Turn based vs. real time

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Guest
I am new to this bored and I bet this topic has been brought up time and time again, but I don't see it in the first page of posts, so I am hoping people won't get too pissed at me posting this. After all, it is a very important issue.

Please don't make Fallout 3 a Tactics 2! Tactics was a lot of fun, but it just isn't Fallout. Something about turn-based that is quentisentally (spelling?) Fallout. Straying from that ruins the feel of the game. I don't mind if after they make make a Fallout 3 they go aheadf and make a Tactics 2, but Fallout 3 must be real time. Fallout is an RPG series, and making it real-time might make it more of a stratigy game like tactics.

For people who havn't played the first two fallout games, it is understandable that you don't know what the fuss is about. But for those who have played and loved the first two fallouts, I think you know what I mean about the feel of the game. It is something taht is hard to explain, but diffenetly true.

I know I am going to get virtually murdered for this comment but I am going to speak my mind. I hate the combat system in Baldur's Gate. I never really got into the game. It does tend to work better in NWN, when you just controlling one character. Even still, I don't believe this system should be implemented in Fallout 3. Just because it works in NWN, doesn't mean it will work here. I really don't like having to pause the game all the time, and I think to keep the feel of the game, it should be turn-based. If I had my way NWN would be turn-based too.

Surfing the net I have discovered alot of people want to make fallout real-time. They argue that you can have more options in real time. I just want to say that that is a myth. I am a pen and paper RPG player. I play D&D, have played the Star Wars RPG and am just starting D20 modern. I can tell you that these games are all turn-based, and have more options then any comptuer game, ever!!! People say you can't do suppressive fire in turn-based. Guess what? It is in the D20 modern rule book! People say you can't set it so that you automatically fire when someone sticks there head out from cover. Guess what, if you know someone is behined there, you can in any of the aforementioned RPGs by reading an attack action during your turn! Just so people don't fall for the myth, I wanted to set the record straight that you can do just as much with turn-based as real time.
 
Hmmm, real time you say? Or just mistype?
But i think it must be turn based....
Why? If you made it real time (or those endless-whatever FOT) made it more "Arcade"...
 
turn based...or both types, just better implemented than in FOT, if it didn't take too long cuz then it might sell more....and the BG battle system IS kinda bad, and when you are on low levels you only have one charge of a spell, and then you have to rest...i hated that...(that is actually why i haven't played the games much...and the lousy AI in icewind dale....)but this is supposed to be FO3 talk..they could have some hardcore fallout gamers and someone who haven't tried it before to beta test it early in the phase of creation, and then find out what they thought of it and make it the way most of the beta testers liked it, and implement some improvments and such...

Life's a beach...Then you're sushi...
 
[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Dec-12-02 AT 02:20PM (GMT)[p]Ya, correction: I meant must be turn based. I was in a hurry when I wrote it. I had to go to work. Well, it looks like I am preaching to the converted. I am glad so many people agree with me.
 
I love fallout 1 and 2. In fact I am playing fallout 2 right now. However, I think that the turn-based combat system is only good for serious and big fights. Nothing is more annoying than going through all these ants in the broken hills mine and having to spend these turns on them. I liked what they did in tactics, where you could choose between the two systems. That way I can have quality turn-based combat when fighting the real battles where I have a chance of losing and strategy is important, and at the same time be able to just rush through these easy oponents that are not worthy of my playing time.
 
well...

Really, if you think about it, they can balance the game either way, ie:
1. All turn-based
>If they make it turn based, all they have to do is keep on using the ap idea that has been in use since fallout 1, where everything uses action points, and action points are based on your character stats. In this style it's classical chess, but sometimes boring.. Good examples of this is Might and Magic III, Lord of the rings. (The overlay, not the combat system.)
2. All real-time
>If they make it real time, all they have to do is use the tactics way of handling it, where over a time unit, ap is gained... though, it must be stated that they can borrow ideals from other FPS games, and somehow relate/modify it to fallout usuage. Examples of real-time combat probably would be gta, and unreal series, although, if they make it too FPS-like, it becomes like any other FPS game, which would kinda suck for a rpg game...
3. Both (Turn-based and Real-time)
>If they use this, it will probably stay the same as Fallout Tactics, as there is a problem when you design it with real-time, and turn-based combat, the problem is that one of them gets the upper hand, and the other is hurt badly. Unless they spend inordinate amounts of time on balancing the types..

