Arcanum graphics...

Oh well, I guess I might as well give my opinion as well. :wink:

First I think that using an option of having RT/TB would be the best, like in Arcanum (and not that defective turnbased version in FOT). That way everyone would be happy, and we could all get on to more important points in the game.

Next, I do believe that as long as they can keep the needed computer power down, as well as keep the look as good as before in the FO & FO2 games, nobody realy cares if it is 2D or 3D. What is worrying is that companies lay down a lot of unnecessary effort in making a game with enormous demands in computer power, while cutting corners with important stuff like story and interactions. If they do decide to make it 3D it must still have alll the elements of a realy good story and openended interactions.

I must say that the best games I have played so far is FO, FO2 and Torment. BG and IWD are not in that legue as RPG, even though it was improved in BG2 (but not even that game reached the hights of the former games). What made FO, FO2 and torment such good games was the interaction with the world, they were very openended (well Torment less so, but it was good none the less), but most of all they had atmosphere that pulled you in the games (yes I know that some of you did not like the jokes in FO2, but they were bearable, even though I would have prefered a darker and more desperate setting).

I think it is about time that it is understod that the largest segment of PC owners out there don´t have 1,5 GHz P4 and Prophet 3 video cards. It is therefore a good idee to keep the demands of the computers down to get to the largest section of the market. And the games that are to be released soon that need this kind of computers will have a small market for some time forward.


Well to round it of, if you want to make a good RPG that can sell in large volumes it need TB option, a good story, a ton of atmosphere and low demands on your computer.
If you miss out in any of this areas you will miss a part of the segment of computer RPG players.

If you want all children to play your game though, make a pokemon game instead and leave Fallout alone. It is a mature game in a bad setting, in which you have to make questionable choices, and therefore not a kiddie game. And cencuring it to allow the youngest to play it just destroys it.


_________________
Live long and prosper

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spook on 2001-05-17 15:29 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spook on 2001-05-17 15:30 ]</font>

 

I'm not gonna read all of this, but here are the answers:

(in chronological order)

true
false
true
I don't know about this one.

 

*raises hand*

 

I have a 10 min span every hour during a schoolday to read posts and post replies, and ther is no way I`ll have time to read all that. Do you guys really have that long oppinions or do you just fetish-fancy long posts...

-"Got something to prove?"

- Zen

 

We just fetish-fancy long posts... :grin:

 

What I do not grasp is how anyone can have a problem with the Real-Time-With-Pause system as shown in Baldur's Gate, Planescape: Torment, Icewind Dale, etc. How can anyone call this a 'twitch' system? If anything, playing too many Infinity engine games has crippled me when it comes to 'twitch' games; when I tried to play Starship Troopers, I kept stabbing space-bar to pause the game (which did not have a pause feature!) whenever something happened! I had a similar problem with Fallout: Tactics.. :razz:

The system used in the Infinity Engine combines the delightful convenience of pausing at any time to orchestrate the most complicated battles (or even configuring the game to pause at the end of every turn!), with the joy of watching your characters do battle in real-time! It isn't twitch combat by any strech of the imagination! Just tap your spacebar, and the battle is frozen for your contemplation! People tell me that realtime combat is fine if you've got a good interface, but I think the ability to pause makes up for the fact that I'm controlling clueless automatons who are incapable of reacting intelligently. In a real battle, we would communicate with gestures and vocalization, we would have plans made up ahead of time, etc - I feel that the pause feature simply makes up for the lack of these things :smile:

Personally, I prefer to pause whenever I wish to issue an order, or consider a new development. Though I loved Fallout, and I loved Fallout 2, and though I found the combat in Baldur's Gate hectic and hard to manage to begin with, once I learned to pause, everything fell into place. All and all, I think that real-time-with-pause is the ideal system for any RPG that isn't intended to be heavily multiplayer. It isn't hard to learn, it's incredibly powerful, yet it preserves the fun of watching your characters engaged in real fighting!

Oh, and I agree with Gus and Tim - With Chris Avellone at the helm, I think we're going to be in for a treat. I hope they start working soon - I can't wait. :wink:

Here's to Fallout 3 !

