You cannot make a turn-base game as flowing as the no delays of real-time... reacting at will at any time to any situation.

Your interrupt PAUSES are not the same. Dream on.

As player skill and character skill has some bearing on this topic, I'm going to allow some discussion of the "what is an RPG" variety - but I would suggest that if people really want to beat on that dead horse too much, they probably should make a separate thread for it.

Let's also not confuse subjective opinions with objective facts, here.

Back to it, then:

I still continue to notice that quite often, those who are not terribly big fans of turn-based gaming obviously aren't going to have as broad a knowledge of the genre. It's a common misconception, therefore, to confuse the limitations found in the one or two games they are familiar with, with innate restriction within the gameplay itself. Which is a logical fallacy.

For example, if First-Person Shooters really weren't my cup of tea, and my only basis for comparison was Wolfenstein (not the remake, the original one,) and Duke Nukem. I could infer from this that FPSs aren't capable of full 3D models, and instead must be made out of 2-sided sprites that attempt to "fake" a 3D world. Or that FPSs were inferior because in most games you weren't even able to look up or down, but instead must be restricted to the same plane of movement. If the only real-time RPG I'd ever played was Morrowind, I could be forgiven for making the inference that real-time games were inferior because combat only ever consisted of clicking the attack button over and over again, and didn't have more tactical options like aimed shots, hit locations, cover, etc.

Of course, I would obviously be wrong on all counts. This is kind of the same thing we turn-based fans constantly run into in these discussions. One who isn't interested in that form of gameplay will rarely have all that complete a picture of what the genre is capable of, and will often confuse a lack of features found in one or two games to be innate restrictions of that form of gameplay itself. Which of course is forgivable and understandable, but fallacious nonetheless.

I HATE turn based games. It drags fights out WAY too long and makes something that should take 30 mins to do take 2hrs (Im looking at you, blue dragon), not to mention its no where near as fun (IMO) as any other type of game play. I played a bit of the Original FOs and liked them, but I defiantly would prefer that the same style with the new ones is kept. Im honestly really surprised that anyone wants turn based back.

Why are you surprised? I think its fun and makes the game more RPish.

Well I like to plan my battles and rely on character skill over my own twitch reflexes and have SPECIAL work as intended.
I'd take that over shooting crap up any day.

They are the same, to your character. You usually have to reserve Action points or time you otherwise could have spent doing something else to get these things. So in "Real time" it would be the equivalent of you stopping and aiming to cover an area waiting for the enemy to pop out. Who cares about "flow" your just said it's something TB can't do.

Why-oh-why do we get the mutterings of twitch reflexes if the game is not turn-based play.

MENTAL AGILITY reflex yes, and sometimes it is true that you do have to move faster on occasions ... usually as a result of lack of thought in tactical approach (intelligence) or by not being adept or not having pre considered the reactions you should make if such-and-such happens, or by having not considered the likely reactions of the enemy to what you intend to do.

Those considerations are exactly the same, or should be, as they are in real-time or turn-base time.

Turn-base has limitations in movement and instant reactions (or as it was in Xcom, you were given the option of taking that instant, lol, reaction). Real-time play on the other hand is a more true to life and life-like role-play, that’s a FACT. If I play a role I want to play it with as much realism truism that I can muster. Turn-base play having less realism truism and life-like continuous animation, just doesn't cut it as good role-play.

NEVER in Fallout3 did I need rapidly-repeated finger-twitching reflexes, I needed rapid thought and rapid body movement certainly, (both things unknown to Fallouts 1 and 2 TB combat).

And ACTION POINTS in turn-based-combat play, oh dear me, totally destroying any ability to role-play as realistically or life-like as possible, the role-play truism is trashed and that's a FACT, and some claim TB along with it's action points is a better role-play game, lol.

Turn-play is actually a hex-based-board-game combat as it was in Fallout 2. Turn-based-combat, I soon became adept, interesting at first but once I was adept, less thought was needed and the game became drawn out waiting for turns to be taken, though I can understand those that are not of rapid thought being drawn to the game.

I gave FACTUAL experience of what turn base play was like in Fallouts 1 and 2 in my earlier post .... and the FACTUAL shortcomings of turn-base-combat play in them. Anyone who has not played one of those early Fallouts, that is what it is like.

Let no one suggest that I do not understand the genre and differences of plays, I have given factual shortcomings of turn-based play.

Quoting games irrelevant to Fallout does not help to prove any Fallout point.....

This is a Fallout Series discussion forum and should be limited to Fallout, we are not discussing Xcom with their own shortcomings of TB play, I made comments of my TB experiences in Fallout, going on about such as Morrowind of other games irrelevant to Fallout would not help or establish a point.

It needs to be understood FACTUALLY that turn-base combat play will always have some pause, never be of uninterrupted flow or animation so necessary to having the best ability for the player to make best realistic life-like role play. If you don’t care much about that then TB is for you. I have read a lot of confused thought above on the facts and capabilities between turn-base and real-time play merits.

"As player skill and character skill has some bearing on this topic, I'm going to allow some discussion of the "what is an RPG" variety ....."
Not really any bearing actually, YOU the player are playing the role using your intelligence, having developed the character's skills using your own skills and intelligence to develop them. YOU the player using your intelligence decides how you want the character to use his skills. YOU the player and the character you develop are one entity.

Whatever, but personally I don't think that those stuck in the turn-base camp will ever understand the differences of anything that I've said above. Many of us have tried before.

Anyway, why spoil a perfectly good role-playing game like Fallout3 or similar by adding turn-based-combat to it.

Go and vote NO to TB.

Lots of facts here huh, didn't anyone teach you that opinion=/=fact and opinion

I noticed he used FO3 as an example alot, that game is no RPG, it's some michael bay shooter to me.

Because of the crazy and indisputable fact that in Fallout 3 my considerable skills at FPS gaming can turn my short-sighted low agility characters into gods of death on the battlefield. This couldn't be further from the turn-based combat of the previous games or what a game that aspires to be an RPG should strive for.



Yes it is clearly mental agility that allows me to use my mouse to swiftly turn and place my crosshairs over a target's head. How much intelligence must I possess in order for my FPS skills to play no role oh wise Sitruc?



Considerations really have nothing to do with what's being discussed here. Your considerations in any combat situation are going to be the same (don't die, kill enemies).



Yes it does. Real time also has limitations in movement or is there a way to go prone I don't know about? So you want to play a role with as much realism as you can muster but you don't care that your 1 agility, 1 perception character can possess staggering reflexes and shoot with eagle eye accuracy? That is some realistic roleplaying alright. I would almost think a turn-based combat system where my character's strengths and weaknesses would be more important for resolving combat than my skills at first person shooters would be better for role-playing. I guess this is just another one of these things I'm just not smart enough to comprehend huh?



Your fingers aren't part of your body? I am genuinely disturbed.



Definitely. I often think when I see a really old guy with a cane how unrealistic it is that he couldn't move nearly as quickly or operate a firearm nearly as rapidly as I can. The real world has a terrible combat system.



Yes the reason we prefer turn-based combat is because we are very slow and don't like being stressed by the intense mental activity of moving crosshairs around rapidly. You've got us down pat champ.



Well since I have seen you write things like: "No-no, it's not brain versus brawn, it's just not understanding, and what the shortcomings of TB play are, TB is RT in slow motion." I am fairly certain you do not understand the differences of play between the two. Because anyone who thinks TB is RT in slow motion really hasn't thought too hard about either the combat systems or what slow motion means.



Probably because we are discussing turn-based combat in general and what forms it could take in future installments of the series not just the TB combat system in Fallout 1 and 2. If a slow person like me grasped this surely you didn't have any trouble?



