There are two voice actors in that clip, Craig Sechler and Wes Johnson. Which are you referring to? I personally like Sheogorath , and I believe the Adoring Fan is MEANT to be annoying.

As a fan whose favorite game is Fallout 3, I say no.

Fallout 1&2 are great looking classics that are just as enjoyable now as when they were released. You don't remake something that doesn't need to be remade.

Far better to simply continue to produce new games.

I can imagine this type of thing could anger some of the original fans but (I've only played 3 and NV) I would welcome remakes. I think of it like this, I've been a Final Fantasy 7 and 8 fan since they came out but I would love a remake. The funny thing is Square said it would take too much to make a remake. And to that I say one thing, Fallout.

I think itd be cool if they released it on like PSP DS/3DS or iPad

Somebody just used http://nooooooooooooooo.com/ in another thread and now I get to use it

Try pressing it three or four times in a row really fast.

At this point Im so sick of that overused button these days.

I'm not trying to pick nits, here, or anything, but what tangible evidence do you have that there doesn't conclusively exist a turn-based combat system in Bethesda's games, short of supposition? After all, few of us (if any) in this forum are major software-coders working for the big companies, so how can you be so certain about this, and instantly brand Howard's comments as "false," barring any other hard facts onhand?

You'd basically have to gain access to a Gamebryo dev-kit, the original Oblivion code, and other such assets, and dissect it all on a micro-level before claiming "proof" in this instance. Right now, again, it's essentially the developer's own word versus "on-the-outside-looking-in" gamer conjecture and opinion.

And finally, the mere fact that some system -- whether it's Gamebryo, or something else altogether -- is keeping track of the moment-by-moment action onscreen is a turn-based system, by definition. Whether it was programmed into the game by Todd's own team, or was always an internalized function of Gamebryo, doesn't change the fact that it exists, and governs what occurs onscreen.

A system is a system is a system, and doesn't lose nerd-legitimacy just because it isn't D20, or whatever.

A turn based system is one where each participant has a sequential opportunity to choose one or more actions from all of their available choice of actions, and the following [next] participant gets their own opportunity with the the benefit of knowing all of the actions (and their associated costs and effects) that preceded their own choices in the round; and they may all influence that player's choice of action ~even allow them sometimes to predict what may come after their actions (this too can affect what actions they pick). Do you believe that TES does this?

*Does anyone here believe that Turn based is merely a delay?

You've just described pretty much every single electronic RPG ever made, going all the way back to Wizardry and Ultima. Decision-making, in predetermined spans of time; every factor accounted for, whether onscreen or off-, and whether controlled directly by the player or the computer.

Does it count if its not made perceptible to human players; I'm sure there are many NWN players that would balk at being told it was turn based.

*There are differences, and less structured forms of pseudo turn, and continuous turn... "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94_wDuFdBtI" allows PCs to attack whenever the player clicks the button (after a brief cool-down), and does not maintain a predictable sequence of actions.

Because I can and have played them. Their combat is not turn-based. There are no turns. Since we started this conversation I have browsed the Internet both for the original claim made by Todd Howard and for any source that describes combat in Bethesda's games as turn-based or close to turn-based and have not surprisingly come up completely blank. If Todd Howard or you want to claim that combat that is prima facie not turn-based is in fact turn-based due to some mystical voodoo built deep into the Gamebryo code for reasons that remain unclear it is up to you to provide the evidence. So far you haven't even given me a source for Todd Howard's plainly inaccurate claim.

Just for the hell of it here are http://www.ataniel.org/oblivionreview.htm http://www.gamingexcellence.com/xbox360/games/427/review.shtml for Oblivion in which combat is clearly described as real-time. There are many more. If you can find me a single review, or even a statement beyond Todd's still unsourced claim that combat in Oblivion is turn-based or practically turn-based I will be amazed.


It would be except I have access to the very game he was describing and it is most certainly not turn-based.


Uh no. By definition a turn-based system includes, wait for it, turns. Timekeeping in real-time isn't a turn. Imagine if you and an opponent were playing chess by moving every piece around just as fast as you can grab it and move it to a legal position. The fact that someone is keeping track of how long it takes you to move each piece and the results of all these moves isn't equivalent to a turn.


And a real-time system is a real-time system is a turn-based system because Todd Howard said so once apparently. Wait that doesn't sound right.

