DaC throws down the gauntlet

[aries369]

Ok, then.

Say Bethsof decided to make FO3 a game with
turnbased combat ?? And the game is a big hit.

It is then because of the turnbased combat only ??

Or could it be that is maybe had something to do with the settings in the game, the quests, the story or something like that ??

Anyway, ppl seem to want to buy shooters,
fps-games etc., not rpgs, with or without turn-based combat. In order to survive in this market, you can go to ways: You can either be inspired by the FPS games, and take the best from these games, and put them into RPGs (like Bethsoft & probably Bioware do) or
you can go cater to a minority, to a very small niche market, like the NMA, the Codex, and the DaC's fans who probably will buy a turnbased rpg game. And then cater to this particular niche market.

Even them, if this little (or big) game developing house, tried to get funding for
its game from a publisher, such as say Microsoft or another publishing house, and then told the publisher(s) they wanted a turn-based game, MS or another publisher, would probably say now, simply because of the way other turn-based rpg have sold in the past.


PS:
If I doubleposted, I'm sorry .
But then it has something to do with the fact that I didn't think that my post went through.

 

[Sander]

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.

What about all of the people who bought Fallout *and continue to buy Fallout* to this day. Fallout has been steadily selling each year since its release. The niche obviously exists, and it isn't as small as you make it out to be. A game would not make that much money in the mainstream segment unless it has immense hype surrounding it, which is what happened with Oblivion. Most games make tremendous losses, due to their being aimed at the completely overcrowded market. Fallout 3 could actually break free from this, tap a safe market and make a killing there.

Furthermore, creating a turn-based game doesn't mean you suddenly lose the entire market, it means you lose the console kiddies who wouldn't be interested in a deep RPG anyway.

As anyone with a hint of marketing knowledge can tell you: look for your niche, don't try to appeal to a filled niche unless you have a clearly superior product (or vastly cheaper one).

@ kharn

Sorry, I haven't adressed your posts,

Okay, now actually adress mine.
'Cause, you know, you haven't.

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).

Yes, and Fallout is neither of those. Hence: different niche.

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.

....
Did you even read a single post here (or at DaC or the Codex)?
SPECIAL was built around the idea of a turn-based combat system, it is needed for the PnP design of Fallout, it is an essential part of Fallout. A real-time system or real-time with pause system would fuck up both the SPECIAl system and the tactical combat, not to mention the PnP feel.

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

Yes, Fallout 3 would compete with Prey, Farscape and Halo 2 *if it were a lowest-common-denominator game*. However, a turn-based game would *not* be this and hence *not* compete with them. It would fill a different niche, attract different people, be a different game, and hence not compete with those games.
Gah.

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...

Bullshit. It isn't any harder than the real-time with pause bullshit, or learning the commands of an FPS.

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

At most the final drop (goddamn you English, why don't you have the difference between 'reden' and 'aanleiding').


EDIT:

Ok, then.

Say Bethsof decided to make FO3 a game with
turnbased combat ?? And the game is a big hit.

It is then because of the turnbased combat only ??

Do you not read anything anyone says?

Or could it be that is maybe had something to do with the settings in the game, the quests, the story or something like that ??

So if people buy the game just for that, then why would it sell less if you put in a turn-based engine?
Make a consistent argument, pal. Either the combat system influences sales, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

Anyway, {It's "people". You can write legibly. Don't bother crying about it.} seem to want to buy shooters, fps-games etc.,

No, the lowest common denominator wants to buy that. As we've explained over and over again, that's a *filled niche*.

fps-games etc., not rpgs, with or without turn-based combat.

Except that there are a lot of people who want those games, instead of first-person shooters. However, they're not getting any games like that whatsoever, so they're just not buying any of those FPS games.
How else do you think Troika continued to make a profit until their end (when they couldn't find a publisher).

Also, how the hell do you think games like KoTOR get game of the year awards if people aren't interested in something that at least resembles an RPG?

In order to survive in this market, you can go to ways: You can either be inspired by the FPS games, and take the best from these games, and put them into RPGs (like Bethsoft & probably Bioware do)

And what's your proof for this? Troika survived very well, they stopped only because they couldn't find a publisher, not because they hadn't made a profit.

or
you can go cater to a minority, to a very small niche market, like the NMA, the Codex, and the DaC's fans who probably will buy a turnbased rpg game. And then cater to this particular niche market.

