DaC throws down the gauntlet

[Brother None]

Sparking some discussion, King of Creation asked a question on DaC, challenging Fallout criticasters to back up some blank statements:<blockquote>Why, please tell me, is turnbased combat an unrealistic approach in the market? The Fallout series was a commercial success, and Tactics held records for pre-order. Some of the most successful RPG and RPG-esque games in history have had turnbased combat, most notably the Final Fantasy series. You cannot tell me that Final Fantasy was not a commercial success.

So to anyone reading this, I pose this challenge: Prove to me that turn-based combat, or even any other aspect of Fallout gameplay, is not marketable.

I don't want to see baseless claims like this one by aries100. If I (and the rest of the FO community) am to be convinced that turnbased combat is unreasonable, then I need a very convincing argument.

I also encourage any developers that read this, whether from Bethesda or from another company, to add some input to this as well.</blockquote>Following that, we have changed our frontpage poll to a new question: do you think a turnbased Fallout could be a market success?

Our last poll, "What form of post-apocalyptic media is your favorite?" had Video Games run away with most of the votes (3728), film getting (712) votes and the rest trailing: Animation (145), Comics (277), P&P Games (226), Music (132), Graphic Art (280) and Literature (328).

 

[Montez]

I'm guessing that most responses are going to be the same as we always see, but I'd be interested to see any developer's comments on it or to see anyone post some actual verifiable facts instead of the usual never ending "my opinion vs. your opinion" debates.

 

[The Vault Dweller]

Some of the most successful RPG and RPG-esque games in history have had turnbased combat, most notably the Final Fantasy series. You cannot tell me that Final Fantasy was not a commercial success.

I never really noted it (morel like took it for granted), but when people think "console RPG series" the first thing to come to mind is "Final Fantasy" which is indeed turn based...

Thats a perfect point in that it indeed sells so well yet uses something "outdated".

I honestly hope some developers respond. I think not though since they'd have trouble arguing now.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

 

[Brother None]

I honestly hope some developers respond.

Don't count on it. The gauntlet is thrown in the wrong direction by KoC anyway. The main problem of a lack of TB games has more to do with publishers and pr-men like Pete than with developers.

But then again, sometimes silence can say more than words anyway.

 

[Mad Max RW]

People always forget Civilization. One of the biggest selling PC games ever (4 is still at the top of the charts) AND it's turnbased. Go figure.

 

[Gnodab03]

The only reason to assume turn based will mean failure (i.e. not selling enough units to justify the price), is if the gameplay does not match the genre. Hence, if Beth is doing fallout ifrom the first person point of view, and the game is along the lines of an FPS (read: oblivion), then no, turn based gameplay in that situation would probrably fail, and fail hard. In most other genre's of games however, I think turn based would work just fine.

I mean seriously, can you even imagine a turn based fps? how would that even work?

 

[globbi]

That's no argument - the combat makes a game FPS (S goes for shooter) Making a turn based combat means that the game is not an FPS and it's logical that the camera view should be prepared for every game aspect, including combat.

 

[Montez]

I mean seriously, can you even imagine a turn based fps? how would that even work?

Take out the "s" in FPS and there are plenty of examples. Wizardry VII and VIII are some semi-modern (i.e., 3D) games that did it, off the top of my head. Turn based combat in a first person view is actually almost as old as PC games themselves - Wizardry, Might & Magic, Bard's Tale, the first two or three Ultima's, to name a few.

 

[Doma]

Heroes of Might And Magic 5
Galactic Civilization 2
Civilization 4
Europa Universalis 3

All, new popular games with Turn Based systems.

 

[PhredBean]

I think it could be an absolute success, but only if the other aspects were done well. Fallout was a success itself, even if only as a sleeper hit, which doesn't quite appease the instant-satisfaction seeking financiers of gaming companies. They want huge bucks, right off the shelves, right. fucking. now.

In either case, it ultimately depends on the complete package of the game, while making it TB is a right step in the right direction towards making a good fallout, it won't do it alone.

However, for the poll's sake, yes, it can sell well.

