So getting back to the overall theme of the thread, there's a 75%-25% split in the polls, favoring real-time gameplay.

As others have pointed out, though, this is Bethesda's official forum, and Bethesda hasn't made a turn-based game... well, ever, as far as I know. So it's safe to assume that, on other forums not so strongly biased against turn-based games, you'd see a 75%-25% split in favor of turn-based gameplay.

Therefore, about half of computer gamers would probably have preferred turn-based gameplay for Fallout 3 (and perhaps other games as well).

Problem is, the turn-based fans don't get any turn-based games these days. 95% of all new releases are real-time (including strategy games), many are first-person view centric, and if a game wasn't real-time before, the developer takes it and makes it real-time.

So perhaps you can understand why turn-based fans get a little pissy and agitated in discussions like this one.

No one is confusing anything as far as I can tell... But for some the components make the whole.
[just like your house would fall apart if all the nails suddenly vanished].
*:lol: It just hit me... Imagine if a dozen contractors tried to build a house without taking turns.

G.U.R.P.S.
http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GURPS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc6gvAzuipU&feature=channel_page

Oblivion is designed for a different audience.
*FO3 was designed for the same audience.

Sidenote...
It's really sad they don't make games like Steel Panthers anymore (at least I haven't seen any).

Anyway who sane enough would make a gurps based game now? Maybe this is one of the reasons why Interplay ultimiately failed, as the game didnt sell so good .

I recognize the fo3 game is not fallout 1/2, its a completely diferent game, no one is denying it. No one would made it again today. If you consider game mechanics as fundamental to a sequel, good, then its not fallout, so what? the name "FALLOUT 3" itself is a problem? Than make a mod to change the entrace screen "fallout 3" to something like "Sonic 7". What will not happen is another fallout the way you want.

Personally i think the older fo very boring and ugly. Fortunally for me Bethesda will make sequels of this good game called FO3.

I dont really matter for what came first really.

Sidenote: i played several pen-paper rpgs. Never gurps. I and several friends tried it, its ultimately very confusing and too much complex, too much useless things. When i used to play pen-and-paper i always favored story tellng rather then endless boring rules like "it done 30 or 31,5 damage to the 3th finger of the right foot?" "Oh i dont know, lets call dices again. ". I always prefered to conduce the playing to use the "less the best" of boring dice calls.

Cool it down pal

But its true! When i used to play on table rpg, there was rumors of people playing gurps, but no one even cared to play, people usually hated it, some that tried to understand it (on my group) usually discarded it after. On local rpg store there was the "super nerd" guys, there is always one group of those people. I usually seen they with gurps books. Well nothing against really.

To be honest, GURPS wasn't even all that great. I much preferred GDW's system. (Which was able to be implemented intact and without any changes in at least two videogames. Twilight:2000, which if you really want a good post-apocalyptic turn-based RPG really is the way to go.... And Space:1889 which was released in 1990 - 7 years before Fallout 1 - and was able to have a complete and un-altered ruleset and was completely real-time. Which I think pretty much crushes the argument that Fallout 1 was turn-based because it was too hard to do otherwise, considering other games were able to do it just fine 7 years earlier...)

EDIT - Oh, and I almost forgot, but I think there was a Traveller videogame somewhat earlier than that, which I think was also a completely faithful port of the ruleset. Can't remember the name of it, off-hand, though.

This was the same thing with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromancer, my friends actually dared me to read it.
(Heh, but unbeknownst... I had had a blast reading http://www.sacred-texts.com/ring/two/index.htm, and had fun reading Gibson's work as well.)


We always preferred http://www.palladiumbooks.com/ actually, (even over AD&D).

Ok, I must confess, I never really tried GURPS, been more busy with D&D.
I was just a bit distracted with the word nerds and the equivalents like supernerds and ultranerds, hehe (no offense taken though)

Free ruleset!
http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/lite/

:( ~Should have edited my previous post :banghead:

You do realize you pretty much insulted everyone who posted here even Gizmo who likes both styles and has been purely stating that Fallout 3 should've been TB.



Well there is the old saying "if it ain't broke don't fix it." I do agree though that Bethesda stays to much in there comfort zone but I'm not talking TB style gameplay.

I do agree that it is personal preference... but is it not preference for a series (like FO over TES ~except now FO is TES no?)
*and like Checkers over Backgammon... Othello over Go (or the other way around).

~Is it wrong to want the same system? Especially if the new system does not offer the same experience? ... that you wanted... in the sequel?

Its preference over the series too. Lets consider : the older fallout is tb; the newer fallout is rt; and they are kind of diferent gamestyles.

Closed for post limit, but I would have had to lock it anyway for a little clean-up. :shakehead:

Edit: Meh, I did a clean-up anyway. And it can stay closed. :stare: