Sure they're a one-trick pony, but look at BioWare or Obsidian. One doesn't need to change to be succesfull - besides, the risk of losing one's core fanbase to a unknown (& fickle) amount of 'mainstreamers' is simply too great today where game development costs are astronomical. Profit must come cheap & easy nowadays to stay in business.

While BioWare does have a habit of recycling the same storyline over and over again, Mass Effect is nothing like Baldur's Gate. Nor is Alpha Protocol going to be anything like Neverwinter Nights 2. BioWare and Obsidian do develop different styles of RPGs, Bethesda does not.

Well, Bethesda did have a very short "action RPG" phase of sorts when they made Elder Scrolls: Redguard.

I've started playing Fallout 2

It's pretty difficult but I'm managing somehow

It's hard to get used to the game mechanics as everything you do is pretty much determined by your skills

I'm playing it too. I forgot to save though, so I'm back to just before leaving the Temple. Fallout 3 made me think Fallout 2 might have an autosave feature :facepalm:. Also, I threw away my spear that you start out with. Where would I get another one? I like spears.

As you're leaving the village you'll see a guy by the bridge leading out of town

He'll say he'll strengthen your spear if you can get some flint from your aunt

Get the flint and take it back to the guy on the bridge and he'll give you a free spear and strengthen it

Never played either of TES spinoffs to be honest, so I'll give you that.

In any game I play, or in real life, I contemplate the cause and effect of my actions, strategy is not restricted to turn based gameplay, in fact, the linear choices that you criticize RT/wP for are strictly characteristics of pause and turn based gameplay, you are locked to a grid and forced to make choices based on the linear mechanics of the gameplay, the idea that turn based gameplay is more tactical is an illusion, real time requires MUCH more careful planning and more variables to take into consideration when deciding the best course of action, for a video game, developers can take advantage of this freedom and have much more to work with when creating the intricacies of the gameplay, this is not the case on a chess board or grid where the details of the mechanics are obvious and require less work from the developer

GURPS continues to be modified so that most RPGs completely abandon what they know is not ideal for a video game, what's good for GURPS is not always good for video games, RT/wP instead of TB is a good example.

Ha! I see it's true you can't possibly beat a dead horse enough, and these TB vs RT debates still wage...

Really, Fallout probably isn't the best example to put forward for comparison of Turn-based games. I'll preface this by saying obviously it's all a matter of preference.

The difference in tactical planning between the two types of gameplay is simply about pacing. In a good TB game, you are no more limited in your options and considerations than you are in a real-time game. It's also worth mentioning that grids are by no means intrinsic to turn-based gameplay; you really can't validly use that in an argument. Most of the tabletop games I play don't use a grid, but instead provide a full 360 degrees of movement and are not tied to grid-based increments.

I find this pacing consideration particularly noticeable when I'm trying to play an RTS game. The pace is simply so fast that I don't have time for the same sort of strategies that I would put into play in a turn-based strategy game. The same is true for an RPG-type game. I find the RT pacing far too hectic, and for me it basically boils down to running around and shooting at stuff frantically. Beyond the obvious arguments that the very way in which you play a game can be a major source of where the fun is found; the time available for you to make those considerations is what I personally the most important. I simply dislike that frenetic pace; and much prefer being able to think about what I'm doing before I do it.

There's people who like Chess, and people who prefer Football - both have their own tactical considerations. The trouble with videogames is that it gathers both types of people together and tries to get them to all play the same game.

