I don t think fallout should go back to turn based. They would lose too many sales.

Both but if I had to choose it would be Bethesda.

Turn based as an OPTIONAL mode, imagine that

We aren't asking for it to be the default mode, all we are asking is for an option, like hardcoe Mode, only Turn Based Mode, is that so hard? A modder was able to roughly duplicate it, it wouldn't be hard at all for professional game designers like BGS to do, we aren't asking for them to make it the main game mode, we aren't forcing you to use it, we just want an option to play the new Fallout games like the old Fallout games, is that so bad? Is it really so damn bad of us to want to play the games like they used to be played?

Some of the next generations of gamers say yes, sadly

Just like Tactics :fallout:

We arent trying to force our preferences on them, we just want game designers to take our preferences into thought and JUST MAYBE put in an OPTIONAL game mode for us to play the games like the originals.

As long as it was done in a professional manner, where one wouldn t interfear with the integrity of the other , then I don t see a problem with it.

It will be something they would have to spend time implementing, and it would take more time overall to make the game because of it.
If they could somehow do it fast and right Im all for it.

Fast and right is a tall glass to order though.

I'd be fine with a optional turn-based system, wouldn't use it though. I prefer my turn based gaming on large maps subdivided by hexes and covered with Panzer battalions....

Hey, a modder was able to do it satisfactorily, i have no doubt that the professionals at Bethesda Game Studios will have no problem doing it quick and right. I may have a few beefs with their writers, but i have no doubts of their abilities.

I m probaby older than most of you guys that call your selves dinosaurs. I ve played video games longer than some of old dinosaur club as been alive.

Option is fine as long as it doesn t take away from what they have now. Plus I don t want them spending a full year on implementing it into a real time game.

Plus will it be yet another bug problem somehow?

Making quality video games is not simple or easy, or we d all be doing it.

I m not against this option, but It better not make my fo feel cheap. They would have to do them both at a professional level.

Hey, Rook, did you watch that video, see they already have an AP system for the game, and all it is is a simple conversion, it wouldnt take much. If a modder could do it, professional game developers can do it better and faster.

Yeah I saw it, but I d have to test it for long periods of time both ways to say its easy to accomplish. I might even do some play throughs using turn based for the epic battles.

True, but it is well within the scope of professional game developers, don't you think so?

Yes My only worry is at what cost to the overall game?

They will only do so much........... That seems like something big. Im just worried they may be forced to scimp on other things to stay within budget and keep the game between 60-70 $ .

Probably already said before, But 4 pages is too much of a read right now.

Bethesda is developing Fallout 4, and thats how I would prefer it. This isn't just because I am a big fan of TES, But I think Fallout 3 was done better than New Vegas in many ways.

Bethesda is great at crafting huge open world games that can you keep you entertained for years. I am playing Fallout 3 right now, not New Vegas.
The world of New Vegas was crammed together, with all the exploration fun ripped out of the game, and turned very linear. Not to mention there is barely anything to shoot at with the huge array of weapons which serve little purpose in the game other than the final battle. The game is more about passing speech checks than actually exploring and experiencing, that is what bothered me about New Vegas.

One of the more common arguments against Fallout 3 is that it's not "Fallout-ish enough." I can argue this in that, It takes place on a completely different coast, where things aren't the same as out West. The Capital Wasteland is much different from the Core Region in that it is much less civilized. D.C. is a dump compared to Vegas! I also think in the fact that the Capital Wasteland is less civilized, it creates an overall funner game. More things to shoot at, more unexplored buildings to go through, more open wasteland to walk in. In Vegas its all talk and no play.

Think about this. If there was a Fallout game set in 2500, when say we have the "New American Republic" where there is no raiders, and all fun pre war buildings are picked cleaned, and the wasteland has been reverted back to the old days, how would that be fun? It seemed like Obsidian was leaning towards that reality in New Vegas. New Vegas was ultimately boring after the initial few playthroughs.

Fallout 3 will always be one of my favorite games of all time, and New Vegas will always be one of my biggest disappointments.

Bethesda, I await the true sequel to Fallout 3, Fallout: The Commonwealth

I think it's worth it, in order to please both sides of the fanbase.

Some people prefer more deep history rather then just a excuse of history just to shoot, thats not fun, or does Fallout is all about surviving in a hive cluster with tons of thing to shoot and loot cool stuff just for still shoot more things rather then searching a more pacific way? Thats not the Fallout that I know,

BTW New Vegas is a Spin Off, need to remind the people always this

All i am saying is that an optional turn based mode would do a lot of good to repairing the gap between the fans, to accommodate different types of play that the series had in the past and what it has to offer in the present.

Of course I like having history. But I also don't want another crammed linear game like New Vegas :rolleyes:

EDIT: @ Mako how about instead of reinventing old mechanics improve on todays real time combat?

Linear? How so? You mean the beginning where it isnt wise to leave the roads at low level, that really stops being a problem after you reach Vegas, it really branches out. Storywise, NV is a LOT less linear than Fallout 3, which only gave you one storyline with very little logical options, imo.

@rvdmets Because real time can never truly represent RPG mechanics like turn based can, sadly. If they could, you wouldnt have people wanting turn based back. and before you say anything to the meaning, Fallout is first and foremost an RPG series, do not try to dispute it, that is how it is marketed, and that is how it was born, thank you very much.

There is a lot of story choices. But they just prod you a long in such a boring way. They purposefully put deathclaws a long the road to hinder your own explorational instincts, and really forced you along another road, coupled with invisible barriers keeping you from climbing or going your own way.
:unsure2:

Oh yea, with set up raider encounters too.

Fallout 3 had a lot of those problems too, just not to the same extent, although i have never gotten trapped in-between boulders in NV, which happened many times in Fallout 3.

Fallout 3 wasnt the most cleaned game in existence, it has nasty bugs and glitches too

Not really, the bottom left corner of F3 was dangerous with Yao Gui and robots but it wasn't scripted to have half a dozen of them attack you, it waa random. The other unmanagable place was Old Oney but you were safe just outside. NV was very linear IMO, it was like "Follow Obsidian's yellow brick road or get mega-f*cked by Cazadores and Deathclaws" which isn't fun, just annoying.

On topic: I vote Bethesda due to their remarkable open worlds that have me still playing F3 almost daily.