And this is a discussion about should turn-based be brought back not "should the turn-based combat system in F1 and F2 be brought back?"

"It needs to be understood FACTUALLY that turn-base combat play will always have some pause, never be of uninterrupted flow or animation so necessary to having the best ability for the player to make best realistic life-like role play. If you don’t care much about that then TB is for you. I have read a lot of confused thought above on the facts and capabilities between turn-base and real-time play merits."

Tell me how it is realistic and life-like that my 1 agility, 1 perception character in Fallout 3 performs nothing like a 1 agility 1 perception character would in reality?

"Not really any bearing actually, YOU the player are playing the role using your intelligence, having developed the character's skills using your own skills and intelligence to develop them. YOU the player using your intelligence decides how you want the character to use his skills. YOU the player and the character you develop are one entity."

Thanks for again proving you don't understand what role-playing means. Because the player and the character are not one entity. Nor should they be. Also since you even admitted above that you required rapid body movements to play the game I'm pretty sure more than the player's intelligence is involved.

"Whatever, but personally I don't think that those stuck in the turn-base camp will ever understand the differences of anything that I've said above. Many of us have tried before."

Us? Are there more like you? Oh god tell me there aren't.

"Anyway, why spoil a perfectly good role-playing game like Fallout3 or similar by adding turn-based-combat to it.

Go and vote NO to TB."

Why indeed. It would be shameful if a role-playing game reflected my character's abilities instead of my own.

You're basically just explaining V-LARP here. You creste yourself in the game and play as yourself with some skills as seasoning. You won't assume a role, you are it. You can do that in any game and it's a valid way of playing, if you prefer it. But what nu-clear-day said, and what you quoted, actually has a bearing, and a quite significant one at that, even though you can't or won't see it.

Pretty much what Okie said. The current combat system is a piss-poor representation of actual RPG combat as it is dependent on my own abilities rather than my character's. One of the BIGGEST most CRITICAL rules of RPG mechanics is that the character's skill MUST be relevant while the player's skill is only relevant behind-the-strings. Fallout 3 fails utterly at this.

i hate to break it to you, but what do you think you're doing when you are role playing? you, the player are playing the role of that character. there most certainly should not be a seperation. you are role playing that character, you aren't role playing a person thats ordering that character around, are you? no, that would be a real time strategy.

And before anyone throws the "i should'nt have to use any actual skill in an RPG" card again, please remember that the CHOICES you as a player make are a skill. Just as much a skill as placing a reticule over an anemy, if not moreso. The alternative to that is that youre not actually playing a game, but just going through the motions in a long drawn out turn based story .. it's either one way or the other.


Turn based in video games was a way to mimmick pen and paper RPG's. there would be a pause for both sides to "roll" and calculate what happened as a result.. its cool if you like them, but lets not get all twisted on what flavor the kool aid is.

Yep. That's your opinion. And you're welcome to it.

I think we're all pretty clear on the fact that Sitruc doesn't like RPGs with turn-based mechanics.

I'll keep this short.

Simply for the sake of argument, I'll posit a hypothetical. Let's assume that any game with turn-based mechanics categorically cannot be a role-playing game. (I disagree, but let's move on.)

Even were that the case, my opinion still stands. I would still pay good money to play a game with Fallout's ruleset (the "SPECIAL" attributes, how the skills works, etc) with a heavy emphasis on exploration and dialog, branching storyline paths, multiple resolutions to challenges, modern 3D graphics, and a highly-detailed ending cinematic that feels like it was hand-crafted specifically to tell me character's story. I'd also like to play that game with turn-based combat. (Preferably while in control of a small squad - 3 to 4 companions or so.)

