Real-Time

  • Thread starter Thread starter Neo
  • Start date Start date
N

Neo

Guest
Let's think about Fallout 3 being real time for a sec. Your against an enemy with say, a vindicator mini-gun and use don't have a burst weapon. Your more than likely going to die very very quickly from endles streams of bullets.
 
Thats why FO3 shouldnt be Real-Time, it's not like it's swords and stuff like that, we have rocket launchers.
 
Fallout 3 must NOT be real time!!It would be like Diablo...the faster you click, the longer you live...

That sucks!
 
Real time combat can fit in fallout 3, if they design it well...mmm, do you ever play crusader: no remorse or no regret? Crusader is action game, it set in future time and you are a renegade specialist agent. The way Origin design it's cool, and as i remember crusader action game of the year (but unfortunetly i forgot what year).

How to make realtime combat with pistol and guns fun and enjoyable is to make many move and give more concern on armor: Let's discuss it one by one, ok:
a/ move: realtime combat is action, and that's mean you have to move quick and straight. So there should be keyboard control and many move like crawl, dodge, jump, etc...which make you easiear to hit and run.
b/ Armor : give more attention on armor. like give limitation on how many damage that armor can resorb.

Some change that should be done if you want realtime combat:
a/ bigger map: action game need big map, not like fallout which separate with many little map
b/ AI :action game was naver think about NPC, so they should increase NPC AI so they can dodge or move as fast and smart as we. If not then we have "kamikaze" squat...hehehe

well, there are many thing that should reconsider, but i feel what i have wrote almost require them all.

:)
 
You know what I think, Alicia?

We need to put up the list of bad ideas again, they're all coming back!
 
RE: You know what I think, Alicia?

I've got both crusaders and that is a good point, Real-Time would work if it was dont like that!
Kharn, have u actually played Crusader... thought not! so shut your f-ing mouth...
 
You know what I think, well? Neither do I!

Listen, they may not, ever go to realtime, now I don't even know what crusader is, but it probably has some energy bar of some kind, wich determens the kind of action you can use.
Now, I always thought that you may temper with the original formula of a game to improve it, but NEVER make changes that big in a winning formula.
I won't fight the idea, if you like it better that way you can have it your way as long as I can get it my way. Meaning being able to choose at the beginning of combat between realtime and turnbased. That way, everybody should be happy.
 
RE: You know what I think, well? Neither do I!

Crusader is like Diablo in the future, but differnt. the aiming is like in a circle and u use your mouse to rotate the target within this circle... weapon changing is piss press Q-W etc...
I havent done this game an justice with my discription! But it would be nice to see Fallout have an option to play like this.
 
Like you're saying yourself, an ACTION game...

Fallout ISN'T an action game, but a RPG,
and should stay an RPG in the first place.

no, I haven't played Crusader,
and it might be a very good game,
but it's an -action- game, action game = not fallout.

Fo isn't just about combat/action.
that's just a part of it, and IMO they couldn't
have done it better then what they have now.
 
RE: Like you're saying yourself, an ACTION game...

RPG has many element in it...there is a little bit of action, there is a little bit of strategy, there is a little bit of adventure, and many thing like that...but action, is something that almost every RPG has. And who said that game like fallout will be bad if there is realtime combat? Wait and See Arcanum, Tim Cain's newest project (i'm believe you know him, right?), will have both realtime combat and turn-base...If that game succes, that's mean fallout can have realtime combat too.. enough said. :-)
 
We are talking about a "Post nuclear Role Playing Game." To take away turn-based is to create a non-fallout type game. And, if you know the creators of Fallout1 and 2, you will know that all of their games are turn based anyway. The only problem is that they are not with Interplay or Black Isle anymore. They have gone AWOL and created their own studio. Learn more from March 00 issue of Computer Gaming World.
 
RE: Like you're saying yourself, an ACTION game...

I agree. Crusader was a truly great game, but, have you ever played X-Com Apocolypse? It has an option before each combat to go either real-time or turn-base. I for one prefered the real-time because you work in groups and you need to think your strategy out better and quiker, but it also made game play a lot quicker. If they could incorporate a similar system into F3, then it would be great. Obviously they wouldn't be able to do it exactly like x-com, as that game starts out on a big map, and then goes to the tactical mission screen, but whos to say you can't mix it in Fallout?
 
