Arcanum graphics...

Well giving your opinion on Fallout 3 features is OK, I just wanted to prevent this from becoming more of a flame-fest. Complaints are OK, flames are not. And it wasn't really aimed specifically at you, Stephen.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Calis on 2001-05-16 10:13 ]</font>

 

I just asked Calis what he means by "Guys, knock it off", and he's talking about the Flaming only. In other words, he's saying he wants a more reasonable argument from people, Including me I guess. :wink:

That being said, I do have to agree with Stephen on the subject of not being listenned to. Quite frankly, I have a nasty little theory.

Fallout is being divided to increase sales. If you liked the Turn Based Combat, there'll be FOT2 for you. If you liked the dialogue and story, there'll be Fallout 3(hopefully it'll be a good story). I guess it's too much to ask Interplay to put both in one game.

 

If I may throw my 2 coppers into the mix...

The whole turn based vs non-turn based on FO3. I am all for using the idea of FOT.

Give the players the option of the orginial turn based or psudo-real time as FOT did.

If you do that with FO3 then the argument is moot. As you are catering to both classes of players. Those that like to take there time and like turn based (as i do) and those that want faster paced combat.

I really dont see a issue with taking that idea from FOT and putting it into FO3.

Harlequin
Admin of Norworld
http://www.norworld.cncdsl.com

 

Mr. Urquhart -

I know I am jumping in here late in the game. I hope you are still reading this thread.

As a former business owner I am well aware when all is said and done its the bottom line that needs to addressed aside from all else.

I can type a rant that rivels the bible in lenght but no matter how strong my argument, if BIS dosent make money on my opinions and arguments its for naught.

So I am going to do something really different. Im going to a tactful and calm mannor address your points you raised eariler. :smile:

First and foremost allow me to introduce myself. I like in Boston, MA and work as a System Admin. I have been involved in tabletop RPGs since 83 and CRPGs since the early days of the mid 80s. I currently run a NWN project to design a persistent world and currently run my own RP enforced UO server.

I am not trying to dazzle you with my expereince in the RP genere, but I am hoping you dont think I am talking out of my arse is my point of bringing this up. :wink:

I would like to say I bought FOT and thought it was a GREAT game. Chris did a wonderful job with the FO universe IMHO.

I think the reason theres 'fuel to the fire' issues is becasue of, quite simply, change. Some people want more of the same. Hell, I cant dispute there general argument. I dont agree bashing you is the best way to get their point across, but aside from that there general arguments have merit.

FO is known for 4 things. the SPECIAL RPG system, turn based, a retro-50's post-war look and a interactive, open ended, deep RPG enviroment. (Go anywhere, do anything)

Everything else imo is fluff.

Lets be honest, FO2 is not much more then FO1 except for some tweaks. Very little change in a format/interface/gameplay kind of way.

Thus we had 2 titles almost identical. And now time moves foward and so must the franchise. Thus you hit the road block of ppl who just want 'more of the same'.

The FO lover in me say yes, just give me more of the same. But then the business owner and practicle guy takes over and says 'if your going to succeed you need to cater more then the current fan base'.

I think FOT was a step in the right direction. It offered turn based or psudo-real time. I think the whole 'need real time to attract new fans' vs 'it wont be fallout if it isnt turn based' can be overcome if you just add a switch to do either such as FOT did. It kept the long time fans happy but it opened new doors to new people as well. I feel the same approach needs to be taken with FO3.

Also what NEEDS to be in, is alternative endings like in the previous FO. Where you actions have a direct effect on the world both in game and end game narration. I feel the open ended go anywhere, do anything, be good or evil and the world alters based on your actions is a MUST. I still feel FO2 cant be beat for this kind of openess. Its as close as you can get to tabletop RPGing imo.

And lastly, the view. Again my gut reaction is to say make it just like FO2 just with better res. But once again the realisitc part of me takes over and I know you need to once again keep this open to new fans. I think a look like FOT would be a good choice. In fact you could prob use the base code of FOT as alot of art work is already in place as is the core engine. It would save you a great amount of time and cost then developing a engine from scratch.

