That is assuming that the game publishing industry has it's finger firmly on the pulse of the market. Besides the basic fact that the industry has largely ignored niche markets, even though games geared towards them could be successful with proper management.draeke said:
Penny Arcade talks on Fallout 3, socrates200x replies
- Thread starter Brother None
- Start date
It's a shame, because even if the realtime market is bigger, there still exists quite a large niche. Companies could easily develop lower budget games with less shiny stuff in it for these niches and still get the money.
It would also be a safer investment than always going for the big sales, and it would likely get the companies a solid fanbase instead of the more 'fleeting' mainstream.
And I would personally appreciate it because it would perhaps mean that I could get games that I want AND not have to upgrade my computer in order to get them running decently.
But still, I am totally convinced that Bethesda could sell a turnbased Fallout 3. If they make Fallout 3 a decent sequel, then they'd get the support of a strong and vocal fanbase, but it's not like everyone else in the world would avoid the game. With proper marketing I think they'd still get a big slice of the mainstream to buy the game.
It would also be a safer investment than always going for the big sales, and it would likely get the companies a solid fanbase instead of the more 'fleeting' mainstream.
And I would personally appreciate it because it would perhaps mean that I could get games that I want AND not have to upgrade my computer in order to get them running decently.
But still, I am totally convinced that Bethesda could sell a turnbased Fallout 3. If they make Fallout 3 a decent sequel, then they'd get the support of a strong and vocal fanbase, but it's not like everyone else in the world would avoid the game. With proper marketing I think they'd still get a big slice of the mainstream to buy the game.
requiem_for_a_starfury
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
How will the market demand more turn based games if no one makes any? Unless someone sticks their neck out and makes a new TB game, which flies off the shelf then there will be no bandwagon for other developers to jump on.
SimpleMinded
Vault Fossil
Have we ever heard any of the original developers (or even van buren) opinions on the issues of isometric and/or turn based combat? I'm curious as to how they see these elements, and if they agree that they are "dated."
Also, what do you guys feel are ways in which the turn based combat could be improved? Immediately, I see the ability to change position to crouching/lying down and interrupts in combat. What else do you think would be valuable changes?
Also, what do you guys feel are ways in which the turn based combat could be improved? Immediately, I see the ability to change position to crouching/lying down and interrupts in combat. What else do you think would be valuable changes?
requiem_for_a_starfury
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Option to make non combatants turns invisible. So your computer doesn't show their animations just moves them etc instantly, until/unless they become engaged in the combat. Maybe make it a hotkey toggle.
Tom_Sawyer
First time out of the vault
Can anyone name a true PC RPG that was real time first person, had a great storyline, and made you feel that the charecter you created was someone that you felt as though your decisions truely made a difference?
I have Oblivion but the shallow NPC's and cookie cutter dungeons made me just feel though as it did not matter if I leveled up or learned new things. More of the fed-ex quests, hey I have been here before. The combat system just did not impress me and I never got the impression that I could be truely evil or good.
Now compare that first person game to say Wizardry 8. It was semi first person, real time with pause. But your group of charecters was each unique abet you could jump classes if so inclined. When you cast spells or hacked and slashed it sorta fit. And the ending with you becoming gods to me truely ended what was a great series.
But now think about Planescape: Torment or BG1 or BG2 or the old Ultima's if you can recall those games. With me at least by the end of the game I felt an emotional rush seeing his or her fate. Watching nameless condemed to Bator even if you played him as a fracking saint, the romances, ect.
If Bethesada can do that deep of a story line with multiple paths of being good or evil, true nasty evil villians and self righteous holy rollers, side quests that feel as part of the story and not just ho hum fed ex please, a main quest that can keep me up to 2 in the morning cause I just have to find out what happend to the magical space hamster..... alll in first person FRACK IT SIGN ME UP
otherwise box up the first person craze just because it worked for Gordon Freeman or the nameless space marine and hire some writers that can design a true RPG, then go about building the graphics on that story. You build a house on bedrock not on sand. The best RPGS computer based or paper where those with great stories and without one all the eye candy in the world will do nothing for me.
I have Oblivion but the shallow NPC's and cookie cutter dungeons made me just feel though as it did not matter if I leveled up or learned new things. More of the fed-ex quests, hey I have been here before. The combat system just did not impress me and I never got the impression that I could be truely evil or good.
Now compare that first person game to say Wizardry 8. It was semi first person, real time with pause. But your group of charecters was each unique abet you could jump classes if so inclined. When you cast spells or hacked and slashed it sorta fit. And the ending with you becoming gods to me truely ended what was a great series.
But now think about Planescape: Torment or BG1 or BG2 or the old Ultima's if you can recall those games. With me at least by the end of the game I felt an emotional rush seeing his or her fate. Watching nameless condemed to Bator even if you played him as a fracking saint, the romances, ect.
