107
You can't be disappointed if you expected nothing! (ani.social)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/starcraft@lemmy.world
32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 1 month ago (6 children)

I'm reminded of when Fallout went from RTS/RPG to FPS or "Action RPG".

I guess you're talking about the turn-based combat of the first two Fallout games, but RTS stands for Real-Time Strategy, which Fallout never was.

I didn't mind the perspective shift in Bethesda's Fallout games, and while there wasn't a fully fledged turn-based combat option, at least V.A.T.S. let you slow things down if you weren't that into fast-paced shooting. I do feel like the writing, and consequently, the role-playing took a significant hit after Bethesda's acquisition of the franchise.

I have relatively fond memories of 3, although I've never replayed it since its initial release. 4, on the other hand, I've tried at least three times to play through, and I always end up giving up and uninstalling. The simplified dialogue system and lack of nuanced options just kill any sense of immersion or investment in the world. I don't care about crafting my own little wasteland town, I want to actually give a shit about the story and characters.

Anyhow, this is all off-topic—I really have no interest in a StarCraft FPS—so pardon my rant, and have a great day and/or night.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    So, what's the difference between RTS and what the first two Fallout games did? Where every move and attack is paid for out of set points that replenish every turn (and can also be affected by various factors, such as your Agility skill).

    I realise Fallout is not classified as an RTS, but it behaves like one. I know you aren't moving a multitude of troops, but it acts the same way and, while it's fine for others, it's not really how I wanna play a game.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Real-Time Strategy is explicitly not turn-based; things progress continuously without pausing. Warcraft 1-3, StarCraft 1 and 2, and the Command & Conquer series are all examples of RTS games. The other major strategy genre is TBS (Turn-Based Strategy) e.g. your Crusader Kings or your Civilization.

    As the Fallout games (exclusive of Brotherhood of Steel) aren't strategy games, but RPG's, I'm not sure if there's a widely used initialism for the way combat works in the first two Fallout games— maybe TBC (Turn-Based Combat), although to me that evokes The Burning Crusade. Bethesda's Fallout games, arguably, have a variant of RTwP (Real-Time with Pause) combat, via the V.A.T.S. system.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Turn Based Tactics is the genre I think. I don't know when the last time I heard that genre be used by name though.

    It can be an RPG and other genres. They are RPGs, but they're also parts of many other genres.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    What you just described is simply not an RTS. RTS is StarCraft and Age of Empires. There are no turns. Fallout does not behave like an RTS in any sense.

    What you are describing is a TBS like Civ maybe or TB Tactics like XCOM which yes there are elements in the latter to pretty much any TB RPG, or really any old school RPG where you kind of free explore the world but then combat becomes turn based.

    The flipside of what you're saying, and one could say this but one perhaps shouldn't without a good shield, is that Civ is a TB RPG...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •