Editorial Bethesda developer explains why TB is obsolete

[MountainWest]

Turn based games are all the result of lack of soil erosion.

It always strikes me as funny when someone claims TB to be a relic of the past, 'a result of limited computional power', when true real time-combat, no matter the power of the computer, forever will be limited by human physics (including the brain). TB gives us the ability to transcend our natural limitations, thus it, if any, is the next step in the evolution.

Like most peeps, I'm not pro-TB or pro-RT, per se

Liar.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

As for locational damage, just because no/few realtime games have bothered to model it at present doesn't mean that Fallout 3 can't have both locational damage and still be real time.

Can you say HEADSHOT!? You really want it to be more of an FPS? Because that's what it's becoming.

Really, the only disconnect I can see as being legitimate is the difference between player initiative and character initiative. If your character is supposed to be a tazmanian devil of action, and you yourself have the reactions of ... say ... a coma victim, then yes real time isn't for you. And therefore, it sucks to be you.

How about I reverse that? The only con I see of turn-based combat is that it tends to not be enjoyable by someone who has the attention span of an ADHD child. If that's you....well tough noogies.

However,[first-person] realtime rpgs aren't first person shooters.

Nope, but they sure aren't very RPG-esque either....most of the time.

Anybody that's played Daggerfall or any of a dozen other real time rpgs knows that.

Well I can get a fireball spell and twitch like mad with it, while bunnyhopping, circle-strafing, and such. Seems pretty close to a first-person shooter.

 

[Koby]

Because you've never actually been in real time combat, perhaps?

You got me...

There's the quick and the dead...

Have you? Been in real combat that is?

If you have you would know that it's about tactical discipline, amount of prior training and quality of execution; it's (ideally) about making the team/squad/platoon act like they are one, its about reaching a point, mostly through intense training, where the team *collectively* reach a capability level that is grater the sum of the individual capabilities.

Of course there a lot of other factors (gear, environment variable, etc), but none of them is as important as the ability to perform as a whole.

Quickness is only important at the few initial seconds of the encounter (engagement) and when the situation drastically changes or there is some kind of other fundamental change in the course of the battle (flexibility). And just for the record, many will argue that the two corner cases that I have mentioned also fall under tactical discipline (method of engagement and REaction respectively).

F3 will probably only have skirmish combat so let's leave "real combat" out of this discussion. :wink:

 

[Joe Krow]

Can we assume that stats are also an artifact of PnP limitations? Morrowind seamlessly integrated real time with your character's abilites. Your success in whatever you tried depended primarily on your characters stats. Say what you will about the game, I think it worked. For the most part, Obivion replaced character dependance with twitch combat and mini-games... entirely player skill dependant. Character design and development were irrelavant. So what is this guy is saying? That the original PnP game designers wanted to make first person shooters? Move over Pete Hines.

 

[merry andrew]

Fallout has never made any attempt to model physics at all, you won't have to worry how realistic they are or aren't.

Fallout was also developed by Black Isle Studios.

As for locational damage, just because no/few realtime games have bothered to model it at present doesn't mean that Fallout 3 can't have both locational damage and still be real time.

You're right. Soil erosion was practice for locational damage in real-time.

If your character is supposed to be a tazmanian devil of action, and you yourself have the reactions of ... say ... a coma victim, then yes real time isn't for you. And therefore, it sucks to be you.

It sucks to be an RPG developer when you've all but abolished your character system in favor of first-person real-time twitch-gaming hyphen hyphen hyphen.

However, realtime rpgs aren't first person shooters. Anybody that's played Daggerfall or any of a dozen other real time rpgs knows that.

When I played Morrowind with a stealth character I generally had to use common FPS exploits (or... features) to overcome the horrible AI. The Radiant AI in Oblivion seemed way better, though.

 

[Volourn]

"Turn based is great for "thinking man's" games, games that require the player to agonize over every possible action and consequence in order to proceed successfully to victory over one's adversary."

that's funny. I have NEVER seen a TB (or RT) game thaqt fits that desription. Not a one.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

"Turn based is great for "thinking man's" games, games that require the player to agonize over every possible action and consequence in order to proceed successfully to victory over one's adversary."

that's funny. I have NEVER seen a TB (or RT) game thaqt fits that desription. Not a one.

I'm inclined to agree. Sure, some games require a little thinking in making tactical decisions, but nothing makes you agonize over every decision.

 

[Davaris]

Really, the only disconnect I can see as being legitimate is the difference between player initiative and character initiative. If your character is supposed to be a tazmanian devil of action, and you yourself have the reactions of ... say ... a coma victim, then yes real time isn't for you. And therefore, it sucks to be you

And, to the dev in question, the reason pnp rpgs are turnbased is because they grew out of the table top war strategy games of the time ... which were turnbased. DnD and games like it began their lives as derivatives of those games.

What nonsense! Real RPGs are turn based because it is the characters who should have the heroic abilities not the players.

Imagine if you wanted to play a scientist in an RPG? Using your logic, the players should have science based PhDs to get that rocket or computer to work, otherwise as you say: Too bad for you!

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

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

Which is why nobody plays chess anymore. I don't think that Civ can compete with chess in the depth department or in the levels of intelligence it takes to master the game.

Turn based is great for "thinking man's" games, games that require the player to agonize over every possible action and consequence in order to proceed successfully to victory over one's adversary.

I don't think RPGs have to fit this model.

I agree. RPGs are not "thinking man's" games of choices & consequences. Mindless button mashing FTW!

I was speaking strickly of combat, unless you think real time moral and dramatic choices also puts you on the spot in a disadvantaged manner.

You should agonize over the morality of the role you're playing and the choices you're making, you should take as much time as you need to consider the drama of the character you're playing.

However, there's nothing about Roleplaying that says one must be given as much time as one needs to make a combat action, or to consider a manuever.

As I've said in a previous post, the use of this game mechanic is born out of the fact that tabletop PnP RPGs were derivative of tabletop strategy games.

But there's nothing about Roleplaying that says one must be given the strategic rules and considerations of a strategic/tactical war game in order to play a role.

Hell, even DnD has made the leap to real time. Why is it a crime for fallout to move beyond turnbased? Must fallout be turn-based in order to be Fallout?

Really, isn't it the narrative, the setting, the characters, the tone, the themes, and the morality of fallout that defines it and not the way in which it resolves combat?

I mean common, at what point does this all become rediculous?

I love some black and white and silient movies, but I'd never consider demanding that the industry should stagnate at my preference.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fallout fan. I love FO1 and I love that it's turnbased but just because I love it, doesn't mean that I don't want to see where else fallout can go and in what other ways fallout can be experienced.

Btw, bethesda fucked up oblivion. And there's no reason to think that they won't fuck up Fallout 3. But I don't think just because it probably is going to be real time automaticly means it's going to be "not fallout."

I've never heard fallout called "that really great turnbased game." One might think that there's a reason why it's other features are the most often touted. Really, if somebody asked you to name the single greatest thing about fallout ... would you really say "is that it's turnbased?"

 

[ricolikesrice]

....

i loved games like the first two x-coms, incubation, jagged alliance but yeah... i fear turn based is not gonna happen simply because its not "flashy" enough... sigh.

my hope would be that if not turn based, then at least something along the lines of Full Spectrum Warrior "with stats". In FSW you didnt shoot yourself but merely ordered your guys to and their success depended on the opponents cover etc - throw in S.P.E.C.I.A.L. so that your sniper would have a much easier time dropping that guy 100m away behind cover than your medic/whatever and a few "behaviour tabs" (like always aim for the head, legs, groin, whatever). making good use of cover should be the prime goal in any gun battle - as it is in real life. while i havent engaged in any real gunfight either i at least took part in quite a few maneuvres back in the army and never seen anyone jump and strafe around like a retard. one hit usually means you are either dead or badly wounded so running around in the open field is a bad idea.
couple that with a good physics engine where you cant hide behind a broken car forever while the enemy takes that car apart, but have to actually move positions etc and you have the chance at something great - even in real time.
heck, thinking back it could be even better than fallout, because quite honestly.... even turn based, combat in fallout 1 & 2 wasnt that great either (but in comparision with nowadays garbage it still reigns supreme)

