Editorial Bethesda developer explains why TB is obsolete

[Ander Vinz]

I and some few, brave others just don't think being turnbased is integral to fallout or roleplaying at large.

Your name won't be forgotten, brave one.

 

[Human Shield]

I shouldn't force my loves on your work. That doesn't mean you're right, it just means that you're wrong on your terms. Which to me is fair enough.

So why isn't calling a FPS a pure RPG and a true Fallout sequel wrong terms?

If there are wrong terms then there should be right terms, so you would have to force someone to either change the product to match the terms or change the terms to match the product, in order to be correct.

Forcing loves has nothing to do with it, stating something is invalid and will remain invalid until it is corrected is just a statement of fact. A story called 'DC Comic's Batman' about a female space marine wizard fighting aliens in the romantic comedy section is invalid.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

Sure bethesda is going to fuck up Fallout, I just don't think real time is the linch pin.

And who, precisely, is saying it's the lynch-pin?

Please don't back away from your previous assertions that TB is obsolete and that RT is a progression 'beyond' TB, unless you have accepted that you are wrong.

I'm not backing away from that, my response was fair.

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.

There was a time when turnbased was pretty much mandatory as game design thought and technique hadn't presented many other options.

Now there are options beyond the legacy of pnp strategy games for resolving combat in the RPG genre.

Given this, I'm not affraid to experience fallout in real time. That doesn't mean I think Bethesda is going to ACE it, i just don't think being real time is what's going to ruin it.

I think they're just going to misinterpret the source and fuck up from there.

If they were smart, they'd bring Leonard and some of the other gang in. But they've made it clear that they want to make their fallout.

I've seen their Oblivion and was underwhelmed, realtime didn't do it, it was really most of the other choices. Considering that I loved Daggerfall and Morrowind I don't think it's surprising that I didn't hold realtime against it.

 

[Twinfalls]

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.

There was a time when turnbased was pretty much mandatory as game design thought and technique hadn't presented many other options.

Now there are options beyond the legacy of pnp strategy games for resolving combat in the RPG genre.

Can you stop being disingenuous, and just state plainly what you think?

You think RT is better than TB. You think a TB system is 'less advanced' than RT. You think a RT system can do everything a TB system can, and more.

You think combat in a Fallout game would be better if it's RT.

Tell me I am mistaken.

 

[John Yossarian]

You didn't learn much from the Oblivion fiasco, did you? Which of the tons of 'good stuff' that Bethesda developers and fanboys talked about ("please make it more like Daggerfall" - "Sure, that's what we're doing"), actually eventuated in the game?

Zilch.

It is completely pointless to try to 'influence' Bethesda into making anywhere near a decent RPG or even a decent game. It's not going to happen, no matter what they say along the way.

I neither bought nor played Oblivion, so I can't comment too much on what was in the game.However I do remember people complaining about combat in morrowind, and judging by the Ob trailer, it looked twitchier, which is what most fans wanted, regardless of whether it made it less of a RPG. Also people complained about the static NPCs, and it seems they tried to fix that.(and obviously failed, as demonstrated by plenty youtube vids). So you can't say they don't listen to fans ( that they only listen to mainstream gamers is clear though). Now, if mainstream gamers wanted the stuff we want (other than tb), could Beth deliver? The current Beth, probably not. But if they felt they could make more money, they would hire someone who could (like previous Fallout devs).

It's actually more useful to knock down sophistry, straw men and general bullshit about RPGs, such as 'TB is obsolete'. So this type of argument is more useful than anything you have suggested.

Just to be clear, the 'TB is obsolete' angle is pretty stupid IMO. Tb and RT cRPGs had both been made at the same time until recently, so I don't see how they can say it was a lack of resources that forced people to make RPGs tb.
That doesn't change the fact that they hate tb, instead that argument sounds more like an excuse to avoid saying "I just like the FPS-type action better", and there's nothing you can do to change that. So showing them the argument is wrong is pretty useless.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

I and some few, brave others just don't think being turnbased is integral to fallout or roleplaying at large.

Your name won't be forgotten, brave one.

Considering the abuse I'm getting dished for just having a contrary opinion, I'll take your substanceless mocking as confirmation that my over-drama was in good taste.

But hey, I've been nailed again. Kudos to you for taking me to task on my tongue in cheek tone.

