Staying true to Fallout

Odin said:
One thing that I liked about Van Buren was the ability to command the CNPCs (presuasion), JES come in here and talk about that..
A lot of people had a lot of problems with being able to directly command NPCs. The later design just allowed the player to have a greater level of control over NPC behavior parameters through an interface similar to the F2 control screen. I think the NPC action bar might have also had some quick buttons like "stop" and the like, just for convenience.
 
J.E. Sawyer said:
Odin said:
One thing that I liked about Van Buren was the ability to command the CNPCs (presuasion), JES come in here and talk about that..
A lot of people had a lot of problems with being able to directly command NPCs. The later design just allowed the player to have a greater level of control over NPC behavior parameters through an interface similar to the F2 control screen. I think the NPC action bar might have also had some quick buttons like "stop" and the like, just for convenience.

and of course the "STOP BLOCKING THE DOOR" button.
 
lilfyffedawg said:
and of course the "STOP BLOCKING THE DOOR" button.

And the "stop shooting me!" button and the "put away the rocket launcher!" button! :lol:
 
NgInE said:
for some reason, i've never, ever, played as an evil character in any RPG....i wonder why...

As much as I like HAVING the option... I've never been able to play a truly evil character either... my fiance says that it is not in my nature....

Perhaps it isn't in your nature either.
 
First off I have to chuckle a bit about the "first person turn based" talk. Wizardry, Might and Magic, Bard's Tale, Dragon Wars (fantasy "sequel" to Wasteland) all spring to mind. First person turn based was, way back at the beginning, one of the more common, if not most common, CRPG designs. Though to be fair, in those games. in-combat maneuver wasn't all that important, and combat resolution was simutaneous/initiative based.


Interpreting the word "turn" to mean a measure of time/way of organizing actions, Baldur's Gate is turn based. I think the developers were calling it continuous-turn based or somesuch. Everything happens according to the underlying round structure. In a given turn (round) you may cast one spell (and one spell only), or attack (up to your attacks per round), and move. (If you move too far in a round you may lose attacks, I don't recall exactly, but movement is in general not interchangeable with other actions. Standing still won't get you more attacks.) The length of time an action take generally just determines when in the round it happens, but not it's frequency. Ie. a dagger will strike earlier in a round than a 2-handed sword, but it won't swing more often.

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.


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.

As an aside, I'd suggest people try the demo for Laser Squad Nemesis. Simultaneous turn based combat avoids the worst pitfalls of the alternatives, though it may be overkill for an RPG. It's worth looking at just to get some ideas about what can be done. (I just wish they'd make a full blown xcom with it rather than a multiplayer combat game)
 
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:POS 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.
 
Bor said:
Interpreting the word "turn" to mean a measure of time/way of organizing actions, Baldur's Gate is turn based.
Interpreting "turn" that way would make every computer game "turn based" and hence would render the term "turn based" obsolete. Simply because a computer (or a programmer) needs to organize its actions (on a basic level) in turns, since a CPU can do only one thing at a time. Hence the actions of the game emerging from the basic CPU instructions are always organized in a "turn based way".
First the actions of charater A get calculated then the actions of character B. There is always an underlying structure and that structure is always gonna be turnbased. The "Turnbased" or "Realtime" gamers speak of has nothing to do with that. The fact that in BG the system of rounds 'n turn was very explicit (since they used an existing PnP system, (and those need to be very explicit)) doesnt chance anything. The difference between Turnbased and Realtime in games lies in how the game is presented to the player. Fallout is presented in a turn based way, Diablo is presented in a Realtime way, Baldurs Gate too, even though with all the auto-pauze option on it isnt exactly Realtime anymore... hence RT-with-pauze.

There is no universally agreed upon definition. But that mainly because people dont think about it well enough. This is the only one that makes sense. (How's that for a selfrighteous additude? awww ok, i'll make that IMO ;)
 
{head starts whirling and whirling and lifting her from the ground like a vertibird!}

All this talking and interpreting of TB.. verse anything that may or maynot be pure is making my head spin....