That's about it... heh..
-Raiden
 
RE: well...

I'm pretty sure this is a minority position, but I admit that I liked the CTB/Real Time option in FOT. I just thought that the ability to micro-manage a battle in turn based was too unrealistic (I know it's just a game) and I liked the possibility that your entire game could turn into a disaster in a couple of moments in real-time.

However, if you are going to make FO 3 a RPG with NPCs really having their own ideas about combat and out of the player's hands than I think the game should be turn-based. I just think it would be too difficult otherwise.
 
Turn based

IMHO, TB in Fallout 1/2 (Wouldn't know about Tactics, only played it with CTB, which worked better for FOT IHMO) really slowed down when more than a few combatants were involved. I mean, jeez, in FO 1/2 I need to keep a book nearby to read when NPCs were taking their turns, and my computer is fast.


I think FO3 should have a CTB option. Even if few people used it, it wouldn't hurt.

Maybe add to that a "selective turn based" option that would turn on CTB whenever more than x combatants were on the screen at one time?
 
RE: Turn based

Which screws with the balancing because it is impossible to put in a TB and RT system together without some imbalance.

I would suggest next time that you find the Options menu and take a look for what might help you next time, rather than suggesting something that would take a lot more time to develop and would probably lead to some of the same problems FOT had.
 
RE: Turn based

Yeah, well, y'know what? Ever heard of playtesting?

Put it in, see if the playtesters like it. Isn't that an option? If they like it, it stays, if not, it goes.
 
RE: Turn based

>Yeah, well, y'know what? Ever heard
>of playtesting?
>
>Put it in, see if the
>playtesters like it. Isn't that
>an option? If they like
>it, it stays, if not,
>it goes.


Yeah, well, y'know what? That's pretty much the most retarded development idea I've ever heard of, mainly because it would be a waste of time and wouldn't be a good representation of those who would buy the game or if it would make the game good.

*sigh* All these damn armchair developers...
 
RE: Turn based

Taking playtesters' suggestions is for 'me-too's and bandwagon jumpers.




- disabled -​
 
RE: Turn based

>Taking playtesters' suggestions is for 'me-too's
>and bandwagon jumpers.

Just about hits it on the head. It really fucks up the development process dramatically. QA isn't the same as playtesting, as they do have a slight difference. Playtesting is to bounce it off a pool of people for opinions, which usually results in a clusterfuck as they try to figure out what to do about them. That is why developers have just about ditched playtesters for development in all cases except for interface design in lieu of a smaller, tighter team with one or two lead designers and a few lesser designers.
 
RE: Turn based

Oh, so you LIKE how games are nowadays, with half-finished games regularly released, and the rest slowly oozed out on the internet?

You LIKE the fact that game companies can just sit around on their asses, answering every complaint with "we'll make a patch"?


Sometimes I want to buy a game and have it playable OUT OF THE BOX, not having to spend an hour on the internet getting update v.2.3.2.3.4.2, dammit.
 
RE: Turn based

Gee, you think playtesting doesn't work with a large PT group?
Ever head of Day of Defeat? The FREE Halflife mod?
They have forums where people discuss the latest patch, etc.
The game works just fine, and has become much better with each patch.

And it's free. FREE.If a bunch of people working for nothing CAN get PT to work and professionals can't, something is very wrong.



And the fact that millions of bugfixes have to be released is an indicator of the fact that not enough playtesting is being done.
 
RE: Turn based

[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Feb-08-03 AT 00:57AM (GMT)[p]Yes, another twit who is clueless about games development...

>Oh, so you LIKE how games
>are nowadays, with half-finished games
>regularly released, and the rest
>slowly oozed out on the
>internet?

