I was expecting someone to finally say that! It really has become annoying that I keep reading about what a great feature the VATS is and how well it keeps up the spirit of the old games.
For me, it just destroys my FPS experience in the game by making it too easy to hit the target for good damage - and what's worse, I was pretty much forced to use it way too often -early in the game at least- because otherwise I'd soon run out of ammo.


Moving on
I've read through this topic, and I admit I find one thing very interesting indeed:
It seems that TB supporters generally say that RT is good, though they'd rather FO3 was TB.
And it seems that RT supporters generally say that TB has no place today... that it's dead and it should stay away from our games (yes... certain TBS exceptions are noted)

I have an opinion on this. I developed after thinking back to the glorious 90s where all approaches in pc games seemed pretty much equal: TB/RT - 2D/3D etc. there where plenty for everyone!
And what I noticed seems fairly simple: Real time gives me 'physical' challenge, I need good reflexes and I need to hit fast and with precision - thinking fast as well - that's true, though due to the urgency of things, I can't devise elaborate strategies or change my plan in mid-combat - when the bullets fly, if I see my strategy not working, then I'm just shooting fast, trying to be the last person standing. When it's well made, such a situation is absolutely exciting - adrenalin rush and all. It's great!

Turn based, on the other hand, is diametrically opposed -> it offers me a pure mental challenge. It gives me all the time I need to devise my elaborate strategies - it gives all the time to observe what has gone wrong and to adapt my plan accordingly. The time still presses, albeit in a more 'metaphorical' way: my character may as well be dead in the next two rounds so I have that many moves available to figure out some complex action I need to do in that 'time' to take the upper hand - just throwing whatever I've got and hope for the best isn't going to work for my favor here. When it's well made, such a situation is absolutely exciting - full of real suspense (i.e: what is the enemy going to do next?). It's great!


RPGs - and I'm talking about the 100% pure undiluted RPGs belong to that category of games (along with adventures, some strategies etc.) that offer solid mental challenge. And that's why pure RPGs are traditionally and unavoidably Turn Based.

And that's why I would definitely prefer FO sequels to be turn based.

And, to carry on a bit, that's why I won't accept that Real Time RPGs can possibly be true RPGs but they are instead 'action RPGs'
And here's what I fail so miserably to understand: why on earth do people act so offended when one claims that their favorite Bethesda games are not true RPGs but actionRPGs?
Hey, big Daggerfall and Morrowind fan here - I bought DF because I heard that it was an great actionRPG - it didn't let me down, I played the game for years! Yet I didn't once claimed that I was playing a pure RPG and I was never 'offended' when people said that...
Because I always thought that such 'tags' are absolutely rubbish as indicative of the game's quality, but they are, nevertheless, extremely useful as guides to understand what the game has to offer me and whether it is what I'm looking for at the moment - ie - Mass Effect is an actionRPG, FO3 is an actionRPG, Civilization is a Turn based strategy -> so if I played and liked Mass Effect and I'd like to play something that shares an equal gameplay philosophy I'll find it in FO3 and not in Civ! + FO1 is a pure RPG & FO3 is an actionRPG -> so if I like FO1 and I'd like to play something that shares an equal gameplay philosophy and you tell me that FO3 is also a true RPG then I'll get very disappointed when I play it - because it isn't a true RPG and not because it isn't a good game....


So please someone do explain to me, why do people that passionately support RT are so offended by the fact that some few of us prefer TB? Why do you so firmly suggest that TB should go away and die once and for all when some of us still like it?

To recap: Reading through this (and other similar) threads I see this tendency: Turn Based combat is not only unpopular... it's downright offensive! How so?

beside fallout 1/2 the only turnbased game i plaied were these old pokemon games for the gameboy :hehe:

i am a fpsgamer in my heart,so realtime

I think that if the original developers knew what they know today about what works and what doesn't from tabletop to PC, if they had the resources to make the most use of technology today, and saw the possibilities of real time, they would have at least made it RT/wP, the GURPS system they used has been mangled by every game that uses it to make it fit for video game RPGs, and developers are still trying to figure out how to make it work best, Troika made two RPGs after Fallout that used real time combat, they obviously changed their minds about what it means to adapt a tabletop RPG to a PC.



You just said that RT combat means using your reflexes and TB combat means using intelligence, as long as I keep hearing that then I can't very well just accept that some people prefer that my favorite game series be turn based, there is still more debating to be done apparently.

Uh, oh. Sounds like some unholy wail of the Undead. "Noooo, RPGS can only be turn based - everything else is too action. Everything moves too fast, where is my next turn button. Ahhh". I guess lying in the old turn based Crypt has slowed down your reflexes! You darn Turn Based Zombies just won't die.