Actually, that would be *more profitable* since you don't need to compete with a dozen other titles. You automatically *have that market*. In other words: guaranteed sales.

Even them, if this little (or big) game developing house, tried to get funding for
its game from a publisher, such as say Microsoft or another publishing house, and then told the publisher(s) they wanted a turn-based game, MS or another publisher, would probably say now, simply because of the way other turn-based rpg have sold in the past.

No, they'd say no because the gaming industry has a shit-for-brains economical state at the moment. *Everybody* goes for the huge market. Turn-based games don't, but they can still make a very good profit. However, publishers don't want that and currently just churn out thousands of mainstream games that don't sell, and a few huge games to offset the losses of the thousands of games that don't sell. It's retarded.

 

[Brother None]

Say Bethsof decided to make FO3 a game with
turnbased combat ?? And the game is a big hit.

It is then because of the turnbased combat only ??

Or could it be that is maybe had something to do with the settings in the game, the quests, the story or something like that ??

*sighs*

Yes. The entire debate is about the fact that some people argue a game *can't* be a hit with TB combat. We're supporting the fact that it can still be a hit with TB combat, that TB isn't some big turn-off that turns a game into a flop.

I'm glad you finally figured that. Jeez.

 

[aries369]

First, let me say that I'm not English, I'm Danish... . (I'm guessing you're Dutch or
German ??). In Danish we have 'anledning til'
or 'tale om' (reden?).

I agree that if you have found your niche, say turn-based game, then you should stay there
(probably). The loyal fans will always be there, and will probably always buy your game(s).

If, however, you want to your game to be a commercial succes, then you need to take your game into the mainstream market. If you don't want your game to be a commercial succes, then you just should keep on doing what you're doing --- making turnbased rpg games.

As for Oblivion:
Oblivion made its selling, imo, primarily because of Morrowind's succes, since ppl
liked Morrowind, they bought Oblivion,
many of them thinking, they were buying Morrowind 2.

As for the console kiddies:
Even the ppl who play xbox 360 games,
wants good games, and on the TES forum 13-17 year old kids actually complains about how they feel Oblvion is 'dumbed down'.

As for SPECIAL:
I didn't know that this system was designed for turnbased combat. However, to me, turnbased combat isn't what made Fallout great, nor the SPECIAL system, nor do I mind not getting the PnP feel when playing Fallout 1+2 and Fallout 3.

Actaully, the post about getting the PnP feel, when playing Fallout (3) on the computer,
sums this whole debate up, I thing. Most of the Dac, the Codex, and this site, are clearly, in my mind, looking for a reason to play Fallout as PnP game, on the computer.

However, I'm not.

I have posted my worries about Bethsoft developing Fallout 3, and I still stand by these worries, concerned that FO3 just will be like Oblivion, but with guns.

 

[Brother None]

If, however, you want to your game to be a commercial succes, then you need to take your game into the mainstream market. If you don't want your game to be a commercial succes, then you just should keep on doing what you're doing --- making turnbased rpg games.

3rd time now: prove it. Prove that a turnbased RPG game can not be a commercial success.

I'm waiting.

 

[Sander]

First, let me say that I'm not English, I'm Danish... . (I'm guessing you're Dutch or
German ??). In Danish we have 'anledning til'
or 'tale om' (reden?).

There's the location field in my profile. You know, the one that says 'The Netherlands'.

I agree that if you have found your niche, say turn-based game, then you should stay there
(probably). The loyal fans will always be there, and will probably always buy your game(s).

If, however, you want to your game to be a commercial succes, then you need to take your game into the mainstream market. If you don't want your game to be a commercial succes, then you just should keep on doing what you're doing --- making turnbased rpg games.

...
What the fuck? Do you even read what's being posted here?
Okay, here goes again: *the mainstream market is a very crowded market*. Out of all of the thousands of games aimed at the mainstream market each year *only a handful turn a profit*. Hence you have much more chance of success if you *look for your niche*.

Try.understanding.that. Repeating your own argument doesn't make it any more true, and you haven't given any argument whatsoever, you've only repeated your own statement.