Granted the FOT engine would need some tweaking on both a performance level and gameplay level but over all its better then starting from scratch.

I think the core FOT look is a good halfway point. It keeps the FO look and feel for older players but its looks sharp and new to attract new players.

Plus the Turn based/Real time option is already built into that engine.

Granted you said you want to go to 3D "sooner" then "later". That is a hard stance to dispute. But my counter to that is quite simply, what does it add to the game to go 3D? Does it really add ANYTHING you couldnt do with sprites as in FO2 or FOT? My honest option is not really. At least I can not see something that NEEDS to be done with a CRPG in a 3D enviroment.

Unless of course you go the way of Dungeon Keeper2 for example. I MIGHT beable to see some use for a 3rd person, 3D, top down view like that. It would be interesting to take a targeted shot and swing around to the rear and see the body explode outwards for example. But then thats really fluff more then anything IMHO.

Well I didnt quite write a bible but close. *grin* I hope you ponder what I have said. In the end I am sure you will make the best decesion for both your company and FO fans.

Harlequin
Admin of Norworld
http://www.norworld.cncdsl.com

 

Not aimed specifically at me?! *pout* I wanted to be public enemy No. 1. :sad:

Maybe if I put a cropped screencap of my minigunning Feargus (uh, the ghoul - honest!) in my signature file.... :wink:

 

Everything flame happening over the eventual production of Fallout 3 is not helping to develop the game any faster, and I want to see the game created. Roleplaying is not about turn-based COMBAT. Roleplaying has more to do with a story, and taking a role in the creation of that story and having it unfold. The switch to 3d allows for a more interactive environment...sure the 2d thing was great in fallout 1&2 with the sprites and all but the look of the world didn't draw you in as much as it could have. Any complaints on the way the game will be produced should be valid and not made by people with their heads up their @$$es reliving the glory memories of the original games. They should have a basic point (ie. I like turn-base combat and 2d sprites, they worked good. Not, you suck BlackIsle, I'm going to kill your children because you won't do things the way I'm familiar with!) that is brought out in a productive manner.

Replying to this post will be awfully useless as well, as I'll never return to this board...this was my one and only experience here and I didn't like it.

 

Hmmm, somehow the concept of 'meaningful exchange of ideas' didn't seem to sink in with this one....

 

Ugh. Nine pages later, and my head is still spinning.

* "Developers don't listen to people who insult them."

This is generally true of all people. But people should at least try to listen, whether they're Developers or Fans. It's entirely possible to listen to a ranter and see what they're really saying, just as it's possible to listen to a calmly-stated point of view and see the insults, when they exist.

* "But they're changing Fallout!"

I find it irritating that games that don't seek to expand on a storyline put the number in the title. (Fallout 5!) If you're starting over, start over. (Fallout: Return to Gecko.) It's entirely possible to use the brand name as a way of indicating similarity without leading us to believe that this is more of what we're used to (Fallout Tactics).

While I think that Developers have an ethical responsibility to keep a genre intact (that is, as someone earlier said, a world remains "in character"). I have to agree that FOT did a poor job of this, regardless of the game play.

Unfortunately, recent entertainment events (Star Wars: Ep 1) have shown that a genre is whatever you make it to be, and if people don't like it, tough.

The flip side of this, however, is that I resent hearing that "xxxx Diehard Fans Resent Change". I would be tickled pink if the Fallout engine was rewritten from scratch, as long as the result was worth the effort. And the result, as hopefully people who have actually bothered trying to understand what has been said in here, has more to do with the genre and ways one interacts with the game world than with anything else.

The result if someone doesn't like a game? We continue with...

* Marketing, Entertainment and You

The frilly, non-necessary items sold around give rise to an observation: Capitalism is, I believe, the closest thing to an Ultimate Democracy. If you don't like something, you don't do anything with it. I don't like SUVs, so I don't buy them. This, whether or not it's easily noticable, sends a message to Marketing (the Evil Villain of RPGs). Sometimes it doesn't matter (see: Everquest, Verant, censorship). But a lot of the time, you have far too many MBAs huddling in rooms and cubicles trying to justify their jobs, and they do that by crunching as many numbers as they can get their hands on. Marketing might make mistakes, but those mistakes look good on paper, and those are the papers that the CEOs and Directors see.

