FALLOUT 3 both TB and real time . BOO !!!!!!

[chrisbeddoes]

http://www.rpgdot.com/index.php?sid=38f ... b1bef6745e
http://forums.interplay.com/viewtopic.p ... c&start=15

(J.E. Sawyer ) Summary: yes, balancing real-time and turn-based will take time. Yes, real-time and turn-based battles will not play out the same even under the most ideal circumstances. However, enough people are DIE-HARD ADAMANT about only playing one way or another that we believe it is genuinely important to pursue. Will turn-based combat be as balanced as it would without any real-time component? Of course not, but if the difference of that balance is minor, I believe allowing both of the die-hard groups to have a fundamental element of play to enjoy is important.

And to be honest, any time you try to push the "we can only have one and make it work right" to a distributor or buyer, the one they want is going to be real-time. I'd rather have a real-time and turn-based component at 80-90% of its potential than a real-time component at 100% and no turn-based components. I know it bothers a lot of you guys, but I don't honestly know how else to explain it.

 

[Araanor]

I'd rather not see Fallout 3 at all if it's a RT/TB hybrid. I've seen enough games suffer by it.

 

[Astromarine]

I wouldn't say that. I agreed fully with his comments about the number of areas, ensuring Fallout 3 would be a "tighter" game than the overlarge F2. I know I felt a bit bad in Arcanum (even though I am positively *loving* the experience) in Stillwater when I say they made a whole city with 3 quests, half-a-dozen non-fluff NPCs, etc (Loved the killer bunny though)

I ALSO agree with him that inside BI and Infocrap, trying to pitch the game to the suits as "we can only do one well" would immediately mean RT-ONLY. Therefore, I can live with the dual approach. Also, as he said, in case of a balance issue, TB will win every time.

Finally, JE understands Fallout is about choice. This way both camps of the RTTB feud can enjoy the game a lot more than if only one was chosen. I don't think taking this decision, with all the explanations and reasons that he gave in the forums, automatically means JE will not be capable of a good Fallout. In fact, I'd argue that it means he is MORE capable.

 

[Spazmo]

Well, shit. There goes the combat. This is really a shame because combat in FO was always a lot of fun, but it's going to be crap now.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Will turn-based combat be as balanced as it would without any real-time component? Of course not, but if the difference of that balance is minor....

Of course not, huh? The difference is minor, huh? I wonder if that's what they said about Arcanum when they ruined the combat. Can't you learn from somebody else's mistakes, JE?

I believe allowing both of the die-hard groups to have a fundamental element of play to enjoy is important.

What the fuck? What die-hard groups? Since when did Fallout have a real-time die-hard group? Kick those dumb motherfuckers back to BG!

any time you try to push the "we can only have one and make it work right" to a distributor or buyer, the one they want is going to be real-time

I hate to give people advices or tell them what's possible and what's not, but the fact is that Tim is making a turn-based game and the publisher is ok with that, because [insert your own speculation here]. Some things are not easy, but they are definitely possible.

 

[protobob]

What I worry about is how a skill like hand2hand combat will get treated in a tb/rt system.

Playing a hand2hand character in Fallout 2 was probably the most fun I've ever had with a turn based system. Every time my character made a punch or kick I was practically acting it out myself, I really got into it. With a load of action boys and extra movement ap's and a maxed out power fist you could really beat the hell out of a roomfull.

I was pretty disappointed with how poor h2h was in FOT.

 

[triCritical]

Of course not, huh? The difference is minor, huh? I wonder if that's what they said about Arcanum when they ruined the combat. Can't you learn from somebody else's mistakes, JE?

I think he is well aware of the problems? Its obvious that not everyone pulls Tim Cain's kind of weight on these issues.

I hate to give people advices or tell them what's possible and what's not, but the fact is that Tim is making a turn-based game and the publisher is ok with that, because [insert your own speculation here]. Some things are not easy, but they are definitely possible.

