Editorial Bethesda developer explains why TB is obsolete

[Vault Dweller]

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.

Nowhere did I claim that one can make an RPG using nothing but a Pong toolset. My comment was in response to:

"I'm not saying TB must be done away with, and I think people get that, I'm just saying that progressive developement has presented developers with options beyond turnbased.
...
The tech did not exist, especially to the common man, at the time gygax was getting his gaming feet wet. Turnbased was all that was known as a gaming/sim dynamic."

...and was aimed to show that it was the OTHER WAY AROUND, i.e. progressive development has presented developers with options beyond realtime. The first games were real-time and developing turn-based models took some time, skills, and efforts.

There were no realtime RPGs before computing came along. It's fact.

Really? I didn't know that. I wonder if there were PC RPGs before computing came along though. What do you think?

Also, that's probably the stupidest argument you managed to come up with.

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.

Fascinating. Let's take a look at our original conversation:

MVB, the boy-genius: It was only my position that DnD the franchise ( we are talking about franchises ) had RT entries. That's it.

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

MVB, the boy-genius: From Merrium Webster: Franchise; the right or license granted to an individual or group to market a company's goods or services in a particular territory. The mere fact that other companies have been allowed to market DnD, easy example being videogames, proves that it's a franchise.

VD, the jackass: Territory is the key word here, genius.

MVB, the boy-genius: 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.
...
Now, take a moment to think about (we don't want you to claim later on that you were under pressure) and tell me which "franchise" you were talking about in your first post. Is it:

a) constitutional or statutory right or privilege
or
b) the right or license granted to an individual or group to market a company's goods or services in a particular territory.

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

Uh, no. An option doesn't equal a franchise.

You're a goddamned joke man.

*rolls eyes*

 

[Rei]

The way I understood it: taking out tb is like giving the game a heart transplant that it might not survive. I dont even want to imagine Fallout dieing, and i cant imagine it in real time. I cant.

 

[mister lamat]

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.

harley davidson engine technology went obsolete in the 1950's. fer serious. even harley davidson say so.

 

[Claw]

If after all that, you still can't see the strings and the difference between a true 3d game and a 2d isometric game, then you're just never going to get it and that's ok too.

If you did all that and still believe you're right, your're more than just stupid. You're delusional.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

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.

*sighs* People have been watching movies where the background is out of focus since the dawn of cinema.

It's just a fact of optics. It takes a hell of a lens to render an image that's in focus for miles and miles as far as depth goes.

LOD isn't the samething. You could still have your LOD pumped up to max, and your character with poor perception still couldn't see for miles and miles clearly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

The point I was making was that RT, and/or FP could still be valid roleplaying options. The above was just an example of how perception could be modeled dynamicly and in realtime. Most modern FPS games have fog and DOF anyways, making them roleplaying elements wouldn't be that far a stretch.

I actually got the idea that it was possible from morrowind's blindness dynamic. The one involving steps in a desolve to black according to how blind you were. After I thought about it, I realized that some camera tricks had already been used in Jedi knight II simular to what I was talking about.

The art team there made textures that were blurry to simulate dof over a vast distance like looking out from the temple on Yavin.

My example isn't crazy talk, it's just hasn't been pulled together yet in the way I illustrated. But in parts it's already in other games. And again, it's just an example.

 

[Ratty]

I wasn't planning on partaking in any FO3 discussions any time soon, but damn, the stench of stupidity in this thread is so overwhelming it can be felt as far as Croatia.

<snip>

First of all, "isometric perspective". Funny. And nonsensical. You referred Claw to Wikipedia. I suggest you use it yourself and look up "perspective". Then maybe you'll realize how ignorant you sound when talking about things you obviously have no clue about.

Here, let me help you out. This is isometric projection, in context of computer graphics:

0.5253 0 0 0
-0.5367 -0.7760 0 0
-0.6603 0.6307 0 0
0 0 0 1.0000

It is nothing but a matrix. It transforms the geometry of a 3D scene, rotating it in a particular way and projecting it onto a 2D plane. That's all there is to do it. Whether this transformation is done in real-time or during creation of art assets is irrelevant. All the bullshit about art, faking 3D and whatnot is irrelevant.

