(Don't) Give me that old time RPG combat

Brother None

Brother None

This ghoul has seen it all
Orderite
Joystiq editorializes on the combat of Wasteland and Wasteland 2, and discusses how it needs to find a balance between what it was and expectations players might have now. They don't argue for real-time, but do seem to think the old pace of combat was all about "technological restraints". Ah, we've grown quite familiar with that phrase.<blockquote>From this point on, combination real-time and turn-based combat systems became more and more popular, until they became the default. The most famous of these was Japanese, Final Fantasy's Active Time Battle system, but there were dozens of PC games as well. Dungeon Master-inspired clones, like Eye Of The Beholder and Lands Of Lore. Ultima Underworld and The Elder Scrolls series were also directly descended from Dungeon Master, utilizing more free movement and closer to straightforward real-time combat. BioWare built its empire on phased combat, specifically with the Infinity Engine utilized by Baldur's Gate, but also Knights Of The Old Republic and Dragon Age. Perhaps it's most clearly seen in Everquest-style massively multiplayer RPGs, with their set cooldown timers and intricate strategies built around maximizing use of turns and timing.


The technological constraints that forced "old school" turn-based combat quickly disappeared after Dungeon Master. Ultima VII and Diablo were almost purely real-time, existing alongside games with phased combat and turn-based holdouts. Other series adapted, like Might & Magic, which sped up its combat pace by its third installment in 1991, or Wizardry, whose addition of positional tactics in Wizardry 8 made one of my favorite combat systems ever.

Here is Wasteland 2's dilemma: how can it create a combat system that manages to appeal to fans of the dense 1980s-style menu-based combat, while also enticing fans of Fallout and its single-character, fast-paced tactical combat? The two may initially seem similar, but there are major differences. And Dungeon Master and its successors opened up a wide variety of different styles of RPG combat of varying depth and degrees, all of which can easily be labeled "old school." And they're all going to have fans ... and detractors.</blockquote>
 
It would be a huge dick move for Brian to take all this cash from old school gamers worldwide, only to give them a game with RT combat.

And I hardly remember Fallout's combat as anything but slow, clunky and turnbased. Just as it should be.

He must be talking of that Bethsoft abomination.
 
The person who wrote this terrible article clearly has no understanding of the project at hand. The reason it's being funded is because people want an old-school Wasteland experience. So making it "up-to-date" simply won't happen. They're making "wasteland 2", not "wasteland for casual gamers".
 
You know how you solve this problem? Options. Give me turn based combat, realtime with AP (like FOT), and for the new people, yeah, let them have their fully realtime combat.

Seriously, if they try to force one combat system they are only going to drive people away, instead bringing more people in.
 
What? F01 + 2 were clunky turn based, which for isometric parties was absolutely fine. That system, with slight refining, would be fine by me in a new game. I don't care if others had previously and have since switched to a different format.
 
Those modern realtime combat systems just sucks Harold's ass! Not even talking about VATS in F3 or FoNV, that's a true disaster.
Turn-based combat used in ToEE, that's pure essence of perfection for me.
 
VRaptor117 said:
You know how you solve this problem? Options. Give me turn based combat, realtime with AP (like FOT), and for the new people, yeah, let them have their fully realtime combat.

Seriously, if they try to force one combat system they are only going to drive people away, instead bringing more people in.
Click to expand...

It's not going to be TB/RT. I know it sounds ideal "in theory", but you need a huge extra budget to balance both the TB and RT properly. Tactics was all about combat and it still did it imperfectly. Arcanum was almost ruined by being TB/RT.

I love TB. I like RT just fine. I don't love RTwP, and TB/RT is proven not to work.

Luckily, WL2 will just be TB.
 
The only change the old Fallout 1/2 combat system should get (aside from extra options like prone/kneeling/whatever) is to make all of the non-PCs act simultaneously. That by itself will drastically improve the combat speed, which is good enough for me.
 
This guy misses the point of making Wasteland 2.

There are already several post apocalyptic games with real time combat that use the latest cutting edge technology. Given that they sell, we can expect more. Fans don't need to fund such a game. Corporations are funding them.

Although I've enjoyed many turn based games, I've never played a game with turn based combat that I'd call perfect. There's plenty of room for improvement/innovation. IF the Wasteland 2 team wants to invest alot of time creating a cutting edge combat experience, it can still do so with a turn based system.
 
Real time simply negates the "tactical" element of turn based, it just becomes a mess and you feel you have no control over the actions of your party members. I don't know if I can quite explain it, but turn based requires you to make decisions more carefully, is a type of combat where what kind of weapon you use, who you shoot first, what firing mode, using a stimpack, etc, etc, becomes crucial.

What do you guys think of something like this for the combat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uHHmTSDCvA

It's turn based as far I undestand and looks awesome.

I wouldn't like real time at all. I would ideally prefer something like Jagged Alliance 2 for party based combat. This is why Fallout Tactics failed even as a tactical game when JA2 not only was superior tactically but also in the roleplaying aspect.
 
sea said:
Also, this basically proves this man a) knows fucking nothing about RPGs b) knows nothing about game design c) is a moron. Spare your brains, I beg all of you.
Click to expand...

I wonder if he thinks we should use byrds as weapons...

And why do this awful new wave of idiot gamers/producers want to kill even games that are not mainstream and are fan funded? Is it not enough the genera died? You also wish to kill every attempt by independent teams to bring it back by suggesting things that basically defeats the purpose of why such projects even exist?
 
Not even really worth responding to. This guy has missed the entire point of why it's being funded like it is.

For fuck's sake, if Fargo wanted to make a modern action-RPG he would have just had a publisher fund it, put on his red boots, and been done with it.
 
