I don't see how turnbased combat is less representative of a natural character as it all comes down to your own approach to it, how you view what is happening and the understanding of the purpose and functions of the turnbased system. :shrug:
That, once again, isn't to say that either is inherently better than the other - just saying that TB is just as viable as RT, whether or not you can relate to it is up to you.

And one could argue that in an RPG, turnbased combat is much more valid choice because it ignores your inefficiencies as the player (barring the mental ones, that are about making the decisions) and works by the terms of the character (the character, which is the crux of an RPG). I'm not going there, though, as it's just my own view on it.

Also, there was a mod to Fallout 3 that made it TB. To me it looked actually much more fun (and much more "RPG") than "splitsecond decisions" to backpedal long distances from enemies while firing like there's no tomorrow presenting a "natural flow".

I'm not saying you are wrong with your opinions, if they are just that - your views on the aspect, how you percieve them - but when you state them as facts, as you do, I will disagree.

TB is just as valid as RT. To some it's more valid than to others. And as 3-26, I firmly believe there is a market for well made TB RPGs.

Okay, I think I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were saying that RT>TB because you can LARP better. I now realize you're talking about "representative role-play", but I don't know what that is. Can you define it for me, so I can better understand your points?


Okay, sorry, my bad.


I think turn based combat can be even more detailed than real time, since you don't have to worry about the number of actions going on at once. The game can take into account factors like lighting for accuracy, windspeed for projectile velocity, and even realistic projectile motion for the guns. In addition, it can do any function of real time combat, just slower (because it takes turns).


Less viable in that it is slower to do some thing, but more viable in that it can do some things that just can't be done in real time (like being able to control more than 1 character).


Okay, I tried refuting some of your above points.


Okay, I'm talking more about a different turn based combat game with a different engine, not just the kind of game Bethesda usually makes, but with poorly integrated turn based combat.


Doesn't mean other games besides Fallout- or even a Fallout spinoff- can't be turn based and successful. See the second paragraph in my above post for an anology using the movie business. The thing is that with Fallout 3, the consumers expectations have been set with what to expect. Obviously, you'd need to give a turn based game a bit of a different title and market it from the start as a turn based game.

And please tell me if I misinterpreted any of your points. I might have, since I still don't know what representative role-play is. I may revise them after you tell me.

But it does it so well. :shrug: Turn based play does a fantastic job of what you say it cannot do.

A well designed turn based combat game can enable the player to effectively play a PC that has abilities beyond their own; abilities that they cannot use effectively in a real time game.

I'll give you an example.... (may have given this already )
Consider the game where you play Xiao Xiao as your character. Xiao Xiao is a skilled martial artist and enters a fight with several score of moves to pick from (lets just say only 35 combat attacks for now ~each to their own advantage, it the right situation). The player is not (for sake of example) a skilled martial artist, and does not know at a glance which of the 35 attacks would be best in his current encounter. The real [time] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw4wzwYeZ0Y would know immediately and begin mopping the floor with his enemies, while the player would be either overwhelmed with the available options, or resort to using just two or three for the entire fight ~what a waste eh?

If implemented well in a TB game, the player would be presented with Xiao Xiao's first assailant, and have access to all of Xiao Xiao's formidable HtH arsenal. They would be able to intelligently pick the wisest course of action and see the results of that choice ~and base their next choice off of it.... say... deciding to use a throw instead of a wheel kick, or foot sweep ~Tossing their foe at another enemy (and damaging both with one action). Using TB combat the player could forge an intricate path of calculated destruction through a mob of oncoming opponents, and through skill and clear thought, possibly defeat a few dozen attackers.

To tackle the same fight in real time, while retaining the freedom of action that TB enables, I think would not be possible, and would be forced to resort to combos and other means of reduced [or automated attack] options that the player can realistically access in time to still be relevant.

There is this game I heard about where the player only controls one of the protagonist's arms. The other is AI controlled and it shoots on it's own instead of allowing the player to pick both targets.

Turn based strategy doesn't get in the way of role playing as the individual you where replying to suggested and it's easy to have character skill determine the result of a situation in turn based strategy, but its really silly to say that the same can't be done with real time strategy.