I heard, today, on the Arcanum IRC channel, someone (he knows who he is) say that they won't buy an RPG that doesn't do Turn Based. I've seen it reflected in here. I've seen people go on about how "archaeic" and "old-school" that kind of view is.

If this was, say, a debate on improving driving conditions, I'd agree: Bad laws need changed and good laws need enforced. (USE YOUR TURN SIGNALS, MORONS!)

But this isn't anything that has to do with the quality and survivability of life. This is a bunch of people sitting around talking about a GAME. That means that the Developers have to convince the most people as possible that they want to play it, so saying things like "I won't even consider it if it doesn't have turn-based" is important. It's important to Marketing, it's important to the Fans, it's important to everyone. I think Troika has had a stroke of genius by creating a system that works equally as well in Real-Time as Turn-Based.

* "They owe us."

"They" being the Developers. I'm torn on this issue. In the end, I agree that all fan efforts are, well, fan efforts. Fans realize that any revinue that they create for the game they're promoting is pro bono, free of any charge. In fact, the "payment" that they get is that the people with the copyright doesn't sue their heinders off or otherwise make life difficult for them. (Again, see: Verant, Everquest, censorship.)

* "The fan/news sites are ruining Fallout's reputation."

The other side of the "fan-based sites" coin is that the Developers can't turn around and complain that we're "ruining things for them". There is no contractual agreement between any fan site and the resulting company who benefits. This means there's no contractual agreement between any site and the resulting company who suffers.

What DOES exist is a moral and/or ethical obligation between the two. When one side breaks the trust, if there exists any, then the other side doesn't have any obligation to uphold any unspoken agreements.

For instance, Feargus comes in here and tells us, in a nutshell, "We're doing what we think is right, why do you have a problem with that?" He has now given us the ethical right to tell him exactly that. If he ignores it, he has broken the unwritten trust that he, himself, initiated. If he says, "I don't care what you think," he's further broken it.

Unfortunately, if Feargus, for instance, breaks the public trust, then everyone else has to live with that. I feel sorry for Mr. Avellone for having to live with the bad feelings that have sprung up, and I hope he can prove them wrong by making a fantastic game. I would promise to carry his children. (In my ARMS, you freaks!)

* The End

Oops, I made a hideously erroneous error in the post. But I edited it. Yay, me. Okay, I'm done now.

-Thenomain (NMI)


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Thenomain on 2001-05-16 13:34 ]</font>

 

Well I can't write much now since I'm in incredible jaw pain thanks to this orthodontic preparatory stuff I had done yesterday, plus I need to leave out of here quick-like on account of a date with a redheaded IT babe. Mmmmmmm, yes Virginia there is a Santa Claus! Anyway, there is an implicit trust built up between a game developer and a gamer when the question of sequels come up. Why else do you think that gamer knows your game company from Adam? They're trusting you to tickle their fancy like before, and maybe with a few new twists. No, they don't have to take the Fallout2 engine and just make new games with it. Though that would cut down on production costs.....ahem. But shiny and new is allright. I mean, FOT didn't have that bad an engine. Why not just take that and make a single player game with it? A single player role playing game I mean - in the traditional Fallout style. With continuity. I mean seriously, who here was able to swallow the whole Brotherhood East vs Brotherhood West concept? What'll we see in FOT2? East Bro Biggie vs West Bro 2pac? Is there going to be a 'Thug Life' perk? It'd be funny actually if it wouldn't absolutely destroy my ability to suspend disbelief. Which is exactly what the horde of pop culture jokes in Fallout 2 did. I was almost never able to forget that I was playing a video game and get lost in the experience. Bad Feargus!

 

I hate to point this out, but role playing and turn based combat are intertwined.

Roleplaying is entirely about playing the role of a character to the best of that character's abilities, not the ability of the player to control his or her mouse.

Maybe my character has a super human agility and maybe I don't. So much for his reaction time in combat, even though he has a high agility.

Maybe I misclick the mouse in the heat of twitch combat, so much for my character being smart or agile.

