Penny Arcade talks on Fallout 3, socrates200x replies

[Autoduel76]

Oh man, that's so not Square Enix crap. You're totally right.

When did I say that Square/Enix was crap? I said that Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest was a certain type of game, based on the old 4 option RPG mold.

Tactics is not.

So, what is the point of your screenshot? If you doubt that the game can have complex combat because of the graphics, you aren't really making a strong case. I thought it was gameplay that matters not "teh realistic grafix"

 

[Dracon M'Alkir]

Oh man, that's so not Square Enix crap. You're totally right.

When did I say that Square/Enix was crap? I said that Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest was a certain type of game, based on the old 4 option RPG mold.

Tactics is not.

So, what is the point of your screenshot? If you doubt that the game can have complex combat because of the graphics, you aren't really making a strong case. I thought it was gameplay that matters not "teh realistic grafix"

Blue, Short, Leather, Cure. Items are identical to the FF series.

Statistics are also very close to FF series.

Hell, the game is probably just like FF except without a 'battle screen'.

 

[Autoduel76]

Blue, Short, Leather, Cure. Items are identical to the FF series.

Statistics are also very close to FF series.

Hell, the game is probably just like FF except without a 'battle screen'.

You are wrong.

Not much more to say if you are going to look at a screenshot and say "that battle system is the same as FF"

You are, flat out, wrong about it but can take that idea to the grave if you so desire.

If I show you a combat screenshot of Fallout, I could just as easily say, you only have the options to

(m)ove
(a)ttack
(r)eload
(i)inventory

Of course, we know that's not true, but you can't tell squat from a screenshot.

 

[Dracon M'Alkir]

Blue, Short, Leather, Cure. Items are identical to the FF series.

Statistics are also very close to FF series.

Hell, the game is probably just like FF except without a 'battle screen'.

You are wrong.

Not much more to say if you are going to look at a screenshot and say "that battle system is the same as FF"

You are, flat out, wrong about it but can take that idea to the grave if you so desire.

If I show you a combat screenshot of Fallout, I could just as easily say, you only have the options to

(m)ove
(a)ttack
(r)eload
(i)inventory

Of course, we know that's not true, but you can't tell squat from a screenshot.

How about speaking?

Or, is there a severe lack of dialogue in Tactics, perhaps?

 

[Autoduel76]

How about speaking?

Or, is there a severe lack of dialogue in Tactics, perhaps?

Unless you are trying to make my point for me, I don't understand the purpose of this question.

Like I said:

turn-based combat isn't really the issue, at all, for many of those games that makes them less complex than Fallout. Its the other elements of the game that would seperate Fallout from them.

 

[Dracon M'Alkir]

How about speaking?

Or, is there a severe lack of dialogue in Tactics, perhaps?

Unless you are trying to make my point for me, I don't understand the purpose of this question.

Like I said:

turn-based combat isn't really the issue, at all, for many of those games that makes them less complex than Fallout. Its the other elements of the game that would seperate Fallout from them.

Alright then, how about sales figures? Were these games you mentioned earlier the best selling game for the Playstation 1/2?

Seriously though, your argument is sort of dieing fast, and I'm already getting tired of discussing this.

 

[Autoduel76]

Alright then, how about sales figures? Were these games you mentioned earlier the best selling game for the Playstation 1/2?

Seriously though, your argument is sort of dieing fast, and I'm already getting tired of discussing this.

Fallout wasn't the best selling game for the PC, so its, once again, irrelevant.

Front Mission and Final Fantasy Tactics sold well, not the best selling titles, but they have loyal fanbases that replay them a lot and hold them in very high regard.

My argument has remained consistant from the beginning. Its you that has changed your statements and been inconsistant.

Even this latest attempt, ignores my original post, in which I talked about sales/popularity.

Turn based might not have the mass market apeal of Madden Football, or Halo, on a console, but then turn based didn't have the mass-market appeal of Doom, or Diablo, for PC users either.

Like I've said from the beginning. These games were popular, well recieved, and highly reviewed and were popular among their loyal fanbases. They weren't the very top selling titles of their time, but neither was Fallout.