 

[Oarfish]

as game design thought and technique hadn't presented many other options

Yes, because real time is so new and innovative.

 

[Koby]

True Isometric in a 3d game is oxymoronic, as isometric perspective is only there to cheat a 3d effect on a 2d plane.

That doesn't make ANY sense.

True Isometric in a 3d game is oxymoronic, ...

No, a pure 3D presentation is a pure 3D presentation; everything is rendered at real-time (unless it is some kind of prerendered thingy). Objects are still modeled, animated, textures are still being applied, geometry data is still being calculation on a 3D axis, and so on. A fixed perspective, of any kind doesn't unmake it 3D.

as isometric perspective is only there to cheat a 3d effect on a 2d plane.

What?! So is every other 3D game when the camera isn’t moving, or even better, most real-time rendering techniques.

*edit*
Clarification: The brain cheating isn’t being done by the perspective alone, it is being done by both the perspective and the image, and the image had the bigger role in the 'cheating' (look at painting techniques that are designed to give the painting the illusion of depth).
*/edit*

 

[Zomg]

I'm in the offshoot camp that says, yeah, you could do FO in FP/RT. The combat in FO is pretty trivial stuff - it isn't the meat of the game. I agree with the complexity argument (e.g. Dwarf Fortress wrestling) but in fact FO combat is a shallow puddle. Not that I think some circle-strafing bunny-hopping mess is a good idea, but FP/RT could be done well in some theoretical design. However, what kills me is that these guys feel the need to rationalize business decisions on some philosophy of design level, which is obviously completely disingenuous. It's even worse when unpaid forum warriors do it, because they're spending time trying to lend a helping hand to a multimillion-dollar company that has the entire video game critical apparatus in its back pocket.

 

[sqeecoo]

Great discussion guys, this is why I love the codex. Van buren, you are a smart guy, and I mostly agree with your moderate position that you are holding in your last few posts.

Real time combat is also possible only with new technologies, and, in addition to its novelty
value (wich prompts people to say that it is somehow intrinsically better), it has some advantages. These advantages (tension, immersion, reflexes-based excitement/fear, realism (for instance in operation flashpoint-which realistically simulates *just* combat, not a whole world)) are, however, better suited to other genres than to RPGs.

Putting real time combat in a RPG is dangerous, because it can make player skill more relevant than character skill. Player skill always matters, of course, but there is a clear difference between *playing a character* and directly controlling a marine killing monsters.
If your character (and the choices you make) does not limit you in any significant way, the game might be fine, but is not a RPG. Of course, RT combat is less of a problem if combat is not the focus of the game, or if there are other important decisions to make. In that sense, combat in RPGs does not *have* to be TB (PST is great, BG2 is not too bad at all, many like morrowind).

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

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.

There was a time when turnbased was pretty much mandatory as game design thought and technique hadn't presented many other options.

Now there are options beyond the legacy of pnp strategy games for resolving combat in the RPG genre.

Can you stop being disingenuous, and just state plainly what you think?

You think RT is better than TB. You think a TB system is 'less advanced' than RT. You think a RT system can do everything a TB system can, and more.

You think combat in a Fallout game would be better if it's RT.

Tell me I am mistaken.

You're mistaken.

Not only have I flatout said, numerous times, that I love Fallout 1 and the fact that it's turnbased. But I've also said that I don't care that if it's in realtime and that I'm not affraid to experience a realtime fallout.

I don't think that TB is inherently inferior to Realtime, I think that it's context dependant on which system best allows the story to be told or the project to be realized.

Now I do believe that the notion that roleplaying has to be turnbased in order to be true roleplaying is inferior. I've made no secret of that.

But the system of combat resolution is hardly the basis by which a game should be defined.

You could make a turnbased adventure game, a turnbased strategy game, a turnbased economic simulator ( hey monopoly ) ... ect ect. And there was a time when you basicly had to do turnbased. That time has passed.

Advances in game design theory and technological automation has presented new and exciting options, selecting one of these new fangled options does not invalidate the genre in my opinion.

Again, I still play chess. Turnbased works well for chess. Then again I play Warhammer 40,000 dawn of war too, an example of realtime chess.

That's my point. If you think otherwise, dig up my quotes in context that illustrate that I'm betraying what I just said.

 

[Human Shield]

Considering the abuse I'm getting dished for just having a contrary opinion, I'll take your substanceless mocking as confirmation that my over-drama was in good taste.