The combat system keeping track of what is happening on a moment-by-moment basis does not make the game turn-based, since the actors involved may well be doing so simultaneously. In turn-based battles, only one side at a time may act and the results of any offensive actions are resolved upon the other side before it gets the chance to respond. As a result, it becomes vital to maximize the number of actions one is eligible to perform, how many of same one can perform within a turn's 'time frame', and the chance of getting to act first. This is vastly different from how a RT game works, since combat performance optimization in such games follows a completely different set of parameters.

Morrowind, Oblivion, FO3, and F:NV are most definitely not turn-based in any way, since all action (even VATS, although the opposition is slowed) is real-time and resolved simultaneously.

Before this conversation goes any further, you really http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-keeping_systems_in_games

(The "Ticks and Rounds" section is particularly relevant to this discussion.)

Turn-based gaming goes far, far beyond your definition, especially in the electronic gaming realm. I've been playing tabletop RPGs for almost 30 years now (and PC ones for almost as long), and I can reasonably testify as to what constitutes a "round" or a "turn" in gaming -- and you bring up "mystical voodoo" within the Gamebryo code, but neither can you conclusively use it as proof in this instance.

As for past developer comments, there was a particular issue of either Game Informer or OXM dating back to around 2006-07, as well as in at least two separate video interviews I've seen with Todd and other members of the Bethesda dev-team where "turn-based [play]" was explicitly mentioned in context with Oblivion...and no, before you ask, I don't have exact links, issue-numbers, etc., because it's incredibly late, I'm tired, I have to be back at my firm early in the morning, and because this is a subject that should've shrivelled up and died three pages ago.



Hold up, though...you're not actually going by magazine reviews for your argumentative-support on this one, are you? Third-party, outside reviews aren't sufficient proof to substantiate your claim. I have "access" to that same game, too, and I'm pretty sure it got reviewed by that one frat-broseph at that one school for his campus newspaper, where he also referred to it as "real-time combat."

It doesn't mean he had formal experience in C++11 coding or RPG design.


Again, take a look at the breakdown-link I posted above -- there are many different types of "turn-based gameplay," some of them not directly adhering to that specific definition (which is one of the more commonplace versions out there, to be sure).

Ask these kinds of questions at NMA and see what kind of response you'll get.

I'm well aware of what you're talking about. You should note the last sentence under the heading real-time games: "While game time in video games is in fact subdivided into discrete units due to the sequential nature of computing, these intervals or units are typically so small as to be imperceptible to the player."

Also the definition of turn-based: "In turn-based games, game flow is partitioned into well-defined and visible parts, called turns." Now tell me, granting that this is a Wikipedia article, does that seem to describe the combat in Oblivion to you? In Morrowind? In Fallout 3 and New Vegas? Because it sure doesn't to me.


Turn-based gaming cannot exist in the absence of turns. I don't care how many years you've been playing tabletop RPGs that's just a fact. If the combat doesn't have distinct and visible turns combat is not turn-based. When the player is performing actions simultaneously with his opponents in real-time the combat is real-time. You still haven't provided any example of the turn-based combat Morrowind, Oblivion or Fallout 3 or New Vegas are supposedly using underneath it all which you'd think would be fairly evident in the games themselves if it actually is there.


I don't doubt your word that this was claimed. I'm simply saying the claim was wrong and I, and apparently you have no evidence beyond the words of Todd Howard that the claim isn't wrong. On the one hand we have clear and extensive proof both of how combat works in these games (there are no turns; actions occur simultaneously and continuously) and how it is perceived by almost everyone (as real-time combat). On the other hand we have something Todd Howard said in a game preview. I think I know which is likely to be closer to reality.


You're missing the point. You're the one who needs to substantiate your incredible claim (which you have still failed completely to do) that the combat in Oblivion is actually turn-based even though it is plainly obvious to anyone who has played the game as these sorts of review demonstrate, that the combat is real-time. Not turn-based. This is the equivalent of you claiming the sky is brown when it is in fact plainly obvious to everyone else that it is blue and then insisting that I disprove your argument beyond pointing out the obvious while refusing to support your own assertions.

I didn't really expect to ever see anyone not knowing or being confused of the difference between realtime gameplay and turnbased gameplay. Guess one learns something every day.

It's you who needs to look at that link, since the definition of 'turn-based' it gives is directly contradictory to your claim that the games mentioned in my previous post are turn-based in nature. Those game are not, and have never been, turn-based, as they don't even have turns since their combat occurs in real time. How the combat engine is tracking the results is utterly irrelevant, as that has nothing to do with whether or not a game is or is not turn-based.

Nor did I, and explaining it in detail doesn't seem to be helping.