes should tell you something.

Territory is the key word here, genius.

That's funny, the key word you used in the post I responded to was "license."

The name and basic rules were licensed, just like Bethesda originally licensed the Fallout setting and SPECIAL as names to appear on the box.

Franchise covers a broad range of items and activities, even rights such as your right to vote. To be "disenfranchised" as a person does not mean you get kicked out of a fastfood resturaunt, to continue your pathetic McDonald's example.

BTW, territory also covers different applications of licensed property. That's why Interplay still has the MMORPG option on the fallout franchise.

You're a goddamned joke man.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

If you're going to make it real time with pause, you might as well make it turn-based in most cases, especially so in Fallout's case.

Why?

You kill the whole fluidity aspect with a real time with pause system. And seeing as fluidity is one of the only advantages real time has, then what's the point of sticking with it?

I'll buy that.

 

[Joe Krow]

This arguemnt is really about action v. strategy/tactics. I think strategy works better. Here's why...

The majority of your character's stats relate to combat (or in some cases bashing locked doors). Action gameplay trivializes the character's stats. Trivializing the characters stats negates the character's design. Character design is fundemental to rpgs. From this we can infer that when results are dependant on character attributes the roleplaying experience is enhanced. Real-time combat does not do this. It undermines what most would agree is an essential aspect of the genre.

The character stats that don't relate to combat have never been effctively used. They don't give the player the answer to the riddle nor do they affect 99% of his dialogue options. The do not make your objectives clearer and they certainly don't effect the characters tactics in combat. They never have. So what?

MVB, your argument seems to be that because non-combat stats have never been fully realized we should disregard the ones that have. Bullshit. True "innovation" would be to fully implement all the characters stats not abandon the ones that currently have bearing.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

This arguemnt is really about action v. strategy/tactics. I think strategy works better. Here's why...

The majority of your character's stats relate to combat (or in some cases bashing locked doors). Action gameplay trivializes the character's stats. Trivializing the characters stats negates the character's design. Character design is fundemental to rpgs. From this we can infer that when results are dependant on character attributes the roleplaying experience is enhanced. Real-time combat does not do this. It undermines what most would agree is an essential aspect of the genre.

The character stats that don't relate to combat have never been effctively used. They don't give the player the answer to the riddle nor do they affect 99% of his dialogue options. The do not make your objectives clearer and they certainly don't effect the characters tactics in combat. They never have. So what?

MVB, your argument seems to be that because non-combat stats have never been fully realized we should disregard the ones that have. Bullshit. True "innovation" would be to fully implement all the characters stats not abandon the ones that currently have bearing.

The majority of your character's stats relate to combat (or in some cases bashing locked doors). Action gameplay trivializes the character's stats. Trivializing the characters stats negates the character's design. Character design is fundemental to rpgs. From this we can infer that when results are dependant on character attributes the roleplaying experience is enhanced. Real-time combat does not do this. It undermines what most would agree is an essential aspect of the genre.

Gotta disagree with you here.

Strength in both RT and TB effects weight carried and melee damage done over a broad range of titles. It usually doesn't do much else in most CRPGs.

Perception, the way FO uses perception can be modeled in RT, even FP RT. All you would have to do is either modify fog dist according to the Perception value. If you wanted to get fancy, you could change the camera's depth of field according to perception and things would get fuzzier or more clear at a given range based on your PER stat.

ISO TB, just modifies your "to hit" percentage.

I've already tapped out on intitiatve as well as supplied an RT alt for it, so let's just take it as a given.

Endurance usually effects Hit points and resistences over a broad range of titles in both RT and TB.

Charisma usually effects PC / NPC dynamics in various and usual ways across titles both in TB and RT.

Intelligence, depends on the game, in FO it's most common use was for dialog options and skill point gain rate. No reason why this can't make it into a RT fallout.

Agility/Speed, most often used to determine how far a PC can move or how much can be done in a given span of time or turn. This has been translated well to several RT games, not just RT RPGs.

I think you don't have to worry about this one.

Luck, again, it's been modeled well in RT already. I don't think we have to worry about it.

