New Fallout 3 interview

[jaguars4ever]

I've been waiting for this for a long time.

FO3 will be trash. It's that simple.

Proof, please?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bethesda sucks. Everything they touch sucks.

 

There's your proof Number Man.

[Niten_Ryu]

I think I'll be happy with Fallout 3.

 

Only thing that I care about is the Fallout's world and that it's not pure action game like BG:Dark Alliance or FOBoS. Of course it would be nice to see TB based game, but I'll take hybrid system too. S.P.E.C.I.A.L (including whole system, not just stats, perks and traits) was ok, but bit too simple for modern computer games so I'd love to see more detailed system based on old system (damage simulation, physics, advanced critical tables, covers/line-of-sight, z-axis movement, material durability, item creation ect ect).

[Ludozee]

DAC: Whilst every fan tends to have a different idea of what precisely Fallout 3 should be, there are a few things that most of us are unified on. Are you aware of the strong desires for turn-based combat and the classic 3/4 top-down viewpoint? Do you think pure turn-based combat in an RPG is viable in today's market?

 

TH: Yes, of course we've heard many of the old-school fans regarding the view and combat resolution. What's viable today? Certainly turn-based combat limits your audience to a small number, but I do find that audiences will come if your game is good enough and the presentation is superb. Ultimately we'll do what we think will be the most fun.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

!!!

Fallout without turn-based isn't Fallout. The turn-based combat was one of the best features in FO. I'd be really disappointed if FO3 doesn't use turn-based combat...

[kirottu]

!!!

Fallout without turn-based isn't Fallout. The turn-based combat was one of the best features in FO. I'd be really disappointed if FO3 doesn't use turn-based combat...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

To me fallout was much more than just turnbased combat.

[Ludozee]

!!!

Fallout without turn-based isn't Fallout. The turn-based combat was one of the best features in FO. I'd be really disappointed if FO3 doesn't use turn-based combat...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To me fallout was much more than just turnbased combat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course, I never said it was just about turn-based combat, but apart from the brilliant story and atmosphere, the turn-based combat was one of the things that made Fallout so great, imho.

[kumquatq3]

Should be? Only in your mind. Fortunately, in the real world, there's no law as to how the combat in a Fallout "should be".

 

Only my mind eh? Run over to any number of the FO/RPG communities and see if it's just my mind.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

It would be a shame if they made something outdated just because a couple of people dont know when to let go.

[2and2is5]

Dude, I'll be happy to get anything. After that whole IP mess ... I'm just glad SOMEONE is going to do the game. The stories are there, they need to be told. And if Obsidian (who should be doing it) isn't going to, I can't think of anyone who would do it better.

[kumquatq3]

It would be a shame if they made something outdated just because a couple of people dont know when to let go.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

is the arguement that TB or Iso is outdated. Either way thats retarded

[kirottu]

!!!

Fallout without turn-based isn't Fallout. The turn-based combat was one of the best features in FO. I'd be really disappointed if FO3 doesn't use turn-based combat...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To me fallout was much more than just turnbased combat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course, I never said it was just about turn-based combat, but apart from the brilliant story and atmosphere, the turn-based combat was one of the things that made Fallout so great, imho.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I never understood what made turn-based so great. Everything that is in turn-based combat is also in realtime combat only at faster pace. In fallouts large battles and battles in cities became too tedious.In fallout tactics I used turn-based mainly because controlling group in real time is almost impossible, but fallout 1 and 2 were single player games and fallout 3 will also be most likely. So adding turn based in it would probably be more bad than it

[aVENGER]

It would be a shame if they made something outdated just because a couple of people dont know when to let go.

 

 

Turn-based combat isn't outdated, it's just rarely implemented properly.

 

Games that implement TB combat in a tedious mind-numbing ways (i.e. Cops 2170) give the general system a bad rep. OTOH, there are some games (JA2, ToEE, HoMM3) that have a complex but still fun TB system which adds more of depth to combat than most of the new age twitch fest RT systems can ever hope to achieve.

[Drakron]

I never understood what made turn-based so great.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Tactical control over actions.

 

In it I can hide behind a object, move a litle to the side, fire and move into cover again without being hit as in "real time" it becames a matter of how fast my reflexes are.

 

Turn base can be a pain when there is no tactical use, also it sould only be activated when there are enemies in sight and not during the whole map.

[kumquatq3]

I never understood what made turn-based so great.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

In it I can hide behind a object, move a litle to the side, fire and move into cover again without being hit as in "real time" it becames a matter of how fast my reflexes are.

 

 

Right, by eliminating the reflex portion of combat, it allows combat to be broken down in to two things: players tactical choices and his characters stats. RT combat can limit the amount a characters skills actaully matter.

[213374U]

It would be a shame if they made something outdated just because a couple of people dont know when to let go.

 

 

I never understood what made turn-based so great.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tactical control over actions.

No. You can do just the same in a RT system with pause.

 

 

In it I can hide behind a object, move a litle to the side, fire and move into cover again without being hit as in "real time" it becames a matter of how fast my reflexes are.

You are describing opportunity fire. Sorry, but if a combat system doesn't have opportunity fire, it isn't just unrealistic, it's LAME. That was one of the biggest flaws of the original FO TB combat system and one of the main reasons behind its laughable difficulty. Deal with it.

This isn't The Matrix, you know. If you show your head from behind cover to fire on somebody, you aren't supposed to be able to do that and take cover again before that somebody gets a chance to fire back. That makes no sense at all. Even UFO had opportunity fire FFS.

[kumquatq3]

No. You can do just the same in a RT system with pause.

 

having to hit pause is, itself, a relex based action

 

You are describing opportunity fire. Sorry, but if a combat system doesn't have opportunity fire, it isn't just unrealistic, it's LAME.

 

I guess chess is "lame" then

 

And as for unrealistic, so is just about everything in the FO universe to some degree (super mutants and radscorpions anyone?). So I understand your position now. You don't like this type of game, so you want to completely alter large chunks of it to fit you tastes. While I can't argue with your feelings, it's clear that reason isn't the strong suit of this conversation anymore.

[Drakron]

No. You can do just the same in a RT system with pause.

 

Sorry but no, if I pause the game I cannot issue commands.

 

"Pause and Play" is simply turn based system were there is no delay within turns and everyone acts on their turn with the ability to pause the game.

 

Its the system that BG, KoTOR, IWD and NWN use, its a turn base system ... not a real time system no matter how many idiots think its a real time system.

 

You are describing opportunity fire. Sorry, but if a combat system doesn't have opportunity fire, it isn't just unrealistic, it's LAME. That was one of the biggest flaws of the original FO TB combat system and one of the main reasons behind its laughable difficulty. Deal with it.

This isn't The Matrix, you know. If you show your head from behind cover to fire on somebody, you aren't supposed to be able to do that and take cover again before that somebody gets a chance to fire back. That makes no sense at all. Even UFO had opportunity fire FFS.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Dont be silly, I done that in FPS such as Half Life and Far Cry ... expecialy in Far Cry were you dont have much of choice in close quarter combat without using such tactics due to its "not much forgiving" damage system.

 

Its a question of waiting for the enemy to either rush into my field of view or having to reload, some smart enemies might circle around my position and take me from another angle, also they can just hold position and fire when I come into view.

 

Besides its a valid tactic to fire behind cover (its one of those things they teach in the military, not "strafe so the enemy misses") and since there is no "peek behind cover" ... well I rather waste a couple of action points that wait to be gangbang by the enemies.

[213374U]

No. You can do just the same in a RT system with pause.

 

having to hit pause is, itself, a relex based action

The thing is, you choose when to do it or even wether to do it at all.

 

 

You are describing opportunity fire. Sorry, but if a combat system doesn't have opportunity fire, it isn't just unrealistic, it's LAME.

 

I guess chess is "lame" then

That is such an utterly retarded comparison that there's just no need for me to debunk it. It debunks itself. Good job!

 

 

And as for unrealistic, so is just about everything in the FO universe to some degree (super mutants and radscorpions anyone?). So I understand your position now. You don't like this type of game, so you want to completely alter large chunks of it to fit you tastes. While I can't argue with your feelings, it's clear that reason isn't the strong suit of this conversation anymore.

No. I liked Fallout very much. I'm not blind to its faults as you seem to be, however. The realism in game mechanics has nothing to do with realism from a story standpoint. Yet another poor analogy for your collection.

 

I don't need a fictional story to be realistic. However, I expect a game to implement a certain degree of logic when it comes down to game mechanics. There's no good reason why I shouldn't be able to shoot back when I'm fired upon by the enemy, or even shoot them before as they show up around the corner if that's what I've planned my characters to do.

 

You claim to like control over tactical elements, but in fact, you are proposing some fundamental tactical elements (such as opportunity and cover fire) to be neglected from the game. You really have no arguments other than "Ol' FO" fetish worshipping to say that TB combat is in any way better than RT.

[213374U]

No. You can do just the same in a RT system with pause.

 

Sorry but no, if I pause the game I cannot issue commands.

Well, I could, so it must be a problem on your part then.

 

 

"Pause and Play" is simply turn based system were there is no delay within turns and everyone acts on their turn with the ability to pause the game.

 

Its the system that BG, KoTOR, IWD and NWN use, its a turn base system ... not a real time system no matter how many idiots think its a real time system.

No. "Pause and Play" is a system in which there are no turns, but events are based on real time lapses (i.e. attacks each 5 seconds or whatever). Everyone acts at the same time, but you can pause the game to issue commands or rethink your strategy if you're getting overwhelmed. Again, you can choose not to do it to have a complete real-time experience.