As for Oblivion:
Oblivion made its selling, imo, primarily because of Morrowind's succes, since {It's "people". You can write legibly. Don't bother crying about it.}
liked Morrowind, they bought Oblivion,
many of them thinking, they were buying Morrowind 2.

It made so much money because of a hype machine, not because of its merits.

As for the console kiddies:
Even the {It's "people". You can write legibly. Don't bother crying about it.} who play xbox 360 games,
wants good games, and on the TES forum 13-17 year old kids actually complains about how they feel Oblvion is 'dumbed down'.

What a 'good game' is is perceived very differently by us and most people who own an X-Box.

As for SPECIAL:
I didn't know that this system was designed for turnbased combat.

...
This is retarded beyond...well...anything.

However, to me, turnbased combat isn't what made Fallout great, nor the SPECIAL system, nor do I mind not getting the PnP feel when playing Fallout 1+2 and Fallout 3.

...
What the hell?

Actaully, the post about getting the PnP feel, when playing Fallout (3) on the computer,
sums this whole debate up, I thing. Most of the Dac, the Codex, and this site, are clearly, in my mind, looking for a reason to play Fallout as PnP game, on the computer.

That's because it was *designed as a computer version of a PnP game*. That's its entire design, and that was also its niche. *Everything* about its design echoed that.

 

[aries369]

I really wish someone would make a turn-based rpg and publish it as indie publisher.

Then we truly would see if an rpg with turnbased combat could be a big hit or not...

And by a big HIT, I mean selling over
1,000,000 copies or maybe 2 mill. copies,
not just 100,000 or 200,000 copies, or
50,000 copies of the game.

"So if people buy the game just for that, then why would it sell less if you put in a turn-based engine? Make a consistent argument, pal. Either the combat system influences sales, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways. "
(sander --- qoute --- that being the quests etc).

I don't think you can make this clear distinction as the combat experience is part of the game as is the quests, exploration the other things, I mentioned.

The reason, at least to me, as why a game with turnbased combat would sell less than say Diablo, Oblivion or Morrowind, or KOTOR
would or have done is this: Turnbased combat simply forces you to wait too long until you can do anything again in your turn. Every character has to wait their turn before they are able shoot, to cast spell or to use potions,
some actions actually takes up two turns.

To most people of today, this system is very tiresome and tedious, and slow, although I agree that strategically and tactically, turnbased combat is (much) better than say
realtime or roundbased combat.

 

[Brother None]

I really wish someone would make a turn-based rpg and publish it as indie publisher.

Then we truly would see if an rpg with turnbased combat could be a big hit or not...

Indie? No we wouldn't, because indie titles don't get the hype or coverage of big titles. So false comparison.

And by a big HIT, I mean selling over
1,000,000 copies or maybe 2 mill. copies,
not just 100,000 or 200,000 copies, or
50,000 copies of the game.

Do you understand the difference between big hit and commercial success?

 

[aries369]

If, however, you want to your game to be a commercial succes, then you need to take your game into the mainstream market. If you don't want your game to be a commercial succes, then you just should keep on doing what you're doing --- making turnbased rpg games.

3rd time now: prove it. Prove that a turnbased RPG game can not be a commercial success.

I'm waiting.

I'm sorry --- I can't.

The only thing I can do is to disprove this....

as statement or hypothesis or theory (in scientific terms) only can be DISproven. (as pr. mr. Karl Popper's statements on science).

The only way of doing this, is to make a turnbased rpg game.
Sadly --- I do not have the correct qualifications to do that.

 

[Brother None]

As much as I love Popper, that's a bit out of context here.

If we ask you to "prove something" as a viable business model, you'll have to use the tools available to you, as this is not an exacty science.

To do that you're either going to have to view market potential, which might be a bit too much for any of us to do since that is really complex, or market history.

How does market history show turnbased games tend to flop? Answer: it doesn't.

 

[aries369]

I'm sorry --- but I really didn't know that SPECIAL was intended to be used with the
turnbased setting in FO1+FO2.

The SPECIAL system, to me at least, is a way the fallout games handled the abilities and stats in the game while the turnbased combat system was used to handle the combat sequences in the games.

To me, at least, neither the turnbased combat system nor the SPECIAL system is a *sacred* point for me in FO3.

