Fallout 3. Turn based or not turn based.

Discussion in 'Fallout 3 Discussion' started by Gustav, May 19, 2003.

  1. Gustav

    Gustav Guest

    Am I the only person who thinks that Fallout 3 should be a turn based combat game, or is it poeple out there that shares my hatred for real-time combat games. Fallout was made a turn based combat game, and will hopefully stay like that. Or?
     
  2. Odin

    Odin Carbon Dated and Proud
    Admin

    Apr 2, 2003
    TB enough said..
     
  3. slicer

    slicer First time out of the vault

    88
    Apr 18, 2003
    tur basert? ja!!!!! (tunrn based yes!!!!!)
     
  4. rad-X

    rad-X First time out of the vault

    45
    Apr 16, 2003
    Fallout Tactics real-time system for me, because it still uses the turn-based system but introduces something slightly more interesting. It is too big a problem waiting for 50 jet reliants to move every shot.
     
  5. Rogue Hex

    Rogue Hex Look, Ma! Two Heads!

    353
    Apr 10, 2003
    I like the original TB system but somtimes it has its draw backs. Actually, i would like to have the option of both systems. Like Tactics had. That way those that likt TB can just use that and those that don't can play around with the Real time system.

    But if i had to choose i think i would proberly go for TB.
     
  6. Wooz

    Wooz Vault Sweeper Admin Orderite

    May 18, 2003
    Hmmm it'd be nice if it had both, and you could switch from one to another when you like it, like in FT. Waiting for the 50th junkie, as mentioned above, or the 15th dog to bite you is not anymore infuriating but plain boring, if not frustrating, you want to bite the goddamn dog yourself and rip it to shreds.
    On the other hand, TB means that you can take your time to plan your combat strategies... Maybe a "pause" system like in BG?
     
  7. Sammael

    Sammael First time out of the vault

    27
    May 14, 2003
    Both.
     
  8. Ratty Sr.

    Ratty Sr. Formerly known as Ratty Moderator Orderite

    Apr 23, 2003
    definitely both. implemented the way they are in Arcanum - a simple keypress switches you from one mode to other, even when in midst of combat.
     
  9. Roshambo

    Roshambo Antediluvian as Feck

    Apr 3, 2003
    Unfortunately, as in every game where there's two kinds of systems in such a manner, they turn out to be shit in balance.

    Arcanum's combat was unbalanced because they had to add in the RT option. X-COM: Apocalypse has pretty much the same problems, and FOT has it's own share of balance problems. There's no way to balance the two in the same item/char/enemy system or to work in a "toggled" method. Well, they can be balanced to a degree, but it turns out FAR worse than if it were just one system, it also takes about five times the work.

    On the scale of Fallout and Fallout 2, and with how the game is designed, you can blame the "Cave of 1,001 Ants" on BIS' poor design. There's also slider bars for how fast the NPCs move on their turn, so that is pretty well taken care of.
     
  10. Jacen

    Jacen Still Mildly Glowing

    241
    Apr 3, 2003
    Both, with the option to switch between them. That is IF they can get the balance right, otherwise just give me TB
     
  11. Vegetable

    Vegetable First time out of the vault

    8
    Apr 7, 2003
    Turn Based, and like Rosh so nicely point to, cumbersome battle in Turn Based Mode isnt a flaw of Turn Based but designers not designing well..
     
  12. Saint_Proverbius

    Saint_Proverbius Vault Senior Citizen

    Apr 6, 2003
    Ever wondered what that Combat Speed slider in the Options screen in Fallout and Fallout 2 did? Perhaps it's time to stop wondering and play with it.

    And kiss interactivity goodbye.
     
  13. Wooz

    Wooz Vault Sweeper Admin Orderite

    May 18, 2003
    Right, but that doesn't solve the problem entirely, fifty junkies crawling away at turtle speed are indeed a problem, but where goes the realism in a fast combat mode when they start off as rabbits high on cocaine? :?

    Another question, don't take it ironoically or sarcastically or anything suppose I'm just plain stupid and I didn't understand what you meant by losing the interactivity by introducing a "pause" button?
     
  14. Gustav

    Gustav Guest

    Noooo!!!

     
  15. Roshambo

    Roshambo Antediluvian as Feck

    Apr 3, 2003
    Might I suggest Ritalin?

    Now let's think about this. If you were in a combat with 50 junkies involved, then in RT, that likely means you're going to die. Unless they have some reason to react to combat situations, they should be skipped over. There's only a few places where that number of people are, or even that number of critters.

    For Fo3 and according to what MCA says, big towns shouldn't be happening. I think they've learned a Cave of 1,001 Ants under Broken Hillsis a bad thing, too.

    Again, those problems were caused by BAD DESIGN, and New Reno didn't belong. The Prostitute Army is one of the more humorous things in the game, though.

    Hyperbole doesn't help the argument, either.

    Just like Baldur's Garbage and the rest of the Inbred Engine games. Pause, issue orders, and then wait as combat goes on automatically. Those kinds of games are often non-interactive to a fault, including X-COM: Apocalypse. It also reduces some of the tension and importance of making the best use of your time/resources. The Inbred Engine games just about pissed away many things in favor of the real-time action, and therefore it just really didn't play out well. The crap pathfinding and AI didn't help, either.

    It is, oddly enough, going almost to the same effect or worse than the "50 junkies" scenario, since in every combat you're going to sit there and watch how things go automatically.
     