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

Stop lying. You're not a huge fan. You're not a fan at all. You're just a random guy who played Fallout, liked some aspects, but decided that others suck because they don't fit your troglodytic aesthetic. Any statement in the vein of "I'm a huge fan of [insert game name], but I wouldn't mind if they changed [insert a fundamental design element]." is such a blatant lie that it would make Pinocchio blush.

In order to be a true Fallout fan, you must understand and appreciate the creative vision behind Fallout. When designing Fallout, its creators wanted to craft a game that simulates the experience of pencil & paper roleplaying as faithfully as possible. Every element of Fallout's design, from major ones like SPECIAL system down to seemingly minor ones like that small feedback console in the lower-left corner of the interface, was carefully devised, developed and balanced to contribute to that purpose.

They *could* have done things differently. They *could* have gone with real-time combat instead of turn-based. It was, after all, commonplace at that time and, in fact, more popular (it was 1997, after all, and Diablo was already out at the time, not to mention TES games and more recent Ultimas). But they didn't. They made a conscious, deliberate choice to implement a turn-based combat system, simply because it suited their creative vision best.

Then you come along, purporting to be a Fallout fan, but in the same breath stating that you would "prefer that it wasn't turnbased". Good for you. But by rejecting turn-based combat, you also reject the creative vision that turn-based combat is a fundamental part of. And by rejecting the creative vision behind Fallout, you also forfeit your status as Fallout fan.

There is no need to address the rest of your ignorance, lies and backpedalling, seeing as Section8 and DU are already doing a hell of a lot better job chewing into you than I could reasonably hope to.

Waaah, VD is oppressive!!!

Do you know what VD's problem is? He's too gentle with you retards.

Seriously. All he ever does to punish your astounding idiocy is give away the occasional "Dumbfuck" label, and even that is done too sparingly, probably because every time it happens, it has the entire retard population of the Codex up in arms. Now, the Codex is, on average, a pretty intelligent place. Hell, compared to vast majority of other gaming forums it is fucking MENSA. But despite that undeniable fact, it *is* still an Internet forum and as such, it has its share of morons. A fairly small share, to be sure, but large and noisy enough to cause a fucking meltdown every time one of their pack gets the metaphoric Dumbfuck stamp on the forehead, even though most of the time they earned it ten times over. And while it's great that bans are given seldom, if ever, sometimes it would be beneficial for the community as a whole if the wielders of the proverbial Banhammer used their mighty weapon (attack +4, 2d6 vs. Stupid) to smite the idiocy before it spreads across the forum like fucking Black Oil. Otherwise you get situations like this and you wonder why suddenly many intelligent debates get extinguished by the sheer amount of garbage.

Just my two cents, etc.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

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.

Nowhere did I claim that one can make an RPG using nothing but a Pong toolset. My comment was in response to:

"I'm not saying TB must be done away with, and I think people get that, I'm just saying that progressive developement has presented developers with options beyond turnbased.
...
The tech did not exist, especially to the common man, at the time gygax was getting his gaming feet wet. Turnbased was all that was known as a gaming/sim dynamic."

...and was aimed to show that it was the OTHER WAY AROUND, i.e. progressive development has presented developers with options beyond realtime. The first games were real-time and developing turn-based models took some time, skills, and efforts.

There were no realtime RPGs before computing came along. It's fact.

Really? I didn't know that. I wonder if there were PC RPGs before computing came along though. What do you think?

Also, that's probably the stupidest argument you managed to come up with.

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.

Fascinating. Let's take a look at our original conversation:

MVB, the boy-genius: It was only my position that DnD the franchise ( we are talking about franchises ) had RT entries. That's it.

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

MVB, the boy-genius: From Merrium Webster: Franchise; the right or license granted to an individual or group to market a company's goods or services in a particular territory. The mere fact that other companies have been allowed to market DnD, easy example being videogames, proves that it's a franchise.

VD, the jackass: Territory is the key word here, genius.

MVB, the boy-genius: 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.
...
Now, take a moment to think about (we don't want you to claim later on that you were under pressure) and tell me which "franchise" you were talking about in your first post. Is it:

a) constitutional or statutory right or privilege
or
b) the right or license granted to an individual or group to market a company's goods or services in a particular territory.

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

Uh, no. An option doesn't equal a franchise.

You're a goddamned joke man.

*rolls eyes*

Point 1: again I'm not talking about broad gaming. I'm talking about RPGs. At the time of your pong example there still weren't any CRPGs. It took the mainframes found at universities, the inspiration of gygax's DnD TB combat system, and programming savvy beyond pong to make CRPGs possible. This happened roughly around 1975. The first proven example of a CRPG was dungeon on the Plato system.

The mainframes weren't exactly accessible to the common man.

When gygax was making chainmail, computing wasn't in the home, it was found mostly in universities, the military, federal installations, and industry. When you're making a game, the ability of people to actually play it is probably a key factor I'd think.

The first PC one could argue was the Altair 8800. It was made public in or around 1975.

This is after chainmail, and right when DnD was published. To say that gygax could logicly be expected to make DnD on an Altair 8800, given his background and the fact that the system's visuals were just Leds sends me into fits of laughter.

I don't know how you can argue with history. If you can illustrate that there was a realtime RPG or war/strategy game before chess. I'll tap on the point. But time has told here. All strategy/war gaming and then RPGs I've heard of until about 1987 were turnbased.

Just because there were realtime games, doesn't mean that there's an equal chance that there could have been a realtime RPG.

Again, your example of pong was realtime, but it wasn't an RT RPG and nor could it support even a TB RPG.

Don't bring up tag, or ring around the rosie. We're not talking about live action here. The context is RPGs and CRPGs.

And I realize that you're a big fan of wondering, just let me know when you can actually prove it. History has told on my side.

Point 2: *sighs* You completely removed the part where I cut you off at the knees on the franchise portion. I'll put it back in.

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

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

Territory is the key word here, genius.

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

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

To market DnD? Do you not understand the meanings of words you use? For the record, even if there were companies marketing DnD, that would have nothing to do with franchises.

Different applications of a property is also considered territory.

There's this great documentry on tetris that illustrates that last point perfectly.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0409371/

And I think you're projecting on me here, it seems that you're the one that doesn't understand the word franchise.

When I responded that franchise is much broader than your fastfood understanding of it, i wasn't saying that I'm changing the way I'm using the word. I was just trying to open your eyes up beyond burger barns. It's clear that it's that context that defines your understanding of the word, I was just trying to snap you out of the burger inspired tunnel vision you appeared to be in.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

I wasn't planning on partaking in any FO3 discussions any time soon, but damn, the stench of stupidity in this thread is so overwhelming it can be felt as far as Croatia.

<snip>

First of all, "isometric perspective". Funny. And nonsensical. You referred Claw to Wikipedia. I suggest you use it yourself and look up "perspective". Then maybe you'll realize how ignorant you sound when talking about things you obviously have no clue about.

Here, let me help you out. This is isometric projection, in context of computer graphics:

0.5253 0 0 0
-0.5367 -0.7760 0 0
-0.6603 0.6307 0 0
0 0 0 1.0000

It is nothing but a matrix. It transforms the geometry of a 3D scene, rotating it in a particular way and projecting it onto a 2D plane. That's all there is to do it. Whether this transformation is done in real-time or during creation of art assets is irrelevant. All the bullshit about art, faking 3D and whatnot is irrelevant.

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

Stop lying. You're not a huge fan. You're not a fan at all. You're just a random guy who played Fallout, liked some aspects, but decided that others suck because they don't fit your troglodytic aesthetic. Any statement in the vein of "I'm a huge fan of [insert game name], but I wouldn't mind if they changed [insert a fundamental design element]." is such a blatant lie that it would make Pinocchio blush.

In order to be a true Fallout fan, you must understand and appreciate the creative vision behind Fallout. When designing Fallout, its creators wanted to craft a game that simulates the experience of pencil & paper roleplaying as faithfully as possible. Every element of Fallout's design, from major ones like SPECIAL system down to seemingly minor ones like that small feedback console in the lower-left corner of the interface, was carefully devised, developed and balanced to contribute to that purpose.

They *could* have done things differently. They *could* have gone with real-time combat instead of turn-based. It was, after all, commonplace at that time and, in fact, more popular (it was 1997, after all, and Diablo was already out at the time, not to mention TES games and more recent Ultimas). But they didn't. They made a conscious, deliberate choice to implement a turn-based combat system, simply because it suited their creative vision best.

Then you come along, purporting to be a Fallout fan, but in the same breath stating that you would "prefer that it wasn't turnbased". Good for you. But by rejecting turn-based combat, you also reject the creative vision that turn-based combat is a fundamental part of. And by rejecting the creative vision behind Fallout, you also forfeit your status as Fallout fan.

There is no need to address the rest of your ignorance, lies and backpedalling, seeing as Section8 and DU are already doing a hell of a lot better job chewing into you than I could reasonably hope to.

Waaah, VD is oppressive!!!

Do you know what VD's problem is? He's too gentle with you retards.

Seriously. All he ever does to punish your astounding idiocy is give away the occasional "Dumbfuck" label, and even that is done too sparingly, probably because every time it happens, it has the entire retard population of the Codex up in arms. Now, the Codex is, on average, a pretty intelligent place. Hell, compared to vast majority of other gaming forums it is fucking MENSA. But despite that undeniable fact, it *is* still an Internet forum and as such, it has its share of morons. A fairly small share, to be sure, but large and noisy enough to cause a fucking meltdown every time one of their pack gets the metaphoric Dumbfuck stamp on the forehead, even though most of the time they earned it ten times over. And while it's great that bans are given seldom, if ever, sometimes it would be beneficial for the community as a whole if the wielders of the proverbial Banhammer used their mighty weapon (attack +4, 2d6 vs. Stupid) to smite the idiocy before it spreads across the forum like fucking Black Oil. Otherwise you get situations like this and you wonder why suddenly many intelligent debates get extinguished by the sheer amount of garbage.

Just my two cents, etc.

I wasn't arguing isometric's definition, I was illustrating it's application. If it's not that important, let me know how much you'd like a 2d side scroller FO instead of Isometric FO.

I'm affraid it's appilcation does matter, I was just trying to help people understand what your matrix actually does.

oh wait, holy shit I'm glad I took you up on your "dare" to take my own advice.

Isometric projection is a form of graphical projection — more specifically, an axonometric projection. It is a method of visually representing three-dimensional objects in two dimensions, in which the three axes of space appear equally foreshortened, of which the displayed angles among them and also the scale of foreshortening are universally known, and each angle between two of the three axes is 120°. Isometric projection is one of the projections used in drafting engineering drawings.

That's pretty much what I've been saying the whole time.

As for your character judgement, that's just your opinion. But on the fact of FO being turnbased and not RT, it wasn't my position that FO didn't have the tech available for RT. I was discussing the origin of TB in relation to the origin of RT in that reguard, roughly that was the mid seventies and then the mid eighties.

The fact that they went turnbased instead of rt I've already given that it was artistic choice for FO back when I made the point that beth going RT for FO3 was just another artistic choice.

 

[sqeecoo]

Croatia.

Ooo iz Zagreba si? Pa bas mi je drago i ja sam. Nisam znao da nas ima tu.


@Van

A documentary about tetris! Dear god! I think it settles the issue completely.

@VD

God dammnit man, stop wasting your time here and work on AoD! It was supposed to be out on Thursday!