But hey, I've been nailed again. Kudos to you for taking me to task on my tongue in cheek tone.

You aren't getting abused for an opinion. You are getting abused for being incorrect.

If you realize the truth that TB and Phase-based can do things differently then real time then you must accept that RT is not just another option for RPGs, it is a different mechanic and does things differently then standard RPGs. So you either correctly call this an action-RPG or you play revisionist history and incorrectly believe that TB gameplay was just a step towards evolving into RT gameplay and now TB is not needed anymore (contradicting the fact that TB does things different).

Making action-RPGs full RPGs and old RPGs just futile efforts with limited technology. I guess the Fallout developers were just brain dead to use TB in 1996 when Darklands had real time combat in 1992, it couldn't be that they have different uses could it?

 

[JarlFrank]

Considering the abuse I'm getting dished for just having a contrary opinion, I'll take your substanceless mocking as confirmation that my over-drama was in good taste.

But hey, I've been nailed again. Kudos to you for taking me to task on my tongue in cheek tone.

You aren't getting abused for an opinion. You are getting abused for being incorrect.

If you realize the truth that TB and Phase-based can do things differently then real time then you must accept that RT is not just another option for RPGs, it is a different mechanic and does things differently then standard RPGs. So you either correctly call this an action-RPG or you play revisionist history and incorrectly believe that TB gameplay was just a step towards evolving into RT gameplay and now TB is not needed anymore (contradicting the fact that TB does things different). Making action-RPGs full RPGs and old RPGs just futile efforts with limited technology

Let's join in to that discussion then.
The fact if an RPG is an Action-RPG or a full RPG is not a matter of which combat system it uses [at least not in my understanding]. Games with actiony real-time combat can still be full RPGs - that is, if they provide the stuff that makes a game into an RPG. Choice and Consequence, Character Development, Story etc. The combat plays only a minor role there. Nobody would call Arcanum an Action-RPG, even if it only had real time combat and lacked its turn based part. Everyone would say it's a full RPG, not an action RPG. Action RPGs are RPGs where the focus is laid on combat. Action RPGs are combat simulators with thrown-in RPG elements like Chatacter Development. Look at Diablo for example. This is an Action-RPG. Combat as the main element, with only Char Development as the RPG element, but it's lacking the other important things that make a game into a full RPG.

I know this has been debated to death already, but real time combat alone won't make any game an Action-RPG instead of a full, or true, RPG.

 

[Lemunde]

I have one word for Ricardo Gonzalez, Chess. Hell I'll make that two words, Checkers.

But lets put on our "What if?" caps and imagne if the original makers of chess had in their game design toolbox the resources of, say, a modern board game development studio replete with state-of-the-art technology and competent developers, including one very erudite and devilishly handsome game maker?

Then you'd have Command & Conquer several centuries before it's time. Not necessarily a bad thing but it certainly wouldn't be the chess we all know and love.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

True Isometric in a 3d game is oxymoronic, as isometric perspective is only there to cheat a 3d effect on a 2d plane.

That doesn't make ANY sense.

True Isometric in a 3d game is oxymoronic, ...

No, a pure 3D presentation is a pure 3D presentation; everything is rendered at real-time (unless it is some kind of prerendered thingy). Objects are still modeled, animated, textures are still being applied, geometry data is still being calculation on a 3D axis, and so on. A fixed perspective, of any kind doesn't unmake it 3D.

as isometric perspective is only there to cheat a 3d effect on a 2d plane.

What?! So is every other 3D game when the camera isn’t moving, or even better, most real-time rendering techniques.

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

To illustrate, Mario Bros. is a 2d sprite based based game. Fallout 1 is also a 2d sprite based game. Mario Bros. perspective betrays it's true dimensions (2d.) However, by mathmaticly changing the perspective from a flat head on veiw to an isometric perspective it cheats the impression that your 2d game and it's assests are actually 3d and are interacting in dimensions beyond 2 (3 if you count time.)

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

I know you must be more confused than ever, but the simple answer is just "true isometric perspective allows 2d assets to be cheated to simulate a 3d space via perspective and nothing else."