If Bethesada can do that deep of a story line with multiple paths of being good or evil, true nasty evil villians and self righteous holy rollers, side quests that feel as part of the story and not just ho hum fed ex please, a main quest that can keep me up to 2 in the morning cause I just have to find out what happend to the magical space hamster..... alll in first person FRACK IT SIGN ME UP
otherwise box up the first person craze just because it worked for Gordon Freeman or the nameless space marine and hire some writers that can design a true RPG, then go about building the graphics on that story. You build a house on bedrock not on sand. The best RPGS computer based or paper where those with great stories and without one all the eye candy in the world will do nothing for me.
If Age of Decadence, Eschalon, and Ashes: Two Worlds were to succeed beyond all expectations, that would go a long way toward proving the existence of pent-up demand for traditional RPGs. Sounds like a useful project for the Fallout fan grassroots campaigners, once you finish with your schmutzkrieg against Bethsoft.requiem_for_a_starfury said:
Tom_Sawyer said:
Well I can name Deus Ex as an example but I think most people won't agree it's a real RPG. I came to reallise 4+ years ago that I really like hybrid games like Deus Ex and System Shock or Jagged Alliance.
And speaking of JA its fans have the same problem as we have with F3 - they know of some things new developers are trying to implement and change the old way the game was played and they are not happy
requiem_for_a_starfury
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
That depends on if they're any good or not. No point blindly supporting a game just to show what we like, if it's a load of rubbish. We'd just end up with a flood of knockoff rubbish. And when people complained they'd just say 'well that's market forces for you.'abbaon said:
I loved System Shock 2 and to a lesser extent Deus Ex and thought they heralded the birth of intelligent shooters, not dumbed down RPGs. Deus Ex isn't really an rpg the only real choices you have that have a consequence that affects the game world. Come at the endgame, and no matter how you've played up until that point you can just reload and make a different choice and see all the endings in one play through.Xerxes said:
Perhaps if they had given you a real choice about changing sides or arresting your brother and had of made a second path through the game playing for the bad guys. If some of your decisions/dialogue choices came back to haunt/help you later in the game, then it'd be worthy of the RPG label.
I don't believe that a company like Beth will define the standard of a game by the best possible presentation of combat TB or ISO, their last game reminded me of the diablo I , where a company took what it thought to be the best selling feature in each genre and just combined it to make more money and publicity..
not meaning it can be a bad game(diablo was great IMO for a while)-but i'm not sure companies today are looking to make "classics" anymore, everyone is just concentrated on big bucks by graphics and cliche's that worked in previous games...
not meaning it can be a bad game(diablo was great IMO for a while)-but i'm not sure companies today are looking to make "classics" anymore, everyone is just concentrated on big bucks by graphics and cliche's that worked in previous games...
Fallout according to the history I've read WAS REALTIME, at first...
(Talking about GURPS Proto-Fallout here... supposedly the OLD fallout demo has some of this...should take a look someday)
Clearly the combat did not work out as intended, thus fallout was made TB
Its just possible that Fallout 3 will be Turn-Based. Yes, the logic here is that Final Fantasy 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,(whatever the current # is) being mostly TB combat (actually I have no idea past 8...) have sold bucket loads worth of games.
Therefore the marketing Droids know that JRPG style TB combat will sell.
Thus a TB Fallout 3, even as a console game will do well.
However I suspect if we get TB combat, it will be at the loss of something else, say an open world? multiple paths thru quests...who knows.
(Talking about GURPS Proto-Fallout here... supposedly the OLD fallout demo has some of this...should take a look someday)
Clearly the combat did not work out as intended, thus fallout was made TB
Its just possible that Fallout 3 will be Turn-Based. Yes, the logic here is that Final Fantasy 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,(whatever the current # is) being mostly TB combat (actually I have no idea past 8...) have sold bucket loads worth of games.
Therefore the marketing Droids know that JRPG style TB combat will sell.
Thus a TB Fallout 3, even as a console game will do well.
However I suspect if we get TB combat, it will be at the loss of something else, say an open world? multiple paths thru quests...who knows.
...Mangler said:
That's bullshit. Fallout's engine was originally intended to emulate GURPS as accurately as possible, and GURPS is pure turn-based. There's just no way in hell that it was intended to be real-time.
The old demo from '94 or so has nothing but movement, and that indeed is real-time. 'Cause movement is real-time in the normal Fallout game as well.
ugh... combat initiates TurnBased, Mangler... 
Undeniably incorrect, link please?Mangler said:
Why? What is the reasoning here?Mangler said:
requiem_for_a_starfury
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Baseball
Baseball, for those of you outside the US and Japan think Rounders played by grown men in tight trousers, a sport played by a small percentage of the world's population.