Before anyone brings it up, the pause feature doesn't make it any more "role playing" than just normal real time. This goes back to the player's ability to "twitch" at the right time, making the player's agility take precedent over the character's agility.

Whoops, I didn't get to the space bar in time. My super agility character didn't move in time. Yay!


_________________


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Saint_Proverbius on 2001-05-16 15:41 ]</font>

 

"I think FOT was a step in the right direction. It offered turn based or psudo-real time."

And, IMO, it was unbarebly bad. I can't believe they turned a CRPG combat system into a tactical system and managed to make it WORSE.

FOT should be the banner for "Why Fallout shouldn't go real-time!" campaign. The only good part was that they allowed you to control all your squad mates.

The FOT engine was also very poor.

It appears the only way BIS is going to feel that TB is the best choice is if they get hit in the wallet...and I think they need to feel it before FO3 is released. 'Cause once it is released, it is VERY tough to say "Well, it would have sold better if we had kept TB combat and <other FO features>".

Still, if fan reactions are poor enough, and FO3 sells poorly, maybe it will click. I won't purchase BIS in such a way that they will benefit should they implement RT combat (in other words, I'll pick it up from the bargin bin or rent it). It is clear this is a money decision, and money is all that will change their minds.

Personally, I think they are mistaken if they think they can push Fallout into the mass market by slapping real-time combat and multiplayer on the box and dumbing down the rest of the game.

I think BIS is obsessed with real-time combat and multiplayer. They've been caught in the hype. A large part of that, know doubt, is that the two almost go hand in hand.

 

Guh, 9 pages.
Oh, well, may as well add my 2cents.

On the current subjects:
I thought the /system/ in FO:T was actually very good. Aside from bugs (which were bad), a decided lack of features (coulda borrowed more from JA2, eg) and complaints regarding the lack of fidelity to the original, it was a good game, and the gameplay, IMO, was very good.

Thenomain -
Excellent post, and I agree on most everything.
Something you wrote brought this to mind:

Okay, so BIS is interested in making money. I can deal with that, it's pretty important. Still, they're in the business of making /games/ and hopefull, more specifically, CRPGs. If they're truly concerned about making something that's going to appeal to the widest possible audience, maybe the should bloody well change their line of work. I hear that espresso chains are still lucrative.
Seriously, they need to focus on making great CRPGs. They need to understand their market, too, but a great game will help make its own market.
Stop running around, trying to follow where you think the money is, Feargus. Instead, put your heart and soul into what you beleive is a great creation based on its own merits, and most of us will likely buy it, and recommend it to others.

- Stravaig

 

"I thought the /system/ in FO:T was actually very good. Aside from bugs (which were bad), a decided lack of features (coulda borrowed more from JA2, eg) and complaints regarding the lack of fidelity to the original, it was a good game, and the gameplay, IMO, was very good."

LOL! Stavaig, it sounds to me like you're saying: Besides combat and gameplay...the game was very good!

You're probably not, but that was also what many reviewers are doing. They list a couple pages of faults then give the game 85%.

In truth I think the system may not be entirely the problem. It really wasn't used the way it was meant to be.

 

I still think Fallout Tactics offers less tactical appeal than the CRPGs, which I think Decado was hinting at.

They should have never removed the Sliding Rule in Fallout Tactics. Naturally, if you hit someone really, really well, they're going to fly back from it. That's all sliding did. The consequences are it made them spend APs standing up and it made them have to advance to get their accuracy back or fire from where they slid to with the lower chance of hitting.

I suspect they removed that rule because of the nature of real time play. After all, the sliding animation took a while. If they did that in real time, it'd either look stupid or it'd take too long in terms of "real time" and make the penalty that much greater. You'd be "recharging APs" while they'd still be sliding.

Of course, making use of the sliding rule is the only way to win some fights with melee in Fallout and Fallout 2 also. That's another reason melee gets screwed in FOT, and it's a GREAT reason not to go RT with Fallout 3.

 

Implementing sliding, knockdown and stunning in Real Time is not impossible. It just has not been done yet. 8*)

Also I would like to point out that 14 Degress is not BIS. Sure they made a Fallout Spinoff, but don't expect that engine to be used for FO3. It was a decent tactical simulator. CRPGs require a lot more details.