 

[Vault Dweller]

I can't believe it. Not a single "jackass" or "I pwn u lol, mighty r my powars" comments (except for "I cut you off at the knees!!!" stuff).

Just because there were realtime games, doesn't mean that there's an equal chance that there could have been a realtime RPG.

Why not?

Anyway, your original position, which was quoted many times already, was that the reason the first RPGs were turn-based was because the technology wasn't there, which was proven wrong. You new position that the early games were turn-based because of the PnP roots is a common knowledge and nobody would argue with it.

Point 2: *sighs* You completely removed the part where I cut you off at the knees on the franchise portion. I'll put it back in.

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

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

Territory is the key word here, genius.

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

That's it? That's the cutting part? The word "license"? You do realize that license is, basically, a permission to do certain things, and when this word is mentioned it doesn't automatically imply that some franchising is taking place as well.

License to practice law or medicine
License to own a pet
License to drive a car
Etc.

When I responded that franchise is much broader than your fastfood understanding of it, i wasn't saying that I'm changing the way I'm using the word. I was just trying to open your eyes up beyond burger barns.

Thanks!

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

Croatia.

Ooo iz Zagreba si? Pa bas mi je drago i ja sam. Nisam znao da nas ima tu.


@Van

A documentary about tetris! Dear god! I think it settles the issue completely.

@VD

God dammnit man, stop wasting your time here and work on AoD! It was supposed to be out on Thursday!

Yes, the fact that I can substantiate a point with an outside source MUST surely earn me some more scorn.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Breaking news from your favorite developer!

We have decided to have one thread to discuss several game play options that are frequently discussed here and have resulted in many threads for debate and discussion. We are in hopes that by limiting these discussions to one thread that will serve several purposes. First it will allow us to keep the discussion together and thus more orderly and easier to follow. Next, it should cut down on the number of threads being opened to discuss these game play options thus keeping more varied topics on the first page. And last but certianly not least it will allow moderators more ease in moderating said threads.

We will be limiting discussion of RT/TB and isometric, top-down, first vs. third person debate to one thread. Please keep all discussion of this here

All other threads for this debate will be closed.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

I can't believe it. Not a single "jackass" or "I pwn u lol, mighty r my powars" comments (except for "I cut you off at the knees!!!" stuff).

Just because there were realtime games, doesn't mean that there's an equal chance that there could have been a realtime RPG.

Why not?

Anyway, your original position, which was quoted many times already, was that the reason the first RPGs were turn-based was because the technology wasn't there, which was proven wrong. You new position that the early games were turn-based because of the PnP roots is a common knowledge and nobody would argue with it.

Point 2: *sighs* You completely removed the part where I cut you off at the knees on the franchise portion. I'll put it back in.

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

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

Territory is the key word here, genius.

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

That's it? That's the cutting part? The word "license"? You do realize that license is, basically, a permission to do certain things, and when this word is mentioned it doesn't automatically imply that some franchising is taking place as well.

License to practice law or medicine
License to own a pet
License to drive a car
Etc.

When I responded that franchise is much broader than your fastfood understanding of it, i wasn't saying that I'm changing the way I'm using the word. I was just trying to open your eyes up beyond burger barns.

Thanks!

Point 1: The first RPGs weren't CRPGs. When DnD hit the scene in 1974 it was still a year away from the first PC. The Altair 8800 was one of if not the Gen 1 PC, it went public in 1975. The fact that it couldn't play pong and only used leds for visual output seems redundant at this point.

To say that gygax or any of the guys that programed the mainframe games had an equal chance of making an RT RPG just because pong was in realtime is still an invalid point. It's your opinion that it was possible, but time has told that it didn't happen until a decade later.

I wonder if there were PC RPGs before computing came along though.

Um .... PC RPGs seem to have computing baked right in. Personal Computer pretty much says it all I think. Is there some other PC you're referring to?

On the point of license, I already supplied the definition for the context in which license was being used in reguards to franchise. You're the one that established it's value.

However, again you show that you just don't know.

