How to 'translate' turn based combat system into real time ?

[mutated_pole]

For hardcore Fallout 1 and 2 fans combat system in F3 really sucks... This thread is not for those who think otherwise, but I appreciate you input provided that you played in F 1 & 2 before trying F3...

so plzz no 'I am very happy for you and I let you finish.. but F3 is the best game of all time' attitude, ok?


First of all, we all know that there is something wrong with the game as it is... That's not very surprising given that the damage of most weapons is lower than it was in F1 & 2 but the HP of most characters has been increased... My solution ? increase and balance damage of most weapons at least twice and reduce HP points

Secondly, all combat skills are less important than they were in the past. Why ? Well back then if your character had less than 50% in small guns it really sucked a lot in combat. If you think of it it makes sense... Most people I know have problems hitting the broader side of a barn when completely relaxed... I don't know how they perform under stress but it can be assumed that they would perform much worse.
So my conclusion is that the skill level should have a much greater impact on accuracy... and the accuracy that the PC has on leaving the vault in F3 would require investing a lot of skill points in small guns... (also it might be a good idea to get back to 300 pts skill cap... just becasue it makes more sense...)

Moreover, I really don't like the fact that F3 feels so 'arcade' with all those enemies running around and shooting at you (and hitting 90% of times) and I know that some of you feel the same. How to fix that? well all it takes is to introduce serious decrease in accuracy for shooting on the move (-30% for moving slowly and - 75% for running.. or something like that... anyway the idea is simple - if you want to shot on the move you've got to be a real expert... otherwise - you die you retard!! )

Finally, let's not forget how important was AGILITY and PERCEPTION for characters... the higher the agility the faster you can shoot (combat skills can have a slight influence on it too... obviously not everyone can shoot as fast and accurate as todd jarrett (google it if you don't know who am I talking about)
Perception attribute can have influence on how much you can zoom in unscoped weapons

sorry I wish I had more time to write about it... if you have any comments, ideas etc. just let me know... I know there are other things that real fallout fans don't like in F3 but I wanted to start with combat skills first

 

[TwoEyedYum]

Well, why so serious about all these "tweaks"?

Turn-based combat itself would be implemented quite easily, if devs wouldn't stick to their beloved Oblivion engine.
First attack starts combat - then fight progress in turn-based style. If you target some part of enemy body, it gets highlighted (like in VATS). If nothing highlighted - then you target a Greater Void Scoper would make greater sense on greater distances, where you can loose ability to target head or leg without scope.

It's all about engine and devs' laziness

 

[mutated_pole]

Turn based combat system is not the most realistic thing in the first place and it's not something that most people like.

I really like the way Fallout tactics solved this problem - you could choose between turn based and real time game and it felt almost exactly the same. While in F3 this is something completely different - don't you think it's a bit surprising ?

Also keep in mind that games are supposed to make profit - I don't think anyone would dare to develop a turn based game these days

It's all about engine and devs' laziness

I don't think this is true. It really doesn't take that much to create a realistic (or close to realistic) real time combat system... F3 is just too 'arcade'... well I already pointed out a few things that are pretty obvious

the damage of most weapons is lower than it was in F1 & 2 but the HP of most characters has been increased

all those enemies running around and shooting at you

Sure... it's not that simple to hit a moving target but if that target was unable to fire accurately while on the move (just as it is in real life) then it wouldn't matter that much)

 

[TwoEyedYum]

You mentioned Tactics (which i like and still play), but do you realize, that even real-time combat in Tactics has other mechanics? You do not target someone with your mouse, like in most FPS, you just order to do something. In FoT your (player's) own reaction time doesn't count into accuracy or firing speed - only skill level matters.

When player's own ability to target something with center of his screen becomes serious factor - RPG (or just good Fallout we love so much) dies.

So yes, i want something like FoT (i like ability to choose), but still devs too lazy to walk away from their beloved Oblivion. They CAN, but they do not... There were many games with good or ever perfect engines, that would be tweaked to work with turn-based combat and such (Ground Control 2 doesn't look worse that Oblivion or F3, but it much more clear and simple, as much as realistic).

