Fallout 3?

June 18, 2003 - Even though what was originally thought to be Fallout 3 turned out to later evolve into Lionheart, and even though the newestBrotherhood of Steel is console only, we may still be getting ours with a true and proper Fallout 3, or at least something that's a hell of a lot like it.

Among other things, Black Isle is currently developing a secret title codenamed Van Buren. In a very juicy, very informative bulletin board post on Interplay's official website dedicated to whether or not Fallout 3 should be turn-based or real-time, Black Isle developer J.E. Sawyer chimed in with arguments, examples, Van Buren mentions, and Fallout references. His posts are as follows:

In response to light487's:
I'm glad they decided to include both but I hope that won't compromise either styles for sake of time and resources.

J.E. Sawyer
"Ultimately, I believe that above all else, the Fallout games allowed people to play the game they wanted to play it. Giving players choice ultimately means spreading your resources. When a designer develops multiple ways to solve a quest, that spreads out resources. Technically speaking, you could take all the time you used to write a branching dialogue to make a bunch of linear dialogues, or a bunch of dialogues that never took a character's gender, ability scores, race, etc. into account.

Hell, we could certainly make combat well-balanced by eliminating dialogue for characters the player might kill -- or might not want to form an alliance with. But we shouldn't do that, because the player should get the option to do that.

Real-time vs. turn-based combat isn't an aspect of character development, but it is an aspect of gameplay. Some people don't like playing through combat, even in a good system. Some people absolutely hate dialogue, even when it's well written. To accomodate different types of players, we do need to spread our resources.

However, at the beginning of Van Buren, we sat down for a few weeks and made outlines of the various areas you could explore in the game. It was pretty damned big. So, I went back and I looked at Fallout. Fallout only had 13 areas. Fallout 2 had 23 areas. Does Van Buren really need to have 23, or even 20 areas? Personally, I think it would be better off with 15-17 very good areas than 23 really rushed areas. And if, in those 15-17 areas, you can get better gameplay balance than you would have been able to in 23 areas, I think that's a good thing. I would rather have crazed lunatic people complain that 100 hours of gameplay isn't enough than have the majority of people quit the game because the first 10 of its 300 estimated hours just suck.

Summary: yes, balancing real-time and turn-based will take time. Yes, real-time and turn-based battles will not play out the same even under the most ideal circumstances. However, enough people are DIE-HARD ADAMANT about only playing one way or another that we believe it is genuinely important to pursue. Will turn-based combat be as balanced as it would without any real-time component? Of course not, but if the difference of that balance is minor, I believe allowing both of the die-hard groups to have a fundamental element of play to enjoy is important.

And to be honest, any time you try to push the "we can only have one and make it work right" to a distributor or buyer, the one they want is going to be real-time. I'd rather have a real-time and turn-based component at 80-90% of its potential than a real-time component at 100% and no turn-based components. I know it bothers a lot of you guys, but I don't honestly know how else to explain it."

In response to Doomsayer's:
Now if they can do RT and TB equally effectively then so be it, just as long the TB is as good if not better than the original FO games then I will not complain.

J.E. Sawyer
"Perhaps I am showing an improper bias, but I am more inclined to err in favor of a good TB system if RT and TB clash on some aspects. Generally speaking, people who don't like combat in the first place would rather play real-time. That doesn't mean that people who DO like combat only enjoy TB, but... I think you see where I'm going. The TB fans tend to be more discriminating about the implementation of their preferred style of combat."

In response to Azael's:
Seriously, how much will be sacrificed in order to make the merger between real-time and turn-based?

J.E. Sawyer
"Well, there are a few issues to consider:

* Anything that is reactive in nature (i.e., an inactive character can act on another character's turn by reacting the actions of the active character) becomes more difficult in real-time (see: attacks of opportunity). Anything like an overwatch/reaction arc has the potential to get tricky between RT and TB.

* Sacrificing AP for defense in RT is also tricky unless you allow the player to specify a threshold of AP that he or she never uses for actions. Right-click on the AP bar in RT mode and it turns all AP from the first to the clicked light blue. Those AP are then always devoted to defense until the player right-clicks elsewhere on the bar. NPCs simply have to "make do" with keeping the remainder of AP left over from assorted tasks. But that isn't altogether awful, since they'll just get to perform their next action quicker than if they actually devoted AP to defense.

* The AP system translated to real-time means that higher AP = move faster. In Fallout TB, a character with 10 AP can move ten hexes in a round. A character with 6 AP can only move 6. That can be a pretty significant difference when you're outside of combat, but we'll have to see. In Jefferson, we had developed a system that we believed would preserve the leftover fractions of a character's available "actions" in a round. Movement was free (unlike FO:T) in that it didn't cost any AP/actions. What it did do was halt or slow the recharge rate of AP. A character who is not moving will recharge his or her entire bank of AP in one real-time round. A character who runs and runs and runs will recharge his or her AP very, very slowly. If a character tries to run and fire, he or she will make very slow progress. It isn't a perfect mapping, but I think it works well for real-time, and it doesn't adversely affect turn-based.

Well, my shuttle's coming to take me to the airport. Have a good week, everyone."

Interested? You should be. Please check out the thread in its entirety right here for more information and a chance to share your own thoughts, wishes, hopes, and desires.