Role-Player
A Smooth-Skin
J.E. Sawyer said:
You win
Staying true to Fallout
- Thread starter Odin
- Start date
A Smooth-Skin
You win
the only thing that might have people thinking KoTOR was turnbase was the standard bioware pause-options and button, right? (dont remember much of KoTOR, didnt leave much of an impression apperantly)
if so, how the hell people mistake a pause button for turn based is beyond me.
if so, how the hell people mistake a pause button for turn based is beyond me.
cloot AKA PiP
First time out of the vault
nice to see J.E here. You did one helluva great work developing VBuren.
I say Bathesda
- will NOT use isometric, because they "want to use technology they develop", "won't all of a sudden make a top-down-view game", "they will do what they do good (FPP) and not what they have no idea about (isometric)"
- will NOT make F3 T-Based, because there's little chance they would sell more than two copies of a TBased game to people who haven't already fallen in love with TBased games, (here: Fallout(s)), and if they make a Real-time game Fallout fans will buy it anyway,
- WILL use SPECIAL, because they've paid for it, it's good and proven playable, will attract Fallout fans, and will not put off potential other players(buyers)
- will stay more or less true to setting/story
We must remember that Fallout was not great because ot was isometric, so not-isometric does not need to suck (though yes, it would not feel Quite the same to play Fallout in FPPerspective)
I suppose what purists can count on (as regards F3 from bathesda), at best, is TPP and pause-system. Though I'd rather be wrong.
As far as I am concerned, the best view for F3 would be what Van Buren offered: semi-isometric 3D with a fixed-camera option.
As regards TBased - well I don't know... in the first place I want to have a good, non-linear story, lots of good, branching dialogues, and non-combat playing styles (equally developed as the combat-based one).
I say Bathesda
- will NOT use isometric, because they "want to use technology they develop", "won't all of a sudden make a top-down-view game", "they will do what they do good (FPP) and not what they have no idea about (isometric)"
- will NOT make F3 T-Based, because there's little chance they would sell more than two copies of a TBased game to people who haven't already fallen in love with TBased games, (here: Fallout(s)), and if they make a Real-time game Fallout fans will buy it anyway,
- WILL use SPECIAL, because they've paid for it, it's good and proven playable, will attract Fallout fans, and will not put off potential other players(buyers)
- will stay more or less true to setting/story
We must remember that Fallout was not great because ot was isometric, so not-isometric does not need to suck (though yes, it would not feel Quite the same to play Fallout in FPPerspective)
I suppose what purists can count on (as regards F3 from bathesda), at best, is TPP and pause-system. Though I'd rather be wrong.
As far as I am concerned, the best view for F3 would be what Van Buren offered: semi-isometric 3D with a fixed-camera option.
As regards TBased - well I don't know... in the first place I want to have a good, non-linear story, lots of good, branching dialogues, and non-combat playing styles (equally developed as the combat-based one).
FFX wasn't turn based? (You mean final fantasy x, right?) I've been believing a lie all my life! I've never played KoTOR, so i can't make any assesment there. Does that link to the article on differences between turn based, real time with pause, etc, explain this concept of why FFX wasn't turn based? I thought it was turn based, in that it factored things in such as sequence between NPCs and the PC, each character could only perform an action when their picture was in the current slot. I'm not saying I really liked the FFX combat system (the character stats were extremely limited, and i didn't like how there was no movement on some kind of grid during battle, except in special occasions.)
J.E. Sawyer said:
We should call KOTOR, BG and BG2 roundbased from now on. I thought FFX was turnbased though.
cloot AKA PiP
First time out of the vault
good point. I must admit I wasn't quite sure about my point there, since my knowledge is not really up-to-date and I know little-to-nothing about TBased games released last year(s), and really nothing about console games. So are there actually new games using TB combat? Fancy that!
(and I'd rather not think of console-related stuff being a factor while developing F3, u know where that might lead...)
(and I'd rather not think of console-related stuff being a factor while developing F3, u know where that might lead...)
cloot AKA PiP
First time out of the vault
<shiver>Darque said:
FFX used normal Active Time Battle just with overview who will get to move when. At least that was my impression.
Active Time Battle is a fancy way of turns, though. Initiative is replaced by 'speed' and you see the little bars filling up. If one would disable them it would be normal turn-based system, I think.
BG series had real-time with pause, which is a good idea if you want make the game dynamic but still have some strategy inwolved(well, it's hard to speak of strategy in BG, especially ToB, but look at Homeworld, for example).
Howewer there are more issues, for example in FF's there is no such thing as 'action points', and you can do only one thing per turn, which is pretty dumb, because scratching the head takes a _bit_ less time than summoning Eden. Closer match is Chrono Cross, where you had 7 points of stamina to waste every turn.