RE: Real-Time?

I liked Crusader No Regret very much, actually it was my favorite game for a whole summer, and boy was i good at it ;)))) If they make it 100% real-time, i say it should be like that. The system that was mentioned on the news page of this site has some potential, but is kinda stupid imho. Like script your character's actions, and let him do it, and if something goes not as planned, pause it, and change the script? WTF, if something goes wrong, probably you will be as good as dead by the time you click Pause. I'm not happy with the game having real-time combat, but if it HAS to have it, i think crusader's system is a very nice option - it was comfortable, effective, and fun. Although i have no idea how will you control your party members, maybe hot keys(wich will make the game kinda complicated), or from some kind of menu (pause, but NO scripting). But i have to state that after all i would like the thing to be pretty much like f1 and f2, real-time combat will turn a large part of the game in an ordinary action with no real thought in it, and for action we have quake. As for the scripting system, first it is not 100% real time after all, and as i see it, it has some potential problems, although it allows for some complicated moves and tactics and could be fun if done right (wich requires heavy interaction with the fans for ideas and criticism).

I don't know about you guys, but i'm pretty much confused right now. But if they have to change the way the game is played, they better change it for good, otherwise stick with the good old turn based action or lose a large portion of the fan base. It is that simple.
 
NPC's in combat

WHy don't we let our NPC's decide themself what to do in combat? I mean we could give them orders, go here, wait, when enemy comes shoot. NPC should have a "fear" factor, like Myron jusmps the enemy behind doors, he starts shooting but whimps out and starts running. that is why we would have to say him don't get into combat at all.
Then we could have a stubborn NPCs. we tell him not to fight, he'll do the opposite. They should add much more NPCs then, so we could choose. Why they don't add Mercs, so we could hire them for a certain period of time. And much more bad NPCs, so if I play a bad char, he stays with me, even if I'm soooooo bad, that NPC starts to like me a lot and get a special "die for you" perk with some moral add on. I don't know, it would be much fun to improve these NPCs to act as a real people. Not like giving Marcus a vindicator and power fist, and he starts shooting mantis' with his casseless ammo! I mean he's not dumb, he's a warrior and should have a better understanding in combat. It's ok if Myron starts a burst on ants, he's just a scientist with no combat skills.
just my $0.02... well it's a longer post that usually, maybe $0.05 ;-)

take care
--
Miroslav, miroslav@gamestats.com
No Mutants Allowed - Fallout WebSite
http://fallout.gamestats.com/
 
NPC's action & MrGames

NPC action in realtime combat should be different then the old fo games, but as i mentiont before, they need high AI to react "smart" in realtime combat if not we will have "kamikaze pigs squat"...hehehe :-)
Ok, the problem is how they will react smartly? how come they not bothering you instead helping you, right? My suggestion is to put "quick order" (by using quick button) for you squat (NPC)...say let's took it from SQUAT 3 design, sierra. Let me explain:
in realtime combat we only focus on our hero reaction, your NPC is a different man, and you can't give your full attention on them. But without order or leadership they will react "unlead" on shoot everywhere or maybe run everywhere which maybe will give you a hard problem and annoying. So how about giving them quick order? This quick order include formation, special order, personal order and etc.
a/ formation: combat formation is needed for keeping your NPC run away or run everywhere, and formation is also needed so your combat strategy will more affective. I hope they allow you to set your own formation, beside their common formation (common formation=formation from BiS or already there in the game).
b/ special order: is like what J.E.Sawyer said. That you can give continous and link order...imagine you want to bust a geng in one room and they heavy armed. You set a bomb on the door, and order vic to guard your back meanwhile marcus will open fire when the door blow up and sulik will start attacking from back door....ermm something like that.
c/ personal order: is an order to each of your npc, like quetioning their healt condition, order them to run away and use stimpack, order them to lie down or hide somewhere, etc...