 

[Bunkermensch]

A turnbased Fallout3 would be sweet indeed!
A pity Bethesda is not able to make some playable Fallout rpg.
Those guys must be stupid as hell, but that fits to the videogame market nowadays.

Btw when will realtime be old, like turnbased games got old as Bethesda kiddies are saying?
Realtime games are sooo old, were is the successor of realtime?(15 years...since dune)
And what comes after that old first person view (after doom, for 15years)?
Im playing this type of games for years now and its getting boring.
So I really do not understand what is so uptodate of a realtime firstperson Fallout3?

 

[Bradylama]

Sorry, Doma, but Europa Universalis 3 isn't turn-based.

None of the EU games or the ones based on the 2D engine have been. They've all been adjustable real-time with pause.

That said, real-time and turn-based are only inherently superior systems depending on the experience being delivered. Oddly enough, an EU that was turn-based would seem a lot less complex, while Silent-Storm real-time would basically be a destructible Diablo clone, with tiny maps. (in Diablo standards)

 

[aries369]

I think it was me that sparked this debate (I'm aries100 at rpgwatch and at DaC) when I made some comment about DaC, the Codex, and this site (ducks flyting rotten tomates...) being in favor of turnbased combat.

I made a comment about how turnbased comment wasn't being marketable in today's competitive market. And I do still stand behind that comment. (ducks another bunch of flying rotten carrots).

I made this point in the forums at rpgwatch.com, based on my observations on this site, the codec and nma.

I agree that Fallout1+2 was extremely succesfull when they were released 10 years ago. In another comment in the forums at DaC, I
clarified my post a little. To sum up what I wrote:

1) Many more games are coming out today than 10 years ago.

2) This requires game devs. to be on their toes, also in terms of using the newest technology i.e. PhysX Engine, improved AI, and the like.

3) 10 years go, Fallout shouldn't compete with say Prey, Halo 2,
Farscape, Farcry, or console games like Touch Detective for Nintendo DS or Shenmue for Xbox andf other games. This means that Fallout, and rpgs, had the market for themselves.

4) 10 years ago, a grown man of thirtyfive (35) who played computergame was viewed by others as a nerd who lacked
social skills. This has changed in the last decade. There are many more people who play computergames today than there were 15 years, 10 years or even 5 years ago.


5) In order to get to these (new) games, game devs/publishers need to make games which appeals to a broader selection of gamers, targeting a broader audience with each release. (sometimes this goes too far, as is clearly the case with Oblivion).
This also means developing games for a wider variety of platforms than just the PC, thus hitting much broader market. (Again, this can be overdone, as is clearly the case, again, with Oblivion).

6) The Codex, DaC, and this site, all seem to agree that was made
Fallout great was the turnbased combat. (or so I've come to understand your comments on this). To me, turnbased combat is OK, but it isn't ev'rything in Fallout.
To me, the exploration, the dialoques, the setting, heavily inspired by the 1950's fear/angst of nuclear war, the quests and the many ways to solve quests, were what made Fallout 1+2 great and memorable, not the turnbased combat. In short, Fallout 1+2 was great, simply because it had a great story and clearly was a very story-driven game in which your cations mattered, and where your actions sometimes could or would influence the outcome of a quest or maybe the game itself.

7)
I, too, am worried about Bethsoft developing Fallout 3 (FO3), not beacuse of the first persin combat used in Fallout, but simply because I do not believe or think that Bethsoft will be able to stray from ther TES formula: The player can do whatever he wants (nearly) anytime he wants it (or she - for that matter Bethsoft's earlier games in the TES universe hasn't proven to me that they are capable of delivering a game, based on story which has focus on story-elements and key quests in the main universe.

7b ) I, too, am worried that F03 will be another one for the console 'kiddies', meaning that FO3 first & foremost will be developed for the Xbox360 (and for MS's money). The interview, Bethsoft's devs. gave to Xbox 360, could be an indication of this.

8 ) Turnbased RPGs haven't proven to be a commercial succes in
recent years. Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor ---
bombed big time as did TOEE. (I think Arcanum had turnbased combat as well). 10 years ago, turn-based combat in an RPG was the only way, technology probably could handle combat.
[I know, I for one, don't have the patience anymore for turn-based combat in rpgs --- duck even more flying rotten vegetables....].

