I was just clearly stating what game it was first used in. I am not supporting or disagreeing with anyone here. I was getting the impression that Okie said that in 2004 the gamebyro engine was introduced, but re-reading it, it seems that is not the case.

I'm not implying

I remember seeing Dark Age of Camelot, but I did not get it (its an online MMO).

** Actually, I remember this somewhat... IIRC Dark age of Camelot did not use Gamebryo, but rather an expansion pack for the game did.
DAOC:Trials of Atlantis

I've read at least one or two interviews with Todd Howard from around the time of Oblivion's release, where he discussed how they were relying upon Gamebryo's internal coding to delineate the moment-by-moment action onscreen, and how this basically ended up being "turn-based combat," or words to that effect (I'm paraphrasing from memory).

True, you can have both turn-based and non-turn-based gameplay using Gamebryo (as you point out), but going from past comments, Todd's team felt that it was close enough to turn-based to feel comfortable calling it that publicly, one way or the other.

I'd support it. I couldn't figure out how to kill the first rat on Fallout 1 or the first raider in 2. Could not figure it out.

I absolutly HATE that style of gameplay. HATE it. It's why I never could get into final fantasy.

I'm pretty sure I said I've never played them when I said I'd hadn't heard of em till I played Fallout 3, and that was just last year. I do not WANT to play games on PC, that's what consoles are for.

It is so hard to play it in turn based?,

People and their little patience nowadays

Silly kids these days.

It's boring as hell. I have little time to play games due to me having a family and a job and all. Oh and it's boring and not based on any skill, it's luck on how many hit points you scored on "your turn".

You do realize this is how they used to fight wars? There's a reason they stopped..........

You're overly simplifying it. But whatever.

You have little time to play games, yet you have time to play huge timesinks like Fallout 3 and New Vegas? TB wouldn't take anymore of your time than what those titles take with their combat -- not unless combat is made too frequent like in Fallout 3.

But yeah...

Wheres the poll !!!
I was up for the idea until I got them for PC, and well their too sweet to come to console

So you are basicly admitting you don't have the patience for anything turn-based?

In 2, combat was way too frequent, even with a high PER, Outdoorsman, and the perk that lessens "normal" encounters, random fights happened back to back to back. I could barely move 1/10 of a square before going right into another one, usually the exact same encounter i went through before (and no im not talking about running away from an encounter and it catching back up to you).

Even after getting the highwayman they are still way too frequent, Only very seldom was I able to travel some place with less than 5 random encounters (even traveling from klamath to den once i fought 4 random encounters and they are barely more than 1 square away from eachother.

the TB is much slower than I'd like it to be in the originals. I'd rather the animation be done by the time i finish reading the combat log on my current action, but the characters do everything like they are moving in molasses; even with the combat speed slider pushed all the way to fast.

Okay but if Todd Howard thinks "moment-by-moment" action is equivalent to turn-based combat than Todd Howard, is, again, simply flat out wrong. The concept of turns for instance is fairly integral to turn-based combat yet Oblivion clearly lacks them. The fact that the game keeps track of continuous action in discrete segments doesn't make turns appear.

Todd's team made a lot of claims around the time of Oblivion more than a few of which turned out to be false. If they claimed that Oblivion practically had a turn-based combat system because the engine keeps track of actions as any engine must do then they simply made another false claim.

I admit it was a bit too frequent in 2, but not up to being a disturbance. At least for me. Outdoorsman, PER and perks worked for me, most of the time I could avoid an encounter altogether, and when I couldn't, combat rarely initiated as "cautious nature" put me far enough from enemies that I could run away before they spotted me. That's on later levels though, when I had a decently developed character who could handle the stuff.

There is also room for improvements - more or less - in the old systems, no argument there. Though, that wasn't the point. I didn't suggest having an exact copy of the old system (and I never have).

I suspect you had Killap's patch installed. The crazy encounter rate is due to a botched (IMO) attempt to compensate for the high processor speeds of modern computers which led to almost no random encounters. Unfortunately it overcompensated far too heavily. You can tweak the .ini file to fix it. It's not how the game originally ran or was meant to run.

The overly slow TB (which I agree with particularly when fighting say a horde of rats) is easy to fix. Arcanum had an optional fast TB system where enemy and friendly NPC turns were played out instantly back in 2000.

Misconception.


IIRC That was a bug that caused ridiculous numbers of overland encounters due to the unanticipated speed of the later CPUs in these monster desktops we have. FO1's spec was for a 90MHz system with 16/32 MB ram; FO2 was close to that, and not expecting an 800 - 2800 MHz system.
This was patched in the user patches I'm pretty sure, (just not of which one).

See, if I ran from the encounters that just made the encounter rate even worse for me =(, If I ran I would run right back into the same encounter and my blip wouldnt have even moved. It got frustrating for me in that it felt I had to fight all the ones I came across just to keep the encounter rate low.

I wasn't saying you were suggesting anything, just pointing out (IMO) flaws in the Original's system. I'm all for turn-based combat over FPS. FPS has over-saturated the market for much too long now, and seeing lots more "true" RPG's would be a much welcomed change. It just svcks that most turn-based RPG's have been relegated to the Handheld and Indie game market instead of AAA titles. Even the pseudo turn-based system of Dragon Age Origins got gutted into a mindless hack and slash in 2 =(


hmm, I had no idea that was the reason, sounds plausible. I just only attributed it 2 since in 1 I barely noticed the random encounters. I actually ran around looking for them at times. I'll have to find one of these fixes and I'll be able to finish my second playthrough without ripping my hair out.

I misinterpreted your tone then, apologies. We seem to agree as far as this quote goes.

s'alright. can be hard to interperet tone in text form.

Actually a remake of the games on the Van Buren engine would be cool to see now that I think about it. If it still exists somewhere, just update the graphics engine and voila!

My guess is Killap's restoration patch or his unofficial patch.

If you watch parts of a few of Tord's Fallout2 lets play, he says what patches he's used, and he does not have the outrageous encounter frequency when crossing the map.
http://www.youtube.com/user/mynameisnotlilly#p/c/47DE8B56F93FE277/0/yRMtyk4nhIE

I stand to my opinion. people nowadays have little to no patience to understand the complex, they just want all fast-paced, a shame really

This thread is sad, sad, sad.

Actually, it's entirely based on skills, just not those of the player. Combat in TB games is dependent on the skills and (where applicable) perks of the character/unit in question, so proper character growth is the overriding factor rather than the player's 'twitch gaming' skills (or lack thereof, whichever is the case). This is a common misconception amongst the deriders of TB combat, since they see the relative inability of the player to directly influence the battle and incorrectly assume that as a result there must be no skill involved, when in truth skill is all that's involved save for when rolling for critical hit effects.

Yeah, they stopped because doing line marches into machine gun fire was stupidity at a level far beyond even [censored]. That has nothing to do with TB combat, though, since you can pull asinine maneuvers like that in RT combat too.

I, too, find it somewhat ironic that you're complaining about not having time for TB combat yet have plenty of time to play FO3 and F:NV, games that are far greater time-sinks than FO1&2 ever were.

Yeah, if he isn't able to spend time playing Fallout 1 and 2 then he shouldn't have enough time to play 3 or New Vegas.

Guys, I think he is just hating on Fallout 1 and 2 just to hate on them.