Editorial Bethesda developer explains why TB is obsolete

[merry andrew]

The point, if you go back, was that TB MP games have latency too.

The point, if you go back, first by me, and then better explained by Section8, has nothing to do with multiplayer games.

edit:

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

The key there is "interface latency".

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

The point, if you go back, was that TB MP games have latency too.

The point, if you go back, first by me, and then better explained by Section8, has nothing to do with multiplayer games.

edit:

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

The key there is "interface latency".

When I drew the conclusion that your latency quip was related to the common complaints of most people about MP FPS, why didn't you say something at the time?

When he went off on interface latency ( which I've only stipulated to about a billion times already ) I thought he was just changing the subject.

I said the point about "probably not being multiplayer" ages ago in response to your latency comment. You seemed to breeze over it, I naturally thought that a MP FPS was what you were referring to.

Again, it just seemed as though section 8 was changing the subject ... again because I already tapped out on the point he was making.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

And don't threaten me with a tag, jackass. You've already been unjust in that reguard, why would I care that you'd continue the trend?

Why are you so fucking worried about your tag and arguing with VD then? If you want to have a discussion, take the time to respond to the 'difficult' posts and stop shitting all over the people who are trying to have a civil discussion with you by ignoring their posts for the "easy" ones. The "easy" ones probably aren't worth your time, eh?

It's frustrating for me because I'd actually like to see if you have a point and all you keep doing is further proving how fitting your tag is.

Is putting words in people's mouths like your favorite past time or something?

At no point did I say I was ignoring anybody's post.

I only said that I respond to easier stuff more quickly. Once I've read something, I've already begun thinking about my response. Responding to easy stuff first, doesn't mean I'm ignoring anybody else. It just means that I can slide something simple in, while priming my response to something more complex.

I urge you to start representing me accurately. If you can't do so through integrity, start using quotes to keep yourself honest.

If it's one thing I'm getting tired of, it's the imagination game over shit I've supposed to have said, but never did.

 

[Kingston]

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

 

[merry andrew]

When I drew the conclusion that your latency quip was related to the common complaints of most people about MP FPS, why didn't you say something at the time?

From your first few comments in this thread you've been giving unthoughtful responses. By the time you arrogantly responded to my latency comment, I figured there was no point in trying to explain anything to you. You'd failed so many times to comprehend what others were saying and then arrogantly assumed they had no merit.

Look at your first response and then the two posts below it. cutterjohn knew exactly what I was talking about with latency, something Section8 took the time to re-explain later on... how did you miss it? You even responded to cutterjohn's post, just didn't seem to grasp any of it. See how people think you're kind of a dumbfuck? It was hard to read your posts after that because it was the same kind of oversight again and again.

When he went off on interface latency ( which I've only stipulated to about a billion times already ) I thought he was just changing the subject.

When you've gone off on whatever you've been saying, most of us figured you were just changing the subject. Funny, right?

I said the point about "probably not being multiplayer" ages ago in response to your latency comment. You seemed to breeze over it, I naturally thought that a MP FPS was what you were referring to.

You mean this?:

There's the quick and the dead. But don't worry, Fallout 3 probably won't be multiplayer so no need to worry about latency

Where you brushed off the latency comment by only addressing it as if it were in reference to multiplayer? If you understood that Fallout 3 was probably not going to be multiplayer, why did you address our comments as if they were referring to multiplayer? Why not just respond to what makes most sense given the environment and the quantity of similar responses?

 

[merry andrew]

I only said that I respond to easier stuff more quickly.

Ah, like my initial comments? So easy you completely missed the point?

We enjoy the accuracy of turn-based combat in an RPG, so we'd like you to be accurate and respond to each post directed toward you in the sequence in which you receive them. When you don't do that, it comes off as kind of shady... much like real-time combat in an RPG.

 

[elander_]

That does not mean that I "should play FPS" or "action adventures" - these games usually do not offer the depth of world simulation, nonlinear structure, open quests structures, character interaction, and sense of character progression. I have every sympathy that fans of the genre (and of Fallout in particular) want a true, dyed in the wool sequel. However, it is not fair to equal an appreciation for more player skill involvement with derogatory terms like twitch players and shallow gameplay. One has nothing to do with the other.

Maybe the games you played usually don't but that is not a reason to tag FPS and action adventures that way. By doing this you are contradicting yourself a bit.

Maybe you would like to sacrifice a bit of character for a bit of cinematic immersion and that's fine. Games should be refreshed. But to make you feel more connected your character by sacrificing game mechanics that worked for role-playing is not an advantage but a risk . And this is the point of this discussion.

An rpg is a very subtle balance between fun (player skill) and role-playing (character skill). The less risky way to address the problem of 3rd person and TB being less cinematic in a Fallout game is to improve TB with new mechanics that allow the player to have to micromanage combat less but without surrendering control to the AI. It is simply not possible to replace TB by RT without sacrificing role-playing.

This is the real point here. There are tons of actions rpgs out there and only a few good TB rpgs. If Fallout was such a good rpg it was because TB contributed to make it good and not because it was a limitation. Anyone who doesn't realize this, with all the reasons already pointed out is stubborn and obsessed in an irrational way. For role-playing RT is the limitation here the Fallout devs tried to work out by creating a TB game, and this is the true spirit of Fallout, not just the setting. The setting alone was not what make it feel special and i think you are dismissing the power of a good role-playing and TB to make the world look much more believable than simply using simplistic and noobe tricks with camera position and time.

PS: I'm not saying they shouldn't experiment with new flavors of rpgs with more action combat fun but with Fallout i expect it not to be turned in yet another action rpg. Pete Hines said that this is not what they know how to do well, so they should learn how to do it well or leave it alone ir perhaps make their own post-apocalyptic rpg the way they see fit.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

When I drew the conclusion that your latency quip was related to the common complaints of most people about MP FPS, why didn't you say something at the time?

From your first few comments in this thread you've been giving unthoughtful responses. By the time you arrogantly responded to my latency comment, I figured there was no point in trying to explain anything to you. You'd failed so many times to comprehend what others were saying and then arrogantly assumed they had no merit.

Look at your first response and then the two posts below it. cutterjohn knew exactly what I was talking about with latency, something Section8 took the time to re-explain later on... how did you miss it? You even responded to cutterjohn's post, just didn't seem to grasp any of it. See how people think you're kind of a dumbfuck? It was hard to read your posts after that because it was the same kind of oversight again and again.

When he went off on interface latency ( which I've only stipulated to about a billion times already ) I thought he was just changing the subject.

When you've gone off on whatever you've been saying, most of us figured you were just changing the subject. Funny, right?

I said the point about "probably not being multiplayer" ages ago in response to your latency comment. You seemed to breeze over it, I naturally thought that a MP FPS was what you were referring to.

You mean this?:

There's the quick and the dead. But don't worry, Fallout 3 probably won't be multiplayer so no need to worry about latency

Where you brushed off the latency comment by only addressing it as if it were in reference to multiplayer? If you understood that Fallout 3 was probably not going to be multiplayer, why did you address our comments as if they were referring to multiplayer? Why not just respond to what makes most sense given the environment and the quantity of similar responses?

First off, I'm involved in every aspect, every facet, every front, and every page of this discussion. I'm not discussing one thing with one person (though it seems some people are taking that personally) I'm having to discuss two dozen things with two dozen people because everybody's got a different point of view.

It's a lot to juggle, and to add to it, I've got a tiny little autocrat dishing out demands and "threats."

Shit's going to get missed, and even misunderstood. Those happen to be the breaks.

People can either get over it, or not, that's up to them. I can only do the best I can do given the situation.

I constantly go back and reread pages that filled up fast to see if there's something I should respond to. Even then, something is probably going to get missed. Oh well.

I've taken open hostility over my opinion on the matter for some time now, probably since VD's response on pg1. I let it more or less slide at first, but now I've had enough. If my tone is insulting to some, I'm sorry if you don't think you deserve it, but I come by it honestly.

I have to say, the fact that I've been so often misquoted in a format where there's no excuse has really been the breaking point on my tone. The only reason would be that somebody is doing so on purpose, for no other purpose than to misrepresent me. That's just weak sauce and it's got no place with me. Some of the other shit I let slide, but i've had my fill of that.

Anyways, I've got my hands full and people are just going to have to deal. Misunderstandings can be made into understandings, and responses only take time. Anything else is handled on a case by case basis.

 

[merry andrew]

I've taken open hostility over my opinion on the matter for some time now

Welcome to RPG Codex. If you didn't already know, that's what it's like here.

blah blah I'm an idiot that can't multitask but prefers non-turn-based wah wah bro aiight

I'm glad we've come to an understanding.

 

[Volourn]

"How is it rude to ask someone to respond to to fair discussion in order to prove they aren't worthy of a special tag? The tag is merely for the people who care about it. He keeps saying he doesn't care about it, yet he keeps bringing it up discussion... how does that work? It's not like he's being banned or his posts edited. The tag should't prevent him from not being a dipshit."

This is even bigger bullshit than VD's initital," WAAA! If you don't rep;sond to x poster I'll dumbfuck you, waaa waa waaa!" crap.

Let me ask you a question. Do you respond to EVERY post ever directed at you on the Codex or anywhere else on Internet Land? I doubt it. And, why should you? You should only respond to posts you want to no matter your fuckin' reasons.

I have not seen anyone to date... not you, not me, not VD, not anyone who responds to every post by every one directed them. In fact, this is the first time anywhere where I've seen someone threatened with some sort of punishment (even if it is lame and ultra irrelevant dumbfucking) because they didn't repsond to some fellow lameo's post.

It's dumb, and it's pathetic. I'm also sure VD is full aware of the lameness of his threat.


P.S. If you don't respond to this inane post, I'm reporting you to VD for non response. L0L

P.S.S. I'll give you to either a) your next post or b) 2 hours.


HAHAHAH!


P.S.S.S. I hope you didn't think I was serious with the reporting thing. That would be ultra lame. It was to prove a point.




SEMI ON TOPIC: I don't give a damn if a game is turn base or real time. All that matters is if the game is fun. A game isn't more or less based on TB vs. RT. It's plain dumb and purely opinion to think otherwise.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Maybe the games you played usually don't but that is not a reason to tag FPS and action adventures that way. By doing this you are contradicting yourself a bit.

Maybe you would like to sacrifice a bit of character for a bit of cinematic immersion and that's fine. Games should be refreshed. But to make you feel more connected your character by sacrificing game mechanics that worked for role-playing is not an advantage but a risk . And this is the point of this discussion.

An rpg is a very subtle balance between fun (player skill) and role-playing (character skill). The less risky way to address the problem of 3rd person and TB being less cinematic in a Fallout game is to improve TB with new mechanics that allow the player to have to micromanage combat less but without surrendering control to the AI. It is simply not possible to replace TB by RT without sacrificing role-playing.

This is the real point here. There are tons of actions rpgs out there and only a few good TB rpgs. If Fallout was such a good rpg it was because TB contributed to make it good and not because it was a limitation. Anyone who doesn't realize this, with all the reasons already pointed out is stubborn and obsessed in an irrational way. For role-playing RT is the limitation here the Fallout devs tried to work out by creating a TB game, and this is the true spirit of Fallout, not just the setting. The setting alone was not what make it feel special and i think you are dismissing the power of a good role-playing and TB to make the world look much more believable than simply using simplistic and noobe tricks with camera position and time.