P.S. I never care about this "profit". Making a great game would make a profit. But they don't even try, cause they don't like to work hard

 

[mutated_pole]

RPG (or just good Fallout we love so much) dies

I understand your point but hte only reason why it's difficult ot aim in F3 is because enemies run and shoot at the same time...

I might not be 100% objective as I play tactical shooters all the time so my reflexes are quite good

but still it's not somethign that can't be fixed with a game that allows you to choose between turn based and real time combat

 

[autoconversationalist]

This is an interesting subject.

The question is: Is it possible to have a real-time Fallout game?
I think the answer depends on what you think a Fallout game *is* and what are the key gameplay elements of such a game.
If you consider SPECIAL crucial to the fallout experience, in that case i think that a real-time Fallout game is impossible because SPECIAL, like any other P&P rule systems can't be adapted to real time.

On the other hand, there are different types of 3d real-time games:
The primary type is the 360% view real-time action oriented game with realistic and detailed depictions of gameworld, potentially encopassing all possible types of interaction - FO3 is such a game for example (a very very poor one nevertheless)
- these games can never be turn-based because of too much interaction-freedom imposed by the freelook possibility and detailed gameworld; the need for realistic design and the 3rd dimension would make turn based action look out-of-place (the vertical component really is the main reason why you can't have turn-based gameplay... how do you convert the z axis to stat>mod>chance wargaming rules - it's theoretically possible, but it would be insanely mathematically complex)

Other types of 3d games feature a limited-view implementation which provides for a completely different mode of interaction - a non-realistic environment can only provide for some kind of a symbolic interaction; the purpose of 3d implementation is primarily for visual and secondarily for gameplay purposes - Van Buren was supposed to be such a game;
- so, this has to be a non-freelok game with a pseudo-vertical component and no realistic physics; these games can feature turn-based action but if they were to feature real time gameplay, they would always appear technologically inferior to freelook 1st person/3rd person games because of the complete lack of realism and because of the symbolic interaction.

2d real time games are also possible (infinity, remember) but those are even more technologically inferior in terms of the action component (that's why they sucked of course)
so the answer to this problem is: drop the stupid action component and make a true rpg that completely relies on its rule system.

- of course we all know that that's not the real answer and that a true isometric or pseudo 3d (pseudo 3d person such as eye of the beholder included) turn-based non-action rpg is not going to happen ever again (outside of the RPG maker community anyway )

so, the less desirable but still viable alternative would have to be: keep the action system but design it in such a way that it *makes sense* and design a rule system thats supposed to *describe* that action component - so that the real-time gameworld interaction elements (such as FPS or fighter or sneaker gameplay for exaple) would have to be put in the first place and the character development system and wargaming rules would have to be second in order to maintain a non-retarded and somewhat realistic action component (tactical fps might be too much of a stretch but it's also possible - this would be the semi successful STALKER game). Obviously this is not a true RPG - it could only ever be an action RPG (a game like System Shock 2 for example)

The real question here is: even if it is an action CRPG instead of traditional CRPG (which means a pronounced dynamic player input gameplay component - such as aiming and shooting in a full3d environment for example) DOES THE RPG COMPONENT HAVE TO BE REDUNDANT AND STUPID (like the FO3 special implementation for example) OR DOES IT NOT?
or spelled differently -
Can you have a rich roleplaying experience in an action RPG?
I think yes - BUT it's really really hard to design and make such a game, in fact none have ever been made.

Anyway if such a game was to be made and if it were to be a post-nuclear CRPG, SPECIAL would have to be ditched *completely* so a reasonably good 360 view real-time Fallout game is impossible in my opinion.

However, a fallout-like post nuclear RPG with real time game mechanincs and 360' view (preferably exclusively 1st person) could be made theoretically. Such a speculative game could even be great. Imagine a serious roleplaying game that combines a tactical shooter with a game like thief 2 for example or something like that but also involving fighter game style fighting moves or even science-skill related adventure-game stuff like puzzles and investigations...