The problem of this idea is: how many order will be put in the game? That is something to be think of.

and lastly for MrGames, in your last message (12), you said ...to take away turn-base is to create non-fallout games...and something about their creator and all their games are turnbase, right? well look again, will you. Their newest project will be set both realtime combat and turn base combat. And as i said before, action is only one elemen of RPG (fallout)...don't judge something before you see it! I don't say that turn base is bad (i like fallout combat design), but you also need to give them chance to realtime combat...couse many new possible can be added there. And i think fallout strong not becouse it's combat design but becouse of their non-linear story & problems (for me fallout is the most non-linear game yet. There are huge posiblility there) and also i like it's open-ended end. :-P
 
RE: You know what I think, well? Neither do I!

You think everyone will be happy with both options? Have You played UFOs? Then You should agree, that III was the worst.
It is probably possible to make a good real time fallout-like game. But it will be extremly difficult to keep your character alive. It seems bloody realistic - bigger gun wins. And good bye to close combat.
 
>Let's think about Fallout 3 being
>real time for a sec.
> Your against an enemy
>with say, a vindicator mini-gun
>and use don't have a
>burst weapon. Your more
>than likely going to die
>very very quickly from endles
>streams of bullets.

I think that this is a common mis-conception about how a real time RPG would be handled. It comes mainly from fans who dislike Quake type games because they feel that anything real time involves quick reactions rather than tactics/strategy and character skills.

Let me use two older games to illustrate the difference and add my opinion on how a pausable real time combat system would add to my enjoyment of the game. I have chosen Syndicate Wars, and Xcom Apocalypse for my comparison.

Syndicate is a real time ACTION game. Success in that game requires that to shoot an enemy, you must aim your cyborgs guns using your mouse and trigger the guns by pressing the mouse buttons. Thus, reaction time is critical. No character skills are involved because the determinent factor of whether you hit or not is determined by YOUR reactions and mouse aiming skills.

Xcom Apocalypse is a real time STRATEGY game. It has in my opinion, the BEST combat engine ever made because it combines the ability to sit back and relax while planning an attack and allowing you to see your plan executed in real time.

In that game, hitting the enemy is indeed a matter of "probabilities" as it is in Fallout. When you want to shoot an enemy you simply pause the game and instruct your chosen agent to target an enemy. Whether or not the target is hit is determined in exactly the same way it is in RPGs like Fallout involving to hit modifiers and cover, but it happens in real time. And the best thing about it is that you can pause the game at any time to adjust your tactics if the situation changes.

The reason I like Xcom more than Syndicate was because in Syndicate I often got wiped out when a new situation presented itself and I was not quick enough to react. In Xcom, when the tactical situation changes I simply pause and CALMLY change my orders to my agents. This should once and for all put an end to opponents of real time who complain that it will make it like a first person shooter, or Syndicate type game.

Before I give you my opinion on why I like pausable real time, I'll go through what I like about turn based and real time.

Turn based - I like the ability to sit back and thouroughly consider the situation before making a move.

Real time - I like the ability to see my tactics executed in real time because that is the most realistic.

So that's why I prefer pausable real time. I like to carefully plan my tactics and strategy BUT I want to see them carried out in real time, NOT turn by turn because then you can't do nifty tactics like you see in combat books since a lot of real military tactics rely upon co-ordination such as suppressive fire etc.

As a wrap up, lets take the subject of the original post. Say the guy with a Vindicator minigun turns up. You panic and press the pause button. You know that standing in open ground gives the attacker a good chance to hit you. So you order your character to run behind a nearby steel crate. Running modifies the to-hit modifier of the attacker by -20. You hit the unpause button and With a bit of luck you character makes it to cover with minor damage. Now that you're under cover, the minigun guy is having a hard time hitting you. But he is standing in open ground. So you pause the game again and re-order your character to crouch and make an aimed shot at the minigun guys head. You unpause the game and you crouch giving yourself a positive modifier to hit and make the head shot. Boom! critical hit, the minigun guy goes down!

See? There really was no shoot-em-up skills required, just the knowledge that firing from cover is an advanatge.
 
Real time vs. Turn-based

Well, I've played Fallout, Fallout 2, Baldur's Gate, and Planescape: Torment a *lot*. (IMHO Fallout2 is the best game ever made.)

I don't care for "real time" combat because it NEVER ends up being real time...as soon as the action starts, WHAM! You hit the space bar and pause. You pick all your targets for your characters and then unpause for a second or two and then WHAM! You hit the space bar, pause again, aim again, etc.