but anyways, my prediction is exactly oblivion with guns:

run around and hack / shoot at mutants, click inventory when low on health and use a health pot/stim pack, resume running around and hack / shoot mutants till they are death or you are out of stim packs - yay. and if you re really cool you can jump and strafe around like a moron and dodge bullets.
when you have killed your first 5 mutants you will get your first skillpoint and do 5% more damage which is then compensated by the next 5 mutans having 5% more armor/hp.

a masterpiece .......

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

Really, the only disconnect I can see as being legitimate is the difference between player initiative and character initiative. If your character is supposed to be a tazmanian devil of action, and you yourself have the reactions of ... say ... a coma victim, then yes real time isn't for you. And therefore, it sucks to be you

And, to the dev in question, the reason pnp rpgs are turnbased is because they grew out of the table top war strategy games of the time ... which were turnbased. DnD and games like it began their lives as derivatives of those games.

What nonsense! Real RPGs are turn based because it is the characters who should have the heroic abilities not the players.

Imagine if you wanted to play a scientist in an RPG? Using your logic, the players should have science based PhDs to get that rocket or computer to work, otherwise as you say: Too bad for you!

That is not my logic. My logic is that a roleplaying game not resolving combat via a turnbased strategic system does not eliminate either the role nor the play.

It is my logic that it is not the combat system that defines a roleplaying game, but the dramatic elements and the way in which THEY are resolved.

It is indeed my contention, that the resolution of combat is a relatively minor thing in the grand scope of the roleplaying experience.

It is funny, however, that the resolution of combat is a defining trait of strategy gaming. Be it turnbased or real time, the combat system is the focus of that type of game and it actually does impact the play experience in a meaningful way.

Dnd derived it's combat system from tabletop war/strategy gaming. It's that legacy that lead to turnbased videogaming. Gary Gygax made war/strategy games before inventing Dnd. TSR, the company that publishes DnD, is short for Tactical Studio Rules.

Hell Gen Con 0 was initially called International Federation of Wargamers by Gygax.

Anyways, there's a billion different sources you can confirm my statements with, as Gygax has made no secret of his influences or his strategic/war gaming slant.

Why is Gygax relevant to this discussion? Well, as the inventor of Dungeons and Dragons the man is certainly qualified as a major player in what we consider the Roleplaying genre.

 

[The_Nameless_Prick]

Fucking savages. When I want real time combat, I go play Far Cry. When I want to play an RPG that makes me use my intelligence (what all RPG's should be about), I want FULLY turn-based combat. Daggerfall's combat sucks balls, but the world is huge enough and the quests are plenty enough to get enjoyment out of the game.

Fallout 3: Halo Wars Theft Auto by the "geniuses' behind Oblivion is GOING to suck. I hate being reminded of it everyday; being reminded that Bethesda sucks goat balls and they don't know how to make games but are masters of hype and all that bullshit, and I especially hate the fact the millions of people by the hype.

Sadistic fucks.

Move on to the next depressing topic...

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

Fucking savages. When I want real time combat, I go play Far Cry. When I want to play an RPG that makes me use my intelligence (what all RPG's should be about), I want FULLY turn-based combat. Daggerfall's combat sucks balls, but the world is huge enough and the quests are plenty enough to get enjoyment out of the game.

Fallout 3: Halo Wars Theft Auto by the "geniuses' behind Oblivion is GOING to suck. I hate being reminded of it everyday; being reminded that Bethesda sucks goat balls and they don't know how to make games but are masters of hype and all that bullshit, and I especially hate the fact the millions of people by the hype.

Sadistic fucks.

Move on to the next depressing topic...

If RPGs were truely about using intellect then they'd resemble the ASVAB more than a game.

I don't think my willingness to experience a role and the dramatic consequences of that role in real time renders me a savage.

I think it just means that I'm not affraid of doing away with a combat system invented before automated computing made "turns" more or less obselete.

I think people are also misunderstanding my stance though. I'm not pro anything. I just don't mind that Fallout may or may not be turnbased.

Little of my pure enjoyment of fallout was because it was turnbased.

Real time doesn't nessessarily mean "twitch." Hell, Vampire Bloodlines was made by some of the same people that made Fallout. That was a real time roleplaying game where stats mattered.

 

[hakuroshi]

If they do a first-person view, it will be real time. With different interface, there may be some kind of turn-based combat, but I don't believe it.

Combat in RPG should be part of role-play. It is your character who is fighting, not you. As had been told many times over, real time implements players reflexes and skills. It is possible to modify them with character skills, but it takes a lot if design an programming efforts, and it won't eliminate players clicking prowess altogether. In turn-based there is no need to add artifical restrictions. Of course it is qiute possible to fuck up with turn-base also, but turn-base is more natural choice for intelligent game, and real-time is natural for action one.
That's said, there is no REAL need for FO3 to be turn-based. Beth MAY do some good implementation of real-time which would allow intelligent role-play. But who will believe it?

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

"Turn based is great for "thinking man's" games, games that require the player to agonize over every possible action and consequence in order to proceed successfully to victory over one's adversary."

that's funny. I have NEVER seen a TB (or RT) game thaqt fits that desription. Not a one.

You've never seen chess? Well, let me fill you in. It's this game where two people sit down and take turns moving pieces of given mobility values and patterns across a checkered board.

One's moves should probably be carefully considered to ensure any measure of victory.

It's a good game and if you ever want to see it in action I hear rumors that players both young and old enjoy the game in venues across the globe. Check listings at your local community center to learn more.

:wink:

 

[Davaris]

My logic is that a roleplaying game not resolving combat via a turnbased strategic system does not eliminate either the role nor the play.

It is my logic that it is not the combat system that defines a roleplaying game, but the dramatic elements and the way in which THEY are resolved.

You logic is flawed because you have not taken into account the name of the genre which defines it:

Role Playing Game

In a role playing game a player can choose to play the *role* of any type of character (strong, smart, fast, slow, dumb, weak, magical, etc). If your hand eye coordination is taken into account in the game, you are no longer playing the role of the character, because your real world skills are affecting the outcomes.

Imagine two fighters equal in skill and equipment were able to fight each other many times. If it was a turn based game, the combat results would be very close. If it was a real time game, the results would be heavily skewed towards the player with the best hand eye coordination. Where is the *role* playing there?

The type of game you want to play is an FPS with dramatic elements. That is not an RPG.

 

[Claw]

It is indeed my contention, that the resolution of combat is a relatively minor thing in the grand scope of the roleplaying experience.

Sounds more like a pretension.

 

[KreideBein]

I always like invoking this thread whenever the subject of TB vs. RT comes up.

 

[merry andrew]

If RPGs were truely about using intellect then they'd resemble the ASVAB more than a game.

Who's brave enough to make this part of their signature? The ASVAB, for chrissakes. I heard you need a high ASVAB score to find Caius Cosades.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

If they do a first-person view, it will be real time. With different interface, there may be some kind of turn-based combat, but I don't believe it.

Combat in RPG should be part of role-play. It is your character who is fighting, not you. As had been told many times over, real time implements players reflexes and skills. It is possible to modify them with character skills, but it takes a lot if design an programming efforts, and it won't eliminate players clicking prowess altogether. In turn-based there is no need to add artifical restrictions. Of course it is qiute possible to fuck up with turn-base also, but turn-base is more natural choice for intelligent game, and real-time is natural for action one.
That's said, there is no REAL need for FO3 to be turn-based. Beth MAY do some good implementation of real-time which would allow intelligent role-play. But who will believe it?

Turnbased in and of itself is an arificial restriction. In no place in nature does one find a natural chronology based on externally imposed pauses. Turnbased has to be one of the most artificial gaming dynamics in existence.