I don't think anyone is offended by TB games. Too each there own. I do think some of the turn based proponets come off as too elitist. Especially if you wander over to some more unmoderated websites. LOL, the moderaters will even bash people on some sites.

I would even be willing to play a modern CPRG that was turn based. But it is just hard to beat the excitment you get from playing real time or real time with pause. I am not sure I could sit and watch the combat moves with turn based.

I am really not buying the mental challenge aspect of turn based combat in single player CRPG's. Look at my strategy for killing melee critters, I position myself so they waste all of their AP trying to get within range of me or open some door. Then I blast then at close range. That ain't good strategy - just exploiting the dumb AI.

When I say RIP turn based it is mostly due to the current gaming market. They just are not going to sell on consoles.

It's the precise calculation of actions to get a result, that's grabs turn-base players. Fun, if you are in the mood for that, but if in the mood for fast thinking thought and actions, real-time play is preferred. Real-time strategy and play being without the constraints of allowable movements and actions (apart from VATS), giving greater freedom of play/strategy.

Fallout 2, if it had been real-time, it would have seemed a pretty short game, that's why I think Fallout 3 is more suitable to have real-time because of it's size.

Though having said that, Fallout Tactics had both options of play, real-time and turn-based, it's possible to have both, though I preferred real-time when I played it.

I don't think turn based is necessarily niche, I mean look at Knights of the Old Republic and how well it sold - that game is turn based no matter what way you look at it. The difference between KotOR (as well Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights) and Fallout is that the turn system is customizable. Pausing between turns is disabled by default in KotOR, but make no mistake about it, your character and his or her opponents are still taking turns.

A lot of people would say that BioWare's pre-Jade Empire games are "semi-turn based", but I've come to the conclusion that there's no such thing. Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Knights of the Old Republic and the upcoming Dragon Age are pure turn based games that give the illusion of real time simply because those games don't forcibly pause during turns like Fallout, or X-Com. Those games were very well received by the mainstream, particularly KotOR, so there's no real reason why a turn based Fallout 3 wouldn't have been well received. I do think Bethesda could have developed a successful isometric turn based game if they tried, it's not like it takes a rocket scientist.

"unholy wail of the Undead" "the old turn based Crypt" "darn Turn Based Zombies".... Pretty much what I was talking about... You attack me for saying RPGs should be turn based
I know it's all in good humor and I'm not offended, but you must see what I mean.

And yes, I believe that 'RPGS can only be turn based' - exactly as you said it.
But please do understand that I do not believe that 'all games should be RPGs' or that 'pure TB RPGs are by default better than RT actionRPGs'
- I'll repeat: big Daggerfall & Morrowind fan here!

And yes, maybe 'lying in the old turn based Crypt has slowed down my reflexes' and maybe it hasn't - I sometimes prefer not to use them regardless...
why is that something that causes you the need to retaliate with such sarcasm is what puzzles me.



That what I was talking about when I said I am a believer of the potential of TB.
The only solution that you seem to see is to make the combat RT (which might be fine but then my strategy for killing melee critters, by exploiting the dumb AI, is to walk backwards while shooting them which is pretty much the same - only it requires better reflexes)
Here's an alternative solution: keep the TB combat - make the AI less dumb so that it wont be so easily exploited. Are we both happy with that now?

I dont mind turn based systems in games, like some in the FF series - but concerning fallout 3 i dont like the idea of being limited in my actions, i like to get creative with my kills! :toughninja:

Nah, not trying too attack you, just trying to have fun. Afterall, our conversations on these boards are pretty meaningless - so we can not take it too seriously. It is not like Todd Howard is going to read this thread and then decide to make F4 turnbased. Despite how well Gizmo argues for TB.

I would love to see better AI. I truly would. But until then, I just do not agree that the combat with turn based RPGs are mentally challenging. If anything I think the AI routines for real time combat are better then what I have seen from turn based.

And I don't have anything against pure TB games. I just think they are "niche" market, not mainstream. Unfortunately, you TB guys have not gotten too many games in the last ten years.

I think the modern CPRG has two main combat engines: pure real time like F3 or Real Time with Pause like KOTOR. Both are great in my book. But, I just don't see the attraction of a pure TB combat system where each sides moves by itself. Nor do see how only TB games can be a "true" RPG.