9)
All of the examples of turnbased combat in games, mentioned both here and on the DaC's forums are strategy games, not RPGs.
In a strategy game, turnbased combat is better, since it gives each side time to think about what side A or side B should be turning during their next turn.
I've played (the demo of) Ultima 8, and found the game to be very enjoyable, but first after I had read the rules about 'initiative' and how to get by in turn-based combat.

This brings me to 10)

People today, simply don't have that much time to play games
(anymore). They want a streamlined interface, and a game, they can pick up, pop in their dvd-drive or their xboix 360, and start playing --- without reading too much. [I just sometimes wish they, at least, would read the system requirements for the games....].

As for turnbased rpgs being able to sell in today's competitive market, I have to admit to that I still stand by my original comment for all the reasons given above.

 

[Brother None]

10 years go, Fallout shouldn't compete with say Prey, Halo 2,
Farscape, Farcry, or console games like Touch Detective for Nintendo DS or Shenmue for Xbox andf other games. This means that Fallout, and rpgs, had the market for themselves.

I already pointed out on two seperate sites that this is not a valid argument, because the competition is CREATED if Fallout 3 is a real-time game that throws itself into the same market as Prey or Halo 2. The competition isn't inherently there and is not there for a turnbased trueform RPG

I've now made this argument on THREE sites, and yet you've to adress it once, instead repeating it over three sites while ignoring comments from me and others. Do you know how annoying that is?

 

[Per]

In short, Fallout 1+2 was great, simply because /.../ your actions sometimes could or would influence the outcome of a quest or maybe the game itself.

How will Bethesda ever live up to standards like these?

 

[Sander]

I think it was me that sparked this debate (I'm aries100 at rpgwatch and at DaC)

I highly doubt it, considering the fact that there have been many, many idiots who claim this.

when I made some comment about DaC, the Codex, and this site (ducks flyting rotten tomates...) being in favor of turnbased combat.

I made a comment about how turnbased comment wasn't being marketable in today's competitive market. And I do still stand behind that comment. (ducks another bunch of flying rotten carrots).

I made this point in the forums at rpgwatch.com, based on my observations on this site, the codec and nma.

I agree that Fallout1+2 was extremely succesfull when they were released 10 years ago. In another comment in the forums at DaC, I
clarified my post a little. To sum up what I wrote:

1) Many more games are coming out today than 10 years ago.

So this would mean that a game that finds a niche would have a bigger chance of success than a mainstream common denominator game.
So, you're actually contradicting yourself here.
Nice, buck-o.

2) This requires game devs. to be on their toes, also in terms of using the newest technology i.e. PhysX Engine, improved AI, and the like.

...
Huh? This makes no sense. Developing a turn-based game is *different* from a real-time game, not any harder or more intensive (although it does require a solid tactical AI).
Besides, testing a turn-based combat engine should actually be easier than testing a real-time one due to it being inherently more structured.

3) 10 years go, Fallout shouldn't compete with say Prey, Halo 2,
Farscape, Farcry, or console games like Touch Detective for Nintendo DS or Shenmue for Xbox andf other games. This means that Fallout, and rpgs, had the market for themselves.

Wrong, Fallout was essentially the start of a rekindling of RPGs. Fallout had the RPG market, yes, but all of those games (except *maybe* Shenmue) have jack shit to do with the RPG market, so that's no different.

4) 10 years ago, a grown man of thirtyfive (35) who played computergame was viewed by others as a nerd who lacked
social skills. This has changed in the last decade. There are many more people who play computergames today than there were 15 years, 10 years or even 5 years ago.

And most of those older people grew up with intelligent, tactical games, not 'ooh look at the grafixxxxxxxx' games we have now. Hence the market for an intelligent turn-based game would actually be greater than 10 years ago.

5) In order to get to these (new) games, game devs/publishers need to make games which appeals to a broader selection of gamers, targeting a broader audience with each release. (sometimes this goes too far, as is clearly the case with Oblivion).
This also means developing games for a wider variety of platforms than just the PC, thus hitting much broader market. (Again, this can be overdone, as is clearly the case, again, with Oblivion).