[Edit] damn, I sound like smartass.
Active Time Battle is a fancy way of turns, though. Initiative is replaced by 'speed' and you see the little bars filling up. If one would disable them it would be normal turn-based system, I think.
BG series had real-time with pause, which is a good idea if you want make the game dynamic but still have some strategy inwolved(well, it's hard to speak of strategy in BG, especially ToB, but look at Homeworld, for example).
Howewer there are more issues, for example in FF's there is no such thing as 'action points', and you can do only one thing per turn, which is pretty dumb, because scratching the head takes a _bit_ less time than summoning Eden. Closer match is Chrono Cross, where you had 7 points of stamina to waste every turn.
[Edit] damn, I sound like smartass.
PsychoSniper
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
cloot AKA PiP said:
Um, POS was realtime if I recall right.
Very few FO fans bought that.
We want FO3, but we want a quality FO3 not a peice of shit.
SynthWailer
First time out of the vault
i don't know, but i think you are saying that turn based games follow a rule almost alike chess, while the others are not, right? i think we can all agree that all of these games in fact have turns, so what if we call games like fallout, shining force and realms of arkania TACTICAL turn based? in themwe need to take decisions based beyond the attack we want to perform, we need to think about position, action points and such. but i still think that games like final fantasy and other like it are turn based, but of course in a way different (and more shallow) than the tactical turn based ones.
edit: bobbin, something tells me he could be saying this just for pleasing the fallout fans, but who knows.
edit: bobbin, something tells me he could be saying this just for pleasing the fallout fans, but who knows.
I would ban you for that. Well, if you didn't have more than 10 posts anyway.cloot AKA PiP said:
No. Nice article here btw: http://www.rpgcodex.com/content.php?id=21SynthWailer said:
Last not least, pause-able realtime is essentially the worst of two worlds.
King of Creation
Vault Fossil
Pete Hines = Iraq Information Minister
What will he say next....
ps: I hope this is true.
What will he say next....
ps: I hope this is true.
Role-Player
A Smooth-Skin
King of Creation said:
Realtime? What is this realtime you complain about? We see no realtime. No realtime here.
not necessarily, it has some of the advantages too: being able to avoid long easy/boring combat situations (you can argue that if combat is boring the game has design problems that need to be fixed first, but 1) implementing pause-able realtime IS a legitimate way to fix it 2) i have yet to see a game that didnt had boring combat at some point) and keeping the game fast paced while still retaining lots of tactical possibilities. Its the middle ground between TB en RT.
Sure it has a lot of disadvantages, but its a good system for some games (ex. Baldurs Gate wouldnt have been as much fun with either a RT or TB system (yeah i like Baldurs Gate, a lot, bite me
), and definitely not the worst of 2 world, thats a gross over simplification...oh and besides, it IS the only way to go for FO3....
I don't understand why you people cause so much fuss over a trivial thing like perspective. Perspective is probably the least relevant aspect of a role playing game and with a 3D engine, it's possible to implement any point of view you might desire. Personally, I don't care where they put the camera - they can attach it to the player character's dick if they want, it still won't do jack for the gameplay. And even if you just can't put up with the camera being 30° lower than what you are used to, I bet some l337 h4xXx0r will make a "fix" for it a week or two after the game ships.
What we should cause fuss about is the combat system - if it's not turn-based, it will significantly impair the game mechanics. Implementing alternate camera angles is easy, but fixing an inadequate combat system once it's already been implemented is next to impossible. So instead of wasting your breath arguing why Fallout 3 absolutely must have isometric perspective, let Bethesda know what will befall them if they make Fallout 3 with a shitty real-time combat engine (cue pitchforks and burning torches).
What we should cause fuss about is the combat system - if it's not turn-based, it will significantly impair the game mechanics. Implementing alternate camera angles is easy, but fixing an inadequate combat system once it's already been implemented is next to impossible. So instead of wasting your breath arguing why Fallout 3 absolutely must have isometric perspective, let Bethesda know what will befall them if they make Fallout 3 with a shitty real-time combat engine (cue pitchforks and burning torches).
Hirle said:Sure it has a lot of disadvantages, but its a good system for some games (ex. Baldurs Gate wouldnt have been as much fun with either a RT or TB system (yeah i like Baldurs Gate, a lot, bite me
oh and besides, it IS the only way to go for FO3....
It works in BG and KotOR because what you do there is slap the best equipment you have on your characters, send them into the fray and watch the proceedings. In KotOR I liked the way you can leap into battle with your solo Jedi on hard difficulty and cut everyone into pieces without breaking a sweat, because it's what Jedi are supposed to do. (Enough fun for one game, anyway.) Fallout simply shouldn't, mustn't be like that, hence TB.