Not defending the decision, because RT sucks, but I think the situation between Atari and Tim, is a lot different then the almost bankrupt IPLY.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I think he is well aware of the problems? Its obvious that not everyone pulls Tim Cain's kind of weight on these issues.

Of course, there are reasons and explanations, some of them are good, and some of them are not. Unfortunately, when the game is released, nobody's going to be interested in those if the combat sucks. JE said that he hopes to deliver both RT and TB at 80%, and that's fine, that's a noble effort, but what if it turns out to be at 60 or 50 or 40? The truth is JE has no idea how it's going to come out, because it hasn't been done before successfully. I admire his efforts and balls, but it's a gamble with very low odds. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, no?

Not defending the decision, because RT sucks, but I think the situation between Atari and Tim, is a lot different then the almost bankrupt IPLY.

Once again, I agree, but don't you think that especially because IPLY is almost bankrupt and Jefferson is on hold, they should try to ensure that FO3 would be as successful as possible. I don't think it's impossible to convince a publisher that a sequel to 2 turn-based games should remain turn-based, it should be easier then to convince one to do a TB D&D game when BG and NWN are considered to be shining examples of D&D gameplay.
To do something just because everyone's doing it is stupid. I highly doubt that the majority of real time target audience would be very excited about FO3, ranged combat isn't as fun in RT as fantasy melee is; and it's very likely that half of the TB Fallout fans would ignore it if the combat sucks.

 

[triCritical]

Once again, I agree, but don't you think that especially because IPLY is almost bankrupt and Jefferson is on hold, they should try to ensure that FO3 would be as successful as possible. I don't think it's impossible to convince a publisher that a sequel to 2 turn-based games should remain turn-based, it should be easier then to convince one to do a TB D&D game when BG and NWN are considered to be shining examples of D&D gameplay.

I think it should be TurnBased just because there other 2-3 games are console titles. If you decide to make a hardcore CRPG, then just go all the way. I think the reason we are seeing a RT with pause in FO3 is because of the wheels Feargus has already set in motion. As president he decided to pursuade people, with illogical arguments how TB can be emulated with pause and play. Bottom line is that is arguments were absurd, and the people who listened were to dumb to tell.

There is a reason why I won't buy a title from his new game company. Mainly because I am sure they will all be BG clones.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Not defending the decision, because RT sucks, but I think the situation between Atari and Tim, is a lot different then the almost bankrupt IPLY.

The main difference is that Infogrames/Atari still pumps out games. Infogrames/Atari has a hell of a lot more debt, but they can stand to deal with that because they have a lot of titles that are released.. Interplay doesn't and they shoot themselves in the foot by cancelling titles for stupid, bullshit reasons like they did with Jefferson.

Anyone think Jefferson(aka Baldur's Gate 3) wouldn't have made a lot of money? Of course it would have. Interplay just shot themselves in the foot over that one.

 

[triCritical]

Anyone think Jefferson(aka Baldur's Gate 3) wouldn't have made a lot of money? Of course it would have. Interplay just shot themselves in the foot over that one.

Blackisle has cancelled 4 games that I can remember,

1) FO3 in favor of IWD
2) Torn in favor of IWD2
3) Stonekeep 2 in favor of Layoffs. (edited to atdd 2)
4) Baldur's Gate 3 in favor of FO3.

The vicsious cycle suggest, FO3 will be cancelled in favor of a title that can be made in 10 months? Yet another reason why IPLY/BIS may choose going the safe route, because they are always so concerned that their games are going to suck, that they keep on cancelling them. Maybe they should have been more like shiny and just released them only to sell a few thousand copies, then they might have got purchased by Atari, who knows?

But I agree the way management let BG3 go, has stupid written all over it. WIth the concessions seemingly being made for FO3, I am not sure which one I would like better right now.

 

[Jed]

WIth the concessions seemingly being made for FO3, I am not sure which one I would like better right now.

I would much rather play a BG3 that is spruced up with some of the elements of FO (via JE), than play a FO3 that is hobbled with the poor design of BG (via Feargut, now justified by JE). But that's just me...

