3D for Fallout 3!

"Turn Based Combat is almost entirely incompatible with turn based combat"

eh?

(mistype? or something i'm not understanding here? ;) )

also, why would you have to alter turn based combat with first person? (not that I am fond of the FP view for Fallout ultimately, but I don't see why the combat would have to change)
 
Sander said:
Simply put, Turn Based Combat is almost entirely incompatible with turn based combat..
Click to expand...

:P :shock:

Probably...thats all i can say. If it is so forget about first person.

I think Bethesda will have more time with the game especially when Oblivion (probably) blows the roof.

Im thinking atleast three years of production.

May i state that my post was not about first person view? I just mentioned it as a possibly addon.

What i care more about i have explained.,
 
Ehe, incompatible with first person combat. Whoopsie.

Rev. Layle:
Think about, how would you go about devising an interface that would actually work comfortably in first person view, while still not changing the way combat is handled in Fallout?
You'd use the mouse to move your view....but then you can't use that to designate where you're going in turn based combat.
But if you use the arrows to do that, that wouldn't work well either, since you'll have many a time when you move further than you actually wanted to, spending too many action points.
There are a lot more of these problems as well.
 
Well, I'm sure a cursor/pointer mode can be made that you can point to a place on the ground and some visual indication on how many APs it would take to walk there, first person or not. A user interface mechanism can be made in infinite ways.
 
Rev. Layle said:
also, why would you have to alter turn based combat with first person? (not that I am fond of the FP view for Fallout ultimately, but I don't see why the combat would have to change)
Click to expand...


Yes, it seems to me it would depend on what kind of engine they will build...

But anyways i wanted more to talk about other things that we would get with better than good 3D graphics, such as ....rain, dust storms....lighting and so on.

Like really 3D buildings and ruined remains of scyscrapers in L.A for example...or some other city.... New York anybody? Running around demolished statue of Liberty?
A little cliche i know but if it would be something just added not a main part of story it would be nice.
 
Well, of course good graphics is ALWAYS a plus, in whatever form. Just better couple that with Fallout-like play.

But if the graphics are focused on and not the gameplay (relatively speaking), I will feel cheated. When I have to chose between the two, I will always choose gameplay. Having both would always be nice, tho :)
 
Layle - I agree.


All i have read from Bethesda devs says they will make it so.

Guys bought it because they love it, they certainly didn't do it because they think it will bring them a tons of money, although it still might.

They have the love, and thats why im hopefull.

And they have the means and the money.

And they are not in the position like Obsidian was , they don't have to rush it.

Sander.
I agree that turn based combat would look odd to say the least, in First person, and i certainly would not play it that way.

Maybe you could have first person only when you are not in combat...? For exploring and so on...
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Knights of the Old Republic do turn based combar in 3D rather well?

All you'd have to do is make it first person but implement the combat the way they do.

Though I can't say I'm enthusiastic about the idea of first person in Fallout...
 
KOTOR was completely turn based and did do it well. A way different set of rules than SPECIAL, but that is a technicality

And for those who say "KOTOR was real-time with pause". Yeah, it appeared that way, but everything happened in d20 combat rounds, and you can set the "pause" to happen after every round to make it completely turnbased with orders issues on every turn.
 
Lazarus Plus said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Knights of the Old Republic do turn based combar in 3D rather well?

All you'd have to do is make it first person but implement the combat the way they do.

Though I can't say I'm enthusiastic about the idea of first person in Fallout...
Click to expand...
Actually, all it did well was implement a semi-turnbased (see below for explanation) in more or less the same way it could be implemented in an isometric game. Remember, it never incorporated first person view. And I wasn't talking aobut 3D in general, but really specifically about first person view.

Rev. Layle said:
KOTOR was completely turn based and did do it well. A way different set of rules than SPECIAL, but that is a technicality

And for those who say "KOTOR was real-time with pause". Yeah, it appeared that way, but everything happened in d20 combat rounds, and you can set the "pause" to happen after every round to make it completely turnbased with orders issues on every turn.
Click to expand...
Oh god, not this again. By this reasoning the 'real-time with pause'-games out there weren't either because, gasp, they did everything in rounds as well.
And guess what, so do most games, although their turn-basedness differs, since a computer is by definition a digital thing that cannot, in any way, work with anything analog. Most games let all the characters do their thing, but never really simultaneously, because it's almost impossible to do that.

Back to KoTOR, though: if I remember correctly, it implemented a form of D20 rules to govern it's combat. Supposedly this was turn-based...but it actually wasn't. It uses turns to govern combat, but these turns happen simultaneously for both the player and any PC character out there. It isn't 1 character, then the next, then the next etc. like it is in an actual turn-based game, it just uses an arbitary amount of time to segment its actions.
Now, this is very different from a real turn-based combat where you have a lot of time to think about your actions, but the other characters don't actually do anything during your actions.
And here's the kicker: that makes the other characters a lot more intelligent. The PC doesn't have to think about a dynamic situation, but only about a static situation that won't change at all until its done with all of its actions. This makes the AI a lot easier to write, and can potentially make it much more powerful.
It also gives the game a lot more strategy. Try to compare the 'strategy' involved in playing any of the real-time with pause games, when compared to Fallout. Methinks you'll find that you were being more strategic about Fallout, although this feeling may be offset by the fact that you only control one character in Fallout.
 
Yes, you are right - in KOTOR a turn ended, you issue the commands, then all the action happened at once (sorta, see below ;) ). Once that was done, the next turn starts.

