Editorial Bethesda developer explains why TB is obsolete

[Vault Dweller]

Considering the abuse I'm getting dished for just having a contrary opinion...

No, you are getting "abuse" for posting some really dumb shit and hiding behind "but it's my opinion, guys!". For instance:
...
If the inventors of chess had all of the above tools and resources, I doubt they would have made chess.

Hell, even DnD has made the leap to real time. Why is it a crime for fallout to move beyond turnbased?

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

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.

Turnbased has to be one of the most artificial gaming dynamics in existence.

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

To say that a player must be completely divorced from a character or the role is invalidated, is dramaticly unsound. btw, actors were once called players. Just a little something to think about.

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

True Isometric in a 3d game is oxymoronic, as isometric perspective is only there to cheat a 3d effect on a 2d plane.
...
And so on. Any last words?

 

[JarlFrank]

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.

I don't deny the existance of gamist RPGs. But I seny that every real-time RPG is necessarily an Action-RPG. You took as example The Elder Scrolls. I wouldn't call them Action-RPGs. Their focus is much more on free exploration of the world, and sidequests. I'd rather see them as sandbox-RPGs, just like Darklands. The fact that they are real-time doesn't change their RPG-ness, or make them necessarily Action-RPGs. The success in combat is still mostly achieved through character skill rather than player skill. No matter how much you try to kill a daedra in Daggerfall or in Morrowind when you're low-level, you won't succeed. Your skills are just not high enough to even hit that creature. No matter how twitchy you are, without any character-skill you're dead. Period. Even in Oblivion stats are more important than player skill. Sure, you can block manually [in Morrowind blocking was also determined by character skill. Again proving that RT combat doesn't necessarily make the RPG less char-dependant], but the effectiveness of your blocks is determined by character skill. Again, fight an enemy 5 levels above you, and you will die, because character skill determines damage and also damage resistance, and effectiveness of the player-controlled combat actions. Without a good character, you still die. Heck, even Diablo is more skill-based than twitch-based. The fact of it being an Action-RPG is just because it's main focus is combat, and purely combat, including loot collecting and character development. If it was turn-based, it would still be an Action-RPG, because it's more action than RPG. Still, there are almost no twitch skills required, just click the enemy until he's dead. And, choose your tactics how to attack the enemy. Real Time combat can sometimes be as tactical as TB combat. Now, I won't deny that RT and TB are completely different, and I also like TB more than RT, but Real Time combat won't make an otherwise complete RPG an Action-RPG. That is nonsense.

 

[mister lamat]

huh? last words? before what?

 

[Mr. Teatime]

I suspect what all this is leading to is some kind of 'tactical combat' in FO3, that Bethsoft will claim as being the best of both worlds whilst keeping fallout's 'soul'. What that combat style will be, I don't know. Obviously, I hope for a refined turn based system, but I doubt we'll get a hybrid like FOT, which is one good thing, at least.

 

[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."

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 don't think you're wrong on the dimensions. But Isometric literally translates to "is measured." To have an isometric perspective ( a perspective that is measured or has established a rule of measure ) is to have a perspective that translates one thing to another, in this case, via forced perspective.

true 3d doesn't need translating as it's perspective is dynamic and doesn't rely on 3 equal axis to make proportional translation.

You can recreate the look of isometric with camera manipulation and grids. But that isn't what isometric is.

true Isometric is a system of 2d assests mathmaticly crafted to cheat the 3rd dimension. a true 3d engine doesn't have to cheat. Even if you set the camera so that the 3 axis are all equal and your camera "altitude" creates the correct depth. The mere fact that your ladder actually goes up via a 3rd dimension and not to another 2d transparent layer matmaticly adjusted on top of the other 2d means that it isn't true isometric.

 

[mister lamat]

i'd like to see them expand on the killswitch or gow systems for combat. something like FT would be such a letdown.

 

[Vault Dweller]

huh? last words? before what?

Before the holy dumbfuckening ritual. Why the sudden interest?

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

Considering the abuse I'm getting dished for just having a contrary opinion...

No, you are getting "abuse" for posting some really dumb shit and hiding behind "but it's my opinion, guys!". For instance:
...
If the inventors of chess had all of the above tools and resources, I doubt they would have made chess.