Except that your opponents are equally (and predictably) restricted, its not illusory, its a different style of gameplay (sought for the gamplay ~not out of limitation ) ~heck... Disciples 2 (mentioned in my previous post cannot work in realtime). TB games afford the player to control something they could never do in real time (or often in real life due to Human limitation). How would you play The Flash, who uses sonic speed punches and kicks effectively in a realtime game (when its assumed that he could attack all combatants in the area near simultaneously)? How would you avoid objects in real time (unless the game ran in slo-mo like Steve Austin?). If you played a Kung-fu master that had more than a dozen moves [say.... 88 unique attacks with variations that all make a difference depending on use]; How would you intelligently pick between them for a given situation (most would resort to button mashing or the crude linear combo attacks that are common)... The Kung-Fu master would instinctively know the best move for all moments of the fight... the player would not (unless they were themselves a kung-fu master ~and even then do they know how to cue the moves in the game?).

let me show you a Turn Based Fighter game to aid you in perceiving the true differences.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzjl0Cu9HgM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toribash
http://www.toribash.com/

This game features unlimited moves ~unlimited moves (and full dismemberment and groin shots too).

If you won't appreciate Toribash...
Appreciate that Disciples 2 has a sequel due out this year [Disciples 3], and its a full DX9 TBS (as opposed to RTS).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLye2jLIOOQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6iHQQqGAzw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWLadljR1_4&NR=1
http://www.disciples3.ru/
*An aside:Do you know how many permutations there are in 8 moves on a Chess Board? 4 moves? 3?

Good TB games are not so easy... and its a fact that for two years we've been reading member posts that say, "Bethesda does what they know ~TB games are not their expertise"

As stated above, Realtime suffers from Human limitation itself... There is a ceiling above which a given player can no longer effectively control the game in real time.
(nearly all RT games stay within the bounds ~with notable exceptions like tetris, Zuma, and Breakout :Arcade Games).

Some people [Devs are people] just like a game that allows them to ponder, "what if I did it this way...", or "what are his options if I commit to this?". The understanding that the PC might fail at any given task [including critical moments in combat] is simply accepting life as it is, and its part of the game; part of the risk... Part of the fun.

@rebet: By obscure/cult I referred to lower budget independent movies which are generally not considered mainstream; quite in fact many if not most movies celebrated by awards are not mainstream crowpleasers, they are smaller films recognized by the excellent production values, story and acting.

Mainstream as I would define it, and thought you were as well from your descriptions, is anything which appeals to the masses and has a high rate of commercial success, independent of quality. I certainly view the films I mentioned within the categories I placed them in, independent or mainstream respectively. But I was simply trying to use a synonym to support my viewpoint. Regardless it is moot point to elaborate on this further.

I will respectfully disagree with you on your statement about quality because quality is not a universally quantifiable measure, there is no absolute to define it as such or not like science or arithmetic. Quality is defined by the beholder or to a more generalized extent the masses; this being the case Fallout 3 is of poor quality as per your definition or standards but is of high quality to many other people. If you were to defin quality by what the majority names it as such then Fallout 3 is off spectacular quality given its popularity amongst a majority of players.

Regardless it is my opinion that there is no such thing as a universal quality, whether it be judged by the individual or the masses. You can only define something as good or bad as it relates to your own standards. So you can say Fallout 3 is a bad game while I can say it is a good game and neither of us is really right or wrong. And this was my point to begin with.



Believe me that I understand what you are trying to tell me, I just don't agree with it. I've seen plenty of games which have abandoned old gameplay mechanics in favor of completely new ones and still be both commercial successes, critically acclaimed and generally hailed as "good or great" games.

Oh I agree with you that Beth stuck with what it has been proven to be good at. My point is that just because they changed the mechanics in and of itself it does by no means signify that the product is inherently of lower quality or disrespectful to the previous material. While Fallout 3 follows the same gameplay mechanic Beth used in their previous games, which is repetitive in terms of the company's lineup, it was never done in the Fallout series before thus was something new for this series. Had Beth made the game isometric and turn based it would have been repetitive in another matter altogether, it would have been a rehash of the same system used before by Fallout 1 and 2. While I generally disagree with the assesment Fallout 3 is "Oblivion with guns" lets say that it is for a minute, fine, then Fallout 2 is just Fallout 1 with a new PC and a new story and some changes to the dynamic like running and having a car. What makes one thing any better than the other?

I think Fallout 3 is a faithful follow up to the world created by Interplay, the need for more story/character development ingame aside, and as such I judge it compared to the originals. The same manner I judge Resident Evil 4 which was the first of the latest 2 games of the frnachise to introduce a drastically different gameplay mechanic than RE 1-3 a worthy if not superior entry in the series.

I wouldn't have complained at all had Fallout 3 been Van Buren, I simply don't devalue Fallout 3 because it isn't. My gripes with Fallout 3 have nothing to do with its perspective or combat style. I honestly feel that Fallout 3, while different in gaming experience, compliments the previous 2 entries and is just as good as they were.



LOL :rofl:

That's cool Talonfire, I'm not trying to change your mind, only expose my own opinion and reasoning why I do think Fallout 3 is a terrific sequel...or pseudo sequel really as there isn't a direct connection to the previous 2 titles, the LW after all isn't related to the VD or CO and is not directly continuing the story set forth by them.

Personally though I'm glad Fallout 3 is the way it is, if it wasn't I wouldn't have ever played it nor Fallout 1 or 2 as I generally dislike these types of RPGs because of the gameplay and I would have missed some great experience with all 3 games. Like the title of this thread says, I would have never even played 1 and 2 if I hadn't gotten 3 and liked it so much I wanted to experience more of this gaming world.

I loved all 3 Fallouts for very different reasons and found enough symmetry between them to deliver a great gaming experience within the same world, loosely connected by consecutive events made by the PC from the game before; I could ask for no better experience when judging a sequel. :tops:

This is essentially my take on the games (TES too) as well. (except I think its closer than you seem to. :foodndrink: )

Heh... minor quick note: I do like FPP, but its often "game specific", I do seem to lean towards over-shoulder and Iso-style if I have the choice... I played Oblivion Over-shoulder and ISO, unless in cramped spaces (same thing with FO3).

Sure, but it would have had the same effect if it were a spinoff.



Isn't that usually what video game sequels are though?



Fallout 2 is Fallout 1 with a new story. I've never contested that. I also have no problem with that, as Fallout 2 felt like a proper sequel (despite all of my gripes with it) as a result.




I'm not so sure, I didn't get the same hopeless, depressing vibe from Fallout 3 that I got from 1/2. Everything felt watered down to me, but I've seen worse (Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel).

Regardless, there's nothing wrong with "repetitive" if it's good, many of the most influential developers in the industry realize this. Sometimes people want more of the same, especially in sequels. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here.




Fair enough.

Swat 4 is slow paced and requires you to carefully plan every move so you are never in a situation where you are in even the slightest amount of danger, so what you are saying you don't like about real time is not inherent to real time, just whatever games you have been playing

Just like how turn based combat has never been done well in any RPG, no developer has really used a tactical real time system either, so when talking about RPGs you can't really come up with a good example for either side, but it seems to me like if the Chess crowd wants a slow paced system then they will enjoy something like what Swat 4 has done or RT/wP in their RPGs, then everyone is happy and nobody has to spend a half hour killing rats that do no damage.



Everything you mentioned has been done successfully many times in real time, you do know there are superhero games featuring the Flash already right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDdRYJNGFy4

Just like that, the Flash character is fast, the player does not have to be due to the handicap provided, as for the Kung Fu master, also done recently very successfully in the UFC 2009 game and Fight Night Round 4, a Kung Fu master will have stats according to his skill level, the beauty of these two games is the freedom of creativity that the developers could never plan for you in a strict turn based system, there is nothing limiting what kind of strategy you want to employ, only your imagination, the pace in these two games is slow too, you attack when you want, this is the future of fighting games, not sandboxy rock 'em sock 'em battle bots

Also, I played Disciples II the day I bought it, haven't touched it since, although, Disciples III looks to be much improved



I know that they have computers that can calculate every possibility in one chess game, impossible in a real time game, that's a big difference

If someone wants to ponder they can use the pause button, a perfect solution, that way you can ponder and still have the strategic freedom of a real time game and aren't forced to wait and think when fighting rats that do no damage and don't give any XP, thus, turn based combat would not be needed at all.