 

 

Dont be silly, I done that in FPS such as Half Life and Far Cry ... expecialy in Far Cry were you dont have much of choice in close quarter combat without using such tactics due to its "not much forgiving" damage system.

 

Its a question of waiting for the enemy to either rush into my field of view or having to reload, some smart enemies might circle around my position and take me from another angle, also they can just hold position and fire when I come into view.

Your point?

 

 

Besides its a valid tactic to fire behind cover (its one of those things they teach in the military, not "strafe so the enemy misses")  and since there is no "peek behind cover" ... well I rather waste a couple of action points that wait to be gangbang by the enemies.

Huh? If you can't aim, you won't hit jack. That may be all right for cover fire, but you can't make of that an effective attack strategy. Anyway, that doesn't apply to every situation involving cover. So, sorry, but if you are behind cover and get up to fire, you're most likely going to be fired upon in return. That's how combat works.

[kumquatq3]

The thing is, you choose when to do it or even wether to do it at all.

 

O ya, you can choose to sit there and take damage and not click and swing your ax as well, doesn't mean it's a good idea or that you arn't artifically handicapping yourself.

 

That is such an utterly retarded comparison that there's just no need for me to debunk it. It debunks itself. Good job!

 

Because chess and TB have zero similarities

 

The realism in game mechanics has nothing to do with realism from a story standpoint. Yet another poor analogy for your collection.

 

ooooooooooooo, ok. So then you only play RPGs were you die from one or two bullets or one good hit with a mace? Where you can't be repaired with a "stimpack".

 

Please, you can't have it both ways.

 

However, I expect a game to implement a certain degree of logic when it comes down to game mechanics. There's no good reason why I shouldn't be able to shoot back when I'm fired upon by the enemy, or even shoot them before as they show up around the corner if that's what I've planned my characters to do.

 

see above comment, but you CAN fire back when fired apon.

 

That being said, if a "interrupt" (ala Silent Storm) was put in to the game, I assume you would still have a bunch of problems with TB combat. So again, you want the game to be alter to fit your tastes, rather than for any logical purpose.

 

You claim to like control over tactical elements, but in fact, you are proposing some fundamental tactical elements (such as opportunity and cover fire) to be neglected from the game.

 

I NEVER said TB shouldn't be updated, see above post, but I said and implied a FO version of TB should be kept. You can, and prolly should, added "interupt" and cover (both a la Silent Storm)

 

You put words into my mouth to create an arguement.

[213374U]

The thing is, you choose when to do it or even wether to do it at all.

 

O ya, you can choose to sit there and take damage and not click and swing your ax as well, doesn't mean it's a good idea or that you arn't artifically handicapping yourself.

Huh? Your inability to act in a real-time environment doesn't extend to everyone. Some people can actually play without pausing. It's not necessarily a handicap.

 

 

That is such an utterly retarded comparison that there's just no need for me to debunk it. It debunks itself. Good job!

 

Because chess and TB have zero similarities

No. Rather because chess and Fallout have zero similarities. And that's just the tip of it. I'll let you figure the rest out.

 

 

ooooooooooooo, ok. So then you only play RPGs were you die from one or two bullets or one good hit with a mace? Where you can't be repaired with a "stimpack".

 

Please, you can't have it both ways.

Well, I don't know the level of protection afforded by power armor, but if you received a SMG blast at close range without power armor, you were pretty much dead. So yes, I like when bullets can actually kill you. I've always hated it when you can cure death wounds with stimpacks but I understand it's unfeasible from a gameplay standpoint to do it otherwise. RT combat on the other hand, it's not. What you're proposing is that just because some things aren't totally realistic, then it's OK to have even more unrealistic elements just for the sake of it or because of nostalgia. And you accuse me of being sentimental?

 

 

see above comment, but you CAN fire back when fired apon.

The mutants I insta-killed before returning to cover would disagree.

 

 

That being said, if a "interrupt" (ala Silent Storm) was put in to the game, I assume you would still have a bunch of problems with TB combat. So again, you want the game to be alter to fit your tastes, rather than for any logical purpose.

Yup. I still wouldn't like it because it's annoyingly slow, and doesn't allow for coordinated and multiple character actions. No matter what you argue, it's an outdated concept.

 

 

I said and implied a FO version of TB should be kept.

Yes, I read you the first time. However, you failed to provide a valid reason then, and fail to deliver now as well.

[Loof]

Good interview.

About the RT/TB discussion I don't realy care one way or the other as long as it's not RT with paus and as long as its not first/thirdperson in combination with TB or topdown in combination with RT.

I would also say that TB is in no way outdated, but Fallouts combat was still pretty sucky and has very little to do with why I love FO1 and FO2.

