Ok, so I've been around the forums for a few months now and I have seen people call for TB to be brought back. However, when I looked closer it seems to be the same half dozen or so people calling for it in different threads.

So I was wondering if it is something people genuinely want.

I have played all of the games and I'll be honest, in my oppinion, turn based was the worst part of the first two games. The point and click system in tactics was an improvement. But when it moved to FPS I was a happy man.

Turn based, in my opinion, is something that belongs in games like Final Fantasy and it would be a huge step backwards to bring it back to Fallout.

Please guys I'm not asking for Beth vs Obsidian here. Or old vs new. Or "Dinosaurs" VS "15 Year olds" :biggrin: . I just want to know if it really is something people want.

Discuss.

My experience with the first two Fallout games was the same. Having a twenty minute battle that would take less than two minutes in real time seems like a huge waste of time. While that is the fundamental cornerstone of roleplaying, the ability to plan out every move instead of real-time decision making, I would argue that the majority of gamers who have played RPGs for years won't spend 15 minutes contemplating a move (though I have done it in the first two games when trying to shepherd weak companions) the vast majority of the time. With the modern system, all you have to do is hit pause or access your PIP-BOY to have the same opportunity to contemplate. The added bonus is that you don't expend precious AP for either of those actions :celebration:

Who says it has to take 20 minutes a turn? the majority of time spent in FO 1/2 battles was watching the sprites animate. I'd say with a modern system you could do turns as slow or fast as you want With the characters animating the same speed as real time. It's the system itself that I'd like to see return.

In a nutshell:
I want TB combat back. It offers more tactical and less twitchy combat experience and it allows for far greater characterskill impact than what would fit with realtime shooting. A well made TB combat is both relaxing and tense at the same time. And because it makes a clear separation between player and character skills, it offers a far more rewarding characterprogression and promotes the role in the roleplaying game.

The gaming market is full of FPS run&gun games already (and every RPG these days is an ARPG with realtime twitch-combat), each one more or less alike the next. A well made TB cRPG would offer a very nice change to the norm.

I'd say getting back to it and implementing it well (even if making it optional) would be a doublestep forward.

There are far too many FPS's now-adays, It gets far too old after seeing 50+ commerical's with the same view, though I'm not one of those 'PUT TB BACK IN NOW' people, If given the choice, i'de choose TB.

I would like some hybrid of turn based and real time strategy.

Maybe something similar to the Dragon Age Origins system?

All I'm sure of is V.A.T.S., in its modern form, should be done away with. If you're planing turn based V.A.T.S. makes sense, but in the realm of FPS, I'm not really a fan.

I can honestly say that i don't want turnbased. The last turnbased games i played were pokemon and fire emblem. Now if they wanted to make the fallout games isometric again i think real time is a better way to do it, many perks could translate into powers that you use. I mean you could still pause combat to think about things, like in dragon age

For me the main fallout games now No... but i still had to vote yes as maybe for say a tactics 2 or other type side game I would enjoy that a lot. As i still think there is a market for it. I could be off my rocker (heheh old man joke) but I bet there keeping tabs on older version downlowds off steam and whatnot and if there isa market for it still maybe .... Crosses fingers

Yes I would like to see TB combat make a return. It fits better with Fallout and it's a far superior combat system for RPGs than the current FPS/Godmode mess the series has right now.

Of course it has a snowball's chance in hell of ever returning but a man can dream.

Many battles are really cool in turn-based, like when your well-armed party runs into another well-armed party, but bigger. In an FPS, you'd just burst into Deckers office under the Maltese Falcon, chuck a few nades, hope they will blow up, and deal damage to, him and his guards, and the whole intense battle is over in less than a minute. Or, you could kick the door in, engage in combat where you can tactically see first how many the enemies are, their weapons and their health, where they are, how many allies you've got and their weapons and health, decide who you will shoot first and have a best chance of killing or who has the deadliest weapon that can deal much damage against you and your team if not dealt with first, and with a good Sequence you get to shoot any of these guys before they get to shoot you, and with a high AC later, these guys responding fire will not hit you. In an FPS, AC and Sequence is non-existant, because instead of AC you just need a lot of HP and an armor with good DR or DT because you WILL get hit, and by Sequence... well, it's real-time so everyone reacts at the same time.

I liked the Continuous Turn-based combat of Tactics, where you can run as much as you want for no AP cost, but everything else - shooting, reloading, healing - costs AP. I'd like to see such a system again, improved, on a Tactics 2 or something.

I would strongly dislike it if the games returned to turn-based combat.
Turn-based combat is all well and good, but it's simply not as engaging and exciting for me as real-time combat. The repeated pauses in combat are rather jarring and just detract from the fight for me.
Fallout's a real time with pause system at the moment, just like Dragon Age, and that's good enough for me.

Plus, marketing a FP/TP TBRPG like Fallout would be very difficult these days, methinks. Only RPGs still turn-based are JRPGs, and those aren't exactly a target market for the people who likely play Fallout.

Now, before I get accused of hating the originals, I love them, they're great games; I'm just not the biggest fan of turn-based combat in games based around a small group of individuals. The games are good enough to make me overlook that, though.

This is just not true. I'm not a great fan of Dragon Age to put it mildly but it's combat system, while boring and flawed was distinctly superior and radically different from the current combat system in Fallout. Why? Because Dragon Age's combat system was pure RPG. You'll note that when you had a bow there was no way for you to target it only the character's skills mattered for making the shot. Maybe if I could pause at any moment without bringing up a pip-boy screen and line up each shot you'd have a point but I can't do that. VATS isn't so much a pause button as it is cheating. When you paused in Dragon Age they didn't have a button to enable you to whack a guy four or five times with increased critical chances while giving you 90% DR.

