Preview Hype Machine 1, Fallout fans Nil

[Excrément]

Real time with pause passes for turn-based these days?

Battle system is called the Vault-tec Assisted Targeting System (V.A.T.S.). The article states. "While you'll certainly be able to tackle enemies in real time using first person shooting, V.A.T.S. lets players pause time and select a target at their leisure". Battle system still uses action points, but once you've used them up you'll still be able to fight targets in real time while they charge back up.

doesn't seem real time with pause, it looks real time or turn based (as you want) and use "pause" to switch between the two systems.

I understood if you choose turn based : it's turn based until you are out of AP then real time and if you choose real time it's real time unless you still have AP and so use the "pause" to switch to turn based.

the questions is either the AP system isn't useful (because you can still fight in real time without the APs) or the real time system is less efficient than the turn based because you can't use your AP.
am I wrong?

EDIT : this sytem could be very clever because it could erase the problem we have with minor fight.
when you have to kill a rat, you use real time, this rat is annoying, you want to kill himm quick, you don't need to have any strategy or tactics to do the job so you use real-time
when you have to kiill a hard mutant, you absolutely need your AP and tactics so you use turn based until your APs are left.

the more I think about this system, the more I fall into the hype.
of course we will see, but theorically, that's quite clever.

 

[Vault Dweller]

doesn't seem real time with pause, it looks real time or turn based (as you want) and use "pause" to switch between the two systems.

Wishful thinking. When you can switch between systems that's pretty much what people say: you can switch between systems. Whenever the dreadful word "pause" is mentioned, it usually means only one thing - you pause combat and do some actions that couldn't be done efficiently in real time.

All the article says is "you can pause the combat and select targets at your leisure", which is what RT with pause - not turn-based - is all about. Besides, it's much easier to add a pause (and sell the system as turn-based to magazines like Bio did with KOTOR) than a fully implemented turn-based mode.

I understood if you choose turn based : it's turn based until you are out of AP then real time...

How does THAT make sense? Even if that's exactly how it's implemented, it's gotta be the stupidest system ever created.

the more I think about this system, the more I fall into the hype.

That's the idea.

 

[Kraszu]

That system sound bad max pain slow motion would be better if they wanted to do something like that. You will be forced to fight in rt anyway when your ap comes down. Going from rt to tb like that will just feel clumsy. Those ap sound close to useless also.

 

[Excrément]

I understood if you choose turn based : it's turn based until you are out of AP then real time...

How does THAT make sense? Even if that's exactly how it's implemented, it's gotta be the stupidest system ever created.

why turn-based make sense, why real time make sense? it's a video game, it's not real life.if it works well, and the gameplay is good why not?
for example, does the fact that having a life bar make more sense? (5 bullet in the head = death, 10 bullet in the body = death, 30 bullets ni the foot = death, that's also retarded..)

the idea is : first you use tactics if necessary and if it isn't enough to win the fight you switch to classic FPS. and if you don't need tactics at all because it's an easy fight, you do all in the real time.

I prefer to have wishful thinking than whining thinking. Even if we know Pete Hines do perfectly his job (that is to say there are more chances you are right and I am wrong), that doesn't mean we can't have good surprises from Bethesda.

 

[Claw]

why excrement make sense? no reason!

 

[Vault Dweller]

why turn-based make sense, why real time make sense? it's a video game, it's not real life.

I didn't mean "unrealistic", I meant as a poorly thought through game concept.

if it works well, and the gameplay is good why not?

That's a big "if".

I prefer to have wishful thinking than whining thinking.

It's not a matter of preference. It's a matter of what one's position is based on. Neither position is stupid by default. Now, let's see what your position is all about:

the idea is : first you use tactics if necessary...

What does "if necessary" mean? Does it imply that most fights are easy (i.e. poorly designed) and don't require any tactics other than holding down a mouse button?

Obviously, if you can win all battles just by clicking on your opponents (see KOTOR for details), why use advanced options? I hope you realize that you can't have both modes to be well designed and balanced. One would suck ass and will be too easy. Odds are that would be the turn-based mode, because if you make it challenging, then there is no fucking way someone would be able to play the game in real time.

 

[Kraszu]

To have choose what you want rt or tb system you need ap to be used in both, otherwise ap are just extra thing added to combat or every fight will be so easy that it will take one turn to win that would most likely make pause useless anyway. After one turn you have to fight in rt that is what it says.

