If I just have to respond to something section8 has posted, if for no other reason than Section8 probably deserves an answer by now, then I'd like to respond to this first as I've been thinking these points over the longest.
Presented in "
RPG-
o-
Vision"
section8 said:
So the argument here is what? You don't have time for turn-based? Well, I don't have enough spare time to warrant any more than a single game every two months or so. Should I be petitioning publishers to make less games because I don't have time for them all?
Either that, or you're strutting out the age old "I'm willing to accept boredom and tedium as long as they are {passive|fast paced}". Maybe you are one of those folks who wants a vaguely interactive piece of fiction, and anything between plot points you view as nothing more than a time sink, and there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, Bioware excel at making just your sort of game.
But what about the rest of us who enjoy Fallout for what it was?
You're right in saying RPG combat doesn't have to fit the "agonising" choices model, but you have to admit that it's a pretty good fit, given that an RPG should be mainly concerned with meaningful choices. Why should combat not be an extension of that?
Section 1, Point 1: The arguement was not an arguement at that point, just me giving my opinion. That opinion being that I don't mind the move to RT, because in my experience RT resolves combat more effieciently in reguards to time.
I honestly don't care who you petition or for what reason. I mean, I didn't petition anybody for anything in my post. I merely stated my opinion and the reason I favored it. I don't really see how your petition example applies. I made no demands.
If you would have just offered your opinion and why it was your opinion, then this would have been a lot easier to respond to ... Just saying.
If it's your opinion that they're making too many games, start a petition if you want, hell I'll sign it, because some quarters I feel the same way. However, I didn't petition anybody or make a demand of an artist based on my preference. I just expressed my preference.
I like realtime because, for me, what I give up in micromanaged stategy I make up for in time experiencing other parts of this game I enjoy. And I do think Turnbased is obselete in some reguards, yes, even in reguards to Roleplaying.
Section 1, Point 2: One part of this is true some of the time. When I'm really engaged in the dramatics of the plot, I do get miffed that combat ( sometimes just for combat's sake ) is delaying the dramatic payoff. Other times I delve right into the combat reguardless of plot ( both RT and TB. )
After over two decades of faithfully giving every turn the attention it deserves, I think I'm justified in wanting to see the results from a break in tradition. Daggerfall was that break for me, and I've given RT RPGs the benifit of the doubt ever since ... even craptastic Oblivion.
I'm just not scared that Fallout could be RT. I'm willing to, and even slightly in favor of, giving RT Fallout a chance. Not that I don't enjoy TB fallout, but I've been there and done that, and in all fairness the combat didn't make the game for me.
Section 1, point 3:
But what about the rest of us who enjoy Fallout for what it was?
Fallout the way it was will be preserved for all time in the original fallout. Any time anybody feels lonely and wants to visit their old friend, just pop in the cd and have all the fallout you want exactly the way it was.
What Fallout 3 may or may not end up being doesn't change what Fallout was, just what Fallout 3 is.
Star Trek, Star Trek: The Next Generation. Star Trek: The Next Generation didn't stop anybody from watching classic Trek and enjoying the way it was. Fallout 3 no matter how it comes out, won't ruin what fallout was.
Does anybody hold MOO3 against MOO1? I hope this only stays a loose comparison, btw.
You're right in saying RPG combat doesn't have to fit the "agonising" choices model, but you have to admit that it's a pretty good fit, given that an RPG should be mainly concerned with meaningful choices. Why should combat not be an extension of that?
I can make agonizing tactical choices in realtime. You're right, agonizing choices of all kinds should be encouraged in RPGs.
RT gives me the option of usually choosing when and for how long I really want to agonize. In a battle of 30 NPCs and me, I don't have to be in "agony" as 30 NPCs take turns resolving combat. They act simultaniously, and I react in kind. Effectiveness in said combat still relies on character stats/skills and player tactics. You just don't have all day to consider your tactics, nor do you have to wait all day for the computer to resolve it's tactics.
You give up a little something to get something else. I'm ok with what I'm giving up, and what I'm getting in return. But if it turns out to be TB, I'll go through it just as faithfully as I did every other TB RPG and CRPG I've played for over twenty years.
I'll get moments of "here we go again," but that won't break the game for me.
section8 said:
Yes, but you'd be a fool to think any of the games you've mentioned in your timeline supercede one another. Tabletop wargames are not Chess v2.
Section 2: Chess is a Turnbased war/tactical-strategy sim/game. Anything designed to model war is going to have at the very least superficial simularities. That being said, 99% the simularities go way beyond superficial.
The idea of balance to really force a tactical victory, instead of just overwhelming odds, is pure chess. And you can see it in just about every game even reguardless of genre.
In real war the idea is to unbalance the playing field even before combat has started for the edge. In chess you're already at your unit cap and tech limit so the only way to start creating an unbalanced advantage is through pure tactics.
Other games strive for balance for various reasons, but war/strategy games that go for balance are trying to do as chess did and bring out tactical victories.
If you really look at game design, no matter the combat resolution dynamic, you'll find the same principles established in chess more often than not.
Is chess superceded by any of it's children or cousins? Either position can be argued, but I don't care enough about that topic to take a position.
I know that sometimes there's nothing better than a good game of chess, but I'm damn glad I have other options as well.
If they made RT Chess (2.0) and increased it to 3 dimensions, I think I'd like to see that. I can always go back to Chess (1.0) if they fuck it up. It's not like I lost anything.
section8 said:
It's funny you should bring up latency. There is zero latency in a turn-based game. However, interface latency is present in all real-time games, and is incorporated as part of the challenge the game provides. Starcraft is all about latency, all tactics aside, every second that a building or a unit spends idling is one second closer to losing the game.
As for physics - there's an area that could actually be improved without gutting the existing systems and replacing them with a poor substitute.
Section 3, Point 1: MOO3 had turnbased empire management and realtime combat. Latency was all over the place in that title, you'd be lucky if the game could keep sync long enough so that you'd actually get to any combat.
Being Turnbased doesn't eliminate latency, it just gives the engine a good place to hide it. Assuming the engine isn't junk, that is.
Section 3, Point 2: Time is an important element in most aspects of physics. That doesn't mean that physics based animations couldn't play out in some way. I just think don't think that physics would actually work artisticly when time is so abstracted.
But hey, dynamic animations based on physics couldn't hurt. And during the realtime noncombat portions maybe real physics could be featured.
section8 said:
There are good reasons why no/few realtime games bother to model locational damage. Again, add it to the system, and you need to extend the interface in some way, or automate it.
Section 4: There's already context sensitive, interactive crosshairs. If i was going to do it, I'd use mouse wheel and mouse wheel button.
You encounter a guy that you want to shoot in the eyes, just mouse wheel button on him and scroll up to his eyes, hit mouse wheel button again. Takes only a second. and every attack you try and make towards your target will take into account that you told your character that you want to hit the eyes.
If the engine is effecting shooting accuracy according to your skill , you may hit him in the eyes or you may not, even if you've got your crosshairs right there. It can ignore the critical damage unless your eye shot was successfull statisticly.
interactive crosshairs are in FO1 after all, making them automaticly context sensitive shouldn't be that big a deal.
section8 said:
Of course there's nothing that emphatically states that. However, you're missing a couple of critical points here.
First of all, as you say - "You should agonise over the role you're playing". Again I ask, why shouldn't peripheral aspects of the game be an extension of that same skill set? I certainly don't mind the variation that games such as System Shock 2 offer, but in general it makes sense to keep aspects of the game such as combat closely related to the core of the game.
You could develop a game where in order to speak with NPCs, you play tetris. Every time you clear a line, your character gets a line of dialogue to choose from. You could replace turn-based combat with a racing game where you steer your car with an interactive digital vagina that you plug into your USB port. There are no rules saying you can't make a game in that vein, but it just ain't the most sensible option. Or sensible at all, for that matter.
Secondly, as my experience with hack and slash P&P has taught me, if all you ever do is combat, you find ways to define your character through combat. A cleric can be stingy with healing spells. The can be selfish with them. They can brave certain death to land a vital heal on the tank. They can angrily beat a surrendering opponent to death due to religious differences.
Are those actions not character defining? Do they not evoke personality?
You seem to have this belief that RPGs are about talking to NPCs, and anything outside of that is "downtime" that is best served with due haste to get to the next NPC interaction. It's truly a shame that the gaming world proves you right on so many counts, but RPGs can be so much more.