SoSD

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SoSD on 2001-05-20 18:42 ]</font>

 

"What I do not grasp is how anyone can have a problem with the Real-Time-With-Pause system as shown in Baldur's Gate, Planescape: Torment, Icewind Dale, etc. How can anyone call this a 'twitch' system?"

That system is what you get when you take a "twitch system" and slow it down. It is just/almost as simplistic, just slower.

I won't go into the cons and merits of the system because it is irrelevant: Fallout 3 won't be a fantasy game.

"I think that real-time-with-pause is the ideal system for any RPG that isn't intended to be heavily multiplayer."

I guess it depends on what you consider "ideal". Personally, I think TB combat is best in any setting when you control two or more characters. In some situations I think even it is best when you only control one character, as well.

RT w/pause for Fantasy games has a lot of potential, but the infinity games only touched the tip of the iceburg and I found them very disappointing.

But Fallout isn't fantasy, and the RT w/pause system was made to work with swords and bows (though less efficiantly with the latter), NOT guns.

If you played FOT in CTB mode you should realize why we are are against RT combat. A pause command won't change much. Just try to imagine the FOT combat system in more of a CRPG combat format.

I'm sure BIS would improve it, but it wont be nearly enough, IMO.

 

Another game ruined by a RT mode=X-Com Apocalypse. That game just sucked completely, especially as adding RTS mode totally destroyed TB mode...sigh.

I STILL say one or the other and TB would work better *period*

 

I played Fallout Tactics and I was lost without my pause!

I had been really looking forward to it because I thought that the game could have a fast pace yet still give me the depth of control I desired.

When I discovered it *didn't* have a pause to issue orders feature in CTB mode, I was very disappointed. I switched to TB mode, but my disappointment never wore off. I haven't played FOT in weeks :sad:

The ability to PAUSE at ANY TIME as often as you like, and issue orders, cast spells, whatever, is a VERY powerful tool. In otherwords, to say that a pause command wouldn't change much is utter bullshit. :razz:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SoSD on 2001-05-21 22:05 ]</font>

 

While I agree somewhat, I think the pause feature of IE based games detracts from the immersion, but by the same token, in FOT I used fairly small squads to do my damage. I think the biggest weakness of BG is the AD&D system, which I really dislike because of it's reliance on chance to hit. I tried playing BG as a mage, and was able to memorise 2 spells which would kill 1 enemy, I would then have to revert to my quarterstaff and bash away, and if I survived the combat, I would have to sleep to regain HP/spells, and with the 90% random encounter frequency that BG seemed to have, I could never do that, and was hence a very dead mage.

 

"In otherwords, to say that a pause command wouldn't change much is utter bullshit."

It wont. It will make the combat system easier to use, but the combat system is still the same. It won't make anything better and it wont change the nature of the combat. It is just a more managable form of real-time combat...and in FOT case that isn't NEARLY good enough. Nor will it be for FO3. The style of combat simply prohibits anything good coming from it.

That is not to say I didn't wish they had that option. At least then I could have enjoyed some mindless blood and gore.

 

Perhaps you could explain to me why easy to use, intuitive, manageable, real time combat (with pause!!) is bad. I just don't understand what you have against it, to me it seems ideal for any RPG that isn't supposed to be heavily multiplayer. I played Fallout, and I loved it. I played Fallout 2, and it was great, and I've played all of the Infinity Engine games, too. I adore Planescape: Torment for it's story, it's characters, it's dialogue, it's music, and the combat system worked fine. I enjoyed Baldur's Gate, it was an amusing romp through the Sword Coast - it was no PS:T, but it was fun. Icewind Dale, too, was a fun game - the art was beautiful, the gameplay fun, if a little combat centric, but then that's what they were aiming for. And Baldur's Gate II was great, too. The opening dungeon keeps pretty tiresome, but once you get out into Athkatla, things pick up!

Out of all these games, Planescape: Torment has to be my favourite, due to the level of empathy the characters evoked in me; the story, and the dialogue were so well written. The way (similar to Fallout) the dialogue was altered according to your actions, statistics, etc was another point in it's favour, and like Fallout, you could be as good or as evil as you desired. Fallout is a close second, mainly because I love the universe, and I played it first.