Hell, even DnD has made the leap to real time. Why is it a crime for fallout to move beyond turnbased?

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

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.

Turnbased has to be one of the most artificial gaming dynamics in existence.

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

To say that a player must be completely divorced from a character or the role is invalidated, is dramaticly unsound. btw, actors were once called players. Just a little something to think about.

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

True Isometric in a 3d game is oxymoronic, as isometric perspective is only there to cheat a 3d effect on a 2d plane.
...
And so on. Any last words?

Yeah smart guy. You've said that I've said "some really dumb shit" but you never illustrated why it's dumb.

So without "why" the fact that I've said "retarded things" is only your opinion. Prove it's retarded and invalid and I'll submit.

Otherwise we're mearly having a difference of opinion.

 

[JarlFrank]

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.

I fully agree with you there. There's no way to make Bethesda do a TB FO3. There might be ways to make them do a Fallout 3 with good dialogue, story and athmosphere. We could convince them that they would please both us and their fanbois that way, thus making the most money because making the most sales.
TB = low sales to the retards.
Adding choice and consequence, and good dialogues = retards can just click through the dialogues or pick the fighting option, while we get satisfied by great depth.

I doubt Beth could do it, but the chances that they would try to do it are higher than the chances they make it Turn Based. So, I'd rather have realtime FO3 with other strong points than an overall crappy Fallout because the fans just talked about turnbased the whole day, not mentioning anything else.

 

[Bradylama]

It seems to me like the biggest misconception in regards to TBC is that it has to offer some deep tactical element. It doesn't.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

huh? last words? before what?

Before the holy dumbfuckening ritual. Why the sudden interest?

And to think I defended you over at the TES forums when you were expressing your opinion during Oblivion developement.

Yes, I'm clearly the dumbfuck here. Go ahead and brand me if you think that's what I deserve. That doesn't mean you're right, however.

 

[mister lamat]

when did being able to take a contrarian opinion and do quite well with it make one a 'dumbfuck'?

calis is right.

 

[Bradylama]

Sometimes the contrarian opinion is just plain dumb. You might as well say that being an Otakukin isn't so bad.

 

[JarlFrank]

I don't think he's said enough real bullshit to be dumbfucked.
Most of his stuff really seems like just an opinion, rather than stupid retard blabbering.
And, after all, he at least tried to discuss in a reasonable way, and that's not worthy of dumbfuckery IMO.

You decide, though.

 

[Twinfalls]

It's not about being 'contrarian'. It's about being a relentlessly disingenuous, weasel-word spewing, passive-aggressive fuck and then claiming holy martyrdom.

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...

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

I love turn-based for the amount of micro-managed strategy it allows. I also hate the amount of time it takes to micro-manage said strategy. 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 don't think fallout has to fit this model. Given the nature of the setting, the frequency of conflict expected, and the time all that would absorb, I'd prefer that it wasn't turnbased.

 

[mister lamat]

be that as it may, if we're gonna get another year and a half of this, i'd rather someone's opinion fall outside of 'wanting to jackhammer their cock down todd howard's throat in a fit of passionate rage'.

pointless as it is, i've always liked discussing or reading about the mechanics of gameplay.

i think you're mistaking disigenuity for detatchment.

 

[Vault Dweller]

And so on. Any last words?

Yeah smart guy. You've said that I've said "some really retarded shit" but you never illustrated why it's retarded.

You honestly believe that I (or someone else) have to? How embarrassing for you.

when did being able to take a contrarian opinion and do quite well with it make one a 'dumbfuck'?

Quite well? You disappoint me, mr. lamat. Anyway, take a look at the collection above. Prove that these quotes represent a *valid* (as of opposite to stupid) opinion, and I'll gladly apologize to MVB and not dumbfuck him today.

 

[John Yossarian]

If the inventors of chess had all of the above tools and resources, I doubt they would have made chess.

This reminds me of a physics professor that told us how at a conference they set him up in a new experimental high-tech classroom with all kinds of next-gen gadgets. He asked them for some chalk.

 

[Bradylama]

I'm not saying he should be dumbfucked right now, but there's not a whole lot to defend, here.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

It's not about being 'contrarian'. It's about being a relentlessly disingenuous, weasel-word spewing, passive-aggressive fuck and then claiming holy martyrdom.