Section 5, Point 1: As you kinda said this same thing before, I'll go ahead and respond more or less like I did before.
I can consider my tactical options in realtime as just much as I can grapple with drama in RT. There's nothing about RT that says your brain must be disengaged. Mine isn't at least.
I'm pretty sure there's a Marine Corps out there that considers it's tactics very carefully in realtime. When the situation isn't ideal, when you don't have the time you'd like, you still use your brain and the tactics you've learned, you just have to use them on a deadline.
Speed Chess would be this dynamic for armchair generals.
I'm not saying that FO3 has to be Marine Corps accurate or realistic. What I am saying is that tactics and a clear line of thinking don't have to disappear when the clock is ticking. They sometimes do disappear, but it's not mandatory.
If you really want to just sit and dwell on a given situation, hey, hit escape and roll it over in your mind for as long as you want. When you've got your move, come out of pause and put it to the test.
Section 5, Point 2: I can define my character in RT. I can be fair, unfair, bastardly, or a complete psycho in RT. TB isn't mandatory for defining one's character in combat, at least not for me.
Under pressure you may do something your character wouldn't do, but the same happens in drama and reality all the time. Sometimes heroes let themselves down in the heat of the moment. It's character defining.
Section 5, Point 3: You've misunderstood me. Much of the drama of an RPG doesn't revolve around talking to NPC.
I never said anything was downtime.
I did say that I admire RT as a combat resolution dynamic because of the efficency possible, so that I can move on to those parts of a game that aren't combat, if that's what I wish, quicker than TB allows typicly.
Again, all parts of an RPG are oppurtunities to be your character, but sometimes you just don't feel like combat and wouldn't it be great if when you didn't feel like it, it was fluid? Thus allowing that you wouldn't have to wait so long to get to what you're actually wanting to do at that moment?
I've gotten bogged down in TB combat when I wasn't in the mood a lot during 20 or so years of gaming. Even though I still like it for somethings, I really don't think it's nessessary for RPGs any more. There's other options now, and I think they're valid options.
Changing the combat resolution dynamic doesn't change, make or break the game for me. I can do everything I like doing in TB in RT only without the turns.
I'm still going to define my character in combat. RT doesn't remove that option.
section8 said:
And just how did that work out? The only real time D&D games I've enjoyed have been the wacky japanese arcade games. On the other hand, ToEE is a fantastically fun turn-based dungeon crawler once you squash some bugs. Compare and contrast ToEE's combat to any of Bioware's steaming turds, and come back and tell me D&D making the leap to real-time was a change for the better.
Another thing you might want to think about is why that leap was made to begin with. Multiplayer. Simple as that. So given that it's pretty safe to assume Fallout 3 won't be multiplayer, why introduce a system when the major advantage it provides is not present - yet the major drawbacks will be?
Section 6, Point 1: I wasn't making a value judgement with my DnD to realtime statement. I was merely pointing out that the first RPG went to RT and everything still worked out.
There had already been TB DnD for what, 2 decades? I think TB fans got their fair share on that one.
Bioware's RT DnD attempts are still liked today by fans and even exposed people to DnD that wouldn't have touched it before. A travesty? Nah.
Anyways, my only point with the original statement was that DnD went to realtime and the world didn't end. The games found a market and more TB DnD was produced afterwards. Looks like the experiment didn't hurt it all that much.
Section 6, Point 2: Nobody really knows what FO3 will be yet. I can't predict the future, and I don't acccept that going RT is just chalk full of drawbacks.
It'll be different in RT, no doubt. But not in any way that'd make me say "this isn't fallout, this isn't an RPG, look at all these drawbacks."
Otherthings bethesda will probably do will make me say those things, but not RT by itself.
section8 said:
You could write a Fallout book, or a Fallout movie, and they would be just that. A Fallout book, and a Fallout movie. They could nail the setting 100%, and be perfect in every way. They could be the next Moby Dick or Citizen Kane. Would you accept either as a substitute for a Fallout game?
You could make just about anything and keep it true to Fallout's setting. But since I want Fallout 3, a continuation in the series of Post-Nuclear RPGs, is it really that unreasonable that I don't want radical departures from what I loved about the first Fallouts?