  16. Ratty Sr.

    Ratty Sr. Formerly known as Ratty Moderator Orderite

    Apr 23, 2003
    i wouldn't call Baldur's Gate a bad game. i never got hooked to it as i did to Fallout and Daggerfall, but it's still one of the best D&D computer games ever made. it was well designed, well balanced, had a good storyline and good atmosphere and was generally a very good and playable game. the real-time combat system was not the best, but it worked well as a compromise between turn-based combat and actual real-time. so i definitely don't consider it a garbage.
     
  17. Wooz

    Wooz Vault Sweeper Admin Orderite

    May 18, 2003
    Well, when I think about it again, guess you're right... the essence of the TB difficulties in FO/FO2 lie in the "bad" (well i can't do better so I'll abstain from excessive criticism) realisation of an idea than in the idea itself... which leads right back to the beggining of the dilemma TB or not TB :P

    Besides, The Prostitute army of New Reno wasn't, imho the most humorous thing in the game, in my selection the grand winner was the Migratory Wasteland Car Trunk (TM) which followed you no matter where you were. And yeah, I know they fixed it in the patch.
     
  18. DarkShade1989

    DarkShade1989 It Wandered In From the Wastes

    113
    Apr 21, 2003
    Turn-based.

    How would you capture the tactical esscence of FO in real-time? (Which makes FO:T ironic) It takes time to decide if you should shoot the super mutant in its eyes or its groin. FO combat is deep stuff. :roll:
     
  19. Roshambo

    Roshambo Antediluvian as Feck

    Apr 3, 2003
    That, unfortunately, doesn't say much.

    Well-designed? Where Charisma has little effect except for shop prices, as did Intelligence have little effect upon anything but spells? There was also really only one way to play through it, and it had crap replay value because of that. I also disagree about the storyline. It was often weak, forgotten and irrelevent at times, and the side quests were absolutely pathetic and generic to a fault. Well, many faults. The atmosphere was basically "okay...it's D&D...here's some popular faces...wade through some combat...oh, look, a gratuitous inclusion of Drizzt for the drooling fanboys...*yawn*".

    Basically, BioWare ripped off Fallout's general gameplay, but only half-ass, and then altered the hell out of the D&D system for their RT combat.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAH! Oh, my...sequence really meant little in the game, as did other things, mainly because the RT combat made them broken or irrelevent. There was nothing "between" TB and RT about it. It was RT pissing over elements that were designed to be used in a TB fashion. Check out Temple of Elemental Evil for a D&D game that will likely blow BioWare away (except it will make the RT crackhead BioWare fanboys cry). For a good example of a good TB game that flows in a manner that BioWare should have used for sequence and other matters, check out Prelude to Darkness.

    Baldur's Grate also really stunk because of the noninteractivity I mentioned earlier. Chronic ennui is something I experience when trying to play any of those games and wade through the combat.
     
  20. Ratty Sr.

    Ratty Sr. Formerly known as Ratty Moderator Orderite

    Apr 23, 2003
    i agree that role of charisma and dialogue was minimal in Baldur's Gate. i also didn't like the fact that playing the game as a chaotic or evil character was next to impossible. but great environments (ah, those beautiful medieval towns and castles, that peaceful and yet dangerous countryside, those claustrophobic mines and dungeons...), good recreation of D&D character creation, all those beautiful D&D spells, monsters and items in a CRPG and great atmosphere (i especially liked the feeling of being lost and abandoned and not knowing what to do and who to trust with all those bounty hunters looking for you) make up for these (mainly gameplay-related) flaws.
    again, i agree there were some flaws in BG's combat. but in case you haven't noticed, the system used in Baldur's Gate is typical real-time strategy combat control! by "real-time strategy" i don't mean crap like C&C, Warcraft and other infantile arcade shooters with resource management features. i mean real strategies like Sudden Strike or Real War, where you have to plan your every move carefully before issueing orders. i don't know how you played Baldur's Gate and similar games, but i always took advantage of terrain, formations and, of course, the pause feature. result - maximum efficiency with minimum losses. i know what you are thinking now: "Baldur's Gate is not an RTS, it's an RPG." but in my opinion, every game where you control several characters must have either turn-based or RTS-based combat control. of course, i find turn-based combat to be most fun and most comfortable, but i also find it acceptable to sacrifice it in order to accomplish greater realism and better game dynamics. whether or not you like this merging of Sudden Strike and a role playing game is up to you. personally, i'd rather be playing good old turn based combat and maybe be able to switch to real-time once i see a 1000 rats coming my way. but i nevertheless find this planned, pause based real-time combat an acceptable solution, certainly more acceptable than mindless hack 'n slash gameplay used in Diablo, Nox and similar "RPG" games.
    as i already stated, i never really got hooked to Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale or Neverwinter Nights, mainly because i expect maximum freedom and a great many sub-quests from an RPG, and these games simply don't emphasize those features. the reason why i even bother writing all this is because i'm merely trying to point out that BG was, in spite of certain flaws, a very high-quality game and the one true successor of old and legendary computer AD&D's like Dragon Lance Saga, Pools of Radiance and other addictive masterpieces we all spent many sleepless nights playing. it gave me hope that good realization of Dungeons & Dragons on PC is very much possible and personally i hope there will be more such games, only even more improved and with greater freedom and interactivity.