Though I've already yeilded the point that Real time does involve more player input than turnbased I do have to say that turnbased does not accurately reflect characters either.

A character with intelligence 10 could still make extremely stupid decisions. A player with Science 136 may never try to apply it correctly .. though the character "would."

How a character role is realized is predominantly defined by how faithfully an actor/player can bond with and ultimately portray the character. All stats really do is modify or define the way in which a character can interact with it's enviroment and to what degree.

But the player must always, to varying degrees, make up for the character's lack of substance just as a character's stats handicap or help in ways the player is lacking.

Characters in Fallout 1 didn't play themselves. Their skills and turnbased combat didn't magicly work themselves out without any player input. To say that it's the character that's doing everything and player skill doesn't actually even matter, is at least partially a fallacy.

Player tactical input was always required, in real time you just don't have the luxury of time stopping while you consider your every move.

acting is reacting.

And I still play chess. But I also love starcraft, which is nothing if not a real time chess game.

 

[merry andrew]

A character with intelligence 10 could still make extremely stupid decisions. A player with Science 136 may never try to apply it correctly .. though the character "would."

Which is why the intelligence stat often dictates the options of the character, not the decisions the player makes for the character. It's "complicated".

All stats really do is modify or define the way in which a character can interact with it's enviroment and to what degree.

Good point. There's really no need to modify or define the way in which a character can interact with its environment and to what degree in an RPG. I think we're done here.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

If RPGs were truely about using intellect then they'd resemble the ASVAB more than a game.

Who's brave enough to make this part of their signature? The ASVAB, for chrissakes. I heard you need a high ASVAB score to find Caius Cosades.

It's your assertion that Roleplaying is an exercise in intellect. I think that's too cold an answer by which to define what roleplaying is.

And I think you're taking my statement out of context in an attempt to make me look foolish.

Because I need to spell it out plainly for you, the intellectual, I present the following.

Point one; an intellegence test is an exercise in intellect

Point two; a roleplaying game is typicly a dramatic exercise in which a narrative plays out according to the actions of the player and the dramatic consequences of said actions.

I used the asvab as merely an example, not a definative template. I do hear that you have to have a high reading comprehension score to distinguish a hypothetical example from a definative declaration.

But, being the intellectual you are, you probably already knew that.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

It is indeed my contention, that the resolution of combat is a relatively minor thing in the grand scope of the roleplaying experience.

Sounds more like a pretension.

More substance in this place than I can shake a stick at.

 

[merry andrew]

I used the asvab as merely an example

That's what's funny to me. That you used the ASVAB as an example.

 

[Helton]

A character with intelligence 10 could still make extremely stupid decisions. A player with Science 136 may never try to apply it correctly .. though the character "would."

Just like brilliant people can make really stupid decisions. Or how someone who has the know-how to be a rich-as-shit executive might pursue a career playing some musical instrument. People are not defined by how you might break down their strengths and weaknesses. That isn't the essence of playing a role, min-maxing an archetype and only playing to it's strengths. Sometimes the most satisfying characters to play are those out of their element.

How a character role is realized is predominantly defined by how faithfully an actor/player can bond with and ultimately portray the character. All stats really do is modify or define the way in which a character can interact with it's enviroment and to what degree.

God damn you say a whole lot of absolutely nothing. Yeah, no shit, our characters are how we play them.

But the player must always, to varying degrees, make up for the character's lack of substance just as a character's stats handicap or help in ways the player is lacking.

Characters in Fallout 1 didn't play themselves. Their skills and turnbased combat didn't magicly work themselves out without any player input. To say that it's the character that's doing everything and player skill doesn't actually even matter, is at least partially a fallacy.

Player tactical input was always required, in real time you just don't have the luxury of time stopping while you consider your every move.

Granted, and that's why turn-based is important. You have all the time in the world to make those decisions. Your character isn't held back by your personal skillset. Not for the most part anyways.

Of course there is some variability but it is much less than in a twitch-based game.