There's a difference between QA to get the bugs out and get the game finished and relying on a small, unrepresentatve group of people to tell you if a certain aspect of your CORE GAME DESIGN is good or not is poor design.

Learn the difference.

>You LIKE the fact that game
>companies can just sit around
>on their asses, answering every
>complaint with "we'll make a
>patch"?

That's a function of QA, not using a playtesting group as a sounding board for game features. To prove how much of a folly you have between your ears, imagine if they took a group of people that were from all kinds of gaming styles and had them decide if features in Fallout were good or not. Well, the Quake kiddie says there's too much reading and it is complex, the RTS kiddie agrees with the Quake kiddie that there isn't enough action, the DiabloRPG kiddie thinks that there's too much talking involved and it should be Real Time combat because of other games and that he loves to have a twitchfest, and then at the minority is the hardcore CRPG player, for which Fallout was made, who prefers TB and a good, deep story. Do you get the picture?

It REALLY bogs down development if they have to send it to a playtesting team at every turn to see if CORE MECHANICS are good in one way or not. The reason why I said you were an idiot with no clue about development is becase they would take MUCH LONGER to develop a game if they went by your method, mainly because such aspects of a game are decided long before it ever reaches a compiler for the very first time.

>Sometimes I want to buy a
>game and have it playable
>OUT OF THE BOX, not
>having to spend an hour
>on the internet getting update
>v.2.3.2.3.4.2, dammit.

Again, that's because of QUALITY ASSURANCE, NOT A DEVELOPMENT SOUNDING BOARD.

I believe I've said that in an above post.

>Gee, you think playtesting doesn't work with a large PT group?
>Ever head of Day of Defeat? The FREE Halflife mod?
>They have forums where people discuss the latest patch, etc.
>The game works just fine, and has become much better with each patch.
>And it's free. FREE.If a bunch of people working for nothing >CAN get PT to work and professionals can't, something is very >wrong.

This is a completely different thing. Balancing, bug hunting, testing, that is all about QA, not in-house/out-of-house playtesting.

Plus that DoD is a FPS mod, not a game like Fallout. It's going through a number of revisions, which is great for a FPS game where there's no real story or anything, and played by the consumers to give feedback to the developers. That doesn't work for a single-player game that is finished before it gets into the end-user's hands.

You're also a total idiot if you think that Interplay would put that much into post or pre-release support. You also fail to understand the scope, that Day of Defeat has thousands of people helping with this, for a non-profit development group over a substantial length of time. Interplay count't, nor any other development house, afford to work like that. Most real developers rely on a good core design, like Prelude to Darkness, and go from there. I could just imagine how that game would be fucked apart and still in development until next year if it were deicded on by a development sounding board.

>And the fact that millions of bugfixes have to be released is
>an indicator of the fact that not enough playtesting is being done.

You're trying to blur the definitions of the two together to cover your own ass from the stupid idea of having a test group of people say if RT and TB could be mixed together, which it can't. It has never been done because the core mechanics are very contrary, and it's impossible to get the mechanics to resemble each other enough without some kind of exploit arising.

You're doubly a fool since you aren't taking into account that Interplay couldn't afford to hire any good developmental playtesters and would have to rely on volunteers, which brings doubts into any quality or experience.
 
RE: Turn based

And pray tell, what makes YOU an expert on games development?


And besides, I would like to be able to buy a game and have it WORK. It's my MONEY that I am PAYING. Get that? MONEY + PAYING should equal WORK.
 
RE: Turn based

[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Feb-08-03 AT 02:36AM (GMT)[p]>And pray tell, what makes YOU
>an expert on games development?

Because I'd lay money on the fact that I've been in development and that you haven't? I can tell, it's just those little clues like the following:

>And besides, I would like to
>be able to buy a
>game and have it WORK.
>It's my MONEY that I
>am PAYING. Get that? MONEY
>+ PAYING should equal WORK.

Again, that is QUALITY ASSURANCE.

It is NOT a DEVELOPMENT PLAYTEASTING TEAM.

LEARN THE DIFFERENCE YOU BLITHERING IDIOT!
 
Back
Top