So how do you sell Baseball to the rest of the world? It's not exactly an exciting sport, oh it has it's moments but it goes on for so long and how often during a game are you really going to find yourself on the edge of your seat?
Well for a start we need to speed it up make the game faster to cater to the younger generation. Maybe instead of one team batting and one fielding perhaps we could have both teams on the field at the same time. Perhaps if we duplicate the diamond and reverse it, making a figure of eight, we could have a catcher at either end.
That could be confusing though, so we'd need to change the rules a bit. Rather than everyone having their turn at bat just have one designated hitter per team? Okay so now how would they score? Hmm maybe we can replace the catcher with a basket and have the batter defend their team's basket, so each team would score by pitching the ball into their opponents basket. We might need a time limit since no one is getting out anymore. Okay that sounds good, and since both teams are all on the field at the same time we can cut the innings down to say four, 10 minutes each with an rest break between each. So what do we do with the fielders? Perhaps we can cut them down to 4 a side. Let's have the umpire throw the ball into the air and have the pitcher from each side jump to catch it. To make things more interesting the person who has the ball can't move while holding it and to make a pitch at the basket they have to be standing on one of the bases. That'll introduce some tactics to the game.
So the pitchers have to jump to catch the ball and then have to throw it to a team mate while the opposing side try and intercept it. Then by passing the ball they have to make it back to a base before they can try and score. No fielders are allowed inside each diamond, leaving it up to the batter to defend their goal. To keep the game flowing the batter can't hit the ball outside of the park.
How's that sound? A nice fast paced game with built in advert breaks, do you think it'll get the rest of the world watching baseball? Maybe even some of the original fans will like it. But can you imagine the hue and cry if someone suggested playing the next World Series that way?
Sounds stupid doesn't it, but that's basically what people who say turn based is out dated or just a work around are suggesting when they say replace it with real time game play.
Would anyone dream of reinventing Baseball? So why can't turn based computer gaming be treated with a bit of the same respect?
Sure it's not as old as baseball, or as widespread and it doesn't have the same financial backing. But the principle is the same.
Baseball, for those of you outside the US and Japan think Rounders played by grown men in tight trousers, a sport played by a small percentage of the world's population.
So how do you sell Baseball to the rest of the world? It's not exactly an exciting sport, oh it has it's moments but it goes on for so long and how often during a game are you really going to find yourself on the edge of your seat?
Well for a start we need to speed it up make the game faster to cater to the younger generation. Maybe instead of one team batting and one fielding perhaps we could have both teams on the field at the same time. Perhaps if we duplicate the diamond and reverse it, making a figure of eight, we could have a catcher at either end.
That could be confusing though, so we'd need to change the rules a bit. Rather than everyone having their turn at bat just have one designated hitter per team? Okay so now how would they score? Hmm maybe we can replace the catcher with a basket and have the batter defend their team's basket, so each team would score by pitching the ball into their opponents basket. We might need a time limit since no one is getting out anymore. Okay that sounds good, and since both teams are all on the field at the same time we can cut the innings down to say four, 10 minutes each with an rest break between each. So what do we do with the fielders? Perhaps we can cut them down to 4 a side. Let's have the umpire throw the ball into the air and have the pitcher from each side jump to catch it. To make things more interesting the person who has the ball can't move while holding it and to make a pitch at the basket they have to be standing on one of the bases. That'll introduce some tactics to the game.
So the pitchers have to jump to catch the ball and then have to throw it to a team mate while the opposing side try and intercept it. Then by passing the ball they have to make it back to a base before they can try and score. No fielders are allowed inside each diamond, leaving it up to the batter to defend their goal. To keep the game flowing the batter can't hit the ball outside of the park.
How's that sound? A nice fast paced game with built in advert breaks, do you think it'll get the rest of the world watching baseball? Maybe even some of the original fans will like it. But can you imagine the hue and cry if someone suggested playing the next World Series that way?
Sounds stupid doesn't it, but that's basically what people who say turn based is out dated or just a work around are suggesting when they say replace it with real time game play.
Would anyone dream of reinventing Baseball? So why can't turn based computer gaming be treated with a bit of the same respect?
Sure it's not as old as baseball, or as widespread and it doesn't have the same financial backing. But the principle is the same.
commendable post requiem.
if it involves scantily clad grrlz, i might entertain the idea.requiem_for_a_starfury said:
Yeah it is. See Chess.requiem_for_a_starfury said:
Yeah it is. See chess.requiem said:
requiem_for_a_starfury
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I meant turn based gaming as in computer tactical rpg gaming.
I know. I was making a point regarding the very longstanding traditions of turn-based gaming in many forms, yet it not being good enough suddenly.requiem_for_a_starfury said:
Which is odd, considering, say, the poker-boom.