Section 7, point 1: Depends, is anybody making a Fallout game? If no, then I would accept it as a substitute because what choice do I have. It's got most things I like about fallout and there's no game anyways. Might as well enjoy the fallout that is, if it's as good as you say anyways, instead of lamenting the fallout that isn't.
If yes, then I'd accept it not as a substitute but just a slice of fallout in it's own right. Just as I'd accept the game in it's own right.
Section 7, point 2: Nobody wants anything they like to change. But, change happens all the same. Nobody said you had to like it, though.
I'm reminded of the immortal words of the rolling stones:
You can't always get what you want ....... you can't always get want ....... if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need.
I think the "might" part is critical as I'm not saying that anybody needs RT fallout, I wouldn't throw it away though and if given the option if both RT and TB was there. I'd go for RT just because I've not been there before.
I like going to the places I've never been, and doing the things I've never done. I've done TB Fallout. And Ye, it was good, what's the harm with trying nuts instead of raisens this time? We've already had the cake the other way. And it's not like anybody's going to lose the recipe if it doesn't work out.
section8 said:
By that logic, we should all be eating synthetic proteins, because the technology to create them exists and therefore food in a traditional sense is redundant.
Besides, who is making the fucking demands here? Do you see us posting on Halo/Gears of War/Oblivion/Need for Speed/Sims/etc forums saying "I like turn-based, therefore the games you know and love should be arbitrarily changed to better suit my desires!"
Are we really that unreasonable for having the gall to suggest that something we like should stay the way we like it?
I'll tell you what unreasonable is. Unreasonable is suggesting that something beautiful and unique should be homogenised in order to be more like everything else. Unreasonable is sneering down your fucking nose while telling people that their valid preference is "stagnation". Fuck you, botanic gardens! Concrete is the future! Nature and beauty are things of the past. I would never consider suggesting nature get in the way of the progress of construction!"
I'm having a lot of trouble keeping the mask from slipping here, but let's press on. Maybe you'll learn some fucking manners if nothing else.
Section 8, Point 1: That was not my logic. That artistic decisions shouldn't be taken to task for moving away from tradition was, however. That to do so holds back progress by discouraging experimentation and "just sticking with what works, or those mean bastards will hurt our feelings" is imposed stagnation.
It was my logic that the artist in question should be able to make his project according to his designs. If he chooses TB, fine. If he chooses RT, fine. If it flies or falls, isn't the point to me. It's just "were did we try to go today that we didn't yesturday."
There's something out there better than both RT and TB, but we're never going to get their by crushing the nuts of anybody that wants to break with tradition.
Section 8, Point 2: It was never my position that FO3 should be homogonized. But since you bring it up ... My opposition has made it quite clear that TB is the majority, the standard, and the ceiling for CRPGs. Given that, making FO3 TB would be an act of homogony. Making FO3 RT would break with the trend of homogony within the genre.
That isn't anything I wish to debate back and forth for eons to come. I just responded to something you brought up that was never a part of my original position.
Section 8, Point 3: I don't give a fuck about your mask and I was very well mannered until a certain point. It's content like this that turns them off. If you think I'm affraid that you'll lose your composure over my opinions and position, it would do you well to rethink that strategy, sir.
section8 said:
I have to agree, but if the moral choice I have to agonise over boils down to "you can have news ways in which Fallout can be experienced, or you can have the logical progression and improvement of the existing ways", it's going to take me about .01 seconds to make my move and end my turn. Especially when I have absolutely no faith in the creative minds devising "other ways" for Fallout to be experienced.
Section 9: This is really just a matter of opinion. How somebody comes down on this is entirely subjective. No matter which way somebody comes down, I think they're entitled to their position.
Unlike VD, I don't call the other side dumb and then call my opinion fact that's beyond question, you know, just because I think it is.
section8 said:
It's not the greatest thing about Fallout, but that doesn't mean it isn't great. For instance, in the following set -- [100, 100, 100, 100, 99] -- the fifth variable is the fifth greatest. It's likely to pale in comparison to the other four, and rarely rate a mention. But it's still a very significant part, and great in it's own right.
Here's an interesting comparison of contemporaries - Ask a Fallout fan what the worst thing about Fallout is. My money would be on - "It's too short. I wish there were more Fallout goodness." Ask a Planescape Torment fan what the worst thing about Torment is. Anyone who doesn't immediately say "combat" is kidding themselves.