No, bullshit. *Any* product needs to be placed into its appropriate niche. And the 'greatest common denominator' niche is *more* than filled in the gaming industry. Because most companies aim for that niche, there are a lot of games that make very little money. Now, if there'd be games that would actually aim at a niche that isn't filled, they could take that niche and stand to make a lot more money. Simply because there is less competition.

6) The Codex, DaC, and this site, all seem to agree that was made
Fallout great was the turnbased combat. (or so I've come to understand your comments on this). To me, turnbased combat is OK, but it isn't ev'rything in Fallout.

No one here thinks Fallout is just turn-based combat, and if you think they do, then you really can't read.

To me, the exploration, the dialoques, the setting, heavily inspired by the 1950's fear/angst of nuclear war, the quests and the many ways to solve quests, were what made Fallout 1+2 great and memorable, not the turnbased combat. In short, Fallout 1+2 was great, simply because it had a great story and clearly was a very story-driven game in which your cations mattered, and where your actions sometimes could or would influence the outcome of a quest or maybe the game itself.

The turn-based combat, however, was an essential part of the game. Simply because everything tied together. It fit the PnP feel, the SPECIAL system was built around it, etc. etc. etc.

7)
I, too, am worried about Bethsoft developing Fallout 3 (FO3), not beacuse of the first persin combat used in Fallout, but simply because I do not believe or think that Bethsoft will be able to stray from ther TES formula: The player can do whatever he wants (nearly) anytime he wants it (or she - for that matter Bethsoft's earlier games in the TES universe hasn't proven to me that they are capable of delivering a game, based on story which has focus on story-elements and key quests in the main universe.

....
That's not Oblivions biggest pitfall, its biggest pitfall is that you can do anything, at any time *and that it doesn't matter what you do, let alone when*.

7b ) I, too, am worried that F03 will be another one for the console 'kiddies', meaning that FO3 first & foremost will be developed for the Xbox360 (and for MS's money). The interview, Bethsoft's devs. gave to Xbox 360, could be an indication of this.

8 ) Turnbased RPGs haven't proven to be a commercial succes in
recent years. Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor ---

Eh..that game sucked. Heavily.

bombed big time as did TOEE. (I think Arcanum had turnbased combat as well).

Bullshit. ToEE made Troika a decent profit, as did Arcanum. Mainly because ToEE didn't attempt to compete with the 'lowest-common-denominator' games, but decided to settle on its own niche.
Unfortunately, the game was rather buggy and there were several other things standing in the way of massive success. However, to say it bombed is ridiculously uninformed.

10 years ago, turn-based combat in an RPG was the only way, technology probably could handle combat.

Doom. Quake. Diablo.
Idiot.
The reason they chose turn-based combat was not some technology restriction, but because it was what was needed for the design: tactical combat, to fit the PnP feel (not to mention GURPS (and later SPECIAL)).

[I know, I for one, don't have the patience anymore for turn-based combat in rpgs --- duck even more flying rotten vegetables....].

Then you're perfect for Bethsoft.

9)
All of the examples of turnbased combat in games, mentioned both here and on the DaC's forums are strategy games, not RPGs.

Unless one actually dares go back further than 4 years, then there are suddenly a lot of turn-based RPGs.

In a strategy game, turnbased combat is better, since it gives each side time to think about what side A or side B should be turning during their next turn.

Right, and why wouldn't intelligent combat fit in an RPG? Please explain that to me, because I really don't get that, especially since RPGs aren't (supposed to be) made for the stupid.

I've played (the demo of) Ultima 8, and found the game to be very enjoyable, but first after I had read the rules about 'initiative' and how to get by in turn-based combat.

You take Ultima 8 as an example of a good RPG?
Ahahahahahaha!

This brings me to 10)

People today, simply don't have that much time to play games
(anymore). They want a streamlined interface, and a game, they can pick up, pop in their dvd-drive or their xboix 360, and start playing --- without reading too much. [I just sometimes wish they, at least, would read the system requirements for the games....].