Wasteland is faster paced than Fallout, because it only allows one action per character, per turn/pseudo phase. No AP management.
 
Brother None said:
Here is Wasteland 2's dilemma: how can it create a combat system that manages to appeal to fans of the dense 1980s-style menu-based combat, while also enticing fans of Fallout and its single-character, fast-paced tactical combat?
Click to expand...
See, this is where he goes wrong: it has no need to entice fans of Fallout 3's crappy combat. It's fan-funded, and it was funded by fans of the "old-school" turn-based combat. This guy just doesn't get it.
 
dilemma?
Fargo got 1,5 million for TURN-BASED game and was telling that every time, I think that only Joystiq have problem
 
I don't think he meant Fallout 3 - it seems he was talking about Fallout 1 and 2.

Lol at the mention of menu-based combat being "not very good" then ending with this:
Me, I vote for Wizardry 8-style combat. That would be completely awesome in a post-apocalyptic scenario.
Click to expand...

Wizardry 8's (menu-based) combat would not get my vote. A hybrid skill system in which a character gained skill points through use but also received most points through accumulated points? Maybe. But a don't-seperate-your-party-members-first-person-perspective combat style? No thanks.
Maybe he should've explained a little better what he meant.
 
Wow, what a retard. I would gladly post there and say a few things but it's too much of a bother to register just for this.
 
Every time I hear someone refer to turn based as a technical limitation I can't help but wonder what their definition of tech is. It's a silly assertion that has no basis other than the games that used it are old. If that's the logic then pointing your cursor at an enemy and clicking is outdated tech too, hell they've been doing that since the early 90's.
 
formatted 3/31/2012

I think a few of you have jumped the gun on your deduction of what the article was actually about. Jabu seemed to get it.
The article was about the fact that Brian Fargo has SAID that;
1. Fallout was inspired heavily by Wasteland.(don't forget Fallout is one of Brian's games).
2. If you liked Wasteland and Fallout 1/2 you will probably like Wasteland 2.

This means that Brian is making a game that will appeal to this type of gamer audience. It means, even if you didn't play Wasteland, you'll still like Wasteland 2, because its not going to be Wasteland, it will be more similar in nature to Fallout. That is to say it won't be a menu turn based RPG. It will be a graphical turn based RPG. It will be party based, tactical and all the good things that Wasteland was, but it simply will not hold itself back by sticking to an older game-play formula.

The article is describing the dilemma facing Brian Fargo at the moment and that is. "How can I keep the appeal that games like Fallout had, while not alienating those that are apparently die-hard Wasteland turn based menu combat fans?"

Lets face it, you don't compare games like Wasteland and Fallout. Wasteland inspired Fallout, do you take a step backwards at this point and say to yourself. "Hey, you know we moved forward from technological limitations and innovated new, wildly popular styles? Lets forget about that, and make something very obscure and not user friendly. You know, lets make something super literary, without very many graphics. You know, a flashy border maybe, some Hi - Res combat face cards that show the enemy types. Yes, I've decided guys, lets make a HD 1980s Reboot game!"

Obviously I'm exaggerating to a great degree, but It seems like people are jumping to the conclusion that this guy is saying Brian should make Wasteland into a FPS, or Fallout Tactics. Nay. He is saying Brian Fargo is obviously making a game that must appeal to fans of both Wasteland and Fallout 1/2.Games like Fallout are still number crunching, dice rolling calculator machines. Maybe the only reason it might not have that exterior appearance is its trademark(literally) S.P.E.C.I.A.L. stats that obviously must make the D&D formula a little different.

To be absolutely honest with all of you, I think we are about to see Fallout GURPS be born, only it won't be Fallout anymore, because Fallout has S.P.E.C.I.A.L. And wasteland doesn't need that, because It has its own rule set to use and expand upon, thereby freeing it of the restrictive quality. It lets the developers truly return to the basics of the origin of wildly popular games like Baldurs Gate, and Fallout, etc.Now you get, multiple characters, more customizations across the board and most likely easier to calculate dice rolls.There is absolutely no friggin' way it would be Menu based combat, I'm thinking people just be trolling the internet suggesting things like that.

Games like that could have potentially tiny tiny production budgets, requiring very few programmers and artists to complete. A game worth 1 million including rewards can't possibly be so limited in scale. I would find it very hard to believe that we'll hear some sort of update about "It's confirmed, Menu based combat! Totally poop rendered world, with no details to explore for yourself!".

Also, nothing beats Nostalgia. People can go back and sit down playing old school games because of the euphoria it gives them. It has nothing to do with the actual ability of that specific game type to draw an audience. In 1988 a game like Wasteland is LITERALLY revolutionary. Absolutely nothing similar exists, nothing. The idea of adventuring through a post nuclear world where World War 3 really did happen, and you'll see neat pictures of mutants on your super expensive, fancy old computer is really something to get excited about. Ask yourself, is there really a market for that type of simply represented game nowadays? No.

Graphics are important, they always have been, or Brian Fargo would have released an easy to make game years ago. He's obviously not interested, he wants a world that comes alive the way Fallout did for many people, but also in the way Wasteland did for many people. Expect something good is all I can say, he's had going on a quarter century to think about how to make this game, and he's made dozens of games in between. He's only grown as a developer or visionary in terms of how a game should represent itself.

Always remember though, Wasteland inspired Fallout, Its unlikely that the team that made Wasteland and Fallout 1/2 work so well for so many people, will make a game that doesn't live up to the monumental expectations it has. I'm sure both sides of the Aisle in terms of the hold "Wasteland vs Fallout" conflict will come together in the end, sedated on wasteland drugs and misery, I'm sure. :crazy:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top