Fallout's current combat system is real time with optional godmode.

Honestly, I'd rather not, but, if it does make a return, I want it to be optional, not ALL of us enjoy turn based, and not ALL of us enjoy real time. I would like to see it implement both, the only people who wouldnt be happy are the people who feel things have to meet THEIR expectations and anything else is wrong.

I'm not saying their combat systems were exactly the same, I'm saying they were real time with the ability to pause to queue up attacks, abilities, and use items, which describes both Fallout 3/FONV's and Dragon Age's combat system. Nitpick if you want, but that description fits both games.

I'll also note here that I hated the combat in Dragon Age, as I felt it just didn't engage me. Player skill determining hits makes, for me, a more enjoyable experience.

Turn-based is part of Fallout's identity. Fallout drew heavily from PnP games like DnD.

Turn based was a part of Fallout's identity; fully half of the RPG games in the series now have not been turn based, and they have their own group of fans.

Didn't mean to be nitpicky it's just RtWP usually refers to a very specific sort of combat system that you see in games like the Baldur's Gate series and Dragon Age. Being able to open up the inventory generally doesn't count as paused combat.

No. Just... no. Turn-based has its place, I'd hate to see Civ or Advance Wars go real-time for example, but that moment's already been and gone for Fallout. There's no going back now, and I don't mind that one bit. There's no uninventing the atom bomb.

Yes, because it is more exciting, it is suspensful, climactic, dramatic, and generally more entertaining, the originals games, i was truly careful on what i used my action points for, do i quick heal for 3 AP, or do i shoot, or do i open my inventory, do i reload, do i move behind the corner, or do i get closer, do i aim for the eyes, or the torso, should i do single or burst, all these questions come up and you have to choose and hope the enemy doesnt get the upper hand, defeating an enemy was also very rewarding.

Fair enough; I generally steer clear of that kind of RPG (fantasy RPGs don't really do much for me, generally speaking) so I interpret it a bit more literally, I suppose.

Yes, I want turn-based to be at least optional. I also want to be DM'd by the PIP-boy.

DM?

Decimeter?
Death Metal?
Diabetes mellitus?
Depeche Mode?
Deutsche mark?

O_o

Deadly Mauling.

For me, I tend to gravitate more towards turn-based games than real-time ones. I prefer a more... "cerebral" approach, I suppose. Something I can sit back and take my time with. I tend to get a bit too easily overwhelmed with a game that focuses on intense action, and don't generally get a chance to really dig into the meat of it, so to speak.

A prime example, for me, was Bioshock, for instance. I thought it was a great game with really admirable production values, but I just could not get into it. It seemed like every single time I came upon a big set-piece fight, or a boss battle, etc - I'd be running around frantically just trying not to die. And it wouldn't be until after the smoke had cleared and I was going around looting bodies that I'd realize all of the various tactics I could have used, but just didn't have the presence of mind to even attempt. It would be then that I'd realize for the first time that I could have blown up those explosives that were conveniently placed behind the boss, and then hacked the first aid terminal when he ran to it. Things like that. Eventually, I just had to realize that it wasn't my kind of game, and I kind of gave up.

That's why in Fallout 3, I really appreciated VATS (which I still say has more in common with bullet time than anything to do with Fallout 1 or 2.) Even if I was out of AP, I could still use it as a way to pause the game, get my bearings, and plan out what I was going to do - even if I had to play it out in real time. Mass Effect is another good example of that - I made nearly constant use of the ability to just pause the action in that game, even if I wasn't going to give any orders or use any powers. And I'd say the same thing with Dragon Age, as well.

For me (and I'd imagine a number of other gamers out there) these systems aren't just a neat gimmick - they're what allow me to even be able to enjoy the game. And even being able to pause the action still doesn't replace the sorts of decisions that I enjoy making in a turn-based game. It's just two very different styles of play - realtime and turnbased; and I don't believe there's any such thing as a real "hybrid" of the two. And if there is, it certainly isn't to be found in being able to pause the game at will.

Now, all that said - I don't think Fallout's turn-based system was even the most notable example of that sort of gameplay. As far as turn-based games go, it certainly wasn't the best example I'd be able to think of, and it had some flaws. I think a common misconception when TB gets brought up in these discussions is that a turn-based Fallout game with modern technology would necessarily be at all like how things played out in the previous titles.

But, turn-based really is more applicable to games where you're controlling more than just one unit. Because otherwise you really are just watching a lot of stuff going on. If I'm being honest, I'd have to say that I agree with Bethesda's decision to make Fallout 3 real-time. I'm just glad they added the VATS functionality so that those of us with slower reflexes can still play and fully enjoy the game. I think there's a lot of room for improvement concerning their real-time system, and how it pertains to character skill vs. player skill, but I do understand the reasoning behind that shift.

I also wouldn't want a Fallout game with optional turn-based component. The fact is that just about any time I've seen that in a game, one mode or the other just ends up feeling kind of "tacked on." I think it's hard enough fully designing and balancing one gameplay style, without having to try and get two totally disparate styles up to the same level of quality.

What I would want to see, however, is a turn-based Fallout game. Call it a spin-off, or whatever. I think there's plenty of room within the IP for there to be Bethesda's new version, supported by other ancillary titles, like a fully turn-based game, etc.

I'd prefer an option (like VB), and if it was, I would probably use real time unless TB was really well-done. If Fallouts were made TB exclusively again it wouldn't affect my purchasing of the game, I'd probably buy it in a heart beat either way. I voted no because I like real time combat, but I wouldn't really care that much if it did end up switching.