I would buy that game over Fallout 3, or Fallout: New Vegas (and even over the previous Fallout games, as well.) If, by virtue of having turn-based combat, it's no longer an RPG, then that's fine. Whatever you want to call this new genre of videogame - then that's my favorite genre to play in. I call it a turn-based RPG. I would consider that to be my bread and butter. I could play that sort of game all day long and into next week. If you want to tell me that it's now called "Ham and Cheese," then okay. Then my favorite type of videogame is a "Ham and Cheese."

You may feel, for any number of perfectly valid reasons, that turn-based mechanics do not a good RPG make. That's fair enough. Not your cup of tea. You're not wrong for feeling that way. Just understand that some of us feel rather differently on the matter - and no amount of purely subjective evidence is going to change my mind on the subject. :cheers:

Everyone says that the new Fallouts are shooters, they are not. True they have the first person veiw but also the theird person veiw. I don't classify theird person games as shooters but others might. I think if they brought turned based combat it would be a major step back

I'd disagree on that point; while character skill should most definitely be relevant, I think there's a place for player skill as well.
RPG is a very wide genre, there's room for more than one interpretation of what the genre means.
My definition of an RPG is a game with a large world, many different stories for characters to explore, and the freedom to make your own storyline; I could honestly care less about the mechanics themselves. FO1&2 are turn based and top down, played them, loved them, FO3 & NV are real time and first/third person, played them, loved them.

It's all about the world itself for me. And before I get barraged with "well that's not an RPG because X" please name me another genre that allows the freedom to explore a world as a character(s) in that manner, because I can't think of one.

The Fallout series is cRPG subcategory of RPGdom, if the mechanics dont function to accurately represent your strengths and weaknesses that come with how you built your character, they are not cRPG mechanics.

Uh what? The entire history of the RPG genre disagrees with you that there should not be a separation between the player and the character. What's the point of creating characters with distinct abilities and stats if they just function as an extension of the player's abilities? I am role-playing that character but I am most certainly not that character. I am in fact the person ordering the character around. I can tell my character to try and pick a lock, but I shouldn't be able to pick the lock for him. I can tell my character to attack that enemy but I shouldn't be able to attack the enemy for him. I can tell my character to investigate the suspicious merchant but if he's got an intelligence of 1 he's probably not going to figure anything out no matter if I've seen through his charade or not. That's player/character separation and the core of roleplaying for as long as it has existed.



This is a complete strawman. Objecting to player skill overriding character skill is not at all the same as saying the player cannot make choices. Again, I can order my character to do prettymuch anything possible. Whether he succeeds or not at the tasks I set him should be up to the character's abilities not my own. In the original Fallouts you have clear separation of player and character skill and yet you seem to be actually playing the game.



No one's saying only TB combat systems can work in RPGs.

Action-adventure games. See Star Control 2 for an excellent example and a great game. Sorry to keep doing this to you but the trouble is as long as you keep denying the importance of the distinct character to an RPG you are going to be off-base with your definitions. You can have large open-world RPGs with extensive dialogues and characters and quests. You can have linear dungeon crawls without a single line of dialogue or anything beyond monsters to slay and loot to grab that are still RPGs. Those two types of RPGs still have something hugely important in common.

Star Control 2 has a large world (a whole galaxy), many different stories for characters to explore and the freedom to make your own storyline. It is not an RPG because whatever name you want to give to the Captain he has no abilities or traits distinct from your own. He's just an extension of the player in the Star Control 2 universe.

Surely I'm not the only one who sees a disparity regarding the "definitions" of RPGs that we're seeing in this thread.

All in one thread, we're seeing it argued simultaneously that a "true" RPG cannot have turn-based mechanics, as it interrupts the flow of the game and doesn't accurately model real life; and that only turn-based mechanics (due to the player skill vs. character skill continuum) can really make a "true" RPG. In both cases, we are seeing these definitions used as factual, objective evidence of an opinion. So correct me if I'm wrong, but here's a few issues I think need to be solved before we can start citing the "definition" of an RPG as supporting evidence as if we were following the rules of a logical debate:

You would have to find a complete and detailed definition from a unanimously approved authority. (ie, sometimes we see in these threads talk of "this is what an RPG is" as if there were some sort of governing body in charge of the genre. When in fact, it's rare to find a definition of the genre - as it applies to videogames - that goes into enough depth to support any argument. And if there is, I've certainly never come across it, or seen it linked as supporting evidence in a debate.)

Given point A, you would then need to prove that this is a definition by which the videogame industry has any interest in following it's specific standards. (ie, even proven a unanimous definition of the genre, you would still have to prove that it was a guideline that anyone making these videogames was following. Because if it's not a universally-accepted industry standard, then it doesn't really matter what the dictionary definition is, does it?)

Prove that it even matters, to be quite honest. I think quite often we're looking at this a bit backwards, when it comes to "no, that is/is not an RPG." I don't think a lot of game designers start off making a videogame with some sort of checklist, to make sure that they're properly framed within a specific and clearly-delineated genre. In fact, I'd argue that's bad game design. This is how we end up with your standard "shovelware" and "me too" game designs. All of the CoD/Halo/GTA/Elder Scrolls (or whatever popular game that causes people to try and jump on the bandwagon with a poorly-designed budget title) come from philosophies like this. I'd argue that any game worth my time wasn't likely designed with a specific genre in mind, at all. Or at best, simply within the guidelines of what that genre meant to the developers, personally.

(In short - Fallout 1 and 2 were the way they were as a manifestation of those designers' visions of what they felt was the very best RPG they could make. Fallout 3 is a manifestation of what Bethesda's views on an RPG are. The two definitions are at odds - it doesn't make one or the other any less of an RPG, however.)

Genre definitions are always a nebulous thing. I don't believe you're supposed to be able to nail down every single thing into a nice, neat cubbyhole. That's really not the point. It's not like scientific classification, or anything. It's only purpose is to give the consumer a broad idea of what sort of game they're looking at. And more importantly, game designers certainly aren't beholden to any definition we might decide upon, here. Frankly, if they make a game and call it an RPG - I think that's all you really need to call it an RPG.

I mean, if I go into a video store back in Michigan and look for Tron, the first place I'm going to look would be the Science Fiction section. However, at home here in Kodiak, there's only one video store. And they don't have a Sci Fi section. Instead, I'll find Tron in the Action section of the store. Now, is that to say that Tron isn't a sci fi movie? Sometimes, I've even found the movie in the Family section. I'll usually see Evil Dead 2 classified as a Horror movie. But it's also very funny - so why isn't it in the Comedy aisle? Horror movies usually aren't funny, though. So if a movie is hilarious - does that mean it can't be a horror?

Anyway - my point is this: Personally, until someone can provide the above evidence, any time I see talk like "RPG have this or that and can't have those and the other thing," stated as proven fact, I tend to change it my mind to "these are the types of RPG that I like, and I don't like the other types of RPG."

I could be wrong but I don't recall a single person in this thread arguing that only TB mechanics can make a true RPG.



I would wholeheartedly agree that there is no perfect definition of an RPG. However I would also state that there is at least one undeniable feature that links every RPG ever made: Namely the utilization of a character that is distinct from the player himself. I have honestly tried to think of a game called an RPG that does not possess that quality and completely failed.

Saying the distinct character is not integral to the concept of an RPG is like saying Jesus is not essential to Christianity. No matter how esoteric or completely off the wall, every brand of Christianity in existence or that has ever existed, will, in some way, acknowledge Jesus as key. Just because there is no equivalent RPG bible for me to quote doesn't mean every attempt to discuss what is or isn't an RPG is doomed to wallow in subjective muddle.

Arriving at an agreeable definition is nigh-impossible but I would submit it is not nigh-impossible to agree that RPGs must have some distinct features otherwise the term is totally meaningless. When someone tells me a game is an RPG I wouldn't wonder why he's suddenly talking gibberish. I would think oh he means a game in the style of Ultima, or Might and Magic, or Fallout, or Baldur's Gate, or Wizardry or Bard's Tale, or Arcanum, or Dragon Age. There is at least one thing that all those radically different games have in common.



I agree. A great game doesn't have to be stuck in a single genre. I'll use Star Control 2 again as an example of a superb game that straddles many genre boundaries and doesn't really sit comfortably in any of them. I use action-adventure to describe it but that honestly doesn't mean much. However, just because a game can straddle many boundaries doesn't make the boundaries themselves meaningless. No one would ever describe Star Control 2 as in any way, shape, or form, an RPG or possessed of an RPG elements. Clearly RPGs do have some features that must define them and if a game doesn't have those features, or weakens those features then it may be less of an RPG than another.



I just can't agree with this view at all. It's the old Abraham Lincoln: "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?" question. The answer is still four because a tail isn't a leg no matter what it is called. You could call any game you wanted an RPG but if it doesn't have at least the single indisputable feature common to every RPG ever created, it simply isn't one.



And yet you would never say that because Evil Dead 2 is both comedy and horror the terms comedy and horror have no meaning and anyone who says a film isn't a horror film is just saying "these are the types of horror films that I like and I don't like the other types." The term RPG does mean something and at least one thing that every RPG I can think of has never lacked is a character that is distinct from the player. I simply do not understand why this is regarded as subjective opinion or in any way controversial.

If some people don't like that facet of an RPG and want to pretend that it isn't important and they just like a different type of RPG, then maybe, and this is a crazy thought, they just don't like the concept of an RPG at all. And that's fine.

i have seen this a lot "you have clear seperation between you and the character"
I just don't buy it. not for PnP RPG's and not for CRPGs. its easy to "step back" from the action, sure. because the game isn't going to do anything until you make a move since it's turn based. If you want to pretend like you're god or someone bossing around the character, go right ahead, but it's intended that you are playing the role of the character.

and again, with this player vs character skill issue.
You deciding what skillpoints go to which attributes, your choices of where to go, who to attack adn when, what factioon to side with and most importantly, your reasoning for those choices- these ARE player skills that change the gameplay, just as much as a FPS game player deciding which guns to use, what attack strategy to use and which path to take to get to the objective.
Just because you make a lot of those choices up front, doesn't mean you're not still using your skill to determine the outcome. If your char skill svcks causing you to fail an objective, its a direct reflection of your player skill as you did not choose wisely. just as if you use the wrong weapon for the wrong enemy in an action game.

I see no credibility in the logic that you're not using player skill. its just implemented differently.

haha
"Seem to actually be playing a game"
you "seem" like you're actually playing a role playing game because you ARE actually playing a role palying game

remember:
if the outcome were entirely up to the character skill, you would not actually be playing a game. a game requires player skill. thats the entire point of a game.

I'll answer this question with a question.
Do you think that players of action andventure games can readily do flips? Can they scale a cliff faces? Fight in hand to hand combat with ease? Hold a crosshair still? Fly a chopper?
NO.. in this aspect, of course the player and character are different. This hold true for ALL games.

Bringing TB back would be cool as long as you can speed up the animations.

You're not understanding. The outcomes, the results of the actions are (should be) entirely up to the characterskill. The player has no input in the physical action - be it hitting a target, opening a lock, persuasion etc (hence the skillchecks and dicerolls). The player can affect the outcomes through characterprogression, but he has no input to actual "doing it" and he does not physically affect the outcome. The character does the task the player commands him to do with the skills and abilities inherent or which the player has given him, and succeeds or fails according to them. No-one argued for the removal of player from the game.

Why don't we just break this down into pros and cons?

Turn-based:

Pros:

Greater emphasis on character stats in combat outcome
Time to think out moves and attacks

Cons:

Slows down gameplay.
Unrealistic
Lack of a sense of 'being there'