Franchise
2 a: a special privilege granted to an individual or group.

Your driver's license example is, infact, the goverment granting you and others the special privilege of legally operating an automobile.

It's a franchise. I know I know, it falls outside of your narrow perception of what a franchise actually is and what the word actually covers and means.

 

[Ratty]

I wasn't arguing isometric's definition, I was illustrating it's application. If it's not that important, let me know how much you'd like a 2d side scroller FO instead of Isometric FO.

I'm affraid it's appilcation does matter, I was just trying to help people understand what your matrix actually does.

oh wait, holy shit I'm glad I took you up on your "dare" to take my own advice.

Isometric projection is a form of graphical projection — more specifically, an axonometric projection. It is a method of visually representing three-dimensional objects in two dimensions, in which the three axes of space appear equally foreshortened, of which the displayed angles among them and also the scale of foreshortening are universally known, and each angle between two of the three axes is 120°. Isometric projection is one of the projections used in drafting engineering drawings.

That's pretty much what I've been saying the whole time.

Good Lord, man. Do you even bother to read and comprehend your sources before referring to them? *Every* projection is a method of visually representing three-dimensional objects in two dimensions. That's why projections were invented in the first place. Sheesh.

As for your character judgement, that's just your opinion. But on the fact of FO being turnbased and not RT, it wasn't my position that FO didn't have the tech available for RT. I was discussing the origin of TB in relation to the origin of RT in that reguard, roughly that was the mid seventies and then the mid eighties.

The fact that they went turnbased instead of rt I've already given that it was artistic choice for FO back when I made the point that beth going RT for FO3 was just another artistic choice.

That isn't even remotely comparable, for two reasons.

1. Since Bethesda are developing a *sequel* to Fallout, they are expected to adhere to general design of the previous games. What does that mean? It means they are free to improve and evolve various aspects of the design without changing anything radically. Remember what I said about creative vision? If Fallout 3 doesn't have the same creative vision behind it as the previous two games, it isn't a true sequel, but a de facto spin-off.

2. If Bethesda choose to substitute turn-based combat system with a real-time one, it won't be an artistic choice. Artistic vision hasn't been the driving force behind Bethesda's design decisions for a long time now. The only purpose behind such a change will be catering to the lowest common denominator, i.e., players who have only ever played real-time RPGs and think of turn-based combat as slow, dull and outdated - or, in your own words, "obsolete". With that in mind, we can't reasonably expect that FO3 combat will be anything other than chaotic, brainless drudgery so typical for western CRPGs of today.

Ooo iz Zagreba si? Pa bas mi je drago i ja sam. Nisam znao da nas ima tu.

Ili, prikladnije:

 

[mister lamat]

they wanna save bandwidth by trying to condense the 'magnum operas' into a singular thread? black day for humanity really...

 

[Vault Dweller]

There were no realtime RPGs before computing came along. It's fact.

Really? I didn't know that. I wonder if there were PC RPGs before computing came along though. What do you think?

Um .... PC RPGs seem to have computing baked right in. Personal Computer pretty much says it all I think. Is there some other PC you're referring to?

I give up. You have officially bested me, MVB.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

I wasn't arguing isometric's definition, I was illustrating it's application. If it's not that important, let me know how much you'd like a 2d side scroller FO instead of Isometric FO.

I'm affraid it's appilcation does matter, I was just trying to help people understand what your matrix actually does.

oh wait, holy shit I'm glad I took you up on your "dare" to take my own advice.

Isometric projection is a form of graphical projection — more specifically, an axonometric projection. It is a method of visually representing three-dimensional objects in two dimensions, in which the three axes of space appear equally foreshortened, of which the displayed angles among them and also the scale of foreshortening are universally known, and each angle between two of the three axes is 120°. Isometric projection is one of the projections used in drafting engineering drawings.

That's pretty much what I've been saying the whole time.

Good Lord, man. Do you even bother to read and comprehend your sources before referring to them? *Every* projection is a method of visually representing three-dimensional objects in two dimensions. That's why projections were invented in the first place. Sheesh.

