Turn based, Real time or other?
- Thread starter Tycell
- Start date
uziel said:
No, you were warned that we do not answer file requests, hand out files, etc. Hell, you couldn't even download something to the computer that would have been right in the same directory and extracted everything you needed. Instead of doing the work yourself, you came up with that lame excuse, and wanted people to give you the art already extracted. Pay attention to that, extracted.
Which is in fact what earned you said avatar.
As for Richoid, if he keeps up with the stupidity, he will fall under the umbrella clause of causing a disruption, and banned for that. Stupidity can be considered a disruption, and he can take his cattle mentality and moo with the rest of the vegetables at GameSpy.
GhostWhoTalks
First time out of the vault
I still don't see why an elegeantly designed phase-based combat system couldn't work for fallout.
The previous thread illustrated posters desires for a simplistic method of approaching combat, and I fail to see why that desire could not be reconciled with a phase-based combat system.
Sure what I posted in my previous thread was complicated, and maybe it went too far, but that's no reason to discount the possibility entirely. From what I could gather the main reason why what I posted was undesirable was that it would bog down combat with needless decision making.
I see nothing to substantiate that claim. In fallout once I got sufficiently powerful combat essentially boiled down to me aiming for the eyes with a turbo plasma gun and vaporizing my enemies one at a time.
In fact I could fairly easily foresee a manner in which combat could be made more stream-lined and quickly resolved. If you want your characters to aim for a certain location, then simply have a button which effects such, and then have a button which amounts to "fire at closest target" or "fire at most dangerous target." Then click the "execute/end phase" button and watch things go.
I'm not saying that Fallout 3 has to be phase-based in order to be a good game; far from it: I would not be at all displeased if it maintained its turn-based approach to combat, but I am not, at least as of yet in the face of a lack of evidence to the contrary, willing to discount the possibility of a workable phase-based approach to combat.
The previous thread illustrated posters desires for a simplistic method of approaching combat, and I fail to see why that desire could not be reconciled with a phase-based combat system.
Sure what I posted in my previous thread was complicated, and maybe it went too far, but that's no reason to discount the possibility entirely. From what I could gather the main reason why what I posted was undesirable was that it would bog down combat with needless decision making.
I see nothing to substantiate that claim. In fallout once I got sufficiently powerful combat essentially boiled down to me aiming for the eyes with a turbo plasma gun and vaporizing my enemies one at a time.
In fact I could fairly easily foresee a manner in which combat could be made more stream-lined and quickly resolved. If you want your characters to aim for a certain location, then simply have a button which effects such, and then have a button which amounts to "fire at closest target" or "fire at most dangerous target." Then click the "execute/end phase" button and watch things go.
I'm not saying that Fallout 3 has to be phase-based in order to be a good game; far from it: I would not be at all displeased if it maintained its turn-based approach to combat, but I am not, at least as of yet in the face of a lack of evidence to the contrary, willing to discount the possibility of a workable phase-based approach to combat.
Man, just give me both...
Like in Fallout: Tactics. And everyone can be gay and happy.
I´m hoping Beth realizes that the comp version doesn´t have to be identical, stupidified version to the shitbox version.
Console players are quite different than us so why make the same thing for all?
Like in Fallout: Tactics. And everyone can be gay and happy.
I´m hoping Beth realizes that the comp version doesn´t have to be identical, stupidified version to the shitbox version.
Console players are quite different than us so why make the same thing for all?
OG Loc said:
The problem is, no one was really happy with the shitty CTB- and TB-combined combat system. Aimed to be satisfying for both fractions it turned out to be the opposite of that. Just look at Arcanum, which could have been greater than Fallout but wasted this chance by implenting a too fast-paced RT-combat alongside with a light version of real TB-combat.
Turned based, the action points system is unique in my opinion though it was oddly applied for almost real time in FOT but off that, turned based because with all the opponents that could end up surrounding you at any point... well lets just say I don't want to relive Dungeon Siege and Diablo memories where I'm gang raped cause I couldn't hit the potion button fast enough
OG Loc said:
The maps, AI, items, etc. EVERYTHING, including the character system, has to be balanced for both. FOT suffered from this problem, X-COM: Apocalypse suffered from this problem, Arcanum suffered from this problem. Instead of giving the benefits of both systems, it only compromises the gameplay of both, and there is really no feasable way to combine or put both in without one compromising the other, or creating twice the ruleset and work for the developers.
And most commercial developers, in particular Bethesda, have enough problems with AI and etc. with just one time base. Now you expect them to master two and balance between them?
This should be entertaining...