slechy said:
I believe they will try their best to satisfy the Fallout community... If not Pete wouldn't have said
I don't think we could make a great game without staying true to Fallout.
Sorry, but that honestly counts for little to most around here. We've been told that...four times now? FOT and F
![Razz :P :P](/../../xencustomimages/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
OS were two good examples. The other two times include "Everything Fallout fans have been waiting anxiously for since Fallout 2" (TORN), and Lionheart, which was initially billed as something that later fell flat, but we should care since it uses SPECIAL. Just like TORN did.
Bradylama: Uh...you might want to think about that again. There's a number of important aspects of playing "evil" in Fallout, without resorting to BioWare's cliché and neutered version of "evil" that has about as much affect upon the game as saving at one point in Deus Ex to play through the different endings. If you went by BioWare's method, asking for more money for a job was an
evil thing. In the wasteland, it's about how much you value your life to do a job worth 50 caps or 100 caps. You just need to convey to the person that what they are offering isn't worth enough.
Hell, Junktown, first real city. It affects the ending and most places have an ending depending upon what you did. It would have been better if the ending was the originally planned one, too. Fallout also isn't about "good and evil", it's about shades of grey that exist in the wasteland and result from those decisions. What might be labeled as "scavenging to survive" is considered to be "gravedigging" by another, and not fondly looked at by those in "civilized" areas.
This would be completely obvious if you've talked to The Master. He thought he was doing right, for the future of mankind in whatever form, so it should be one that can survive in the world.
Your Karma is just that, it's your Karma. Your reputation depending upon location is a different thing, however. People who are a good sense of character (Karma) might be able to see if your character is one that would prey upon others or be charitable enough to help someone out in the middle of nowhere, versus killing them and taking everything. After all, who would be the wiser? Or, they might have heard of you through your reputation, which could be good for design if in a negative quantifier - you might not be suited for certain tasks if you are too well-known.
NgInE said:
er...isn't KOTOR based on the D&D D20 system?
That's like trying to call Baldur's Gate a CRPG because it's an RTS that uses the D&D stat system and half-ass ripped off Fallout's speech system.
because i don't think that you were reacting simultaneously with the rest of the characters. if you gave the command to attack, it would sometimes take a while to do so, because a other character was still in his/her turn. and that's the D&D rules: the higher some of your stats are (i thought DEX) the sooner you may attack.
No, they go by 6 second intervals between rounds. Not turns. Turns are, like in D&D, where you have decisions that are based upon your initiative and what you're doing affects this. In all cases, there's a sequence of events that work like turns. See ToEE or Eye of the Beholder for GBA for good examples of turn-based combat in the D&D system.
In KoTOR and other games that are RT w/ Pause in BioWare's style, the initiative is still there, but the characters are still moving and acting all at the same time. Often, this would also cause problems for when someone is trying to move and then attack, but instead of having a couple of points being added to your initiative results and acting later, you're then left with having to wait until the next round to attack (or it would just show the animation and you get to wonder when they'll actually attack, as in Baldur's Gate). This is a flaw in the castrated version of "D20" that BioWare puts into their games, but it isn't really the same ruleset as D20. People need to see how the translation to BioWare's "Kludge for the Crackheads" method changes a lot of things. It should be pretty obvious that is what happens when you dumb down a ruleset for insipid gameplay and to market it out to the lowest common denominator.
Bor said:
Around here, people are using the term turn-based as shorthand to refer to the action point based, one side moves at a time (on their turn ) type system in Fallout, X-com, Jagged alliance, Silent Storm etc. But since there is no universally agreed upon, dictionary definition for turn based, you can't really get mad when other people use the term differently.
...
In one sense, action point turn based systems (Fallout etc.) are -more- "realtime" because actions take as long as they take, rather than occuring based on some arbitrary turn structure.
I love it when someone posts their own uneducated opinion as fact. Just because you don't understand game mechanics or design aspects to really understand what they are called and why, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It doesn't mean that Baldur's Gate is turn-based, either.
It's funny that you mention those other first-person TB games. There's other aspects of those, and others, that you seem to fail to understand. It was common, yes, but it isn't that common now. Those were great for dungeon-crawlers, and still are depending upon the development, but to have a free-roaming FP CRPG with TB combat is hokey as shit. The movement in Wizardry 8's combat was a good example, and the completely flawed shitfest of the later Might & Magic games were a good example of what happens when you have to kludge together a system to work in such a manner.
Semantic arguments, expecially if you're going to prove yourself ignorant about them, are not welcome here. At best it verges on a troll.