-gustavef

 

FOT would have been a lot better with a pause for orders option.
And a better interface for swapping around equipment between vehicles and people.
It works fine for a game like FO where you really dont accumulate a lot of stuff or you sell it off but having to clean up a battle field afterwards on maps that size is not fun in the slightest.
FOTs main fault was the linearity of the maps which almost completely eliminated tactical freedom.

The fire fights were much better in real time. Criss crossers lasers and plasma bolts give a feeling of a flowing battle. I really hope Bioware do something similiar with Star Wars :smile: I'm a Star Wars fan but I'm not going to nit pick as long as it's a fun game :smile:,well unless they have fluffy pink wookies or something.

There is another Star Wars RTS out around xmas, It might even get me back into RTS games again.

S.P. with all the options that the IE games give you regarding autopause your reactions don't even enter into the equastion.

Gustav. Just noticed your post and Summoner does indeed do knocking down and stunning in real time and well I might add.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: PaladinLord on 2001-05-16 18:43 ]</font>

 

Ever played it with all those options set? It's slower, and a hell of a lot lamer than any TB system I've seen.

smack <pause> *hit space bar* smack <pause> *hit space bar*

Yeah, that's REALLY interactive there. Very immersive.

 

Dont tell me you played with all the options set or I will have to laugh at you :grin:

How is click pause click any different to click end turn click ?

Besides the IE games don't play anything like that , not when I play them anyway.

 

No, that's what it's like with just the "Pause at End of Turn" selected. It's quite lame.

Other than console RPGs, IE games offer the most dumbed down combat system in any modern RPG.

 

Well im a lot late into this verbal exchange, as after playing Fallout 1&2 repeatedly until i lost interest in real life.. i then turned to Torment, and now to BG2.

"Fallout 2!!" is what i enthusiastically call out in reply to anyone who asks me what is your favourite all time RPG. "Fallout 2!!" is what i got some of my friends to say to that same question. Fallout 1 had too much linearity, too little choices players had.. the only thing i like about it is the post nuclear atmosphere. Im a Squaresoft player/fan as well, i have always believed their games to be Adventure with RPG elements, rather than full blown RPG. BG1 wasnt an RPG.. heck, most games arent RPG as they give the gamer very little choice as to what the outcome of a situation could be.

Role Playing for some is taking the role of someone and experiencing their story, these will generally love Squaresoft and console RPG. Role Playing for me is the ability to enter a different world, as someone whom i envision to be.. and given the abilities to interact and affect that world in a multitude of ways to the utmost infinity.. hence, there are no true RPG out there for me.. yet. But BIS games come a very close distant to that, and im grateful for their work and effort.

Now as to add more sparkle to this turn base vs real time (ive only read 1/2 the posts on this matter, i may be repeating some stuff already said.. but its 9 pages long, and its late here where i am).. if given the ability to perform actions "on-the-fly" with such fluidity and ease as it was in real life (i reach out and pick up a cookie because i want to, not because i instructed myself - bend - lower hand - move hand until target in reach - pick up etc..), then sure, make it a real time game. BUT!! if the ability is not there, then forget it. ie. Your group of wasteland wanderers stumble onto a mutant patrol.. in real life you would give a hand signal for "all hush, stop movement" and survey the situation. Then give orders to your followers, "marcus, go left and hide behind that boulder and wait for further signals, and damnit man, dont use grenades!!".. "vic, run back and stay under the coverof that tree, target the biggest one in the eye!", "mira, get down!!! no, dont run.. no, come back.. damn you woman!!".. then prepare an attack.. imagine trying to do this "on-the-fly" in a real time combat mode. how many mouse movements, clicking, re-clicking, finding menus etc.. would be required. it would take a long time before anything is done, whereas a real life situation, your orders are done in a flash, even faster if u have army training and use hand signals. Turn Base is and will remain so the only way to produce a real life like situation on the computer. this is due to limitations of the interface we are using, a mere mouse and keyboard wont do. Until the day they all hook our brains into the pc or develop AI that is life like, for combat to have any real life elements it MUST remain turn base.. to give the user enough time to react and issue all those instructions.

