If there was a new Fallout game being released (or perhaps Wasteland 2!!) and it was announced that it would go back to turn based combat, would you buy it? If you were in charge of designing the combat mechanics would you try to appeal to the 4XAntialiasing-Quad-SLI-UltraHigh Megapixel 3D Junkies in some way?

My own thoughts:
I actually really like the way the turn based combat works in Fallout, the only big things I would change would be to have a way of changing the viewing angles and a way of attacking while moving. In Fallouts 1&2 I love to stand just outside a door and then use one action point to step out, fire a few shots and use my last action point to step back. With an updated combat system it would be possible to start 2 steps away from the door, take one step and turn slightly to face the door (assume the door is to the top of the screen you’d stand at an angle like this / )and start firing an SMG, the next step puts the player right in front of the door, turn to keep facing it ( | ) and the next just on the other side of the door, again facing the door ( \ ) at which point you could stop firing and take one more step to be completely clear of the door. Naturally spraying a room with bullets this way would have very low accuracy, but smart AI would rethink trying to run out that door to get to you.

Also there could be more emphasis on what movements the target is making, if any. Are they mid-stride in a flat out run making targeting more difficult?(Unless of course they are running straight at you, in which case your target is getting bigger) Or are they completely flat footed? What position are you in? It could be very effective to run a few steps, drop to a prone position, Fire, get back up, run and repeat. Then there could be something like Exertion Points which won’t replenish after each round like Action Points do but will instead be used up throughout the battle, maybe unused action points could be converted to exertion points each round.

Another mechanic that would certainly be possible would be for the player to queue up their actions, maybe there could be like a ghost image showing what it would look like to confirm that it’s really what you want to do, and then hit the Go button. Rather than moving and waiting for all the NPCs to move all the actions could happen all at once then pause again to allow the player to see what happened and to queue up their next set of moves. I think this would make combat seem a bit more fast paced and urgent but still retain its turn based strategy elements.

So is this something that could still appeal to any modern gamers, or am I just a gaming dinosaur who should go find a tar pit?

Yes. I personally find it one of this current generation of videogames' greater... "tragedies" that there seems to be absolutely no viable market to fully explore what turn-based combat could look like with modern graphics and gameplay concepts. I think there's a knee-jerk reaction when this gets brought up, to think that "I'd like a turn-based game" means "I want 2-dimensional sprites moving around a bunch of squares determined by overly-complex rules that I'll never be able to comprehend." And ideally, I think that's missing the point.

Off-hand, I think VATS is actually a fair demonstration of the sorts of things that 3D engines could bring to the table in regards to TB. In that it shows what it would like to use turn-based concepts in a 3D world to calculate line-of-sight, distance, cover, etc. Going further, I think an important thing to understand is that you can hide a lot[ more calculations in the time it takes to show a "turn" being animated in-game. In a real-time game, you're even now somewhat constricted by framerate - you can only ever have so much going on-screen at one time. With turns, you sort of have a built-in buffer to counteract this to some degree (obviously, there's a law of diminishing returns - it's never fun watching a pop-up window telling you the computer is "calculating;" and there'd be a fine line between throwing in more details while still keeping things moving smoothly.)

But even with that, I think that a simple act of firing could include quite a number of calculations with a shift to turn-based. In Fallout 3, when you load into VATS, you get a percentage chance to hit, and if you miss, that's it. What I'd rather see suited to a turn-based form of gaming would be to utilize a deviation algorithm - so that the higher your skill, the greater chance your shot would land in an incrementally smaller "window;" but that even a "missed" roll could still result in deviating into a lucky shot. (ie, your shot goes a few inches off to the side from you aim but you still hit the guy standing next to your target.) And in-hand with that, is tracking each bullet to it's ultimate destination, calculating penetration, etc. I mean, X-Com was doing just that over ten years ago (and a lot of modern games do this now, anyway.)

Not to mention I think you could get really cinematic, potentially, with showing the results of a turn. I don't think it'd be at all out of the realm of possibility for a modern turn-based game to be able to show action that ended up looking a lot like a blockbuster action movie. Throw in procedural animation and destructible environments, and I think the possibilities are pretty extreme...

As far as Fallout itself is concerned...

... I'd just like to see a turn-based roleplaying game done with modern technology. I wouldn't say I "need" to see any particular franchise take that path; though I would be a fan for life to any developer that actually took a chance like that. Certainly, I wouldn't suggest that Fallout 4 come out as a solely turn-based game or something like that. Some form of spin-off with more of a tactical focus to the proceedings would be something I could easily get behind, however...

I agree that VATS was a step in the right direction, the fact that you can still get shot while in VATS and the target can get behind cover so your bullets hit nothing but wall. I was actually expecting something closer to KOTOR and was pleasantly surprised. Also the Blockbuster Action Movie aspect is closer to what I was imagining by having all the movement happening at once instead of waiting for each NPC to take their turn. I have nothing against shooters, I play quite a few of them, but they have gotten to the point of requiring great amounts of personal skill to play. In addition to the typical Forward, Backward, Strafe Left, Strafe Right, Look Up, Look Down, Turn, Jump and Shoot many of the newer games have things like Lean Left, Lean Right, Crouch, Prone, Run, Primary Fire, Secondary Fire, Use Scope, Zoom In/Out, Throw Grenade, Next/Previous Grenade Type, Pick Up Item, Use Item,Next/Previous Item, Melee 1 , Melee 2, Cover Mode, Blind-fire, Next/Previous Weapon, Next/Previous Weapon Group, Select Fire Mode, Reload and now I have to remember which button sends out my pet Bloodwing. A friend of mine actually uses a 6 axis 12 button joystick (like for a flight simulator) in his left hand and an 8 button mouse in his right just to play his favorite shooters. I feel that in a true RPG you shouldn't be able to makeup a shortfall in the characters combat skills by way of your own superior mouse/gamepad skills and quick reflexes. This is a big factor behind having turn based combat, at least to me.

Hell yes.. :mohawk:

If I could get a 3d/ISO rotatable Fallout ~something, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. (Think Dawn of War, with the commander as the PC, or think Witcher in a non-magic post Apoc setting).
*Combat as per TB mode in Tactics.

There is a modern DX9 TB game on the shelves at walmart right now; and its a shame its not Fallout related. If I didn't already own it, I'd go buy it.
(Honestly, I might go do that anyway (if its a good game), as I didn't actually expect it to show up at Walmart on the shelf, so I paid Valve for the privilege of using it so long as they say its ok, and I have internet.)

**edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8h7Cpgd9kU#t=00m39s

I need to play that game. Loved the last one.imma get it as soon as i have money again.

Thanks for the link Gizmo! I'll have to check that out, I've never even heard of that series. It looks like they are using the Final Fantasy style combat system, I have a Lord of the Rings game (something about "3rd Age" in the title me thinks) that uses that system and combined with the skill tree it makes for a very good game. An older game that tried to expand a bit on Turn Based/Action combat was called Parasite Eve, (they made a second one but I've never seen it, I played the first one many times through though) it allowed you to move all you wanted but you had to wait your turn before you could attack. It was an interesting approach that never caught on, neither did the approach for weapon/armor customization used in that game either. So I guess there are still developers willing to make some form of Turn Based Combat game, perhaps we just need to wait for one to really push the envelope into how it could be used.

From the looks of it, Disciples 3 has more in common to the HoMM series than anything else. So if you like TB strategy RPGs you might want to check that out too.



Would most definitely buy it. And sure it could and should also cater to the graphicz geeks at least up to a certain point - I don't mind all that much, but the publisher most likely would. Though I'd still keep the gameplay as far far more important aspect.

Wasteland 2 is a real possibility. IIRC Brian Fargo has acquired some of the rights, and was considering making a game with it.
(No clue how similar it might be ~His recent Bard's Tale was not really related to "The Bard's Tale", as I believe he only had rights to the name itself... I bought it because it shipped with retail copies of Bard's Tale 1, 2 & 3 :user: )

i would not buy it ever.( its about as realistic as a kung fu movie where a group of guys only fight the hero one at a time ) IMHO

I just don't like turn based combat.
I do not like it here or there. i do not like it anywhere.
I do not buy games that fight like that.
I just don't like turn based combat.

And if i was making a game i would never go for the top of the line features for my game . In doing so your only aiming for a small percentage of gamers. i would aim for the middle ground because if the content is worthy enough the hard core gamers, will still buy it. And you would end up with less topics like:" Help i cant get the game to work" (On my system that does not meet the requirements) threads in the end.

Ps sorry about the Seuss flash back there

EDIT: hey GIZMO IMO you should Mad max style that golf cart ! It would be more popular , at least put a short impaler on the front. lol :goodjob:

Knights of the Old Republic, that's all.

Real time does not substitute turn based therefore they are both as viable depending on the situation.
(And that's the same reason I don't like VATS: FO3 is designed to work with real time combat so VATS becomes an irrelevant and unbalanced compromise, though initially impressive and helpful when things go really bad)




That's completely true but also irrelevant: I could give you a list of dozens of things that are completely unrealistic in your favorite game and I bet that wont stop you from enjoying it.




This looks fantastic... (RPGWatch did a very negative review of it though and, since that's a site that I trust, I'll probably check #2 instead - I think I might even have it somewhere...)

thanks for the heads up, it looks great, though i see there is a disciples 4 out, so i'll probably give that one a go ;P
i don't mind the turn based games at all, though i think more could be done about the tactical side of them like you suggested, i don't like how they line up in formation facing each other and go for it, i used to play rpg's back in the eighties and even then in turn based, i could make my mage stand in the corner while my tank went in close to shield him.

I would say that its as unrealistic a a kungfu movie where the hero is able to fight off the entire room full of guys and never really get tired or hurt




I think that my favorite aspect of the combat system used for Fallout was that you still had to move around and use cover vs the stand-off style turn based combat. Each battle felt more like a PNP RPG, or even a chess match.

Though I would have prefered that Charisma, instead of just limiting the number of companions you got, gave you Command Points in battle. Say 3 Command Points per point of Charisma, then while in combat you could take control of your companions and make thier moves for them at the cost of 2CP per 1AP. That would be cool.

I have only played it about 20min. (Knee deep in Bloodlines before I bought Disciples 3 ~hip deep now). Disciples 2 was tops, D3 changes some things (knew that going in), but I will see how it measures up soon.

Yes. Especially with all the potential gameplay additions, like crouching and going prone, honing your shots in (like in Jagged Alliance), more complex weapon modification system... I'd buy the heck out of it.

I would not say that turn-based combat is not viable in the modern market. Perhaps it is true that it does not have as mass market appeal as say... first person shooters, but I've still seen games of this type in reletively recent years that seem to do fine, and while the market might be smaller than real time gameplay, there are also less games in this market, so a game of this type might still be able to succeed due to appealing to a market many developers don't really tap. Still, I have my doubts as to whether Bethesda will bring the series back to its turn-based roots, though maybe New Vegas succeeds, Obsidian will be allowed to create more Fallout games, and migtht eventually make a turn-based spinoff. I know it might sound odd for a spinoff to be closer to the original games in a series than the main series, but I think Bethesda will probably want to maintain creative control over the direction of the main Fallout series, now that they have the license. But the fact that they let Obsidian develop New Vegas shows that they're willing to allow another developer to handle spinoffs, and if New Vegas is successful, they may be willing to give them even more room to make future games the way they want.

Would I buy a return to the turn-based gameplay of the original Fallout games, if it were made? If it was an entertaining game, then yes, I like both turn-based and real time combat. Both offer different experiences, and both are viable gameplay styles. If a future Fallout game were turn-based, it would be a perfect oportunity to focus on the tactical side of combat. Some players who criticize turn-based combat might assume that it's all just people standing around taking turns shooting at each other with no player skill involved, but this is not necessarily the case. After all, in such a game, the player still needs to choose the character's actions, and depending on how the rules are set up, such an experience can require just as much skill on the players' part as a real time game, it just may not require the same skills.



That is, indeed, true. Lots of games have unrealistic things in them, in fact, most do, and this is true whether they're turn based or real time. I also think that turn-based gameplay makes much more sense in a realistic context if you don't think of it as literally being the characters taking turns moving around on the battlefield. I would interpret it more as each turn representing a certain length of time, and while the movements of the characters are displayed as all taking place separately when it's their turn to move, they should actually be interpreted as happening simultaniously, this does make it seem somewhat less unrealistic. Of course, for those who simply don't like this style of gameplay, that probably won't change their mind, and that's fine, it's just something I thought was worth saying.

Thats an opinion shared by a lot of non turn based fans and is based on an erroneous assumption, FO's TB combat is not a good example of the system. In games like X-com, JA1+2, SS and so on, you have means to be able to fire at approaching enemies (and be fired at in your turn) and fights at 10-1 against you are a very real threat. TB combat can simulate certain combat situations better than RT, as RT can over TB. But as you state it "feels" like that to you, although I would recommended trying to find and play the old JA2 demo, and reassess the genre from there. Its a good game for other reasons so I think its other strong points would make up for its TB combat for you, I don't think it would change opinion 100% but it allows non TB combat fans to see where we are coming from


Not at all the flash back was class :goodjob:

I'm not so sure that turn based combat is viable any more. Turn based combat in Fallout 1 and 2 was really quite abysmal, and to date I've never come across a turn based system of combat which keeps me awake. For the first couple of fights, turn based combat with scripted attacks would look good, but after a while it would get boring, and the same people pressuring for a turn based system would be begging for a real time combat system.

Incorrect, I would never want to replace TB with real time, so besides FO what other TB system have ou used? TB is far better and simulating certain aspects of combat.

Usually I end up "begging" for a TB combat system

Jagged Alliance is one that I always wanted to try but never got around to to it and X-com I've heard is awsome but I know almost nothing about it, but I admit I'm not sure what SS is supposed to mean. If you can enlighten me I'll start my search for some of these quality games.


+1



Would you mind sharing what it was about Fallouts combat that turned you off (or anyone else who found it "boring")? I have never been bored playing anything turn based because I'm always reevaluating my strategy and trying new things (similar to why I played the same RTS maps/missions over and over and over for 11 years), but with action RPGs I tend to get bored due to the repetative nature of the fast paced point-click-point-click-point-click. To me at least the action RPGs try to ramp up the difficulty by ethier A) throwing an absurd amount of enemies at you or B ) by giving enemies an absolutley absurd amount of hitpoints; now granted the same can be said for turn based games as well but a good turn based game can make use of multiple skill sets when changing difficullties.

I've used the Final Fantasy system which has seperate TB combat, as well as the system in LOTR: The Third Age, which also uses a seperate TB system. The FO system always seemed like filler to me, like they wanted to do something better, but couldn't, I also dislike how simple the system is, and the fact that strategy rarely comes into play, it's more a case of mashing the fire button until the thing in front of you dies, or running away before you die.

If someone could find a way to flesh out the TB system and make it enjoyable to play, rather than coma inducing, then I will take back what I have said, but at the moment, the biggest failing of this franchise is the way TB is implemented. any ideas for improvements?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qbr3IB92ms http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HQ7bhiVyeE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ER0AZPMju4 is still very much alive

That being said I would like to see what would happen if a Fallout game were to return to that style of play

Funny, but that's about how I play most real-time shooter games; or how I kind of tend to approach most of the combat in Fallout 3.

However, I think it's a fair statement that my standing in one place clicking the fire button isn't exactly making the best use of the system implemented in Fallout 3, or most real-time shooters as a whole. Certainly there's any number of competitive (and even professional, these days) FPS gamers for whom there's much more to it than what I'm doing with any particular game. Ipso facto, the same applies to approaching any turn-based game in the same manner. I think it'd be fair to say that approaching combat in any game by simply standing still and repeatedly doing one thing is hardly to be considered making the most of the system in place, or delving into the deeper aspects of the strategies emergent therein.

That said, I'm not going to necessarily defend Fallout 1's combat system, either. While I enjoyed the fact that it was turn-based, as my preferred method of play, I don't exactly consider it the absolute pinnacle of turn-based mechanics, either. Kind of like how more FPS-oriented players might play a game that they enjoy overall, even if that particular game's specific FPS mechanics aren't necessarily up to par with their own preferences. And there is, of course, something to be said for any game where standing still and repeatedly shooting is a viable strategy. That's something I've noticed a lot of games - turn-based or real-time - suffer from. And I think that's more to do with the specific implementation of the game's mechanics and AI than the fact of it's being TB or RT.

Exactly my point though, I would welcome a TB system if strategy and greater control came into play, but the TB systems used in Fallout fall incredibly short of the mark. I have to disagree with your view on FPS games, FPS games come into their own when others are introduced into the system, just as TB becomes slightly more enjoyable when extra characters are brought into play (although the inability to control extra characters in Fallout also prevents this).

I'm not sure where any of that constitutes disagreeing with me about FPS games, though.