PS: I'm not saying they shouldn't experiment with new flavors of rpgs with more action combat fun but with Fallout i expect it not to be turned in yet another action rpg. Pete Hines said that this is not what they know how to do well, so they should learn how to do it well or leave it alone ir perhaps make their own post-apocalyptic rpg the way they see fit.

I agree about Fallout, it would be nice to play a good turn-based RPG again. My comment was more of a general reply to those who equal action with mind-numbing simple gameplay. It is a different approach and different philosophies of roleplaying, but both can lead to deep or weak RPG's. I.e. the depth and quality is IMHO not in the system or philosophy used, but in the implementation.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

I've taken open hostility over my opinion on the matter for some time now

Welcome to RPG Codex. If you didn't already know, that's what it's like here.

blah blah I'm an idiot that can't multitask but prefers non-turn-based wah wah bro aiight

I'm glad we've come to an understanding.

I didn't really know how pathetic you were until just now, thanks for answering the question for me.

 

[Koby]

I'd like to see a lot more "WeGo" systems in RPGs,...

First time I'm hearing about "WeGo", is there even one cRPG that has it?

However, I'm still of the opinion that pausable RT systems are an abomination that encourage developers to underdesign combat encounters and are completely inferior in every sense.

I think ALL pseudo-realtime aren’t very good, I think/it seems real time is one of those things that in order to be good it needs to be clean of any behind_the_hood/wrapped_above elements, that is way I personally don’t like real time at all in a non action RPG.

 

[Jasede]

@MVB

You're holding up pretty well.
Give no quarter!

 

[Kraszu]

Mr. Van_Buren haw is rt trying something new in time when almost every crpg is rt now?

"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. "

Bethseda will make system that is popular now, haw can that leads to progression? They could as well improve TB system.

 

[merry andrew]

Let me ask you a question. Do you respond to EVERY post ever directed at you on the Codex or anywhere else on Internet Land? I doubt it. And, why should you? You should only respond to posts you want to no matter your fuckin' reasons.

During a discussion that I'm serious about? Yes. Often, there's no need to respond to every post. You can usually address several posts at once since they can be grouped by similar concern. If two dozen people respond to a few short paragraphs I wrote, I really doubt they'll have two dozen or more highly unique responses for me to attend to.

thanks for answering the question for me

Anytime!

 

[Micmu]

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.

I assume you are talking about a game with first-person view, real-time combat and fully manual (player skill based) aiming, right?

In that case, that's the silliest use for Perception in a FPS one could possibly imagine. What the hell?
Seriously, limiting LOD (something reserved for Graphics settings - so far) or even artificially garbling the screen?! Some kind of fog-of-war in a first person action game?
I don't see how could *possibly* anyone want to play a FPV RT game that will look like it has some serious graphics issues.
Of course it can easily be implemented in a game with character skill based aiming (to-hit chance, for example), RT or TB, FPV or 3rd person view.

 

[MountainWest]

@MVB

You're holding up pretty well.
Give no quarter!

No.

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.

If you keep it broad RT VS TB, it's just apples and oranges.

And I do think Turnbased is obselete in some reguards, yes, even in reguards to Roleplaying

Calling RT and TB 'apples and oranges' - which they are - and then claim that one has made the other obsolete isn't very clever. I wouldn't knock on Hells angels door and say that their Harley's are 'obsolete' because of Volvo. Not only because I value my life, but because I understand the difference between riding a bike and driving a car.

If something can do practically everything something else can do, only better - then the latter thing can be considered obsolete. But that's not the case with TB VS RT. The two systems have different strengths and weaknesses, thus one can't make the other obsolete.

oh, and in case:

apples and oranges (American)
if two people or things are apples and oranges, they are completely different.

 

[Vault Dweller]

L0L Now you are demanding someone reply to specific posters or else get Dumbfucked. L0L

*I*, my dear Volourn, am not demanding anything. Quite a few people demanded to see a response to the Section8's post, and what am I if not a humble servant of people of the Codex?

Shouldn't one be allowed to reply or not reply to whom they choose? LMAO

One definitely should, but when one *starts* a serious debate and get a thoughtful reply, one's obligated, as a gentleman, to show some respect and respond in a timely manner.

n fact, this is the first time anywhere where I've seen someone threatened with some sort of punishment (even if it is lame and ultra irrelevant dumbfucking) because they didn't repsond to some fellow lameo's post.

So you agree then that the threat was purely symbolic and mostly comical (especially considering that one tag has already been applied), yet you decided to bitch about it anyway. Makes sense.

I know internet message boards are not democracies and owners can do whatever they want, but this is rude seriously.

You know what's rude? Not replying to someone who took time to address your arguments and ignoring other posters' requests to reply to this particular post.

I'm pretty sure this post won't be replied to by anyone, should I get into dumbfucking frenzy then?

Unlike the Section8's post both your post and my reply to it are casual comments that don't require a reply.

This tag dramatically hinders poster's credibility to say the least.

Unlike MVB's 10 pages worth of weak arguments, unsupported claims, and flip-flopping, of course.

 

[Jinxed]

Exitium v2

 

[Vault Dweller]

Because anybody who uses admin powers is, obviously, an Exitium. Who cares about simple facts that good ol' Exit was famous for editing & deleting posts, deleting accounts of people he didn't like, banning people who disagreed with him, and dumbfucking people *without* a reason (i.e. Role-Player)?

 

[Seboss]

@VD:
I get your point. I have an issue with the whole Dumbfucking business. Call me a sissy but I only see unnecessary humiliation in this. I think it's below the Codex and belongs to boards moderated by 14yo with self-esteem issues.
I'd rather have plain ol' bans for hopeless troublemakers and an ignore button to collapse posts from people that gets on my nerves.
But this belongs to the Site Feedback forum I suppose.

 

[Section8]

First time I'm hearing about "WeGo", is there even one cRPG that has it?

Well, the phase-based systems in the more recent Wizardry games have a lot in common, but don't really account for movement and maneuvring, and sequence is still a major factor.

The most interesting example I've seen in recent times would have to be Darkwind, a "turn based" multiplayer racing and auto combat game. Basically, all players (and AI vehicles) set their steering, acceleration and weapon triggers for each second of game time, and it evaluates simultaneously.

But nope, can't name a single CRPG that has it. Shame really.

Now on to the main event in this intarnet drama. First of all, cheers for the response, Mr Van Buren. As much as I enjoy trying to rationalise my own thought and preferences in writing, it's even better when I can trade blows with someone on my ideas, and either teach or learn a lesson.

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.

The internet would be far less exciting if everyone just offered up opinions with no effort made toward changing anyone else's.

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.

A statement like "the automobile renders the bicycle obsolete in some regards" may be true, but it's very subjective, since the bike still maintains quite a few advantages depending on the application. The same is true of turn-based systems.

You haven't really given any compelling reasons as to why TB is obsolete beyond "computers are capable of more complexity." More on this as we go on.

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.

Okay, this is something we're just not going to agree on then. If Bethesda substituted TB combat for something completely new and interesting, I'd change my tune. However, what are the chances? I'm expecting something in the vein of Deus Ex.

And guess what? I've been there and done that, too. It's not as though FPSs are a dying breed. Turn-Based RPGs are.

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.

The rationale behind the preference is - I want more games like Fallout. I only know of one on the horizon, and that's Age of Decadence. So even though Fallout 3 can't damage its predecessors, it's also a prime candidate for being more of what I want. It would be a real shame to miss out on that in favour of something more commonplace.

Does anybody hold MOO3 against MOO1? I hope this only stays a loose comparison, btw.

No, but if you gave MOO fans a choice of MOO3 as it was, or a MOO3 more like the first two, which would they argue in favour of? It's not about perceived damage to what we already have, it's about wanting more.

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.