 

[Human Shield]

Let's join in to that discussion then.
The fact if an RPG is an Action-RPG or a full RPG is not a matter of which combat system it uses [at least not in my understanding]. Games with actiony real-time combat can still be full RPGs - that is, if they provide the stuff that makes a game into an RPG. Choice and Consequence, Character Development, Story etc. The combat plays only a minor role there. Nobody would call Arcanum an Action-RPG, even if it only had real time combat and lacked its turn based part. Everyone would say it's a full RPG, not an action RPG. Action RPGs are RPGs where the focus is laid on combat. Action RPGs are combat simulators with thrown-in RPG elements like Chatacter Development. Look at Diablo for example. This is an Action-RPG. Combat as the main element, with only Char Development as the RPG element, but it's lacking the other important things that make a game into a full RPG.

I know this has been debated to death already, but real time combat alone won't make any game an Action-RPG instead of a full, or true, RPG.

Then you are denying that gamist RPGs exist? Are you calling dungeon crawlers action-RPGs, what do you call Deus Ex? Are gamist PnP RPGs also action-RPGs? Diablo is an action-RPG because it is in real time. The fact remains that combat does play a main role in the Elder Scroll games for example, are you calling a system in which player twitch skills and reflexes determine progress are still full RPGs if they have enough story? By their virtue such real time systems will limit character options based on player twitch skill.

 

[mister lamat]

i thought the bethesda dev was talking about how gygax kept his early playtesters from turning into faggot larpers... not the 'omfg! death of turn-based'... man, you ladies love to read into shit.

 

[Section8]

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.

There was a time when turnbased was pretty much mandatory as game design thought and technique hadn't presented many other options.

Now there are options beyond the legacy of pnp strategy games for resolving combat in the RPG genre.

You do realise that games like Darklands, which has a system remarkably similar to Bioware's pet system and Diablo predate Fallout? Do you also realise that the decision to make Fallout turn-based was not enforced by shortcomings in technology or design, but exists by a very deliberate choice?

About the only game I've seen since Fallout that has really "innovated" with tactical combat has been Brigade E5, and even then all it really does is takes the real-time with pause idea and actually makes "real time" mean just that, instead of having six-second pseudo turns under the hood.

Everyone spouts off about how far we've progressed, and how different the gaming world is now, but that's a fucking lie, whether you know it or not. Fallout emerged amid a glut of RTS and almost exclusively "reinvented RPGs". It wasn't just one of many turn-based games that were "pretty much mandatory" at the time. It was unique and daring, and the industry really wasn't much different to today's. If you didn't witness the history, I suggest you at least read about it before running your fucking mouth.

Not only have I flatout said, numerous times, that I love Fallout 1 and the fact that it's turnbased. But I've also said that I don't care that if it's in realtime and that I'm not affraid to experience a realtime fallout.

So why are you fighting tooth and nail for it? Here's what I see:

You: I don't care what sort of combat Fallout has.
Us: We're pretty insistent on turn-based.

At that point, doesn't it make sense for you to say "Well, cool. Since you guys have a distinct preference, while I'm ambivalent I think the conclusion is clear. We're all happy if it's turn-based."

But instead, you've shat forth pages of textual effluent and seemingly forgotten your own post a few pages back:

I'd prefer that it wasn't turnbased.

Fucking hypocrite.

 

[Koby]

Read my edit, and also this is not linited to Isometric see stonekeep, Darklands, and the likes. it is (mostly) the image not the perspective.

 

[Lemunde]

True Isometric in a 3d game is oxymoronic, as isometric perspective is only there to cheat a 3d effect on a 2d plane.

That doesn't make ANY sense.

True Isometric in a 3d game is oxymoronic, ...

No, a pure 3D presentation is a pure 3D presentation; everything is rendered at real-time (unless it is some kind of prerendered thingy). Objects are still modeled, animated, textures are still being applied, geometry data is still being calculation on a 3D axis, and so on. A fixed perspective, of any kind doesn't unmake it 3D.

as isometric perspective is only there to cheat a 3d effect on a 2d plane.

What?! So is every other 3D game when the camera isn’t moving, or even better, most real-time rendering techniques.

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

To illustrate, Mario Bros. is a 2d sprite based based game. Fallout 1 is also a 2d sprite based game. Mario Bros. perspective betrays it's true dimensions (2d.) However, by mathmaticly changing the perspective from a flat head on veiw to an isometric perspective it cheats the impression that your 2d game and it's assests are actually 3d and are interacting in dimensions beyond 2 (3 if you count time.)