 

[Naked Ninja]

Uh-oh! Here comes the closed minded "can't" brigade again.

Don't worry dude, I get you. Like in Real time with Pause, where if a battle is difficult you can stop and issue orders, but if its gonna be piss easy you just tell your lads to run in there and beat the shit out of them. But maybe with a system where you can actually perform actions in the pause mode, round robin style, ie turn based.

Its not really that hard to program into a game, thats bullshit. All you need is a scheduling system and to attach durations to any action. Which is how any game, even real time, works anyway. Under the hood its all happening in really fast "turns". You just need to add in some code hooks to manipulate that underlying scheduler. Some functions to pause the scheduler and then to let it run for X increments.

Personally, I would be interested to see how a gameplay system like that works. I like the idea of having the option. Some battles in turn based games are really tedious, even with the animation speed all the way up. I thoroughly enjoy Heroes of MM 5, but occasionally I leave the AI in control and walk away to make a cup of tea.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Uh-oh! Here comes the closed minded "can't" brigade again.

And who might you be? The goatse-wide, so-open-minded-that-you'll-believe-in-anything brigade?

But maybe with a system where you can actually perform actions in the pause mode, round robin style, ie turn based.

Maybe. Maybe you can also select a "true Fallout game" option and play the game in TB, isometric, and with skill-based dialogue trees. You never know, right?

Its not really that hard to program into a game, thats bullshit.

I'm sure you programmed many a game and speak from experience, my ninja friend. You can start by programming a turn-based option into NWN. According to you, it's like it's already there.

 

[mister lamat]

fuck you're bleak.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Any overlooked reason why I should be excited about the article overview that you posted?

 

[Naked Ninja]

You got the NWN source code handy friend? Swing it my way, will you?

 

[mister lamat]

the fact that hubub regarding a incredibly dubious and most likely untrue intarweb post, in an unintentional way, is an interesting metaphor. fallout after the bombs.

i don't really believe the piece, shits and giggles to be honest, but there's supposition and there's confirmation. changes the values of a discussion.

 

[Vault Dweller]

You got the NWN source code handy friend? Swing it my way, will you?

How about Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory source code? Would that work? I would absolutely love to play it turn-based.

 

[Calis]

I'm sure you programmed many a game and speak from experience, my ninja friend. You can start by programming a turn-based option into NWN. According to you, it's like it's already there.

Gimme source, and I will. Coding can't possibly be the problem, but from a game design standpoint it'll be horrible.

Re: WolfET, straw man.

 

[mister lamat]

old man fight!

 

[Vault Dweller]

Why staw man? Naked Ninja boldly stated that any RT combat system could be easily upgraded into a turn-based one.

 

[Calis]

old man fight!

I'm pretty sure VD is at least a couple of years older than I am.

As for the last time I (tried) game programming, that was in (early) high school. None of it remains, and none of it shall be shown to any of you, but a few things I've made:
- Space Invaders clone (on a bored saturday afternoon)
- Simple RPG engine in Visual Basic - it had working character generation / advancement, an (ugly) guy walking around a (mostly empty) world, and a simple turn-based combat system. My point remains that - especially if you decide to do so early on - having turn-based combat next to real-time combat shouldn't be all that hard from a programming standpoint, if the abstractions you choose in your code structure are, well, somewhat abstract & logical. Design and balancing is a different matter, one which I have little insight into.

 

[Calis]

Why staw man? Naked Ninja boldly stated that any RT combat system could be easily upgraded into a turn-based one.

What he said was:

Its not really that hard to program into a game, thats bullshit. All you need is a scheduling system and to attach durations to any action. Which is how any game, even real time, works anyway. Under the hood its all happening in really fast "turns". You just need to add in some code hooks to manipulate that underlying scheduler. Some functions to pause the scheduler and then to let it run for X increments.

Now, he didn't state outright that this would only apply to RPG's, fair enough, but that's the assumption I was going on. As for WolfET, I'd say changing the game mechanics to make turn-based play viable is going to be the real work, since it contains very little in the way of stats. You would have to design the mechanics of the game first, then change the interface to have players take turns in inputting their actions rather than WASD'ing their way around the game, then have the engine spit out what happens (which should not be all *that* hard if the code abstractions are, well, abstract and logical - I've never read the WolfET source code, so I wouldn't know).

I'd still say that anyone attempting to modify the source code for a game - be it NWN or Wolf ET - is going to run into the following problems, in this order: (higher on the list means a bigger problem)
- Reading through the entire god damn source code and getting a grasp of how it's built up (I'd imagine this is days, if not weeks of work for games this size)
- Looking through the game mechanics and thinking about how they should work when turn-based - in the case of NWN, I'd imagine this to be easier. All you really need to add in is initiative, all the other stuff is already there.
- Modifying the actual code, writing a new interface, and making it all work

Reading through my own post I retract my "straw man" statement. I still agree with Naked Ninja, and I'm still not going to write a turn-based version of WolfET. But that's mainly because I'm lazy.

 

[Vault Dweller]

As for the last time I (tried) game programming, that was in (early) high school. None of it remains, and none of it shall be shown to any of you, but a few things I've made:
- Space Invaders clone (on a bored saturday afternoon)
- Simple RPG engine in Visual Basic - it had working character generation / advancement, an (ugly) guy walking around a (mostly empty) world, and a simple turn-based combat system. My point remains that - especially if you decide to do so early on - having turn-based combat next to real-time combat shouldn't be all that hard from a programming standpoint, if the abstractions you choose in your code structure are, well, somewhat abstract & logical. Design and balancing is a different matter, one which I have little insight into.

I'm not arguing with that. I've never claimed that it's hard to make a TB system. The exact words were "Besides, it's much easier to add a pause (and sell the system as turn-based to magazines like Bio did with KOTOR) than a fully implemented turn-based mode."

As for WolfET, I'd say changing the game mechanics to make turn-based play viable is going to be the real work, since it contains very little in the way of stats.

Turn-based doesn't imply stats. One can change (if it's indeed that easy) only the system, leaving all the hit/miss calculations intact, and adding only the turns and the sequence based on awareness. That, of course, would be a crappy system, but NN's point would be proven.

 

[Calis]

As for WolfET, I'd say changing the game mechanics to make turn-based play viable is going to be the real work, since it contains very little in the way of stats.

Turn-based doesn't imply stats. One can change (if it's indeed that easy) only the system, leaving all the hit/miss calculations intact, and adding only the turns and the sequence based on awareness. That, of course, would be a crappy system, but NN's point would be proven.

Well, in the case of WolfET, you would need some sort of stat system for the game to still be fun, since aiming for people is a player job ("aim mouse at other guy and click") that would be trivial in a turn-based system, but your point is taken.

As for converting a RT game to TB being "easy", I've never tried it. If "easy" here means "trivial, an afternoon of work" then no, it won't be easy. If "easy" means "far less work than implementing the RT mechanics in the codebase in the first place", then I think NN is probably correct.

I have very little insight into how much time and effort would actually go into this, I've never looked at (or tried to modify) a large piece of software to this extent.

 

[Calis]

I'm not arguing with that. I've never claimed that it's hard to make a TB system. The exact words were "Besides, it's much easier to add a pause (and sell the system as turn-based to magazines like Bio did with KOTOR) than a fully implemented turn-based mode."

Agreed, but in KOTOR's case, I can't imagine it's all that hard to implement a "pause after everybody's done something, roll initiative, add "do-nothing" to each character's action queue according to initiative, and then start" system, either.

Edit: If your point is "expecting this (or any kind of system that allows for TB or TB-like gameplay) to happen from Beth is wide-eyed pink-goggled hippie optimism", then I'd have to agree.

Also, even if someone sends me the NWN source code, I'm not going to code in turn-based combat, contrary to what I just said. Don't let that discourage anyone from sending me the NWN source code, though.

 

[Naked Ninja]

If you never claimed it was hard, why bother arguing with me? For a company like Bethesda, able to put programmers on it full time, working on an engine they already know, it is a trivial task. If it took a week to get the basic framework up, I'd be surprised.

But you must think I'm stupid, that I would waste my time and effort downloading an engine, figuring it out, and then modifying it, just to prove a point to some guy on the internet? Hmmm, weighing it up...work day job, come home, don't work on my own RPG, instead do that shit, just because you challenged me to "prove it" and I'm full of macho pride and don't want to look like I'm bluffing in front of the other forum members? What the fuck does that get me, besides wasted time? No, I think not. If you want proof, do some research into game engines, try sites like GameDev.net or flipcode, if they are still going. I found them helpful when I started.