Therefore... let it be known... from now on when I say TB... I mean TB as in Fallout... that is it.

You've been warned!!

:wink:
 
ok, fine. but what is it that makes TB significantly better then auto-pause? it may be more realistic, but will it be really of any big difference game-play-wise?
 
NgInE said:
ok, fine. but what is it that makes TB significantly better then auto-pause? it may be more realistic, but will it be really of any big difference game-play-wise?

To me... yeah... I like being able to THINK about the combat. If I wanted to just mindlessly blow things up... I'd play a game in which I mindlessly blow things up. Then again my style of play in games in which I am suppose to blow things up tends to be stealth... scout ... plan {if possible} attack. I don't run into the combat... and when I am playing FO... I like to think about it........ since I am playing FO for the other aspects more then pulling out a kick ass gun and just shooting everything. Otherwise.. I might kill someone accidentally that I could use in my killing spree....

Also... I like the way it FLOWS better...

But maybe that is just me.

P.S. This is the same reason I like Isometric... well ONE of them.
 
NgInE said:
will it be really of any big difference game-play-wise?
yes, turn based allows for far more tactical options, so that's a big difference, gameplay-wise. the "trade-off" is that combat will be a lot slower, which is also a big difference
 
Briosafreak said:
Me too. I have already placed this link about TB and RT concepts three times at the Bethesda Forum :S

Hmmmm I wonder if anyone is reading it?

I don't know... I keep dancing between hope and dismal dismay... I haven't made up my mind... all I know is... for now... I'll have to settle my fix with what I got for FO.
 
Hirle said:
NgInE said:
will it be really of any big difference game-play-wise?
yes, turn based allows for far more tactical options, so that's a big difference, gameplay-wise. the "trade-off" is that combat will be a lot slower, which is also a big difference

Yep, just try to play Jagged Alliance and then Baldurs Gate, or like i was doing last year Fallout and Planescape Torment, you`ll see the diference.

Or better yet try KOTOR and Silent Storm NgInE, things will get more clear for you.
 
Lady Ronin said:
Briosafreak said:
Me too. I have already placed this link about TB and RT concepts three times at the Bethesda Forum :S

Hmmmm I wonder if anyone is reading it?

I don't know... I keep dancing between hope and dismal dismay... I haven't made up my mind... all I know is... for now... I'll have to settle my fix with what I got for FO.
I did. It opened my eyes. I always felt that there was something 'off' with the Bioware system, especially in kotor, but this article has showed the light :D

In effect, the Bioware system is nothing more than a fancy version of Ultima VII's system, where your teammates would run away to attack a foe at the edge of the screen before you, as player, could do something about it. The computer determines the course of the combat, not the player.
 
Roshambo said:
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.

Blah blah blah. I have a big ego and I'm much smarter than everyone else. Blah blah blah. Did I miss an argument buried somewhere in the abuse?

Where is the agreed upon list of terms and definitions then smart guy?

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.

Actually I mentioned those games simply because others were debating if it could be done. I in no way advocate the scheme. Reading more into it than that, along with the obligatory "I'm smart and you're ignorant" put down, is a problem with you not me.

Semantic arguments, expecially if you're going to prove yourself ignorant about them, are not welcome here. At best it verges on a troll.

I'm not the one ripping others for not using the language the way I think they should. Saying "BG is not the kind of turn based we want" is fairer and more productive than saying "BG isn't turn based idiot." And it avoids semantics altogether. Accusations of trolling? Is that an implied threat? Banning people because they don't agree with you is kind of like walking into the bar and picking on the smallest guy there. It shouts "Look world! I have tiny genitals!"
 
bor> you might really, really want to check out that link above about TB and RT, dude...

you might want to quibble on accepted "definitions", but i don't see how you can since it's really all rooted in- uh.. you really should check out that link above about TB and RT, dude..
 
Bor said:
blah blah blah
Bull. You registered merely to bitch at us, you have no interest in "being part of the community" so why should your presence be tolerated?
On a related note, I reported your post. Your presence annoys me.
 
Back
Top