There's a big difference between inherent limitations of turn-based combat as a theory, and flawed implementations. You could make similar arguments about RT systems by using examples of flawed implementations -- "I can't possibly fight against 30 NPCs. They move in too fast and kill me every time!"

An ideal implementation ought to give you reasons to care about what actions those 30 NPCs take, or calculate the irrelevant ones under the hood as fast as the computer can handle - faster than real-time.

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.

"Don't have all day to consider" can be either positive or negative within certain contexts. Doom works exceedingly well because it overloads the player to the point where they have no time to consider tactics, and so they run on autopilot. Their awareness of the outside world takes a backseat to "existing" within the gameworld. You know, "the I word".

"Wait all day for the computer" is not an inherent limitation of turn-based systems. Evaluation can be almost instantaneous. Waiting around is a result of flawed implementation, and fixing such flaws are exactly the sort of thing TB Fallout fans would be united in advocating.

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.

I've been through this above. We know we can always revert to the originals, but we'd also like to see an evolution of that rather than a departure. What's more, a Fallout-style game would be a rarity in today's market.

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.

That was exactly my point, coupled with the idea of interface latency. In real-time games, interfacing becomes an integral part of the challenge. Turn-based games eliminate this challenge and in theory substitute it with a challenge of wits rather than reflexes.

Here's a cute example of the difference interface latency can make.

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.

Definitely. Physics would work better when time isn't abstracted, but they could still bring something to a turn-based system. Of course, if Oblivion is anything to go by, Bethesda are more interested in having physics to add to their eye-candy checklist than actually making it do anything worthwhile.

There's already context sensitive, interactive crosshairs. If i was going to do it, I'd use mouse wheel and mouse wheel button.

My argument was not that real-time prevents extended action sets, but that turn-based is better suited because interface latency is no longer an issue. With a real-time system, you have to consider how much of the challenge of playing comes from mastery of the interface.

And I don't really intend it as a point of discussion, but this is Bethesda we're talking about. So "mouse wheel" is an afterthought. They think in terms of d-pads, thumbsticks and shoulder buttons.

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.

On the contrary, some RT games can be more engaging for different brain functions. As I suggested before, Doom is probably the ultimate example. Or alternately, most RTS games require both speedy reactions and tactical planning. However...

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.

Time is not the only issue here. Timing is just as important. You could fabricate the most awesome plan known to man, but that's no guarantee of the execution. To use another musical analogy -
someone could write a complex musical score for a piano and never be able to actually play it. Likewise, someone could play the piece, but lack the ability to write it.

Neither one invalidates the other, just like TB and RT don't invalidate one another. They're different challenges for different preferences. However, the questions remain - which is better suited to Fallout, and which is better suited to RPGs in general?

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.

Yes, but it's defining of the player and not the character. For instance when I play P&P D&D, my hasty reactions are usually poor ones. It usual goes something like:

DM: Critical Event that requires a character reaction.
Me: Dick Joke.
Me: Hasty first reaction, generally overlooking a fundamental flaw.
Me: Re-evaluation. (repeat until DM stops giving me bemused looks.

The character I'm playing at the moment is a Thief with godly dexterity and intelligence. I can better facilitate that character role if I'm not hobbled by my own rash stupidity. It's far more interesting to pretend to be something I'm not, so any measure that removes my own personality traits is a positive in terms of a RP experience.

And most importantly, I still have the freedom to make rash, ill-considered decisions if I want. Turn based games move at whatever pace the player sets.
Time pressures are generally one-paced.

I'm still going to define my character in combat. RT doesn't remove that option.

Again, it's not about removal of options, it's about what better facilitates them. I actually typed this sentence using my mouse and character map. The keyboard is still a better tool for text entry.

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.

True, but this discussion isn't about a theoretical Fallout that is being developed as an aside to a continuance of the turn-based Fallout we know and love. It's ancient history now, but most Fallout fans were miffed by Fallout Tactics, but not overly so because the promise of Fallout 3 was still on the horizon.