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

I know you must be more confused than ever, but the simple answer is just "true isometric perspective allows 2d assets to be cheated to simulate a 3d space via perspective and nothing else."

I think what most people think of when they hear "isometric" is a bunch of square tiles (3d or 2d) rotated 45 degrees and squooshed down a bit. In fact I think the true definition of "isometric" is a grid using 30 and 120 degree angles. You can look it up in case I'm wrong. But if that's true then a 3d game maintaining that perspective is just as isometric as a 2d one.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

Considering the abuse I'm getting dished for just having a contrary opinion, I'll take your substanceless mocking as confirmation that my over-drama was in good taste.

But hey, I've been nailed again. Kudos to you for taking me to task on my tongue in cheek tone.

You aren't getting abused for an opinion. You are getting abused for being incorrect.

If you realize the truth that TB and Phase-based can do things differently then real time then you must accept that RT is not just another option for RPGs, it is a different mechanic and does things differently then standard RPGs. So you either correctly call this an action-RPG or you play revisionist history and incorrectly believe that TB gameplay was just a step towards evolving into RT gameplay and now TB is not needed anymore (contradicting the fact that TB does things different).

Making action-RPGs full RPGs and old RPGs just futile efforts with limited technology. I guess the Fallout developers were just brain dead to use TB in 1996 when Darklands had real time combat in 1992, it couldn't be that they have different uses could it?

Oh jeezus, are we really to the point where we're debating what defines a subgenre?

An RPG is an RPG, I don't care what it's prefix is. Just as a shooter is still a shooter whether it's a side scrolling arcade masher or a First Person juggernaugt.

Sure the subgenre sets it apart from others of it's class, but the subgenre doesn't divorce it from it's class, which has been the point of posters on pages gone by.

I have accepted the fact that a traditional tb rpg is different from a new fangled realtime rpg. Hell, i've illustrated that point at length. What I have not accepted is that moving to realtime removes a game from the RPG class.

Does it create a subgenre? Hell, why not. Does it do much more? Not in my opinion.

 

[callehe]

Putting on our "What If?" caps, we can ask what would have happened if the original RPG creators had in their game design toolbox the resources of, say, a modern video game development studio replete with state-of-the-art technology and competent developers, including one very erudite and devilishly handsome programmer? With the ability to implement real-time combat, the desire to ground it in innovative tactical game design, and the computation power to tie everything together, would they have still used turn-based combat? Or real-time combat? Or something altogether different? What do you guys think?

What a moron. They had the skills, resources and technology. As if there were no 3D real time games at that time? They made Fallout TB because they liked it to be that way, and it's fucking awesome.[/list]

 

[callehe]

double post

 

[John Yossarian]

I'm in the offshoot camp that says, yeah, you could do FO in FP/RT. The combat in FO is pretty trivial stuff - it isn't the meat of the game. I agree with the complexity argument (e.g. Dwarf Fortress wrestling) but in fact FO combat is a shallow puddle. Not that I think some circle-strafing bunny-hopping mess is a good idea, but FP/RT could be done well in some theoretical design. However, what kills me is that these guys feel the need to rationalize business decisions on some philosophy of design level, which is obviously completely disingenuous. It's even worse when unpaid forum warriors do it, because they're spending time trying to lend a helping hand to a multimillion-dollar company that has the entire video game critical apparatus in its back pocket.

I hope you don't mean me. I'm just trying to get people to ask for things that have actually have a chance to be put in ( fully aware that if they made F3 tb and kept roughly the same combat system as the originals, it would be so much better). And since we're on the subject, if Beth doesn't put in the gameplay stuff that made F1 great, and I find out one of you bought the game, I'll find your address, tell Roqua you said something about his kid, and pay him for the ticket. You've been warned.

 

[Koby]

I think what most people think of when they hear "isometric" is a bunch of square tiles (3d or 2d) rotated 45 degrees and squooshed down a bit. In fact I think the true definition of "isometric" is a grid using 30 and 120 degree angles. You can look it up in case I'm wrong. But if that's true then a 3d game maintaining that perspective is just as isometric as a 2d one.

I understand isometric in its simplest interpretation, angel of viewing, under Mr. Van_Buren definition it seems that isometric can also encompass doom, Anvil of Dawn, and Betrayal at Krondor.

I think mine is better.