Section 10: really this is just another point that's just opinion. You're entitled to everything you've said here and even a contrary position is just more opinion.
The only thing I can bring up is that if all things being equal ( as your numeric example literally illustrates ) wouldn't "fallout that really great turnbased game" be as prominent as anything else. In most things I've seen the fact that it's turnbased takes a back seat to the elements that are unique to it. Those elements that no/few others share.
I don't think being Turnbased is as equal to everybody as it is to you. But you're welcome to your opinion that it is equal ( or nearly ) to everything else in the game.
Given that, It's understandable that you'd come down on Tb's side.
I don't share that point of view though. The TB to me is not equal when compared to everything else fallout is.
section8 said:
No, that would be hitpoints.
Ever notice how things that could be improved in traditional RPG models just completely skip under the radar of everyone who posts with the "best intentions of modernising RPGs"? Could that have something to do with them being hypocrites who are interested in pushing their (questionable) preference under the guise of "progress"? Maybe we'll never know.
Abstraction can be a good thing. In no place in nature does one find anything where you can press a key, and sound a musical tone. Does that invalidate the "artificial" nature of the piano? Should pianists be given strings and hammers and told to make the best of it? Or does the abstraction of pitch to a linear sequence of keys become a tool to allow a person to easily interface with complex variations of pitch and timbre?
Or, to become even more abstract - sheet music. Nowhere in nature do you see a visual, mathematic representation of sound. Does that invalidate sheet music? And to tie that in with my previous example. One person can play a piano in real-time. One person cannot play an entire orchestra of instruments in real-time. However, one person can write music for an entire orchestra through the abstraction that is sheet music.
Section 11, Point 1:
No, that would be hitpoints.
I stand corrected. But the day when we can accurately model damage in both tactical strategy games and RPGs is the day I do a little dance. A jigg maybe, or that river dance stuff.
I'm serious, I think hitpoints are one of the most easily abused dynamics in RPGs. Something that makes both RT and TB take longer than it should. Sure it makes a superhero out of your mildmannered nobody. But I don't really need to shrug off 357 rounds to be a hero in a story, certainly not in most every single game.
It would also make armor nonoptional, though, which is going to piss off the robes and sandels crowd, but what can you do? Can't please everybody.
Section 11, Point 2: It was never my position that abstraction couldn't be a good thing. It was only my position that if we did away with the abstraction of TB and replaced it with RT, that would be an abstaction removal that wouldn't break the game for me.
TB being artificial wasn't even part of my real point, that portion was just me deconstructing something illogical somebody said.
The sheet music example becomes a null for me at this point, because it was never my position that something had to be natural in order to be good.
Again the statement I made about TB being an entirely artificial construct was me refuting somebody elses position, not me expressing my own for the purpose of debate. It's a nonpoint to me in the grand scheme, i just responded to it because it was basicly a quick point, counter point.
section8 said:
You're exactly right. In order for the game to be interactive, the player must contribute something to the character. So, why shouldn't we assume that if a player enjoys creating a character that they will also enjoy other activities of a similar bent?
Would it be sensible to include a level in an FPS where the player is forced to win at a game of chess before they can proceed? Of course not, because people don't play FPSs with that expectation, and even more relevant - it's not likely to be enjoyable for someone who wants to play and FPS, and not chess.
RPGs, being a much broader genre features a broader range of preferred gameplay activities, but we're not talking about RPGs in general. We're talking about Fallout.
But anyway, I'm about spent. I hope you take something away from this grandfatherly chat about what game were like in my day.
Section 12, Point 1: Are you saying that creating a character is the same as Realtime combat? In what way? This isn't exactly an obvious point. If you mean that a person likes investing a lot of time in creating a character then it follows that they would also like investing a lot of time in combat?
It doesn't nessessarily follow, but I'm sure it rings true for some.
Section 12, Point 2: The fps/chess thing would've almost worked if not for the fact that many FPS games have puzzels that have to be solved before the player can progress to more carnage. Throwing chess in there would just be another puzzle, required to be completed to progress. Why does a designer think that a guy that buys a game focused on absolute carnage wants to solve puzzels is beyond me, surely they don't enjoy them.
:wink:
The example almost worked though.
Section 12, Point 3: The RPG things are just there to clear up some misconceptions.