Actually, if you read my post (and I believe you did, but it explains this...), You cannot have a fighter with 35 (or 45, or 85) attacks, and expect to play it efficiently in real time. :shrug:

The Kludge is the only way, and that means combo attacks or AI assisted fighting ~(both take away from player freedom).

TB games often present an abstract dissection of a given series events. The player exists outside of the flow of actions, and can ponder the action without missing any of it.

Look here at this turnbased beat'em up game...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMpgfoYleWc

The player's control is so absolute, that they have complete control of their fighter at the joints. Posing even the wrists knees and spine; choosing when to grab hold, and when to release; when to pull them in and when to push them away.

Toribash is a perfect example of a turn based fight, that shows you first the turns that dictate the action, and then a summary of those events.

Back to Fallout... Turns dictate the action of the fight. Fallout does not sumarize the fight in the end, like Toribash; but then, it doesn't need to.

I think that the likes of X-COM, Jagged Alliance 2, and Silent Storm would serve as good models for a turn-based Fallout. One of the problems with Fallout 2 (having never played Fallout), was that the turn-based action was too slow and generally felt like a button-masher. X-COM, an older game was much more interesting because of how each enemy had different movements, randomized terrain, and how smoke and damaged terrain could come into play. I really recommend buying X-COM at Good Old Games, but I have linked a Let's Play video of X-COM for those who prefer to observe. Ditto for Silent Storm, as well.


An X-COM combat video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9a1UHGm2hA&feature=related


The first episode of the X-COM Let's Play, for people who want to see things from the beginning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8zpB0Gw46g


The Let's Play of Silent Storm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poxFgJ-Fq7U

Just lending my voice to this conversation... as it seems to have drifted away from 'viability' and moved into the realm of 'enjoyability'.


The fact of the matter is... Turn Based Combat is still a perfectly ENJOYABLE style of gameplay. It always has been. It always will be (when done right). So long as the game is fun, people are usually willing to accept whatever combat style it provides. However, Turn Based Games are becoming increasingly rarer... and the reason for this is because they are beginning to get a reputation for being 'slow' and 'old school'. The market is slowly disappearing... and the games, with it.

When the market disappears for a gameplay style... it usually has nothing to do with whether that style of play is enjoyable or not.

It usually has to do with whether that style can be convincingly marketed. Right now, the market is more interested in flashy graphics and quick-paced action. Even RPG's are beginning to reflect that, these days. While some daring innovations have come out to prove that games can be successful using other, more 'old-school' styles of play... they're usually held up as doing well DESPITE things like turned-based combat... rather than BECAUSE of it.

So... in response... no.

I don't think it's currently viable. Due to marketing problems, and the current state of the 'gaming' community... I think combat systems which don't provide maximum user-control and immediate action will do poorly in comparison to a game which follows the more main-stream approach.

Does this mean it will never be viable again? No, of course not.

But as of this moment, I think the majority of large developers are in consensus that if they want to sell hundreds of millions of copies... they're going to have to make a game just like what everyone already has.

And sadly... this is why the market is flooded with crap.

Ingenuity is the enemy of profit. Ingenuity requires time and investment... which hurts the bottom line. If ingenuity is to be found in games today, it is in much smaller quantities than it ever was before. The game must be financially viable before it can afford to take risks.

I read it just simple don't agree with you statement that real time can't represent character skill only regarding situations. Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas doesn't accomplish as good a job as they should of done, but that doesn't making it impossible. Bethesda has in some ways done this better in other games than they did on Fallout 3. Regarding an example say using a gun the model already used by Bethesda in Fallout 3 doesn't take much modification really to have accuracy and other factors regarding firing the weapon and hitting the target so tied to character skill that player skill is downsided greatly. Even the example your stuck on is easily handled in real time. Most games have few action buttons Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas included. With preset combos and a variety of skills mapped to action buttons complex actions that the player may not be able to do in the real world is easily accomplished and with skills and combos awarded by character skill there wouldn't functionally be any difference using this method or the turn based method outside it takes place in real time. Even the control aspect you bring up is easily met in a real time strategy game. Many real time rpg's I play have a pause feature where tactics can be set before continuing. The V.A.T.S. system for instance control over companions merely needs to be added.

I can accept that, but will you give an example of what you mean?
Can you demonstrate how a player can effectively play realtime as a martial artist (or a mutant super hero, or a robot) ~for example, with 35 to 50 actions and or powers and not employ any combos?

Combos...
The whole point of my earlier post was that Realtime cannot approach the freedom and control of Turn Based (or even RT w/Pause in this case); and the only way to even attempt that level of control is by using combos... which is the Kludge I was talking about; one that consolidates the available choices into chained actions (like katas). This is exactly what I meant about reduced freedom. :shrug:

Did you examine the video link? that clip demonstrates it all, and much better than I could do it with words.

Pause features are irrelevant to this :shrug:; you can get that with Baldur's Gate... But Baldur's Gate is not turn based, and Turn Based is not by any stretch related to "Realtime with pause". The cuing of actions in Baldur's Gate bears only one relation to sequential turn based combat; that being that they both depict a fight. The difference I'm trying to bring to light here is that the Player in a realtime game is reduced to what the PC(s) experience in realtime, and are limited by what they themselves can take in. Every RTS has this limitation, but most are designed around a different gameplay experience, so it doesn't matter much.

A turn Based version of say... Dawn of War, could allow the player to control every single squad member on the field, and have some reload, some switch weapons, have the injured fall back to cover, and have one squad capable of flanking both sides of the enemy.... But the most important thing is that the player can decide what action to take based upon what actions others have already [irrevocably] taken ~you can't do this with RT w/Pause.

Speaking of RT/w pause... Consider Diablo: The player enters a room and gets 'swarmed' by attackers, and fights them off as best they can (or runs). Now consider Fallout (or Jagged Alliance2 even)... The player enters a gang hideout, and gets swarmed by attackers... but the player has the freedom to size up each opponent, and surgically attack them in whatever order seems logical. They get to choose their actions based on the committed actions of the others (if they choose), as well as being able to leverage the framework of the rules to anticipate what actions the others might take... This allows one to think several moves ahead. In Fallout I've had the PC plant dynamite with a timer set to go off later on when several enemies end their turns next to it.

TB games and RT games are not 'aiming' for the same kind of gaming experience, and usually cannot match what the other style really excels at.

I think the combat system is completely separated on whether a game is classified as a RPG or not. Both combat systems have their flaws and advantages btw. Although in theory TB has a lot more options to offer. I see TB just as a different perception of time where AP defines the time scale, for example if we change AP into seconds: 1sec to move, 4sec to fire weapon, 2sec to reload, end turn. For me an RPG is defined by the role a character plays, simple as that. People talking about realism need to wake up to the fact that it's just a game, Fallout is as real as lets say Warhammer. I don't see elves & dwarfs roaming in my street neither do I see a Mr. Gutsy flying around. That's just my opinion.

Anyways I also think TB is still viable if it's done right.


Looks nice, I will check it out this evening.. downloaded it already from: http://www.toribash.com/

:foodndrink:

It defaults to "Windowed" mode, and the the default graphics settings are very low, but the game can use raytracing if you enable it in the options. and can be set to run full screen. (even @ 1920x1080)

Turns are measured in seconds (a definable option). You path out the entire round, and then the game replays the match at full speed.
There is no combat AI, but the game has multiplayer.

I think this stament really says alot about gaming!


Turn Based Combat as we know it obviously has its roots in the PNP RPG world, reading stats, looking at charts, rolling dice, plugging numbers into algebraic formulas and rounding down was viewed as normal gameplay. When the first Adventure/RPG games were made for computers the clear advantage was that all the information resides in a database and the computations can be done much faster thus speeding up gamplay and made the slaying of a goblin more like a battle and less like an SAT Math Question. Then came the realization that all the commands can be given, calculations can be made and animations chosen in such a short period of time that there was no longer a need to stop the action and Real Time Combat came to be the norm. I’m the last person to decry technological advancement. However it took decades of trial and error to get Turn Based Combat to where it is today, I’d hate to see all those ideas and ingenuity just disappear. Especially because not all of them can be translated to Real Time Combat systems.

In a Turn Based system if your character is attacked, even with something as “mundane” as a straight punch, several factors dictate the outcome:


Are you moving or Flat Footed?
Are you in a Offensive/Defensive/Neutral posture?
From what direction is the attack coming?
What is your Awareness Level? This is for the character not you as the player.

These conditions, and others, will dictate if and how you react. If your character was “on edge” waiting for something to happen then you might get a chance to react to the incoming attack, it’s up to you to look at your Combat, Dodge, Block and/or Counter Attack skills/abilities to decide what that reaction should be. If you dodge, do you go left, right, forward or back? Did you obviate the attack completely or did you suffer a glancing blow? Or maybe you decided that you had better odds at blocking the attack. Do you block with your left or right arm? Do you redirect the attack to the left, right or up? Do you have the skills to attempt a two finger strike targeted between the first and second knuckle of the incoming fist? What set of attacks will you follow up with if/when your block is successful? Once the attacker is sufficiently dispatched you need to look at your surroundings to decide your next set of actions. 3 more attackers, are they armed? Armoured? Combat Proficient? Angry/Scared? Near/Far? What are their stances and awareness levels? What objects are in the room that could help or hinder you or your opponents, Tables, Chairs, Metal support beam? The one closest to you has pulled a knife and dropped into a fighting stance and is shuffling towards you. Another is unarmed but running towards you full speed. The third crouched down behind a table and is unholstering a pistol. Your move. Shaolin-WuShu spin past Mr. Knife towards the table, kick the chair out of your way and into the Runners way (maybe trip him up) and vault over the table and hopefully kick the Gunner before he can get the safety off.

This is all easily accomplished in a Turn Based System, think about the control scheme necessary to do all this in Real time. I actually did have a scenario like this in a recent playthrough of the latest Batman game. I dodged an incoming kick, countered by grabbing the leg and striking the head with a spinning backfist, vaulted over two oppenets attacked a third with a wicked haymaker, flip kicked one I had vaulted dropped down and kicked the legs out from another, uppercut an incoming attacker then grabbed the guy laying on the ground by the head and slammed it into the ground. While it was very exciting to watch it was not very much fun to play as the only thought put into my actions was hitting the same button over and over and over in just the right rhythm.

Both scenarios certantly lend themselve to exciting action hero-esque fights, hhich way you prefer to play is up to you, but I know which one I like better.




There is a training mode, not the tutorial, that seems to act and react with sufficient AI. That how I've been playing it.

As I can't be bothered to read all 7 pages, my response to the original post is yes.

There is a Van Buren pre-alpha demo floating around the internet that was in fact 3D, still played from an orthogonal perspective. I don't think first-person turn-based would work on any level though, there are just too many variables to process on that front.

I think the orthogonal Company of Heroes-esque view would work the best, with the ability to rotate would be a nice feature.

I wouldn't buy a turn based Fallout4 (turn based RPG's are outdated). But I would jump on a Fallout with a system similar to UFO Afterlight in which every action costs some time but every entity in the game move at the same time. You simply pause to give new orders and the enemies also change their actions depending on what you are doing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0OlGkcL_2I&feature=related

Sounds like RT w/ Pause. Turn based is not "out-date-able"; RT and TB do not directly compete...
And here is a recent TB game on the shelves at Walmart right now (and not the only one either)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8h7Cpgd9kU

Honestly... as much as I enjoy turn based combat, real time just feels more exciting - nothing quite beats that "OH HELL!" feeling you get from being ambushed by an enemy who is hitting you without you even knowing where he is!

Then again, while that is true, I find those situations to be few and far in between (and one single "spooking" device can only go so far with its excitement) with most of the combat consisting running and gunning quite frantically. The FPS games are (imo) in quite a stagnant state with only a few exceptions of inventive and discernible use of the style that would make difference between that the next similiar game.

I know what you mean, and I felt that in Halo(1) and Blood (and even Painkiller, and Serious Sam 1 & 2nd)...
but I also felt that in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqOfuE46wLQ, and would again.
(quite serious )

** I just found another clip... the final battle in "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FDKqwwRSSw&feature=related"
(I never reached the end... but I might just play it through over the weekend :laugh: )

That's why we need a new turn based Fallout4 in which everyone play their turns at the same time.

Everyone meaning 'Multiplayer' ?

With the exception of Chess, its hard to find others with the patience to play turn based multiplayer at all, much less in a cRPG.

At best it would mimic Tactics with a choice of TB & standard RT; but the TB would be a hack.
I don't see this ever happening except as an advanced user mod.