Point to it even once...



And its just as I stated... Simplified and slowed (and fun looking too ~but the scope of that game looks like it would make for a boring TB game; So they made the right choice IMO) :shrug:


I'd seen it, and you miss my point. Fight Night R4 is a different style game than say... Toribash.
I didn't see any strategy to it (but I only saw a few Youtube vids of the gameplay ~Its certainly not suited for TB play)
Do you have to target your opponent or just swing and try to connect?

Visually sure, but Its yet to be seen whether their accommodations to the switch to 3D are detrimental. I would assume not, but many others seem unconvinced as yet.

Not so.. Even the vaunted Fallout 3 uses a grid, and is subject to the same brute force dissection as the chess game.

As many did playing Baldur's Gate but that hardly qualifies as a TB game.

Two things I've noticed here: First, you have used "Pace" twice... Pace is irrelevant :shrug:

In Fallout combat you spend your AP's as slow or as quick as you please. (In fact APs = Time; and represent what your PC can do in a given unit of time). Not all PC's are equal, and some can accomplish more or far less, in the same amount of time as another. TB combat is a deliberate Abstraction and technically the fights [in Fallout] are assumed to be real time and simultaneous ~but they are carved up into discreet "rounds" during which the player chooses his actions until he "runs out of time".

Second you keep saying "freedom"... Freedom is not actually desirable in this instance. The whole point of a TB game is to operate within the restrictions of the mechanics. This may be awkward to "catch" at first.

Consider model ships for a moment... The kind you build in a bottle. Building the ship is trivial, building it in the bottle is the challenge, and the cause for the feeling of accomplishment when you manage to do it.

Part of TB combat in many games is the mental application of the rules to your opponent's future moves and planning accordingly (and its fun when you are right, and your plan works ~Its equally fun if your plan hits a snag, and you manage to recover be it by wits or dumb luck). Your mention of RT tactics is valid but its not the same... These two are like DC & AC current and each have their pros & cons. Its also fun when the same thing happens in a RT game ~but its different fun. Accept it. RT does not supersede TB nor the reverse, (and as most know... TB generally came along after the first RT games).

Am I confused or is this a thread that asked for opinions from those who played FO3 first and then FO and FO2?

It seems to have gotten way off the beaten path here with all this TB/RT debate going on.

Let's just try and appear to stay on topic. It could be enlightening for those who played it the other way around and in order like myself.

I played FO3 before the first two. Let me tell you, your opinion matters that much more because you wouldn't be called a diehard fan. Since, you actually went backwards instead of forwards lol. If a sh!tty graphic game like FO1 and FO2 are better than FO3, Bethesda really messed up... FO3's writing his crap just to say. I mean seriously, there was no dialogue that stood out, and if there was it was a very rare instance. Also, FO3's story is very short, and I don't know why Beth always does that with their videogames. Makes me feel like they are rushed...

or just aware that their average player skips most of the dialogue choose the option that sounds the most appealing and rush to the next gun fight

You can watch the Mad Max trilogy out of order and it still makes sense. The first film is rougher around the edges, but it shows you the origins, and events click as you watch.

Fallout 3 is a modern engine, (so it kinda fits that the older games seem quaint :rolleyes:).

You can play the Fallout trilogy in reverse and understand it... After all, The Chosen one knows little about the minor events in the first game; However, FO2 tosses out a few gags that it assumes you'll "get", and you likely won't unless you've played FO1.

FO1 is the origin of everything in the followup games, and the two that come after really only make sense if you've experienced the events of the first.

If you've played FO3... Play a little FO2, but Finish FO1 first. (reason being: FO2 has several improvements that were absent in FO1, and learning to play on FO2 seems to make playing FO a bit less daunting). ~That's just my thoughts on it.

FYI there is a limit on followers, it's Charisma divided by 2

FO2