I enjoyed both turn-based and real-time-with-pause combat systems, and I have to say that I prefer the real-time-with-pause, especially when you've got several characters to control.

 

Each system definitely has its place. Games such as Quake, AOE or any other multiplayer setting only benefit from having only a RT combat setting. Then there are games like the Civ series that are great as a TB game. Games such as Arcanum, any of Interplays, FOs and so on have a wonderful combat system in that you can play either way depending on style.

I just finished playing Wizards & Warriors. It had an interesting combat system and for lack of a better term, I'd call it a hybrid system. The game played in RT and when you got close to your intended casualty, the game switched into TB for the duration of the battle, then back to RT. The only exception to this was enemies that could cast or had ranged weapons. Until you closed with them, sometimes you could get pretty beat up. Other aspects of the combat system wasn't as great, such as targeting, but that was more of an implimentation issue.

 

I have read through quite a few pages of messages and found a common theme, "No changes!!!" This to me seems like flawed logic at best. To stagnate in any endeavor whether it be production of games, restoration of old cars (one of my faves), or even something as simple as downhill skiing brings less and less joy as time wears on. In skiing, if you never change the trail you go down, you never experience anything new. With old cars, you never get to tinker with something out of the ordinary (like an Edsel for example). When creating games, you never innovate or expand... All that is done is walking over the same path with no more than different birds flying overhead. This to me is very boring and not worth my time.

I look forward to the inclusion of a 3D engine, as there is great potential for innovation. Deformable terrain, dynamic battle-damage, smoother and more accurate animations, and the ability to quickly and easily modify the game itself by the community are only a few things that can be brought about by the 3D system. 3D systems can be either very well or very poorly done, as evidenced by Deus Ex (good) and Resident Evil (very, VERY bad). 3D does not detract from a game so long as the engine is well-built and the game designer focuses on the gameplay and story just as much as the graphics (sorry, this sounds a bit disjointed because I am almost asleep). It is impossible to argue the superiority of sprite-based animations compared to a low-poly 3D environment in terms of rapid development. Sprites have to be hand-drawn one at a time, whereas polygonal models only need be meshed out, animated through the keyframes and skinned (sounds like more, but is actually much faster to do). I wouldn't mention this if I hadn't run across this experience myself while attempting to create my own game. There is a reason that the Fallout community hasn't come up with more graphical modifications, and it has to do with the nature of sprite animation. I never found anything wrong with the Fallout graphics, other than they were severely low-res (and therefore quite clunky on a larger monitor). I loved the entire game, graphics and all, but times need to move on. 3D can make life for the developers quite a bit easier once they get the actual engine sorted out. Give it a chance and stop spelling doom for something not even in production yet.

However, I have to state that I am adamantly against real-time combat in the Fallout games. CTB/TB mix would suit me fine, so long as there is a very simple and quick way of switching between the two. I see no reason for my little hangups to ruin somebody else's good time in this regard, so long as theirs doesn't ruin mine. I WOULD like to see a more robust combat system created for this game though. One where running during combat is actually different from walking. Let us suppose that when you walk you move one hex for every AP spent, and when running you move 2, but your accuracy drops by an increasing variable based on how far run. Everything is balanced, because there is a tradeoff. It is things like that which I would like to see implemented. Doesn't have to be, but would be interesting.

Feargus: I have to tell you that although I personally do not like FOT, at least there are new people being brought into the fold by this game. I am glad to hear that FO3 is being strongly considered, and would love to see it in demo form someday. I hope that the greatest amount of time would be spent on gameplay and story, rather than engine enhancements. However, I would be ecstatic to see FO3 contain all that is loved about FO1&2 as well as updated graphics and scores of new items/weapons/armour/critters/villages. One of the best things I could see happening are not only more villages, some of which are integral to the story and others that are not, but a larger variety of random encounters so that it isn't a constant stream of combat when wandering from place to place.

