Interesting post on ESF about Daggerfall.

[Monica21]

TB works well in FP games, but Fallout 3 won't be turn-based.

First, TB doesn't sell as much as cinematic RT does, and Bethesda's design philosophy is making games that sell a lot, even if that means alienting the existing fanbase because a larger potential fanbase is somewhere out there.

Second, the newly found larger fanbase praised Oblivion for dynamic and awesome battles, while the TB audience is microscopically small in comparison. Making a TB game simply doesn't make ANY sense for Bethesda.

Third, I've had a private conversation with one of the FO3 developers. The end.

I've been lurking for awhile, but just wanted to say thanks for providing that info VD. It's pretty much what I expected of Bethesda. They didn't care about alienating Daggerfall fans with Morrowind, and cared less about alienating Morrowind fans with Oblivion. I haven't played Fallout, but I would expect them to treat that fanbase about the same.

 

[elander_]

Then, how about a free camera, or one which automatically switches from third person to top down whenever the player enters combat?
I find exploration to be much more fun in first/third person.

Having a forst-person view is not a problem. The problem is trying to assert how much action points will be spent traveling from one location to another before commit to that action. Assuming they will use action points which is only useful at all if they use turn-base.

Without action-points or turn-base what is left of Fallout combat? Try playing Fallout Tactics in real time mode and you will get an idea of the mess it is.

I haven't played Fallout,

It's an experience you will never forget. Theres a pack being sold with Fallout1, Fallout2 and Fallout Tactics. You may be very disapointed with FT (not a crpg) but it's still a good tactical turn-base combat game. I think only Planescape did it better than Fallout in terms in dialog role-playing.

 

[Lumpy]

Then, how about a free camera, or one which automatically switches from third person to top down whenever the player enters combat?
I find exploration to be much more fun in first/third person.

Having a forst-person view is not a problem. The problem is trying to assert how much action points will be spent traveling from one location to another before commit to that action. Assuming they will use action points which is only useful at all if they use turn-base.

The hex grid is enabled in combat, when the control is point and click, and disabled outside it, when it's keyboard control.

 

[bryce777]

So? How exactly does this indicate FP? For all we know, there could simply be a Goggles item, which when unequipped during sunlight, permanently hurts Perception by 4.

"<We're> not going to suddenly do a top-down isometric Baldur's Gate-style game, because that's not what we do well" ~ Pete Hines

Todd Howard: I'd say the impact the original had in its day was about so much more then the angle you viewed it at, or how combat was executed

Pete seems to indicate that it will be first person, while Todd doesn't say anything. Nothing certain was said though.

Look, lad. I try to be nice to you, but you are unbelievably obtuse at times.

First off, you would have to be crazy to believe it would be other than I said.

Second, there have been interviews in the past where they said what I am saying or rather hinted VERY STRONGLY. Why would I make that up? It is all set in a single city, which they said outright. It will not have a party and will be first person, for which they ALL but said outright. As for turnased, a turnbased firstperson game is extemely unlikely . So, oblivion with guns.

Now, you can believe me or not believe me. I have given you the secret of fire and now you may do with it as you choose.

 

[Twinfalls]

Although you may argue Oblivion has been dumbed down, it is still the same style of RPG as Daggerfall and Morrowind.

I haven't played the fucker, but does it have:

- The (still unrivalled) character gen system of DF;
- The plethora of guilds - with actual rivalries between them;
- The decisions you had to make as to which guild to join;
- The branching MQ with its decisions for the player;
- The myriad skills that defined how you tackled a dungeon;
- The diplomatic options (languages);
- The massive original lore;
- Seasons, holidays, the variety of environments across provinces;
- The supremely atmospheric contextual music;
- The genuinely adult nature of the game and its story;

In other words, is it really the same style of RPG as Daggerfall?

Yes, Oblivion is nothing like a true RPG, because TES never was.

Please enlighten us about what makes a 'true RPG', and how Daggerfall failed to meet this test.

it will most likely still be a Fallout-like game.

What you must realise about Bethesda and Fallout, Lumpy, is what is obvious from Oblivion. If this company has no respect for its own inherited property, what makes you think it will respect property it acquires from elsewhere?

 

[Lumpy]

Alright, I agree with first person and real time.
But a single city? Could you find that interview? Or at least, could anyone confirm this?

 

[Lumpy]

Yes, Oblivion is nothing like a true RPG, because TES never was.

Please enlighten us about what makes a 'true RPG', and how Daggerfall failed to meet this test.

Daggerfall didn't have dialogues, many choices, etc. Still, it had consequences for actions, but it wasn't as much of an RPG as Fallout, for example.

 

[Naked_Lunch]

Daggerfall may not have had dialogues, but it sure did have a lot of choices. There were dozens upon dozens of guilds with different quests to undertake, six(?) ways to beat the main quest, an entire world to explore at your leisure, a terrific character creation system with plentiful options etc. I didn't like Daggerfall that much, but I concede to the fact that it had heaping mounds o' choices.

 

[Lumpy]

I think Daggerfall may have been the best attempt ever to create a realistic, complete virtual world. If only Bethesda decided to continue working on it rather than adopting this stupid "starting from scratch" philosophy, maybe TES IV would have been closer to what the Daggerfall devs intended to accomplish.

 

[Wysardry]

If only Bethesda decided to continue working on it rather than adopting this stupid "starting from scratch" philosophy, maybe TES IV would have been closer to what the Daggerfall devs intended to accomplish.

I'm not sure that starting from scratch is the problem, as that philosophy allowed them to switch from Arena's experience based system to Daggerfall's skills based mechanics.

In my view, the problem is that although they are still ambitious their focus has shifted from gameplay to graphics, with everything else being oversimplified as a result.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I've been lurking for awhile, but just wanted to say thanks for providing that info VD.