I care much more more for a deep, riveting main story, challenging side quests, good and well-written character dialoque, as well as very well done character interactions as well as the ability to explore a vast (desert) world.

And that's why I'm concerned that Bethsoft has gotten the license...not because of Bethsoft's going away from the turnbased combat or the SPECIAL system. (ducks 1,000 pounds of rotten eggs, tomatoes, carrots and other vegetables...)

 

[Brother None]

Well, notice the key words there. "to me"

To you that is so. I partially agree with you. For me the combat system is not the first thing of importance to Fallout. It's important, just not the most important thing.

The thing is, I'm well aware that this is my opinion, not everyone's opinion. Every has a different experience with Fallout and enjoys different parts. This, together with the fact that many elements of Fallout are *inherently* connected (TB-combat, isometric view and SPECIAL are all part of one decision, it's almost impossible to remove one and keep the others intact), means you have to be careful with which elements you discount and not.

But that's not what this thread is about.

 

[aries369]

I'm sorry --- but market history does support
the statement that 'turnbased combat doesn't sell, at least in rpgs'.

Let me re-iterate:
Arcanum, Pool of Radiance, and TOOE failed miserably. Why did they fail ?

The market (meaning the publishers) thought it was because of the turnbased combat. As long as the publishers still think that, no rpg
will be released with turn-based combat.

That said, I actually agree with all the thinhg which have been said as for why Troika didn't make it.

This just doesn't cut it --- with the publishers.
If they think that Troika's fall was due to the turnbased combat in TOEE, then they will be extremely reluctant to try this again.

I'm sorry --- but that's the way the market
operates. sadly --- but true.

 

[Claw]

I know I post this at the risk of repeating what others said, but I couldn't resist the urge to respond to some of these points immediately.

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.

So.. they don't have to be good, they just need some gimmick you can hype the shit out of?

3) 10 years go, Fallout shouldn't compete with say Prey, Halo 2,
Farscape, Farcry, (etc.)

Neither should it now.

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.

Bullshit. Fallout is what is everything in Fallout. Every attempt to reduce Fallout to a small selection of specific features that "make up" Fallout is idiotic.
Every deviation of the original makes a new game "less" like that original. This could be for the better or worse, but it definitely is different.

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

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Merely stating your opinion doesn't offer any kind of insight. Maybe I thought combat in Fallout was the shit.

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).

Hey, good way to prove your point: By simply ignoring all successful turnbased RPGs in recent years, you prove that they don't exist.

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

Like in Ultima Underworld? Oh wait, that's like totally different because it was first person. A Moron's Tale.

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.

Ultima 8 had turn-based combat?

 

[Sander]

I don't think you can make this clear distinction as the combat experience is part of the game as is the quests, exploration the other things, I mentioned.

The reason, at least to me, as why a game with turnbased combat would sell less than say Diablo, Oblivion or Morrowind, or KOTOR
would or have done is this: Turnbased combat simply forces you to wait too long until you can do anything again in your turn. Every character has to wait their turn before they are able shoot, to cast spell or to use potions,
some actions actually takes up two turns.

Not if you do it correctly.
Anyway, you're contradicting yourself yet again.
You first claim that the combat system is only a small part of it, and then claim that it is a very big influence on sales.
Which is bullshit. Diablo was a huge seller, just as Oblivion (not Morrowind as much, though), because of the hype and the addictive mechanics. It had little to do with whether or not it was turn-based or real-time, but with different *principles* of game design. Turn-based wouldn't have fit with Oblivion and Morrowind at all, but it did fit very with Fallout.
People aren't any dumber or less tolerant of turn-based games than 10 years ago, they just haven't been made as much.

To most people of today, this system is very tiresome and tedious, and slow, although I agree that strategically and tactically, turnbased combat is (much) better than say
realtime or roundbased combat.

No, it really isn't. This is only a dumb perception of the lowest common denominator, not of actual fact. Most people play card games or chess or really any board game, and those are all inherently turn-based. It's something publishers think is so, because they think that quick action and quick rewards make for a good game. But they don't. And this is true for a lot of mediums as well.

 

[Darkkender]

I would like to make a Point about KOTOR and NWN for that matter. While not TB in the sense that Fallout is these games are a clear evolution of TB games that work. Which by the way is the same target audience that your fallout games target. Not the PREY and Halo 2 FPS market.