There are some (incredibly fun) gameplay systems that will only work in a turn-based environment. Jagged Alliance is still fun for me today. Maybe I'm crazy, but I have loads more fun with 1/4 of Jagged Alliance's combat gameplay than I do with all of Fallout 3's; it's really nothing more than point and shoot, with an accuracy/damage scale altering a few values and a bullet-time mode that ultimately only serves to decrease the game's challenge.

Turn-based systems can and do allow for a much higher degree of character customization, complexity of gameplay, and a wider range of tactics and strategy than real-time systems.

The fact that neophyte twitch addicts demand real-time gameplay in every single title these days means that excellent (and in some cases, vastly superior) turn-based systems will never again see the light of day in a major title. Wah, I don't want to read anything. Wah, turn-based is too boring, I have to be squirting bullets everywhere at all times. Wah, it should only take .57 seconds for me to finish a combat scene. Wah, it's not as realistic when it's turn-based, even though in real-time systems my character can still soak up 40 bullets and not die. Wah, stop being old fashioned, you undead turn-based lovers.

Real-time is NOT better than turn-based in a game. It depends on what's best for the game. Why do all games have play like movies nowadays (sacrificing many possible features in the meantime)? It's a mystery... or actually, no it isn't. It's the twitch kiddies with tiny attention spans doing this to the computer gaming industry, and I strongly believe the fact that consoles and computers share many titles now is a heavy contributor to this. Remember, not too long ago, ports were fairly rare either way. Now, games are designed for both platforms from the beginning, and the results are unsurprising.

-----------------------------------------------------

But none of that matters, since Bethesda can't be bothered to learn how to make games significantly different from what they've been doing for the past decade. Every Bethesda game apparently has to use the Gamebryo engine; those svcky dialogue trees where multiple NPCs share the same lines of text; first-person perspective (with a terrible third-person option) and real-time combat; and they won't make games any differently.

It's probably not a question of whether they can make a different kind of game, though. It's because people buy 3,528,228,553 copies of their games, so they don't want to stray too far from their "formula" lest they screw up the experiment and impact sales.

What I'm not sure about is:
There are so few TB games nowadays because TB is niche, as people tend to suggest here, or is TB niche because there are so few TB games nowadays?

As they say, games today are 'designed' by marketing departments...
Yet, as marketing departments are proved to be useless as far as creativity and (above all) originality is concerned, they leave a big gap that someone will take the 'risk' and try to fill it sooner or later. And we may find out that people enjoying turn based gameplay are far more than we may think now.

I expect that it will take one single successful game to overthrow that whole 'Turn based is niche' argument...
(as it happened with the old 'RPGs are dead' thing not long ago)

How? How does a pure single player TB RPG allow for more character customatization or complexity of gameplayer over Real Time with Pause? What you get to count action points or how many movement squares you can make? I really am curious.


Darn, another Turn Based Zombie. I better go take my ADHD medicene before I can post any more.

I agree with a lot of your arguments. It is a shame that pure Turn Based has died off. I especially do not like all of the ports and I do think it impacts the complexity of game play. But there is not a whole lot any of us can do about it.

But, I still perfer pure real time or real time with pause over pure turn based.

Simply not true, turn based or real time has zero to do with character customization and zero to do with reading

Also, I'm guessing you have never played the Swat series, it puts a lot of holes in your argument.

Some of you guys are getting really uppity.

As has been said a million times before, turn based and real time are both design choices neither is inherently better than the other no matter what some folks will tell you.



I think you're generalizing a bit too much there, I enjoy real time just as much as I do turn based and I'm not a victim of "ADHD". I know plenty of folks who aren't into turn based who have adequate attention spans. I'm sure there are people out there like the ones you describe, but they're probably a minority.

The disconnect here is that some folks just assume that the "idea" is the gameworld as opposed to the game system. ~Some want the system, with or without the accompanying world. Fallout was once a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfOVLdmEHkg&feature=channel_page that looked a lot like Ultima Online . I love the setting they created, but I love the system more, and the system is not a RT franken-shooter.


This is like two friends watching Fantasia ~one is blind the other deaf. :rolleyes:

*


I remember one time in a TB RPG where my party entered a room [unprepared] and was surprised by a Giant mage, and twenty stone gargoyles ~That made it 21 to 5. In a Turn based game your characters can irrevocably die as a direct result of your mistakes in the previous rounds; This is something that must be kept in mind when choosing your actions. Winning that fight was one of the most memorable events that I've ever had in any RPG ~and I'd bet a few here can guess which one it was.

But they do... :shrug:

It has to be single player?

"Real time with pause" was fine in games like Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment. The battles were in real-time, but there were still turns, rounds, and die rolls going on behind the scenes. You could pause, give your characters commands, switch targets, and the characters would then carry out your orders. Even then, you still couldn't micromanage your characters nearly as efficiently as you could with a completely turn-based system, but at least you didn't have to aim and take every action yourself in real-time.