However, none of these turns were really simultaneous. There was still initiative and whoever had the best intiative still had their action happen first or their attack happen first. The difference: You couldn't say what you wanted to do when it was THAT PCs turn; instead, you had to issue all the orders at the beginning of the round (and I have played many PnP games that were run that way also, admiteddly not in a d20 style game, then again the last time I played anything remotely d20 was 2nd edition AD&D, Gamma World (4th edition), and Buck Rogers).

So, KOTOR IS *definately* turn based, just not the traditional give orders on each player's turn instead of all orders at the beginning of the turn.

And yes you CAN have a lot of time to think about your actions, just turn on the "pause after every turn" option. While i kept it in continous mode for no-brainer combats, i would have it pause every turn in more difficult/critical combats so I can manage everyone's actions before each turn started.

-----------------------------------

And really you can't compare this to Fallout except to say "Yeah, they are both turn-based.... just very DIFFERENT turn based".

Fallout didn't require a lot of strategy in combat. The only strategies you needed (well, at least that I used) was:
* Concentrate attack on one enemy at a time. If you just wound them all, they can all still attack, so might as well take one down ASAP, so only 4 are attacking you now (then rinse, then repeat ;) ). Of course criticals can cripple certain enemy attack, however. But you can't rely on anything but the PC do deliver those kind of attacks.
* Exploit Action Points and the terrain (like at the Sierra Army Depot and the gun turret thingys). This was because of the way the turn-based system was handled in SPECIAL (and makes combat REALLY REALLY easy, at least to me, once you learn the little tricks).
 
why bother caring about KOTOR? Fallout3 can never use it's system anyway, because it's incompatabitabital with SPECIAL, and Fallout NEEDS SPECIAL, unaltered and untouched(ok some bugs in it may be fixed)
 
Rev. Layle said:
Ok, so it's phase-based... if that is the true term for it.
Click to expand...
It's just a name. But you don't seem convinced that the way it works really is fundamentally different from turn-based systems like Fallout's. Or am I wrong?

Rev. Layle said:
Fallout didn't require a lot of strategy in combat. The only strategies you needed (well, at least that I used) was:
* Concentrate attack on one enemy at a time. If you just wound them all, they can all still attack, so might as well take one down ASAP, so only 4 are attacking you now (then rinse, then repeat ;) ). Of course criticals can cripple certain enemy attack, however. But you can't rely on anything but the PC do deliver those kind of attacks.
* Exploit Action Points and the terrain (like at the Sierra Army Depot and the gun turret thingys). This was because of the way the turn-based system was handled in SPECIAL (and makes combat REALLY REALLY easy, at least to me, once you learn the little tricks).
Click to expand...
True, Fallout didn't require much strategy, but it did require quite a bit more than real-time or pause games. This is largely due to the use of action points, forcing you to make decisions on what to do with your action points.
And this does require some though, not in the late game, since you're much too strong then anyway, but much more in the early game, and I found this effect to be greatest in Fallout 1. At least it is if you attempt to have your pals survive as well.
 
What if they decide that the first person view is the best amongst the best views? :shock:

Even if the game kicked ass or even poped out my disc drive to lick my ass I would be disappointed. It wouldn't be the Fallout that I have died to play for so long..
 
Im sure they wont. It would have no sense and it would change the game so much that it would not be fallout anymore.
And they said already that they know and love fallout as it is and will try to make it look and feel like Fallout.

So...i guess everybody would agree that its a NO for first person combat.

A no brainer , really.

Maybe we should talk more how to improve whats good in the game itself.


In terms of graphics ... as that was what this thread was meant to be about.


Im guessing that we will get 3D fallout with isometric view and possibility of camera zooming and maybe even panning to whatever you like. But default view would be just like in the old ones.

I think everybody would agree with that compromise.

Especially since it is impossible to get Fallout 3 looking exactly like previous two.


And i would not want it that way...it would be like getting expansion ...and i realy want 3.... better, bigger.
 
Sander said:
It's just a name. But you don't seem convinced that the way it works really is fundamentally different from turn-based systems like Fallout's. Or am I wrong?
Click to expand...

Oh no, you are not wrong... they are different systems altogether: one is d20; the other SPECIAL. one uses individual turns to issue a command for each character (i.e. SPECIAL, even thou you only ever issue commands for one character, but you dont have to plan anything BEFORE anyone moves). The other takes all commands then executes all commands in a single round. I see that difference.

In fact, I prefer the phase-based utimately over the turn-based and definately over real-time.

I guess, until now, i didn't think it was a major seapration point. I was simply thinking real-time or NOT real-time (therfore, as i think, turn-based).

And how this ties into the topic is that KOTOR was not real-time (phase-based) and 3d, and did it well.


(and I still think the exact same combat system in FO1 and 2 can be done in 1st person, not that I would, but it can be done without changes even... display is the only thing altered).
 
Rev. Layle said:
(and I still think the exact same combat system in FO1 and 2 can be done in 1st person, not that I would, but it can be done without changes even... display is the only thing altered).
Click to expand...
The point isn't that it can't be done, it's that it won't work well at all. There are various interface decisions that need to be made, including , for instance, how to aim a gun (gee, I'm aiming at the head, but I missed. The crosshair's right on the guy?), or how to move properly without making the interface at least i part counter-intuitive.
 
Having problems with crosshairs on the right guy? Tool Tips and Character Highlight/Outlines solve that problem. Someone BEHIND someone else? You prolly have no business shooting at the in the first place (because of obstructed view), But just in case you try, if the cross-hairs are on two or more potential targets, show a pop-up selection to choose between the multiple targets. As you hover those over each selection in a multiple-possible-target choice pop-up, the same highlighting/outlining occurs to further clarify.

It can be done, and not as counter-intuitive as one might think. ANY INTERFACE can be made to work smoothly as long as it is thought out. Impossible? It is never impossible, just no-one really tried it well enough yet. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top