To all others who are begging for FO1 in a new box: Just find a campaign mod. They exist. It is free, and some of them are actually decent. Or even better yet, create your own. Script files can be created fairly easily with the right tools (since PipBoy2000Le seems to have moved or disappeared, those tools are harder to find). Face it, what you are asking for is just FO1/2 with a roster rotation and some new goodies (items) thrown in. I'm not saying that FO2 wasn't a great game, but it's time is up. If you really loved the game and universe, you would want to see it expand to encompass everything you could have ever wanted. Without updating the engine, that is not possible. It would just be the same game over and over again. Give the change a shot, you might find that it improves the feel of the game. Alternately, you may find that it does nothing in particular for the game, but does no harm. However, it is highly unlikely that you would find a 3D engine destroying the gameplay. Graphics are merely graphics, and have little to no bearing on playability of a game, so why are you fighting this so hard? Yes it is eyecandy, but so what? If it makes the animations and creature development smoother, what is the harm? You may find that the Fallout world comes alive like it never could in 2D.

Now, since it is 4am, I am off to bed...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SyNcr0 on 2001-05-30 03:45 ]</font>

 

I'm just a little curious what's with applying the mantra "Change is Good" to everything under the sun. As far as I can see, that seems to be the refrain for the critics of the critics on this thread. It also really doesn't apply. Most of what was proposed isn't change, it's the same stuff we've already seen in other games. Feargus didn't propose one single thing that hasn't already been done by another game. That, by definition, isn't new. And since people have already played games with those features and know they don't like them, they're not afraid of the unknown. They're afraid of the known, and that's an entirely different thing. That would be like criticizing someone who didn't want to get kicked in the balls in a parking lot, because the had never been kicked in the balls in a parking lot, so maybe they'd like it this time. People don't want FO1 repackaged, they just don't what what they liked about the first one ditched and replaced with things they don't like.

As far as graphics, I don't know that much about technical details, but they did a good job IMO on that part in FOT and it wasn't 3D. I think one of the worries about 3D is that it will change the focus and gameplay, and the suggestion of a rotating camera does little to allay that. That would just be one more shiny feature that the designers would feel they have to exploit, thereby forcing the player to turn the camera all angles every five paces to make sure they don't miss out on the hidden power armor. It's just a distraction that doesn't add to gameplay. 3D also doesn't look as good, either, at least presently. And I really don't trust Interplay to venture out on the bleeding edge of technology to come up with something totally new, as their products are buggy enough just making standard games. Venturing into the unknown also takes time, which I doubt they'd be willing to invest. So what we'd end up with is some hack job that takes the worst of 3D games we've played and puts a Fallout label on it. That's what people are worried about, they don't cringe at night afraid of 3D bogeymen under the bed.

And with real time, again, that's nothing new at all. It's been around quite a while. People who don't like it probably know what they're talking about, as there is no shortage of real time games out there for them to play; if anything, there is a shortage of turn-based games. Everyone loves a compromise and hopes to see a real-time or turn-based option. However, compromise is just that, compromise. It doesn't always end up being better than choosing a side and sticking with it. You quite often end up with both sides being half-assed so that neither one precludes the other. If there's a real-time option, the urge is going to be there to create more and more enemies for twitch gamers to plow through. If there's a turn-based option, there's going to be the tendency to try to make fights more strategic and make it advantageous to move characters around individually for maximum effectiveness. The end result - a game with scads of bad guys that overwhelm most players without 13-year old reflexes, forcing them to go to turn-based. However, oops, since we didn't want the real-timers to feel left out and lacking in action, we added in more monsters, so now you can expect to spend a lot more time in combat than we would have made you sit through if this game was solely turn-based. So those turn-based fans end up slogging through more mindless time consuming combats, and that does little for the game.

 

O memories. :smile:

This has to be my favorite thread. Try starting here on page 2 of this thread:
http://www.terra-arcanum.com/phpBB/view ... 0&start=25

 

you didn't seriously bring up a seven month old topic for that did you? Just wondering... or maybe I'm just reading this all wrong and should go to sleep.

_________________


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Wangus on 2002-01-05 20:01 ]</font>

 

I wanted to share some fond memories with the newbies. :smile:

I love this damn thread.

 

Hardly. The reason I love Arcanum, like the reason I love Fallout 1 & 2 an' Baldur's Gate 2, is the sheer variety o' people you can meet, skills you can use, etc. Why would I wanna play a game where you can only do three or four things?

 

Umm.. There's usually only one way to do anything in BG2, and that's COMBAT.