NO, the lowest common demoninator wants that, or at least 'marketing' thinks they want it. People have just as much time to play games now as they did 10 years ago.
Fuck.

[quote="aries"}
As for turnbased rpgs being able to sell in today's competitive market, I have to admit to that I still stand by my original comment for all the reasons given above.

[/quote]
Half of those reasons actually contradict your statement and the other half is inherently bullshit.

 

[aries369]

If I wanted to play a turnbased game, I would play chess. This is a very intelligent game, in which you actually have to think ahead and plan both tactically and strategically - for the future.

In a turnbased game, be it an rpg or otherwise, you'd need to do the same.
This combat appeals to a special types of gamers which like being able to do this in
a game: Gmaers who are able to think
ahead and to pre-view (in their heads) the s
situations in the game.

If A moves his Bishop there, I need to move peasant there, and then A does this, so I does that. This is basically tactical combat where each of your characters in an rpg is like the pieces on the chessboard.

This appeals, in my mind, to hardcore rpg players. And this combat is NOT for everyone.

Please note that I'm not as such against turn-based combat, but I do think that any dev. these days who releases a game with
turn-based combat needs to realize that the publisher & dev. house probably will not sell more than maybe a 100-200,000 copies pr. year. (that's just an estimate). This is OK; if you don't want to sell anymore than this.

However, as I've pointed out in the post over at DaC, the costs of making computergames, e.g. rpgs, have risen tremendously over the last decade.

It is therefore true, that there might be a niche market for a FO3 or an rpg which had turnbased combat. However, the niche would probably consist of NMA, CODEX, and DaC members. Or the 400,000-500,000 people who bought PLanescape Torment...

If a game then decides to have turnbased combat, they'd better start expecting sales in the 100,000's, not the millions.

Again, this is OK, if this is the gaming segment, the game wants.

 

[Brother None]

Please don't double post. Please start actually replying to people. Please start actually making points.

The lack of ability of TB games to be a big hit is the question, it's not proven. You have not proven it, yet you pretend it's golden truth.

Not going to debate with you like this.

 

[aries369]

@ kharn

Sorry, I haven't adressed your posts, but here it goes, then:

As for this:

"...the competition is CREATED if Fallout 3 is a real-time game that throws itself into the same market as Prey or Halo 2. The competition isn't inherently there and is not there for a turnbased trueform RPG..."

I want to point out that Oblivion and Prey today already competes for the same gamers.
When I or anyone else are standing in the game shop, deciding what to buy, and I look at Oblivion and Prey, which one do I choose??

Prey is an FPS with a good story, while Oblivion is an RPG (sort of ) which combat is similar to a an FPS (sort of).

I don't understand this obsession with turn-based combat ?? A real time combat like say Morrowinds or the kind of phase or round-based combat in BG1 could do its purpose well.

From my point of view --- Oblivion and FO3 already competes with games like Prey, Farscape and Halo 2.

If you need want a turnbased rpg, then I would suggest, you make it yourself
(sorry, if you have done this already...)

As a final note, I didn't post Ultima 8 as an example of a good rpg, but as an example of
how much it takes to get into understanding how turnbased combat works. To the average Joe, this simply takes way too much time...

PS:
DaC mentions my post over at the rpgwatchforums.com about this ---
as the reason to debate this. (yet again).

 

[Brother None]

When I or anyone else are standing in the game shop, deciding what to buy, and I look at Oblivion and Prey, which one do I choose??

(...)

I don't understand this obsession with turn-based combat ?? A real time combat like say Morrowinds or the kind of phase or round-based combat in BG1 could do its purpose well.

From my point of view --- Oblivion and FO3 already competes with games like Prey, Farscape and Halo 2.

Frith give me patience, again.

That is exactly my points. What the hell is wrong with you? I make an argument, you repeat it and...act as if somehow it proves your point.

Yes, Oblivion competes with Prey because that's the genre Oblivion has thrown itself into by being a real-time semi-RPG. That's a choice. Fallout 3 does not compete with Prey, Farscape and Halo 2 if it does NOT make the choice to be a real-time semi-RPG.

Seriously, that's not very hard to understand.