I don't see any of those "Cons" in turn based. Also whats so "unrealistic" about it? It's just like real time just broken up into fractions of time. What it would look like in real time would be if you took each "turn" from you and your enemies and played them simultaneously. I would actually say it's "more" realistic because your limited to what your character can do, and not what your physically able to do. For example if you have l337 skillz at FPS you can pretty much make a joke out of ever encounter in FO3 and NV. In FO2 however those skills will not avail you. It's all down to what you did with your character.

Protip:

Learn hand/eye co-ordination, it's not that hard to play an FPS.

Thats why I hate them, I liked COD when I felt like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv2ONRJ9tMQ

The new CODs try to be epic, but fail.

Only one of those I would consider to be objectively "true," however.

Any way I try to think of it, there's really no way that a turn-based game is going to move as fast as a real-time one. I'd agree with that. Though of course, that's either a "pro" or a "con," depending on what you want out of the game. Personally, I tend to prefer the more relaxed pace of a turn-based game - or at least prefer those real-time games that move at a more leisurely or cerebral pace. (Splinter Cell, for example, was a real-time "action-y" sort of game - but certainly the pacing was more stately and thoughtful; even if interspersed here and there with more frantic moments.)

Unrealistic, I do have to disagree with, however. At least in an objective sense. Finding the gameplay style to be unrealistic would be, I feel, sort of missing out on a primary conceit of the genre. (Namely, that even though "turns" are made, that it's all "actually" happening at the same time. It's simply a method of simulating a series of complex action in a more abstract form.) Of course, I don't doubt that for many people (arguably, the majority of gamers today - and likely that's always been the case,) this feels like an unrealistic approach to gaming. If it's not your cup of tea, then I can certainly see why one would (subjectively) have that opinion, and why that would also be a deciding factor in forming it. This probably also ties into the third point:

I would disagree with the "being there," part - as well. I don't (personally) feel any more connected to the world of Fallout 3 than I did in Fallout 2. In fact, I felt the converse was true. Certainly if we look past the improvements in graphics and the switch to a fully 3-dimensional first/third person view (both of which would be totally possible in a turn-based game - and I think we can assume that if a TB Fallout were made today it would also have those key features, or at least the capability of such.) Really, we're talking immersion there, and that's a highly subjective state of mind. I frankly felt more immersed in Fallout 2 than any other game in the series; and more connected to the actions of my protagonist.

Obviously, however, others will feel different. They're certainly not "wrong" for feeling that a turn-based mechanic would feel unrealistic to them, or pull them out of the action and world in a way that real-time would not. I can even understand why that might be the case. I would simply say that it's really only a matter of opinion, and that other gamers feel differently on the matter.

I have not read any posts so sorry if this has been mentioned.

I like Turn based and Real time. They have their ups and downs.

Turn based, lets me think and plan were as in real time I would be swarmed.

Real time lets me get the hell out of their if I know I am over my head. Knowing there is nothing I can do but still having to wait till the enemies have their turn is annoying. Running away 8 AP at a time.

Easy way to make both saids happy. Have both :celebration: If Fallout Tactics can do it I am sure it can be done for a future Fallout.

Exactly. Again look at the original Fallouts for an example of what is meant by distinct characters. I, as the player, can order my character to do essentially anything be it pick a lock, try to persuade someone with speech, steal, or aim for a guy's eyes. But it is up to the character, and the character alone whether he succeeds or fails at the task I assign not my abilities as a player. Actions such as those in Fallout 1 and 2 are entirely up to the character and yet the player is still an integral part of the game.

If I order my character with a low level skill in lockpick to pick a lock that is barely within his abilities there shouldn't be a minigame I can do to ensure success. If my character has 1 perception I shouldn't be able to use my FPS skills to headshot his enemies. It should be up to the character's abilities whether he succeeds or fails at those tasks. That's player/character separation.

I'm just glad this forum is turn-based.

While I have fond memories of good old turn-based tactical games, it is my opinion that they are more or less obsolete, because of too slow-paced gameplay (even for old men like me) and tedium in easy battles or in battles that are essentially over.
However, a game with sufficient tactical (and strategic) depth should allow the player time to think about the best course of action. As has been mentioned in the present thread and discussed by me http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1077289-vault-war-i-a-suggestion-for-a-fallout-strategy-game/, ways to make a game feel like RT and have an underlying turn-based structure have been existing for years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldur%27s_gate is an example of such a game, where all agents acted simultaneously, but according to AD&D rules. When the need arose, you were able to pause the game and issue new – and quite detailed – sets of orders.
Therefore, I see no need to return to a traditional turn-based gameplay.





Good one!

That's a good point, but it's just not the same thing for me.

I really liked Baldur's Gate, and Dragon Age, as well. Being able to pause the game helped very much. I appreciate that it runs like a turn-based game, but it still plays like a real-time game. Final Fantasy 12, I also thought was a good example of this - where it functioned exactly like the previous games, only by making it all real-time it did do away with a lot of the tedium associated with those games.