More than that, Fallout 3's "real time with pause" is in reality "bullet time free extra damage mode." It's basically perched on top of the rest of the gameplay, and doesn't fit in seamlessly. Don't try to tell me that V.A.T.S. was complex, deep or particularly satisfying, either, because it gets old fairly quickly within the first few hours or so. Nor is it fair in any way; enemies don't receive the same benefits (it would be hilarious to see the enemy's V.A.T.S. screens come up automatically), and if I recall correctly, you're bloody invincible until the slow-mo ends.

"Real time with pause" my ass.

An immutable fact is that a player (especially your average not-terribly-bright player) can be expected to handle only a certain amount of micromanagement from one second to the next while playing in full first-person shooter mode. Aiming and pulling the trigger manually reduces the amount of brainpower you have left to make complex decisions, and also limits the options the developers can give you during combat. With a turn-based system, since the player has time to THINK CAREFULLY, the developers can provide a lot more in-depth info to the player (about hit zones, enemy status, terrain modifiers, percentage chances, line of sight, etc.), can provide more weapon modes and different ways in which to attack... since you have time to think, they can put in far more detail because you can look at armor stats, weapon stats, the terrain, pretty much everything and come up with a plan. And it has to be a careful plan in most cases.

--------------------------------------------------------

And the fact is, if you look at weapons, armor and combat in Fallout 2, and compare it to Fallout 3, the stats for weapons and armor have been dumbed down (to just "damage" and "DR") and the options are basically limited to "point and shoot" or "free invincible bullet time."

Fallout was envisioned as the best GURPS for the PC (I know this is old harping, but it is true). Fallout 2 is basically a larger Fallout with a new campaign and a few improvements and additions. While Fallout lost the right to use GURPS, they still kept to the core concept quite close ~as with the sequel, and even the spinoff [Tactics]. Did Fallout 3 not abandon the series intents? Is FO3 not [in essence] the same as TES(?) for All Intents And Purposes?

IMO, FO3 should have centered on the system, and designed the view and gameplay to best accommodate IT, and not the other way around. Rotatable 3D was expected [not by all?], and welcome. FPP modes have their place in a game that supports it easily ~Troika's own "FO-like" http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/Troika2.jpg. But With FO3 they pushed the previous series under the carpet (so as not to perturb their TES customers? ~who knows? but it does seem that way to me). FO3's gameplay has precious little in common with the rest of the series and quite a bit in common [gameplay-wise] with TES. So it really is like http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/FO3.gif in the 22nd century.

First, let me clear that I do not feel F3 is Real Time w/Pause. I previously stated that there are two major RPG combat systems: Real Time like F3/Oblivion or Real Time w/Pause like KOTOR. Then there is a subset, a pure turn based game like F2 where each side has clear turns to move and attack.

My questions was how was the combat system from F2 so much more involved then the combat system of KOTOR. I don't see it.

But even in KOTOR, I do not micro any of the other NPC party members except for maybe the Boss battles. Way to boring.

God there is nothing worse then fighting some chump battle and being placed on the other side of the screen in a pure TB game. Move ten spots. Next Turn. Watch dog move 5 spots. Move ten spots. Next turn. Watch dog move 5 spots. Move two spots, attack - win. YUCK. Man it was even worse if you were fighting a ton of fodder. I remember in F2 I would just run for the exit in random encounters cause the combat was getting so tedious.

I am not interested in playing arm chair general and moving a bunch of figurines around some computer map. If I want to do that I will go play some War/Battle Strategy game. Hence, I am not interested in a pure TB game. I am interested in exploring the world and checking out the quests and the stories in the game. Oh - and finding phat loot!

Combat is not that important to me. It needs to be good enough to not distract from the game world. And I always find it funny when soo many self proclaimed RPG purists focus on the combat.

Have to agree with Gizmo here. In fact, the original title of Fallout was going to be:

Fallout: A GURPS Post-Nuclear Adventure

But Steve Jackson Games (publishers of GURPS, a tabletop role-playing game system that I own many books from) broke off the agreement because Fallout was too violent. In the 1990s, religious zealots thought tabletop role-playing games were of the Devil, and Steve Jackson Games couldn't associate itself with such mature content, because they'd run the risk of ruining their public image. Steve Jackson wanted to back Fallout, but public ignorance and superstition prevented him.

Fallout is supposed to simulate a tabletop role-playing game. Fallout 3 doesn't do this in any way, shape or form.

Believe it or not, how the actual game systems function (including input devices) are just as important to the feel of the game as the gameplay or "what stuff looks like." That's why, for example, consoles will never see a true mainline Civilization game... it's not possible for consoles to emulate a complex enough UI and control scheme.

Once again KotOR is a turn based game that only gives off the illusion of real time. It's not the same style of turn based as Fallout, but it's still a turn based game because everything in the game is done in turns (and it can be set to automatically pause the game between turns allowing you to queue up actions for the next few). "Real time with pause" only fits Mass Effect as far as I know.

But lacking in the realism, and the more realistic role-play, of having continuous MOVEMENT that sinks the player more deeply into the scenario, more so than a turn-base game can. The sensible player does indeed think carefully before engaging into a situation, and should have scouted around weighing up the options and considered the best strategy.

Admittedly in turn-based play you can ponder your moves, but in real-time the moves are also learned, both from strategic thought and experience of play ... the same as happens with turn-based play. Both becoming eventually semi automatic to an extent, and that is when turn-based play has less ponder value.

Players of a role-playing-game would prefer to have as much realism as possible, and that means as much realistic movement as possible, it makes the role-play more .... realistic.

.... Leaving aside VATS which I have opted out of.

See, I don't see that. Maybe if you could expand on that?

What possibilities do real-time games offer than turn-based games wouldn't? Because I don't see as how that's true.

Yeah, even coming from the other side, I'm getting a little tired of the "tun-based is for smart people and real-time is for twitch addicts" implications. It's not really helping.

It's not a matter of limitations - it's about how you want to play your game. If anything, it has more to do with player skill vs character skill.

Which players would those be?

Real role-players don't need "realism," at least certainly not to the extent that every game has to be "lol, first-person shooter." What you describe is simulationism, not role-playing. Real role-players use their [censored] imagination to fill in the gaps, they don't need to be spoon-fed super-realistic movie images and full-blown voice acting to enjoy a game.

"Movement" is overrated. None of the best, most ATMOSPHERIC, most IMMERSIVE, and most FULFILLING computer role-playing games I've ever played has had real-time gameplay, with the exception of Deus Ex and Morrowind... and I'm sorry, the fact that Morrowind is good doesn't mean the Fallout franchise necessarily benefits from them same real-time system.

Ever since the industry got the idea that everything had to be "as realistic as possible," the overall quality of cRPGs and the number of good ones released each year has dropped like a stone.

Forgive me if I see a connection there.

This is important?

*Put another way... That does not really matter much, as TB combat games are usually more concerned with tactical events ~what occurs, and presenting it to the user in a clear an concise manner, than any attempt to simulate reality ~its just not the point.

A chess game can be read in notation, and be just as impressive, disappointing, or instructional whether you watch it played or read it out of a book.

Different games, different methods, different advantages, and different expectations. :shrug:
*Thankfully it is not yet, "one method to rule them all"...


That's a very subjective assumption, and one that depends on the game in question.

From personal experience:
I bought Oblivion in 2006; I bought Ravenloft:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo_37yxcntw (for the first time), in 2007.
I enjoyed Stone Prophet more than Oblivion (many will laugh, but it is so).
I played Oblivion to 26th level, so I'm not just making broad assumptions and speculation about the game.

*edit: updated the link to a youtube video.

I am well aware of that. I was one of the few people that actually modded for Kotor 1&2 and I played around with the AI scripts quite a bit. It was quite fun to have a Sith Lord cast Breach on your tanked up Guardian right off the bat in every fight. The regular game had it only as a pure random occurance - regardless if your party was buffed out. That is why I say the AI for most of these games is just - poor.

Back on topic, to the average user it appears to be Real Time w/Pause - not some onerous pure turn based system(even though it is based on turns). I think that is what matters. I can micro if I want to or just let my guys go kick some butt.



But what does that have to do with the COMBAT. Do you FEEL the atmosphere moving your character around the combat screen? Was it IMMERSIVE to move your character 3 squares and then attack?

Like I said earlier, F1/2 were awesome because they offered so much outside of combat. The combat was not amazing. Stop confusing well designed dialogs, world environments, stories and characters with some crappy turn based system. And forget this it was designed for GURPS. I have never even heard of GURPS before. Who cares. F1/2 would have been a classic if it used turn based or real time FPS mode like F3 or real time with pause.

If you would have taken Oblivion and made it turn based - do you think it would be any better? No, because all of the other RPG elements were weak. The combat was fun though. But still it was an overall weak RPG. F3 is leaps and bounds above Oblivion when it comes to RPG elements.