[Drakron]

No. "Pause and Play" is a system in which there are no turns, but events are based on real time lapses (i.e. attacks each 5 seconds or whatever). Everyone acts at the same time, but you can pause the game to issue commands or rethink your strategy if you're getting overwhelmed. Again, you can choose not to do it to have a complete real-time experience.

 

Oh dear god ...

 

No, its turned based since NwN,IWD,BG and KotOR series use it and what they use as a rule system is either 2nd ed AD&D, 3rd edition D&D (or 3.5 D&D) and the d20 system that *grasp* ARE turn based systems, same goes with PS:T that uses BG system.

 

There is no other "Pause and Play" system other that the one used on these games.

 

On 2nd edition a turn taken about 1 minute (if not in error) as in d20 (that D&D uses as a base) it takes 6 seconds, we know that because its what it comes on the rules books.

 

Also everyone does not act at the same time, they act when their iniciative comes up so one is going to be acting before someone else does.

 

Of course in 2nd ed rules they "act up" playing animations that dont do anything until their turn comes up as in d20 the turn takes so little time the animation might convice players its a "real time" system.

[213374U]

No. "Pause and Play" is a system in which there are no turns, but events are based on real time lapses (i.e. attacks each 5 seconds or whatever). Everyone acts at the same time, but you can pause the game to issue commands or rethink your strategy if you're getting overwhelmed. Again, you can choose not to do it to have a complete real-time experience.

 

Oh dear god ...

 

No, its turned based since NwN,IWD,BG and KotOR series use it and what they use as a rule system is either 2nd ed AD&D, 3rd edition D&D (or 3.5 D&D) and the d20 system that *grasp* ARE turn based systems, same goes with PS:T that uses BG system.

 

There is no other "Pause and Play" system other that the one used on these games.

 

On 2nd edition a turn taken about 1 minute (if not in error) as in d20 (that D&D uses as a base) it takes 6 seconds, we know that because its what it comes on the rules books.

You are mistaking turns and rounds. Your lack of knowledge on this matter is beginning to show up.

 

 

Also everyone does not act at the same time, they act when their iniciative comes up so one is going to be acting before someone else does.

 

Of course in 2nd ed rules they "act up" playing animations that dont do anything until their turn comes up as in d20 the turn takes so little time the animation might convice players its a "real time" system.

Fallout isn't based on the D20 ruleset so your point is moot.

 

Now, can we get on with the issue at hand?

[kumquatq3]

Huh? Your inability to act in a real-time environment doesn't extend to everyone. Some people can actually play without pausing. It's not necessarily a handicap.

 

But is can be a handicap and then it is reflex based. So those that have a hard time without pause are hurt, and it because largely about the players reaction time, rather then the role playing.

 

No. Rather because chess and Fallout have zero similarities

 

chess and FO's TB combat due, in fact, have lots of base similarities. I can't believe you can't see that. No wait, no I can believe it.

 

Well, I don't know the level of protection afforded by power armor, but if you received a SMG blast at close range without power armor, you were pretty much dead.

 

you can't slip out of the arguement like that. You don't need a burst at close range to kill someone, unless::gasp::, not everything is realistic in video games.

 

This arguement of yoru is full of holes, and you know it.

 

The mutants I insta-killed before returning to cover would disagree.

 

Thats not firing back, thats an interupt. You can fire back on your turn.

 

Yup. I still wouldn't like it because it's annoyingly slow, and doesn't allow for coordinated and multiple character actions. No matter what you argue, it's an outdated concept.

 

O! is it "Say it and it's magically true" Day? Thats my favorite holiday! Here goes: I'm a billionare!

 

No matter what you argue, TB isn't an outdated concept. How ignorant can you get.

 

It's not that you want logical changes and evolution of what was once THE RPG OF THE YEAR, you want to overhall the game, eliminating elements of what makes it FO and not BG or diablo, too match your tastes. So much for diversity.

 

Yes, I read you the first time. However, you failed to provide a valid reason then, and fail to deliver now as well.

 

as you have failed to show why it needs a large change in combat.

 

You need a reason tho? Because FO3 is a sequel to FO1/2. It stands to reason that most of the games elements remain the same. While game series do get massive changes, even in a case of GTA2 to GTA3, the most of the core of what made it GTA remains.

 

It is logical evolution.

 

This prevents the loss of much of your orignal fanbase, while bringing in new fans.

 

There are plenty of things that could use updates in FO, TB being one of them, but eliminating things that made FO great (to MANY people)and the RPG of the year is not the way to go.

[Drakron]

You are mistaking turns and rounds. Your lack of knowledge on this matter is beginning to show up.

 

No I am not ... saying NWN uses "rounds" shows your lack of knowledge.

 

Fallout isn't based on the D20 ruleset so your point is moot.

 

Now, can we get on with the issue at hand?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, its based on GURPS system that is a turn based system.