You never get to really appreciate the animations because you keep pausing the game. The characters have less personality because YOU'RE controlling them.

Strategy? Well, I've found it always pays to have everyone blast one monster at a time.

I really like the Fallout system because you DON'T control the characters -- it makes it more unpredictable and more entertaining. Plus you can carefully focus on the action.

Perhaps the right way to do it is a hybrid of real-time and turn-based, where you start a turn, pick your targets and then both sides fire/go/move or whatever for 5 seconds. Then you get "control" again, can change targets, etc. and repeat...that way, you can set behaviors and so forth but still sit back and watch without having to pause the game all the time.
 
RE: Real time vs. Turn-based

I have to go along with the real-time activists here. I'm an Army vet, so in games where a tactical strategey is required, I tend to do better than the average "Joe Six Pack" you meet on the street. But, if it must be turn-based, then why not have the ability that you do in Warhammer 40k? Set certain NPC's (or yourself) to overwatch, so that when an enemy enters your field of vision, you have a certain amount of "extra" AP's to fire on that opponent. Of course, if it was you player character, then you'd have the option of choosing to fire, or not to fire. It would bring the ability of supressive fire, without having to get rid of the turn based system. Although, some of the tactics I learned in the Army, involved Fire-teams (5-7 men) moving in formation. One fire-team would hold back, and provide cover fire, while the other moved about 10-20 feet ahead, then the team that just moved would take up cover fire, while the other moved parallele to the cover team. It's a basic bounding overwatch system, but it WORKS. And that's the key, isn't it? That way, if the enemy constantly has bullets wizzing over their heads, they're only going to pop up to shoot maybe one round, every now and then, so that when you get to the objective, you are then close enough to overrun the enemy, and still have most of your men to do it with. Having the ability to do that in Fallout, would make combat both easier, and more chalenging, as you try out different tactics, and movement types. Think about it.
 
RE: Real time vs. Turn-based

Im tending to agree with the real time supporters. Much more strategy and thought would have to go into a real time battle, (the aforementioned supressive fire being just one of the obstacles that had to be overcome) In my opinion pausable realtime in fallout, if done properly would be not only the most complex, but the most EXCITING and ENTERTAINING form of combat. It would be perfect for eliminating the monotony of combat that sometimes plagues RPGS... dont get me wrong, Fallout is one of my favorite games EVER (with Planescape and System Shock 2 compeating with it) but unless Im way outgunned (like if im surrounded by enclave troopers) I have a hard time working up a good sweat in a battle. Even though this pausable real time would be exciting that DOESNT MEAN IT WOULD BE LIKE QUAKE why cant you people get that through your heads? This system would make even minor battles, like an encounter with a gang of raiders an epic battle. Coupled with fallouts patented gore, imagine the possibilities. Heres a bit of a scenario:

You, Goris, and Cassidy have encountered a group of about six raiders... your two groups are about equal in strength, but the raiders have an advantage due to their numbers (barely applicable in turnbased, as Goris would tear em apart) Your surrounded. You and Cassidy fall back behind a rock or something as Goris runs foward,and due to his speed he dodges most of the bullets (this would be done the same way accuracy in BG is measured) Cassidy, being the sniper that he is covers for you while you make a descision, you pause and give your allies commands... nothing exact just ambiguous orders like Goris: Take cover
or Cassidy: attack whoever is attacking me you issue commands for your character... lets say burst fire with your smg... im not sure how automatic would be done, maybe a little target icon would appear and you could hold down the mouse button? You sweep gunfire around the arena, and due to your skill with small arms you make alot of hits, but since your fire isnt concentrated you don't do much damage, however you manage to hit a raider goris has wounded and he falls spraying blood. Goris runs right past the dying raider and goes for his next victim. However a raider to your side has begun firing at you. You pause and order your character to run for cover, and unpause, when Cassidy Makes a critical headshot with his sniper rifle, the goons head explodes in a magnificent cascade of blood. Apparently Cassidys AI noticed that the particular raider had made an attacking "role" towards you.

Now I realize this little monologe was somewhat disjointed but I think I got my point across. This would all be done in an overhead view, much like fallouts, however it would be in 3D allowing the various graphics needed. What im basically trying to say is that Change is Good, familiarity breeds contempt, it's time for something new and innovative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top