HybridVision on 11/6/2007 at 18:00
Quote Posted by Talgor
Oh, yeah. I mean X-COM 3: Apocalypse didn't have an isometric, real-time combat system, we were just hallucinating it... ;)
(and it was a good one, too)
It also had many weaknesses inherant to real time, that its turn-based predecessors did not.
Zygoptera on 11/6/2007 at 21:56
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
Ah, I gotcha. I think I misunderstood what you were saying, as I pretty much agree. I've never really understood why people feel the need to go into threads/forums for something they don't like and proceed to hijack the thread by complaining repeatedly, altho I'd be lying if I said I never did it myself.
I think most people who are negative are being so because they don't think Beth will make a 'worthy' successor to a game they very much enjoyed- they are entitled to that opinion, but until the game is released or there is a lot more information out there it is just their opinion. And really, there's as little information indicating it will be great as indicating it will be trash...
Quote Posted by N'Al
How is this any different to a 'real-time' FPS, for example?
Because what this thread really need is a long winded discussion of TB/PB/RT which is what these things always seem to devolve into. Gentle reader, you may wish to skip the next paragraph...
If you go to some places (ie the Codex) they will describe the BG/ KOTOR system as phase based. They are, of course, idiots. The basis of something being turn based is that any given action takes a specific proportion of an arbitrary 'round' and is defined primarily by this rather than an occurence in real time- that's a definition from the 'original' turn based games, table top wargames. In games based on 'Real time' implementations of D&D (ie BG/Kotor) this still occurs- you can cast a spell per round (or for high level ones per several rounds), attack or use a skill/feat. All these actions take multiples of six seconds to perform, however, and
cannot occur simultaneously- they are in fact still turn based despite appearing to be in real time. In contrast, for the 'true' real time game how long an action takes is based on the action itself and can theoretically take any amount of time to perform- in BG a lock will always take six seconds to (try to) pick, it will always take 4AP in fallout whereas in a real time game a lock could take effectively no time at all to minutes. Same with weapons. In a fps how often you can fire is determined by the weapon stats and how rapidly you can click the mouse. In a turn based game firing a given weapon takes a certain proportion of a round.
My
personal preference would be for a JA2 like system of TB for Fallout 3 (though it seems highly unlikely to happen) with interupts far better implemented than FOT and 'overflow' action points to stop some of the extremely gamey exploits of the previous system, as if F3 were real time I cannot see how things like skill based locational damage could be satifactorily implemented. If they come up with a decent FP system which retains RPG character rather than the Oblivion style fps character I would be fine with it.
Malygris on 12/6/2007 at 00:01
SO HEY GUYS HOW ABOUT THAT FALLOUT TRAILER PRETTY COOL HUH?
guys?
Zygoptera on 12/6/2007 at 01:39
It's a 2:12 teaser which gives very little concrete information about anything. As such there's only so much which can be said about it- it's pretty good for what it is, it is at least promising, while the negative is that it is a bit derivative and doesn't give much away gameplay wise. Apart from peripherals like Perlman and the Ink Spots what else is there to say?
YMMV, of course.
trevor the sheep on 12/6/2007 at 02:11
that teaser was fucking sweet
Shakey-Lo on 12/6/2007 at 02:12
You forgot to mention the important bit, which is that the trailer was not turn-based.
trevor the sheep on 12/6/2007 at 02:14
fuck! i lose internet arguing
Malygris on 12/6/2007 at 03:17
i'll turn-based you
Rogue Keeper on 12/6/2007 at 08:32
Ron Perlman is turn-based.
Sulphur on 12/6/2007 at 08:57
ALL YOUR BASES ARE BELONG TO US