Oblivion GOLD!

[Shadowstrider]

Actually, designing turn-based combat is easier, and SPECIAL works fine in real time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That wasn't what they were saying over at the Mutant forum, and I defer to their knowledge (not having written one).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't know what this "mutant forum" is, but having designed a RT, TB and and a system which functions in both, I can tell you a realtime system is more difficult. Easily.

[Llyranor]

Makes sense to me that TB would 'easier' to design than RT. Any moron can make a system similar to chess, though of course, the beauty lies in design and balance.

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

Shadowstrider, since you think that SPECIAL works fine in real time give us a prime example of SPECIAL being done well in real time. The only game I have played that uses SPECIAL in real time is Lionheart and combat in that game was very poorly done and down right terrible.

 

Show me your evidence.

Edited March 4, 2006 by 6 Foot Invisible Rabbit

[Shadowstrider]

There are only 4 SPECIAL games out, and NONE of them had good combat.

[Llyranor]

This is true.

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

Fallout 1 and 2 has great combat. I loved the combat in those games. I love the fact you can take a laser rifle and sniper an enemy's eyes or groin. :D I also loved the turn based style in which it was presented.

 

Of course your statement doesn't support you saying that SPECIAL works fine in real time, so I can safely assume you have no evidence of that at this time.

 

SPECIAL does not work in real time. There is evidence quite clearly supports that.

Edited March 4, 2006 by 6 Foot Invisible Rabbit

[metadigital]

Actually, designing turn-based combat is easier, and SPECIAL works fine in real time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That wasn't what they were saying over at the Mutant forum, and I defer to their knowledge (not having written one).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know what this "mutant forum" is, but having designed a RT, TB and and a system which functions in both, I can tell you a realtime system is more difficult. Easily.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, I'm not a member and I don't frequent it, and I read it a while ago (over a year), but I think it's one where developers (from Bio?) go.

 

Anyway, IIRC, the gist of the reasoning was that Real-Time was a matter of setting off all the little procedures (according to their own rules and timings); Turn Based required additional synchronisation administration on top (to make sure each process only did one turn's worth of action each turn).

 

What are your experiences?

[Llyranor]

Go go 'evidence'!

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

If they can make the combat of Fallout 3 use action points as per the SPECIAL rules in a set up like what NWN does for the DnD turn based rules then I would be more than happy with the combat of Fallout 3. I would be esctatic if I can still make the called shots and the screaming alphas.

[Shadowstrider]

:roll: internets.

 

Using your logic, SPECIAL should be ditched entirely, since it doesn't work well in RT or TB combat. The evidence quite clearly supports this.

 

What your "evidence" supports is that YOU like the combat in Fallout, and that Lionheart sucks. Newsflash, Lionheart = SPECIAL in real time. It HAPPENED TO BE SPECIAL in real time, it is not the be-all end-all of SPECIAL in real time. Of course, this requires you to actually invest some logic and reasoning into your opinion, which is impossible.

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

Hey, its the only game with SPECIAL that has real time combat therefore the only evidence available. If there are more games that are real time that uses SPECIAL please tell me and I will be more than willing to give them a try. As far as I know there is only 1 available.

 

SPECIAL works great in Turn Base.

Edited March 4, 2006 by 6 Foot Invisible Rabbit

[kirottu]

Fallout Tactics used real time too, which worked just fine when using just one character.

Edited March 4, 2006 by kirottu

[Llyranor]

I think the argument is that SPECIAL is crap and that Bethesda should create a new real-time system for FO3

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

No, it uses CTB. Continual Turn Base. With some minor tweaking it would be quite acceptable as the primary combat mode in Fallout 3.

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

I think the argument is that SPECIAL is crap and that Bethesda should create a new real-time system for FO3 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What I would really like to see them do is to drop both SPECIAL and the Fallout name, use the rules system they have used in TES games and make an original Post Apocalyptic setting. I would be all over that.

[Llyranor]

At most, they would drop ALL but the Fallout name and make whatever they want with it. They CAN do whatever they want. One fan isn't going to change that fact.

[Shadowstrider]

Actually, designing turn-based combat is easier, and SPECIAL works fine in real time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That wasn't what they were saying over at the Mutant forum, and I defer to their knowledge (not having written one).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know what this "mutant forum" is, but having designed a RT, TB and and a system which functions in both, I can tell you a realtime system is more difficult. Easily.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, I'm not a member and I don't frequent it, and I read it a while ago (over a year), but I think it's one where developers (from Bio?) go.

 

Anyway, IIRC, the gist of the reasoning was that Real-Time was a matter of setting off all the little procedures (according to their own rules and timings); Turn Based required additional synchronisation administration on top (to make sure each process only did one turn's worth of action each turn).

 

What are your experiences?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, realtime is much more difficult to design for several reasons.

 

In realtime you're required to make constant checks to ensure that X or Y is possible, in TB this only needs to be made at the beginning of a turn, or more realistically, when an action is declared.

 

Even something as simple as declaring a target. In TB you either can or can not see something. In realtime there is constant movement, and you come into problems of "well if the player sees something when the action is declared but loses sight mid-action, what happens?" Do you stop the action? Do you have the action continue and hit the target even if they're behind a wall? Do you have it hit the wall instead? It becomes much more difficult to balance even the trivial technical details like this.

[kirottu]

No, it uses CTB.  Continual Turn Base.  With some minor tweaking it would be quite acceptable as the primary combat mode in Fallout 3.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ok.

[Shadowstrider]

Lionheart uses "CTB" as well. LOLLERSKATEZ.

[Llyranor]

NWN is TB!!!

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

Lionheart uses "CTB" as well.  LOLLERSKATEZ.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, it doesn't. It uses a real time combat engine that is based on the engine Reflexive used in their "Breakout" clone they made. The demo is in the Lionheart discs. It can be quite addictive after a while.

Edited March 4, 2006 by 6 Foot Invisible Rabbit

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

To get back on topic I haven't seen any pics of the Conversation system in Oblivion. I hope it is more like the NWN/KotOR/IE games than the wikipedia key word system like Morrowind.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Fallout Tactics used real time too, which worked just fine when using just one character.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Exactly.

[kumquatq3]

"Trust Me"

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

Anyone who says "trust me" should not be trusted.