Even now, I'm certainly not averse to exploring alternative gamplay in Fallout's fantastic gameworld, but only with the proviso that there is also a continuance of Fallout's "true" form.

Which is why the spate of shithouse D&D games doesn't trouble me that much, because I still have a continuance of the games P&P roots. But even having said that, I'd much prefer D&D CRPGs that weren't utter shit. Or for that matter, I'd prefer not to have shit games, regardless of setting.

t'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."

Well, different strokes for different folks I guess. I've cited a number of reasons why I think RT inhibits what I consider to be roleplaying, but on the other side of the coin, there are people who consider Oblivion to be the ultimate in role-playing because it's devoid of any kind of meaning and therefore doesn't contradict their own imagination.

That is the hard part here I guess, the fact that RPG is so ill defined, and efforts to do so never bring about any kind of agreement.

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.

See, I just can't get that attitude. It seems so submissive to me. I'm fairly passionate about Fallout and games in general, so I'm willing to express my thoughts in the hope that someone is listening, and maybe even sharing my opinion so our voice is stronger.

Admitting defeat is one thing (You cain't always get...whatchoo wa-ant) but not expressing discontent is always going to end with you being someone's bitch. To quote the far less immortal words of the Red Hot Chili Peppers quoting the Butthole Surfers - "It's better to regret something you did, than something you didn't do."

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?

That would stand true if a RT Fallout actually represented a place you'd never been and things you've never done. The sad truth of it is that it would be more akin to travelling somewhere exotic and finding that everyone speaks English and there's a MacDonalds or KFC on every street. It's just fucking depressing, because you know there used to be a wildly different culture here to experience, but that's been crushed by the lowest common denominator, and everything that used to be special about it has been replaced by the same sort of shit you can see at home.

RT RPGs are not unique. They're not even rare. If anything, there's a glut of them.

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.

The sad thing is, even though it's unlikely to ever work out for people like myself, it will still be a roaring success. Bethesda still have the recipe for Daggerfall, or even Morrowind but we're unlikely to get anything other than another Oblivion.

Besides, what's wrong with losing a recipe if it is indeed "obsolete". We have MacDonalds now, so who needs anything that came before?

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.

This isn't necessarily about "tradition" or "what works". This is about imposing a system that is likely to provide an inferior roleplaying (and quite possibly gameplay) experience, simply because it's perceived as more popular.

I'm all for something completely new that will outstrip existing systems. We're not going to get it from Bethesda, who have proven themselves capable of little more than parroting archaic gameplay designs that are mundane at best, and horribly flawed at worst.

You've been a member here for quite some time. Have you read any of the discussions that take place here amid the vitriol? We're in a constant cycle of challenging existing convention in the hopes of bettering it.

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.

No, your opposition proves that the posters here at the Codex values TB systems. You'd want to have a look at RPGs released this decade and those in development to see actual trends, which are exactly the opposite. If you're the avid CRPG player you suggest, then you should have already realised this.

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.

That wasn't my point. I was trying to demonstrate that just because an aspect of a game takes a back seat to others, being "less great" doesn't necessarily mean it isn't great. The numbers don't represent anything.

Take this example instead. You have a soccer team, with 4 superstar players that get constant media and fan attention. The rest of the team may not have that same superstar status, but that doesn't make them worthless, unimportant or easily replaced.

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.

Well, not necessarily. I hear near-naked Spartans really pack a wallop.

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?

I was actually suggesting that TB tactical combat shares elements with character creation. Both are about problem solving and decision making within a rigidly defined structure.

 

[Jinxed]

Because anybody who uses admin powers is, obviously, an Exitium. Who cares about simple facts that good ol' Exit was famous for editing & deleting posts, deleting accounts of people he didn't like, banning people who disagreed with him, and dumbfucking people *without* a reason (i.e. Role-Player)?

Wasn't talking about you. But it's cute you explained anyway.

 

[Vault Dweller]

My bad.