As for your character judgement, that's just your opinion. But on the fact of FO being turnbased and not RT, it wasn't my position that FO didn't have the tech available for RT. I was discussing the origin of TB in relation to the origin of RT in that reguard, roughly that was the mid seventies and then the mid eighties.

The fact that they went turnbased instead of rt I've already given that it was artistic choice for FO back when I made the point that beth going RT for FO3 was just another artistic choice.

That isn't even remotely comparable, for two reasons.

1. Since Bethesda are developing a *sequel* to Fallout, they are expected to adhere to general design of the previous games. What does that mean? It means they are free to improve and evolve various aspects of the design without changing anything radically. Remember what I said about creative vision? If Fallout 3 doesn't have the same creative vision behind it as the previous two games, it isn't a true sequel, but a de facto spin-off.

2. If Bethesda choose to substitute turn-based combat system with a real-time one, it won't be an artistic choice. Artistic vision hasn't been the driving force behind Bethesda's design decisions for a long time now. The only purpose behind such a change will be catering to the lowest common denominator, i.e., players who have only ever played real-time RPGs and think of turn-based combat as slow, dull and outdated - or, in your own words, "obsolete". With that in mind, we can't reasonably expect that FO3 combat will be anything other than chaotic, brainless drudgery so typical for western CRPGs of today.

Ooo iz Zagreba si? Pa bas mi je drago i ja sam. Nisam znao da nas ima tu.

Ili, prikladnije:

*sighs*

In the fields of computer and video games and pixel art, axonometric projection has been popular because of the ease with which 2D sprites and tile-based graphics can be made to represent a 3D gaming environment. Because objects don't change size as they move about the game field, there is no need for the computer to scale sprites or do the calculations necessary to simulate visual perspective. This allowed older 8-bit and 16-bit game systems (and, more recently, handheld systems) to portray large 3D areas easily. While the depth confusion problems illustrated above can sometimes be a problem, good game design can alleviate this. With the advent of more powerful graphics systems, axonometric projection is becoming less common.

Again, this is what I've been saying the whole time on this issue. Why people don't get it, or want to make it about something else is quite beyond me.

 

[HanoverF]

There were no realtime RPGs before computing came along. It's fact.

LARP fags predate PC RPGs :shock:

try again

 

[Fez]

Yup. People were dressing up and playing make-believe long before PCs were made.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

There were no realtime RPGs before computing came along. It's fact.

LARP fags predate PC RPGs :shock:

try again

We removed LARP homos from the debate a long time ago, though.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

Yup. People were dressing up and playing make-believe long before PCs were made.

Yes, but that's not the context.

Drunken murder-mystery parlor games, tag, and duck duck goose have pretty much been laid to rest.

 

[mister lamat]

actually, they don't... unless of course you're using elander's paradox model of rpg development, in which case 1977 and the birth of larping would come before 1975 and Dungeon.

 

[Vault Dweller]

However, again you show that you just don't know.

Franchise
2 a: a special privilege granted to an individual or group.

Your driver's license example is, infact, the goverment granting you and others the special privilege of legally operating an automobile.

It's a franchise. I know I know, it falls outside of your narrow perception of what a franchise actually is and what the word actually covers and means.

Since you are so handy with dictionaries, look up "privilege" and tell me if it applies to driving a car.

 

[Fez]

You you are saying that there are no real time RPGs before computing but also that the real time RPGs that were around don't count either? Cunning.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

However, again you show that you just don't know.

Franchise
2 a: a special privilege granted to an individual or group.

Your driver's license example is, infact, the goverment granting you and others the special privilege of legally operating an automobile.

It's a franchise. I know I know, it falls outside of your narrow perception of what a franchise actually is and what the word actually covers and means.

Since you are so handy with dictionaries, look up "privilege" and tell me if it applies to driving a car.

What's with people and keeping things in context?

Granting licenses to legally pilot automobiles is franchising, sir.