 

[Elwro]

[
Blackisle has cancelled 4 games that I can remember,

*[cut]*

3) Stonekeep in favor of Layoffs.
.

Is something wrong with my memory? I remember playing a game called Stonekeep, which was I think released in 1995 or sth, so before anyone ever heard of BI. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

 

[triCritical]

[
Blackisle has cancelled 4 games that I can remember,

*[cut]*

3) Stonekeep in favor of Layoffs.
.

Is something wrong with my memory? I remember playing a game called Stonekeep, which was I think released in 1995 or sth, so before anyone ever heard of BI. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

Sorry I meant StoneKeep 2.

I would much rather play a BG3 that is spruced up with some of the elements of FO (via JE), than play a FO3 that is hobbled with the poor design of BG (via Feargut, now justified by JE). But that's just me...

Me too.

I am starting to think what I once fully understood a couple months ago. That there can be no FO that would meet my expectations.

 

[Elwro]

[
Blackisle has cancelled 4 games that I can remember,

*[cut]*

3) Stonekeep in favor of Layoffs.
.

Is something wrong with my memory? I remember playing a game called Stonekeep, which was I think released in 1995 or sth, so before anyone ever heard of BI. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

Sorry I meant StoneKeep 2.

.

Whoa, I didn't know they were planning to make it. SK was a good game, if considered as a dungeon hack. I think it might've been the first game to include sound placing effects - I remember playing with phones on and always hearing from which direction were those pesky little goblinoids coming from. The game had a nice dragon included - of true dragonish proportions. But I remember that I got stuck in a place in which you had to put a certain flower (or dust?) on the ground, with no clues - that was plain stupid. And than I fell victim of a bug that made the game unfinishable (near the Queen of Ice). Had to cheat, and than it wasn't so much fun. There was a good automap in this game, too.
So it's a pity...

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

4) Baldur's Gate 3 in favor of FO3.

Actually, it was cancelled in favor of BG: DA3, BG: DA4, etc. As many as they can pump out before 2008.

 

[triCritical]

4) Baldur's Gate 3 in favor of FO3.

Actually, it was cancelled in favor of BG: DA3, BG: DA4, etc. As many as they can pump out before 2008.

Good point!

 

[Vault Dweller]

I would much rather play a BG3 that is spruced up with some of the elements of FO (via JE), than play a FO3 that is hobbled with the poor design of BG (via Feargut, now justified by JE). But that's just me...

I totally agree. I have little hope that FO3 is going to be a worthy successor of the first two titles, and I don't feel any excitement about VB most likely being FO3. Already I disagree with some ideas that Sawyer has been shooting, especially grouping guns into one-handed and two-handed classes. I agree with Saint's comments that were posted on IPLY boards that it sounds too much like D&D and would put some restriction on overall fun and gameplay.
Besides, I don't see how being able to use a rifle can help with machineguns for example. If anything, the guns skills should reflect weapons complexity, like low, medium, and high. Low level ones would include basic pistols, rifles, and small smgs; and so on. Anyway, so far I see a lot of changes for the sakes of changes, and that is rarely a good thing.

 

[chrisbeddoes]

This post is really reduntant and obvious and irritating but i am going to make it anyway.

IF it aint TURN-BASED only then it AINT FALLOUT

 

[Kanthiat]

it certainly wouldn't feel the same, i think they could give you a little choice

 

[larpingdude14]

 

[PennyAnte]

This may be the highest level of lulz I have ever seen.

 

[sportforredneck]

Your necromancy is amazing. Please enslave the South for me.

 

[Kingston]

:D

Actually, it was cancelled in favor of BG: DA3, BG: DA4, etc. As many as they can pump out before 2008.

They didn't pump out any!

 

[Admiral Rimjob POOBUM]

I totally agree. I have little hope that FO3 is going to be a worthy successor of the first two titles, and I don't feel any excitement about VB most likely being FO3.

VB is not FO3.
I hope you're happy.