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...

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

I love turn-based for the amount of micro-managed strategy it allows. I also hate the amount of time it takes to micro-manage said strategy. 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 don't think fallout has to fit this model. Given the nature of the setting, the frequency of conflict expected, and the time all that would absorb, I'd prefer that it wasn't turnbased.

Again, words being put in my mouth. Find the post where I lay claim to martyrdom and quote me.

Find the posts where I'm being disengenuous and quote them.

As for being passive agressive, the fact that I've used it to combat actual aggression should count for something. I'm still trying to remain good natured, afterall.

 

[Vault Dweller]

be that as it may, if we're gonna get another year and a half of this, i'd rather someone's opinion fall outside of 'wanting to jackhammer their cock down todd howard's throat in a fit of passionate rage'.

True, but some criteria should be applied, no? Or would you rather welcome anyone who says "TB sucks!"?

 

[Fez]

As for being passive agressive, the fact that I've used it to combat actual aggression should count for something. I'm still trying to remain good natured, afterall.

You should have chosen the Bloody Mess trait instead.

 

[JarlFrank]

I don't think RPGs have to fit this model. I don't think fallout has to fit this model. Given the nature of the setting, the frequency of conflict expected, and the time all that would absorb, I'd prefer that it wasn't turnbased.

Again, words being put in my mouth. Find the post where I lay claim to martyrdom and quote me.

Well, now you're contradicting yourself... there you say you'd prefer a RT Fallout, and somewhere else you said you love the TB Fallout for what it is. Now, which of both is true?
Saying both at the same time is somewhat contradictory. Basically, it's crap to say both. It's like saying "Yeah I love turnbased but actually I don't."

 

[Human Shield]

And, choose your tactics how to attack the enemy. Real Time combat can sometimes be as tactical as TB combat. Now, I won't deny that RT and TB are completely different, and I also like TB more than RT, but Real Time combat won't make an otherwise complete RPG an Action-RPG. That is nonsense.

How does RT impact gameplay design? It doesn't help in a gamist RPG sense (character design and decisions), it doesn't help in a narrativist RPG sense, it could be argued to help simulation but that falls closer to LARP idea of role playing (the ultimate RPG would be for me as myself to be teleported into D&D). If it doesn't promote RPG design, why is it there? If it degrades the RPG design how far before it is its own sub-genre?

What does the combat in Elder Scroll do to gameplay design? Despite the fact that stats effect outcome (FPS games have hidden stats too) does it promote any RPG design or is it closer to action game design, I would certainly call it an action design element.

Do mini-games during dialog still make it a complete RPG? How about a racing game instead of travel. Having twitch gameplay makes it less then complete, you can argue degrees of where to put the sub-genre but gameplay effects in such games like Daggerfall are high up there for action elements (you could argue about Baldur Gate style of broken RT/Phase system).

It seems to me like the biggest misconception in regards to TBC is that it has to offer some deep tactical element. It doesn't.

Deep resource management over time, try it in RT and you will be stuck micro-managing a timeline with added confusion and interface lag with no added depth or gameplay.

This is a forum for discussion, if your position and opinion is the correct one all you have to do is prove it and I'll submit.

The creator of D&D stated that TB was not a choice based on technology limitations, do you think that TB would have never been created if computers capable of RT always existed (no chess like you claimed)?

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

And so on. Any last words?

Yeah smart guy. You've said that I've said "some really retarded shit" but you never illustrated why it's retarded.

You honestly believe that I (or someone else) have to? How embarrassing for you.

when did being able to take a contrarian opinion and do quite well with it make one a 'dumbfuck'?

Quite well? You disappoint me, mr. lamat. Anyway, take a look at the collection above. Prove that these quotes represent a *valid* (as of opposite to stupid) opinion, and I'll gladly apologize to MVB and not dumbfuck him today.

Who the fuck are you to pass judgement on opinion? You may agree or disagree with me. That's your right as a person capable of forming your own opinions. But to pass judgement on my opinion, of all things, based on nothing more than your opinion is just so far beyond fair and just that I don't even know where to begin.

This is a forum for discussion, if your position and opinion is the correct one all you have to do is prove it and I'll submit. Failing that, I'm entitled to my opinion just as much as anybody else.