If you're worried about the number of applications of these stats that really depends on the UI and world design not combat resolution dynamics. Afterall, the noncombat uses of these stats were done in FO in RT. True with a jump ahead in time and a dissolve to black. But that's been done in RTs too.

And you can screw up somebody's aim or effectiveness in RT just as easily as you can in TB according to stats, even FP RT.

Oblivion is good for one thing, watching twitchers whine and moan about "hitting" a guy a million times before he died, when he could have just hit him a few times by using the right weapon with the right skill.

All skills do is modify your effectiveness at a given task. You can still be unskilled and ineffective in RT, even in FP RT.

 

[elander_]

One of the better arguments made for TB, a corner stone argument if you may, is the separation between character and player, well let's take it the other way: even turn-base combat is TOO player involving. We need to separate the player even more then the character when it comes to battle.

Turn base combat allow the player to infuse TOO much of his skills (intelligence, tactical, etc) and "share" with the character TOO much information that at times the character don’t have access to (especially in a game with a tactical view point – seeing more enemies coming from behind the corner for example).

You have to use your brains to have some fun otherwise it's not even a game. Would you prefer to stand in front of the computer screen and just watch your character play the game?

I'm totaly against factoring inteligent and wisdom in dialog options. It should be the player to have the fun to decide or gamble what dialog options to take. This fun belongs to the player. Even stupid characters should have interesting dialog lines to choose from.

A good example of this is Planescape. Try to play a fighter character with low wisdom and the game is very boring because you miss most of the interesting dialog lines that characters with an high wisdom have.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

Yeah smart guy. You've said that I've said "some really dumb shit" but you never illustrated why it's dumb.

So without "why" the fact that I've said "retarded things" is only your opinion. Prove it's retarded and invalid and I'll submit.

Otherwise we're mearly having a difference of opinion.

Well, many reguler posters have grown pretty tired of having the same discussions over and over again because someone wasn't there the last time. The perspective issue specifically has been discussed quite recently. In your defense, the guys arguing with you didn't put up a great effort. Still, your "I'm right and you just don't understand" approach is unimpressive. You're not right and I don't really see you make any effort to understand your opposition's points.

Now, what I really ment to say:

I think you're confused. Isometric perspective mathmaticly allows for the cheating of 2d assests to appear as if they're actually 3d.

What? No. Isometric means a visual projection, a method for representing 3D objects on a 2D plane. Like drawing a picture on a piece of paper. It doesn't matter what you base this image on, thus rhe assets (as well as the virtual world) you refer to are outside the scope of the term. The term only refers to the visual representation, aka the image on your screen. It doesn't "automatically" look 3D just because "3D assets" are used. Those assets are just a bunch of information processed by the engine. When a 3D engine simulates a real perspective, it's just another mathematical "cheat" as you call it, using perspective projection instead of isomtric projection. Yet both are a 2D projection of 3D information.

That's why you can't have true Isometric perspective in an actual 3d game. Sure you can move the camera to recreate the feeling of Isometric. But because your assest and the space they're in are true 3d, it's not really isometric.

That's like saying it's impossible to draw an isometric image of any 3D object.

That's like saying it's impossible to draw an isometric image of any 3D object.

If you drew it in 2d, it'd no longer be 3d now would it? A 2d reproduction of a 3d artifact does not mean that your reproduction is suddenly 3d. It's just 2d, with methods of rendering perspective to give the illusion that the flat image has depth.

A 3d engine with 3d assests doesn't rely on a trick of perspective for it's depth like a true Isometric game does. If you tilt the camera in a 3d game in any direction your assests are still rendered in a valid way. If you tilt the camera in a true iso game, the illusion of 3d falls apart and you plainly see that the depth was artificial.

The sprites in a 2d game only really work if the player's point of view favors the perspective the 2d assest were drawn to. a plainly 2d game doesn't worry about depth and just goes top down or side view. Isometric enables a 2d game to simulate the depth of a 3d game, at least to a degree, through a trick of perspective.

A 3d game is actually 3d and never has to worry about the player's point of view to correctly render a convincing image and representation of depth. The world has depth no matter where the camera is.

Isometric isn't just camera position for camera position's sake. It has a well defined and deliberate purpose.

Go play the original Mario Bros. And then play fallout and it'll all gel in your head.