Now the hard core fallout community will argue this point with me likely but if you pay attention to the KOTOR games combat it is very much Turn Based. The difference though is rather than the player always assigning actions every turn it has built in automatic actions for the player so that the combat progresses without your input. This makes the KOTOR games combat system more of a cross between Realtime and Turn-based. This hybrid is nearly perfect for both types of players in todays market.

The fact that every hard core fallout fan in these communities has a stick up there collective asses that says Fallout 3 must have all of the out dated technologies in games that no longer sell to the market as a whole are likely to be shit out of luck.

So I pose these questions with honest answers below.

Would the SPECIAL system still work in todays gaming market?

Yes.

Would 2D Isometric work in todays Market, or is it properly outdated for the more modern and improved 3D worlds.

No 2D Iso does not sell anymore except to a niche market. Fallout shouldn't be treated as that type of niche market.

Is Turnbased as it was delivered 10 years ago in the fallout series still marketable?

No, however as I mentioned above they could give F3 the same type of turnbased/realtime as found in the KOTOR series and this would be marketable. The KOTOR series is built off of the PNP D20 RPG system which everybody knows as a PNP RPG makes it automatically turn-based no matter how you slice it.

Now I welcome any and all flamage from the Stick up the ass masses of NMA.

 

[Sander]

Oh, for fuck's sake.
This is the perfect example of all the retarded arguments people keep rehashing while they are completely false.

- KoTOR and NWN are *not* turn-based, they are real-time with pause. This means that you lose the twitch advantage of real-time combat, but also the tactical advantage of a turn-based system, mainly because you don't respond to other character's behaviour but you act at the same time. Imagine what would happen if chess played out with the players making moves at the same time. So, in fact, this hybrid is desastrous for *both* types of players. It disappoints the twitch-based player, and it disappoints the tactical player.

- Isometric is not 'outdated' for 'modern and improved 3D worlds'. That's clearly false since *3d and first person existed before isometric did*. The isometric viewpoint was invented for a reason, it wasn't used because the technology couldn't handle first-person or third-person, but because what was needed for those games was an isometric point-of-view.
Besides that, the CIV games are also still isometric. A game series that hasn't changed that and still succeeds! OMG!

- Your point that turn-based isn't marketable is, again, *completely un-fucking-proven*. You are repeating the same thing aries there has been repeating ad nauseam for two pages *without proof or any argument at all*. Stating something as fact does not make it fact.

- No, buck-o, basing a game on a turn-based system *and then altering that system* does not ean it's turn-based as well.

 

[Morbus]

- KoTOR and NWN are *not* turn-based, they are real-time with pause.

AFAIK, they are as much turn based as BG is. The whole combat system (not level design) is designed as a TBC system. Aa far as I can see, it would be preety simple to make KotOR or BG2 into a TBC game... But, in the end, they're nothing more than, as you say, real time with pause, and are not capable of being perfect for any of the extremes (real tive vs. turn based).

The fact that every hard core fallout fan in these communities has a stick up there collective asses that says Fallout 3 must have all of the out dated technologies in games that no longer sell to the market as a whole are likely to be shit out of luck.

In my eyes, friend, it's no wonder why Sander reacted like that... Turn Based Combat is NOT a technology, it's a concept, and it's NOT outdated, it's just different, made for different TYPES of games. Real time = action, Turn Based = strategy/role-play. Of course there is turn based action and real time strategy, but i'm not arguing about that.

 

[Briosafreak]

it would be preety simple to make KotOR or BG2 into a TBC game... But, in the end, they're nothing more than, as you say, real time with pause, and are not capable of being perfect for any of the extremes (real time vs. turn based).

You've come a long way, I'm proud

 

[Sander]

AFAIK, they are as much turn based as BG is.

Ie. not at all. Which is interesting, really, since all those games are based on rulesets designed for turn-based combat. They all also come from Bioware.

The whole combat system (not level design) is designed as a TBC system. Aa far as I can see, it would be preety simple to make KotOR or BG2 into a TBC game... But, in the end, they're nothing more than, as you say, real time with pause, and are not capable of being perfect for any of the extremes (real tive vs. turn based).

It would require a re-writing of the AI routines, though, and part of the interface. But it wouldn't be that hard, no. Too bad they never gave that option.