My pleasure. Glad you've finally decided to join us.

But a single city? Could you find that interview? Or at least, could anyone confirm this?

http://www.rpgcodex.com/newsarchive.php?GameID=283

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Daggerfall may not have had dialogues, but it sure did have a lot of choices. There were dozens upon dozens of guilds with different quests to undertake, six(?) ways to beat the main quest, an entire world to explore at your leisure, a terrific character creation system with plentiful options etc. I didn't like Daggerfall that much, but I concede to the fact that it had heaping mounds o' choices.

DF had many things, but dozens and "dozens upon dozens of guilds with different quests" is pushing it. All temples shared the same quest templates as did all knightly orders. Differences were in name and priviledges only.
DF really had
- Fighters guild
- Mages guild
- Temples
- Knghtly orders
- Thieves guild
- Dark brotherhood

Other quest sources
- Witch covens
- Merchants quests
- Nobles quests
- Peasant quests (?)
- Vampire quests
- Werewolf quests
- Main quest

 

[denizsi]

DF had many things, but dozens and "dozens upon dozens of guilds with different quests" is pushing it. All temples shared the same quest templates as did all knightly orders. Differences were in name and priviledges only.

The nice thing is that, the scope of reputation and disposition between factions was so extensive yet so subtle, some random guy in a tavern, shop or a guild (so I don't mean not random like the NPCs on the streets) could tell you to get lost because of things you did for some factions. Work long and hard enough for a guild, there will be at least a few guilds who won't let you join them, including the main guilds. Some NPC in a shop, tavern keeper or shop owner could refuse to give his randomly generated quest to you ( despite the right dice roll for receiving a quest ) because of a faction he doesn't like favors you. Whether these had actual drastic impacts on gameplay or not, DF does the best job of illuding me.

edit: I'd like to stick these quotes from MSFD here for archiving purposes, in case the source pages get deleted due to forum maintenance.

Anyway, Fallout 3 will be very, very different from Oblivion (or any other TES game). It won't be "Morrowind with guns". It won't even be "Oblivion with guns".

http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=208052&highlight=#208052

Don't worry, my article describes Oblivion, not Fallout 3. And it won't be hard to swap in a radically different combat scheme

http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=197057&highlight=#197041

The main reason is his choice of words: "very, very different from Oblivion (or any other TES game)", "radically different combat scheme". Remains to be seen how radically different the F3 combat scheme will be, or if F3 will be that very different than any TES game.

 

[Twinfalls]

What, comments from Steve "I think a lot of people will be surprised by the strength of our dialogue this time around" Meister?

What matter the speculation anyway?

Combat will be real time. That is all.

 

[denizsi]

What, comments from Steve "I think a lot of people will be surprised by the strength of our dialogue this time around" Meister?

Why do you say that? I for one was shocked beyond belief by the strength of dialogue. I mean, I think I have, I must have, I can't really remember and this can only mean one thing: It was so strong that it caused permanent brain damage on me, so I can only guess now.

Combat will be real time. That is all.

I don't believe that to be the end all. While I definitely don't believe that Beth is capable of delivering one, I believe that it's very possible to make a semi-real time combat that's as much about RP combat mechanics if not more than turn based combat mechanics, that's fun and not about player-dependant twitchiness.

I know, it's Fallout we're talking about but it's also Beth we are talking about. So, once one accepts and gets over that, that F3 will have 1st person real-time combat, there is still some grounds to it to debate

 

[mrhappy1991]

Combat will be real time. That is all.

It might be a KOTOR sort of thing, trunbased-realtime hybrid, which they mentioned in the interview as making alot of $$$

 

[Vault Dweller]

There is no such thing as TB/RT hybrid. KOTOR is a real-time game.

 

[Romanian_Dude2005]

six(?) ways to beat the main quest

not "six ways to beat the main quest", but rather "six ways to end it". Those six ways had nothing to do with how you charracter advanced through the MQ (also there were very few chooices involved with the MQ, rather then screwing it up, there weren't many turning points), you simply decided who received Mantella and the game ended, but the path to obtaining Mantella was the same for almost any charracter you played.

Oh and yes, I agree it's still a RPG, partialy because of the charracter creation, but mainly because it required an intelectual effort to finish the game which surpasses alot of FPS or simple games + incredible amount of depth

 

[mrhappy1991]

There is no such thing as TB/RT hybrid. KOTOR is a real-time game.

O RLY? >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KOTOR

Combat is a real-time/turn based hybrid.

Thats wikipedia for you, but if not a hybrid, KOTOR combat is definately turn based.

 

[LlamaGod]

Wikipedia and stupid fans don't mix.

and it's real time combat you jerk.

 

[Vault Dweller]

There is no such thing as TB/RT hybrid. KOTOR is a real-time game.

O RLY? >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KOTOR

Wiki says it's a hybrid, so it must be true. *rolls eyes*

Combat is a real-time/turn based hybrid.

Thats wikipedia for you, but if not a hybrid, KOTOR combat is definately turn based.

You have no idea what turn-based means. I suggest looking this concept up.

 

[Micmu]

What? Quake is turn-based, too. When I hit the ESC button the game pauses!

 

[kingcomrade]

What? Quake is turn-based, too. When I hit the ESC button the game pauses!

Yeah and really, every second of the game is filled with (on my computer) about 2.1 billion turns all in a row. Since the computer does everything sequentially, how can games NOT be turn based?

 

[bryce777]

Wikipedia and stupid fans don't mix.

and it's real time combat you jerk.

Like there's such a thing as nonstupid wikki contributors.

 

[elander_]

Apparently wiki has a better answer if you make a slightly different search:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn-based