EDITED: Oh yeah, continuous turn base like Final Fantasy where they have a bar that moves, and an action takes place when the bar is full is a good in between mode. And the character's stats affect how fast the bar moves, so in a sense, it would work.

What made Fallout Fallout? Here's my few cents..
1) Choices, and lots of choices.. ie. MANY situations that made us ponder on what we ourselves would do in that case. No, i dont mean "ack! do i attack this one or that one".. i mean "hmm.. intelligent deathclaws, is it a good idea to help them.. i mean, they could possibly end up being the dominant species!".. or "which families should i side to, heck, maybe i oughta kill them all!" ie. choices that reflect morality, ethics, and personal taste.

2) Post Nuclear Apocalyptic Atmosphere. From now on refered to as P.N.A.A. :smile: Without this, it aint fallout thats for certain!

3) Yet more choices to customize the character to a player's own desire. Personally, i find D&D character classes limiting, prolly why they keep on creating more and more additions to add in new sub classes and kit.. they oughta have first gone with the one player, build how she/he/it/thing desires to reflect choices.

4) P.N.A.A and more of it!! :smile:

As for the graphics issue, if the 3d implementation is well done there is nothing 2d can give a "feel" that 3d cannot (all time example, Syndicate Wars, a game so old yet so perfectly done as in 3rd isometric combat, ive always wished that they took that engine and made an RPG out of it).. and quite possibly enhance it as well. Im all for 3d isometric style, but 1st person is a no no!! Although some argue that it is truer in role playing terms because you can immerse yourself totally and no longer have a character, but BE a character.. i find that with a computer monitor and current interface this wont work. For it to work, we need full integration of the mind and machine, for us to hook up to it and view the world with our minds while we are in suspended animation.. as one can expect, this wont happen anytime soon. So right now, RPGs must retain that 3rd person isometric view to give it more "feel" and depth of character immersion. Heck if we cant truly BE the character (yet), then make us feel or know whom our characters are..
Whether 2d or 3d 3rd person isometic, as long as it creates a world richly detailed and have that P.N.A.A feel.. then im all for it. The downside of sprite base system is that it is limited.. more and more complex sprites will halt the CPU.. if you dont believe me, load up a website with lots of .gif animation.. or play BG2 and fight huge mobs on one screen while casting fancy spells.. going 3d will lessen this load if done correctly. Besides, most (if not all) brand name pcs ship with a 3d accelerator these days.. it's as standard as having a cdrom a few years ago. However, going 3d means one has to be very careful to implement it right so many of the cards can run the game.. using plain ole 2d will make compatibility a lot less of a pain. Its a balance that must be sorted out. 2d involve more work in terms of animations, but 3d will involve a lot of refinement to make the engine run fast and stable on all platforms.

As for game making is a business.. we doubt not that it is. However, it is a business that should be taken in the eyes of a gamer who wants to create a truly epical game.. not a businessmen who truly wants to make a hit that earns a lot of money. I think this is when reality sinks into people, wear away and crumbling their once strongly held dreams.. its like a bad cop, good cop routine.. when he first starts, he wants to be a good cop, but after a while, he realises being a good cop is a lot of hard work.. so he becomes a bad cop.. making good solid games that goes according to your vision or goals isnt easy, but im sure its a dream once strongly held as you first started into this venture.

Hmm.. sorry for the long post. I just got interested in Arcanum as ive heard its made by those fellas responsible for Fallout, so i stumbled upon this site and tried the demo. Btw, i found the demo slow down to a slide shown when i cast summon spells or enter "dynamic lighting areas".. somehow, i think this is that same BG2 3d mode bug (affected some, didnt affected some), where they dont implement 3d correctly and cause a lot of havok. (my system is fully driver updated, 700mhz, 128mb ram, sblive, tnt2.. should not slow down for a 2d game!) Btw, the graphics arent anything better or immersive compared to F2, it felt to me a lot like Ultima series.. but then its just a demo. :smile: I love the character generation though. Definitely my to buy list.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Silverforce on 2001-05-17 08:29 ]</font>