At the same time, however - it's still just not the same. Real-time with pause (even if under the hood it's operating with the same rules,) still isn't turn-based at all. On a fundamental level, it's that very abstraction that a turn-based game functions on, that provides the entertainment value I'm seeking. This is something I always have trouble explaining properly, so bear with me, here...

Take Chess, for example. At it's core, it's really just a highly abstracted simulation of war. The entertainment value to be found in that game, what makes it so engaging, is the game itself, however. Utilizing the rules to try and make the optimal move. Frankly, I don't see how Chess could be in any way improved at this point. You can buy Chess for PC and console, and play it as a videogame. In fact, the "simple to understand, difficult to master" rules make it especially suitable as a videogame translation.

As it's really just a simulation of combat played out in turns - when you're playing a game of Chess on the computer, you're really just playing a turn-based videogame. I can't imagine what it would look like, but I'd imagine that a creative mind could come up with a way to make a real-time Chess game. It might actually be kind of cool, come to think of it. It would certainly run faster than it's turn-based counterpart. It might also sell well, and be more relevant to a larger demographic. But I can't really say it would be an "improvement" of over good old classic Chess. It just wouldn't be the same. I mean, that's the game. That's how it's played. That's... what's fun about it, I suppose.

Anyway, like I said - it's hard for me to describe this. (And - in before someone says "but Chess isn't an RPG." I know that, but it's the best example I could think of to illustrate my point. Which is that the method of play is also intrinsic to itself. A change from turn-based to real-time is a fundamental paradigm shift. Essentially by definition, it becomes a very different game. If I made a turn-based Starcraft, for example - that would fundamentally change how that game is played. It would utilize far different strategies, and require a different approach on a basic level. It might be kind of cool, but a lot of people would not like it, for the same reasons not everyone likes everything going real-time - because it makes it a completely different game.)

Okay I read the entire thread (I got loads of free time) and for the sake of mental health I'm gonna stay out of the debates and just dump my opinion. For me, Dragon Age: Origins got it right. They speeded up the part-turn based combat system that was used back in KotOR just enough to keep up with the action but also not so much that the players don't lose themselves in combat. With the use of a pause button the player is able to switch between action and tactics instantly. Also combat is completely dependent on character skill which strenghtens the RPG aspect of the game (The player skill in a RPG should be the skill to create good characters, not aim you character's shots for him/her. My opinion of course.).

Player skills build the character's skills.

The player directs the character to do something using the player's tactical skills, play skills, to shoot something or whatever.

The two are intertwined.

Allow me as Player directing my minions, to hack a computer using my brain occasionally please.

Allow me with my 1 Perception to go out and put a bullet, out of boredom, into somebody's head that I can SEE, please. Perception will show/indicate to you enemies that you CANNOT see. So allow me to aim a gun please and not just say to character Frigginshaw, shoot him.

Let me the player play please. I didn't pay # just to have my trigger finger stuck .. .. ... twitching, (or should that be body-twitching Okie wink).

YOU should be role-playing this game, intertwined with that of the character that YOU create.

Turn-based play with it's restrictions on number of paces that you can move, limited actions that you can make with your limited allotted action-points, has not a very true-to-life, life-like representation or realism role-play.

Having played the early turn-based-combat Fallouts, they were, at the time they came out, great fun to play, initially anyway, being all new at that time, but you soon become adept at the combat puzzle calculations, and then the turn-base game dragged. In real-time play, those combat strengths calculations are actually done in your mind having become adept and with practice ... just as is done in real-life.

A turn-base game is a role-playing game, but with lesser life-like true-to-life realism and representation that real-time has of the role that I am role-playing, or have been asked to role-play ... that of a fully-functioning person role-playing in a scenario such as Fallout3's. Would anybody argue that fact (probably .. laughter .. realism never a strong point with some).

Putting turn-base play into a game such as Fallout3 would destroy my ability to role-play my role with it's more true-to-life life-like representation and realism.

GO say NO to TB

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwkhHoL4TAA, with too much of true-to-life life-like.

Anyways...

I don't see the realism argument as valid. Does the above link pose a realistic presentation of a life-like scenario? In TB the characters act according to their skills and abilities and by the command of the player, and get better in what ever the player decides. It is easier to assume a role, when that role gives an actual impact and demands the devotion into it in order to thrive. (imo) Fallout 3 does not do that. Once you've learned to navigate the combat, there's no need to improve the characterskills anymore, but just gather ammo and meds - with a TB combat, each playthrough is a new journey from rags to riches (so to speak) and improving ones skills is a necessity instead of a flavor call (leveling up for the sake of leveling up, regardless of the uselessness of it). :shrug:

Then the player isn't directing the character to do it, the player is actually doing it.



Not in the way you want them to be.



What does show/indicate to enemies that you cannot see even mean? Are you referring to the magic radar? If you don't want your character's abilities to have an impact why create the character?



That's great. RPGs aren't for you. Nothing wrong with that. But don't try and pretend you want an RPG. What you want is an open-world Bioshock.