 

[Dracon M'Alkir]

Alright then, how about sales figures? Were these games you mentioned earlier the best selling game for the Playstation 1/2?

Seriously though, your argument is sort of dieing fast, and I'm already getting tired of discussing this.

Fallout wasn't the best selling game for the PC, so its, once again, irrelevant.

Front Mission and Final Fantasy Tactics sold well, not the best selling titles, but they have loyal fanbases that replay them a lot and hold them in very high regard.

My argument has remained consistant from the beginning. Its you that has changed your statements and been inconsistant.

Even this latest attempt, ignores my original post, in which I talked about sales/popularity.

Turn based might not have the mass market apeal of Madden Football, or Halo, on a console, but then turn based didn't have the mass-market appeal of Doom, or Diablo, for PC users either.

Like I've said from the beginning. These games were popular, well recieved, and highly reviewed and were popular among their loyal fanbases. They weren't the very top selling titles of their time, but neither was Fallout.

Oh for the love of...

Whatever dude. Let's hope to see Fallout 3 resembling Final Fantasy Tactics then, shall we?

I'm seriously tired of this argument. Most if not all of the games you've mentioned lack any real depth as I've mentioned earlier and consoles aren't the suitable environment for a D20/GURPS TB game.

 

[Autoduel76]

, irrelevant.


Whatever dude. Let's hope to see Fallout 3 resembling Final Fantasy Tactics then, shall we?

I'm seriously tired of this argument. Most if not all of the games you've mentioned lack any real depth as I've mentioned earlier and consoles aren't the suitable environment for a D20/GURPS TB game.

I never said Fallout should resemble Final Fantasy Tactics and I said from the beginning that Fallout was more deep than these games.

For some reason, however, you just refuse to conceed the point that it isn't the combat that is what makes Fallout more complex and deep game than many of thse.

You want to go down swinging, that's fine, but sometimes its ok to just conceed the simple point and move on.

 

[Sorrow]

Oh man, that's so not Square Enix crap. You're totally right.

Looks cute . I didn't know they still make games like this...

For some reason, however, you just refuse to conceed the point that it isn't the combat that is what makes Fallout more complex and deep game than many of thse.

Yes, the combat isn't what makes Fallout a more deep game.
On the other hand, the combat is what gives Fallout interesting "tactical" tabletop combat that can be improved to be more tactical and interesting while staying true to it's tabletop roots.
When I play games like Baldur's Gate or Ultima 7 or Ultima 4, etc. I really feel that the combat lacks *something*.

 

[Autoduel76]

On the other hand, the combat is what gives Fallout interesting "tactical" tabletop combat that can be improved to be more tactical and interesting while staying true to it's tabletop roots.
When I play games like Baldur's Gate or Ultima 7 or Ultima 4, etc. I really feel that the combat lacks *something*.

Agree with Baldur's Gate, for sure. Not sure about Ultima though. Probably just because I was around that magic 12 or 13 age when Ultima 7 came out and thought it was so great. And I've played it so many times, its just hard to imagine it stopping for combat now.

Plus the goals for Ultima 7 and Fallout were completely different. Ultima 7 was more about creating an interactive, alive feeling world, that hadn't been done at that point in time. Not really recreating a tabletop gaming feel.

Certainly the combat wasn't very tactical, though.

But, I've always thought Baldur's Gate was overrated. And it kind of supports my point that even on the PC, and even for Fallout's contemporaries, real time had more "mass-market" appeal.

Fallout's combat is one of the great things about the game, IMO. I was simply pointing out that turn based combat, of around the same complexity level as Fallout can, and has, been done on consoles too, to some pretty good acclaim.

My point isn't that the combat should change, in fact its the exact opposite. My point is that the combat can be done on a console and that console gamers have shown to be as accepting of that kind of combat as PC gamers.

 

[Sorrow]

Agree with Baldur's Gate, for sure. Not sure about Ultima though. Probably just because I was around that magic 12 or 13 age when Ultima 7 came out and thought it was so great. And I've played it so many times, its just hard to imagine it stopping for combat now.

Certainly the combat wasn't very tactical, though.

I played Ultima 7 (re-edition) around that age too and thought that it was great too. On the other hand I had problems with controlling the combat or doing anything tactical at all XD .

Plus the goals for Ultima 7 and Fallout were completely different. Ultima 7 was more about creating an interactive, alive feeling world, that hadn't been done at that point in time. Not really recreating a tabletop gaming feel.

I know. Still, I find the Fallout's TB tactical combat more practical than than the Ultima7/8 action combat.

But, I've always thought Baldur's Gate was overrated. And it kind of supports my point that even on the PC, and even for Fallout's contemporaries, real time had more "mass-market" appeal.

Heh...
I think that the main problem with Baldur's Gate was that the game was incredibly overhyped and reviewers didn't bother to compare it's gameplay with Fallout and it's "living, breathing world" with Ultima VII. I remember actually stopping playing BG after a few days because of boredom and poor combat. I started playing it again when I discovered a savegame editor (which in turn inspired me into becoming a modder - I didn't have an internet access so I edited game files with a hex editor XD ).

I was 14/15 when BG came out and when I talked with friends about it, we mocked how characters behave in combat, things like waiting for attacks/casting spells/using items, guided arrows and other absurdal byproducts of mixing RT with TB.

I think that the game could easily be put in it's place (a game with weird a and faulty combat system, poor character creation and development, absurdal things like 10x time acceleration, interesting NPCs, poor dialogue options and an interesting plot, not a "Saviour of The Genre" or "Best RPG Ever") by good critical reviews. Sadly, the reviewers have chosen to hype it which led to further detoriation of the genre.

Fallout's combat is one of the great things about the game, IMO. I was simply pointing out that turn based combat, of around the same complexity level as Fallout can, and has, been done on consoles too, to some pretty good acclaim.

I agree with that.

 

[aegis]

here's real turn based combat!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svQvBiP76cE

 

[SimpleMinded]

DArkLegacy, you're not really letting him offer a fair argument by being totally incoherent.

You demand he give examples of turn based games. He does that.
Then you say that they have to have complex combat. He does that.
Then you say that they can't be on handhelds. He does that.
Can't you just admit that Final Fantasy Tactics/Disgaea have a complex turn based combat system? The games are far more combat focused than fallout but still, it proves your point, now STFU.

 

[Vault 69er]

The problem with lack of choice in games like FFT and Disgaea seems to be a Japanese thing. J-RPGs have never been big on player choice, instead leading you by the nose on their narrative.
Hell, it's exceedingly rare for a J-RPG to let you define your own character, let alone choose their fate.

Of course, on consoles TB gaming seems to be exclusively Japanese. Other developers steer clear of that, and from personal choice. So we get the worst of both worlds.
But I don't see how a "proper" C-RPG wouldn't be possible on consoles. What the tactical TB RPGs on consoles prove is that it is easy to come up with complex systems playable with a control pad. As for a truly interactive world and plot.. that's possible too if only developers would pull their heads out of their asses.

 

[Meh]

In Fallout you stand eight hexes away from foe and kill him with one shot in the eyes. Fallout isn't tactical. Tactics doesn't belong to Fallout. Tactics doesn't fit with one PC. More than one PC isn't Fallout. Turn based doesn't mean tactical. Keep the crouching, proning, interrupting and whatever in your sissy squad or japanese preteen hero emo games.

 

[Sorrow]

I strongly disagree with that. Tactics are both present and neccesary in Fallout (unless one is SFLing of course).
The player has to choose right targets, use corners for cover, sneak, etc.
In Fallout 2 he/she can tell NPCs what tactics should they use.

Also, GURPS does have rules for crouching and proning.
Saying that RPGs, especially ones like GURPS or CP2020 (and thus that tactics don't belong to Fallout) aren't tactical is a big fallacy.
Actually, adding verbal/gesture orders for NPCs (and maybe civillains - it would be handy to be able tell a neutral NPC to keep away from combat.) and stances would be a good improvement of the Fallout's tabletop combat.

 

[Vault 69er]

That's the first time I've seen anyone say that Fallout doesn't have tactics.
Even when you're going solo, Fallout's combat is heavily tactical. Sure you can bulldoze your way in with Power Armour and a minigun. But then you might just get critted in the face for your trouble, requiring a different approach, such as sniping the bothersome enemy from far away.