SINK said:
Kotor has turn-based mechanics underlying its combat system, same goes for baldurs gate. Just because it dosn't pause after every turn and ask you for a command, does not mean its not turn based. It continues with whatever command you last issued or return do a default command if you don't give new commands. Which works pretty well imo and alot of other people think so too. I mean like bg is actually based on d&d rules which demand a turn based combat sytem in order to function and kotor rules work in a similar way to bg rules.
It still isn't turn-based, this means it has phases underlying its system. Big deal. Everything has phases underlying its system simply because a PC is not an analog device.
Besides that, turn-based systems have a lot of other characteristics that these silly phase based-like systems don't have. Most importantly, the movements of the opponents and your character are completely seperate, because they happen in different turns. This means, effectively, that the AI has complete freedom and time to calculate what to do next, and the AI can be both a lot easier to write (and hence a lot less buggy), and a lot faster.
Furthermore, this allows for much greater tactics because of the way you have to think about spending your turn, which is usually in games with a real-time with pause rather different.
The fact that a system is based on something turn-based doesn't mean it's turn-based, hell, in the case of these games you mention they bastardised to such a degree that it's nowhere near turn-based anymore, and this unbalances things greatly.
But hell, if you really want to know more about this stuff, go read some older threads about phase-based and turn-based combat. But really do read those threads before you come back, we really loathe having to repeat our arguments here.
Linc the Sink said:
What is your definition of a non-linear game? If your talking about a game which has no central storline and allows you to pretty much do what ever you like its not kotor its not even fallout, in fact the only games that are like that are managment games like cm and the sims! Kotor II is about as non-linear as rpgs come. There was as many if not more choices to be made as in fallout 2 and the characters you hung around with actually changed personality according to what choices you made which directly imacted the story, that never happend anywhere near the same extent in fallout 1 or 2.
....
What?
Go play Planescape: Torment for fuck's sake. That's some characters with personality and impact on the storyline. KoTOR's characters were bland and boring (except for a few funny moments) and had *no* impact on the storyline itself. Sure, there were a few small moments where you get some more information and whatever, but no actual impact on the story itself happens.
As for linear games, that's about the story. KoTOR's story is linear as hell. You have barely any impact on it and your led along a line. That's what makes it linear.
SINK said:
If simply expressing my opinions makes you want to commit suicide, dude don't even step outside your front door i'd hate to see how the real world my affect your fragile psycological state. There are other decent rpgs out there besides fallout.
Yes there are, KOTOR is not one of them. It's not even a decent RPG, it has no choices and consequences. Sure, you can pretend to Play evil, but when you threaten someone and you fail your threaten check *you can't even attack the bastard*. What the hell kind of choice is that? Gee, I can threaten him, but you know, I can't even carry through with it.
It really feels really wrong.
Then there's the fact that the whole game revolved around boring combat, stupid mini-games and the 'kewl another Star Wars' factor.
SINK said:
Whats with the overly agressive attidude anyway? I'm not trying to antagonise anyone here, i'm just expressing a view that there is more than a chance of fallout never returning to its original form and that a compromise would not be all that bad. If you don't like it theres no need to directly attack me, unless of course thats all part of your fucked up repressed state-of-mind (no-offence).
Ah, I love that, 'No offence' (sic), the two words uttered by everyone who know they're offending someone but choose to not take the blame for it. Bullshit. Telling someone he's in a 'fucked up repressed state-of-mind' is offensive. So don't do it. Sheesh.
And besides that, you come here onto a forum, you spam your opinion (that shows you haven't really read much of previous discussions, thanks for that courtesy) and then expect us all to agree with and not post anything that disagrees with you? That's pretty damn silly.
EDIT: As for your previous post:
Link said:
Oblivion was a great game and alot of the critisism towards it is based on it not being a crpg. If you get over the fact that it was never intended to be a crpg you might just enjoy it.
I won't, because I don't like those kinds of games. But that's just me.
Our problem with Oblivion is mainly the hype they built up and didn't then didn't live up to. Plus, we are fans of an RPG, when Bethesda creates something they claim is an RPG, and then is so far removed from it as Oblivion is, we get a bit worried.
Link said:
Imo the 2D isometric perspect worked well in 1998 because systems where not able to handle massive 3D landscapes. Now with much more detailed graphics possible (you have to admit that oblivion looked very good) a fallout setting could feel alot more real and immerssive than anything from circa 1998. It would be a shame if it simply stayed the same because games have moved on, time for fallout to move on too.
For fuck's sake, go read some old threads. This is the most ignorant and the most oft-repeated statement about an isometric viewpoint heard around here. Fact: 3D existed before the isometric viewpoint did. Fact: it had been used in RPGs before as well. Fact: the isometric viewpoint was invented to facilitate everything Fallout aims to achieve: PnP-like gameplay, turn-based combat, classic RPG-feel.
Plus, 'It's new so it's better!' is retarded in and of itself anyway.