No, the turn-based system should not be brought back other than V.A.T.S.

I would want A Bullet time Turn Base game one That goes extremely fast That creates the illusion of Real Time Like morrowind which had a system depending on your skills your chance of hitting your enemies increased I like That it was a neat concept I wonder why did they remove that for oblivion? I don't even care if fallout is turn based or not just make it so that your skills actually matter which I am not getting from the newer ones.

This is what I feel. I'm not a dinosaur thinking that Fallout should still be turn-based (I'd like a Fallout: Tactics 2, though, with an improved Continuous Turn-Based system) but I want the skills to act more like skills, and not damage multipliers. For example, the Gun skill. My real-life skill with guns does not affect the damage dealt from the bullet of a gun. It would affect how I handle the recoil, how fast I can reload and not get stuck with like pulling the bolt back, weapon sway and things like that. I can say that my real-life skill with guns would be 0. Maybe a few points higher, if a singel shot BB gun counts.

I've been wishing for something like that since I learned Fallout 3 was going to be an FPS. Gunskill (and strength) -> Accuracy (spread when firing from the hip - with different factors taken from stance, lighting, distance, movement, weather, possible ailments etc - and sway when aiming down sights), dynamic recoil (a shot throws the aim off), reload (or general handling: reload speed, holstering, unholstering, speed of bringing the ironsights up), and such -- and with a real punch, so that the pleyer feels the progression.

Though I'd very, very much prefer TB, seeing where things are going, I'd be fine with a first person realtime RPG if the skills and stats actually had some weight behind them, and if the system was generally well done from an RPG point of view.

You are missing the point that I was trying to get across in a demonstrative way. Let me rephrase it clearly.

Player and Character are one-and-the-same.

Player is role-playing the character you have created. That's what a RPG is.

Simple enough

You said "If my character has 1 perception I shouldn't be able to use my FPS skills to headshot his enemies".

You completely misunderstand what Perception is. If the Character can visually see the enemy, he can shoot it.

Perception will indicate with a red dot that an enemy hidden out of sight behind a wall for instance.

End of story.

Like I said:-

"Turn-based play with it's restrictions on number of paces that you can move, limited actions that you can make with your limited allotted action-points, has not a very true-to-life, life-like representation or realism role-play."

Playing a role is role-playing as realistically and true to the role as possible and is better represented in real-time play than in turn-based play, that is an indisputable fact.

Players want to role-play as realistically and true to the role as possible and only real-time will do that.

Having played the early turn-based-combat Fallouts, they were, at the time they came out, great fun to play, initially anyway, being all new at that time, but you soon become adept at the combat puzzle calculations, and then the turn-base game dragged. In real-time play, those combat strengths calculations are actually done in your mind having become adept and with practice ... just as is done in real-life.

A turn-base game is a role-playing game, but with lesser life-like true-to-life realism and representation that real-time has of the role that I am role-playing, or have been asked to role-play ... that of a fully-functioning person role-playing in a scenario such as Fallout3's. Would anybody argue that fact (probably .. laughter .. role-play realism never a strong point with some).

Putting turn-base play into a game such as Fallout3 would destroy the ability to role-play the role as realistically and true-to-life.

GO say NO to TB

The enemycompass was one of the worst ideas ever invented to what poses itself as an openworld RPG. It should've been a timed ability - "Focus" or something - if even that.

And clear line of sight doesn't make one accurate - low perception means low senses. In this case, poor eye sight. A character with poor eyes, shouldn't be able to "FPS" enemies with ease from a distance.

You should care if it's turn-based or not ... if you are into role-playing.

Adjusting skills play ... that's reasonable.

Sacrificing better role play in the process is not reasonable, because that's what turn-base play does, sacrifices better role-play.

Jesus christ, because you can only roleplay when you are in an FPS is your fault, just because you don't understand HOW to roleplay in TB is YOUR fault.

Just YOU can't roleplay in it, doesn't mean it sacrafices roleplay.

Jesus.

Dude, I don't care if I play it as a [censored] textbook adventure, if I can roleplay, as in using the skills I made my character proficient in and have choices and consequences, then I don't care if it's an FPS, IsometricTB, RTS, 3rdPPaction, p&p, textbook, et cetera.
It is not an indisputable fact that is HAS to be represented in real time to be better gameplay.
That's called immersion, immersing yourself in the game, and doesn't that mean that you're playing as yourself?
When I play an RPG I realize that I control over somebody else and that I'm merely the tool that the character uses to be brought to life.
So what you want is immersion, but that does not mean that an RPG has to have deep immersion to be a brilliant RPG.

If it now is an "indisputable fact" then mind giving me a link to a credible scientific source that tells me so?

Wow, you just reposted exactly what you said earlier....
Anyways,
If you want to play "true to the role", shouldn't you be playing by the terms the role sets. This happens completely in TB as the role takes over the "doing" while player does the "deciding". That's playing a role, as opposed to playing as yourself. :shrug: