Although it's not a huge budget, it's not small, either. When I hear of an indie title, I think of a small company nobody's heard of with a bubblegum and shoelace budget. Amnesia is the first one that comes to mind. Pillars of Eternity was made by Obsidian and managed to raise, as you said, $4 mill. So I guess it's fairly indie, but it's not some unity game a Russian guy cobbled together, either.

Turn-based is fine, but they couldn't (and wouldn't) go from the action RPGs they've always made.

I really like the way VATS looks here. I hope the perks aren't just VATS-specific, like they used to be; I think I'd like it better if they had an effect in and out of VATS, so that they would still be useful without it. I don't see VATS as an alternate character type like diplomat or thief.

XCOM: Enemy Unknown. Averaged ~90/100 ratings, won GameTrailers, Gamespy, Giant Bomb, Kotaku, etc. GOTY, and sold over 650,000 units.

It sold less than 200k units during the first month of release on 2/3rds of the market (consoles).

It is only interesting to 1/3rd of the market at best. The second one isn't even coming to consoles because releasing it there would lose money.

It was a very good game, but it also isn't a triple A release being marketed to the entire industry like fallout.

If you are going to strain yourself reaching, at least do it for something that makes sense. Like Hearthstone.

this, the issue isnt whether beth would make a more "old school" fallout or not depending upon if its popular or not, asking beth to make such a Fallout game is like asking the guys at Ferrari to make a affordable, practical off road jeep.

umm, bad news nether DA: 0 nor baldurs gate are turn based at alll. their arpg trying really hard to be turn based but their not. and I hate games trying to mix the two it always just turns out clusmy and dumbed down. better to pick one or the other and do it right. I personally don't care which a game is but if you gonna worry about it get right please.

and better choice would be the megaten games, still turn based no b.s. pause and play wannabe here... not an rpg, or at least the definition many western rpg fans like to use, but pokemon is stronger then ever and still turn based.

sorry about the tone I've said this alot and it bugs me. you think I'd learn not to post it.

Comparing a card game to isometric turn-based tactics & RPG games is a bigger stretch, honestly.

.....

As much as I dislike the "real time with pause" thing, Baldur' Gate & DA:O are not remotely ARPGs. You're still issuing general orders to your units, and then they perform them - you are not directly driving the character across the landscape button-mashing to launch every sword swing.

(For the ARPG version, see Baldur's Gate:Dark Alliance.....)

Not when you are trying to portray them as popular and not incredibly niche.

V.A.T.S
I assume VATS were original designed to create an accurate system, to deliver a combat simulation that delivered results based on players SPECIAL's, not reflexes or a players own skill, Which is very RPG. This can make the game very accurate to a characters SPECIALS but removes some player skill from combat.
The way around this was to not use VATS which is always an option.
A fully RPG game would only use VATS for combat or any interaction a players has that involves there current SPECIALS. This would be very disruptive and destroy game play flow, For me.
As previouse games have, they have let combat continue without VATS they were no where near pure RPG's
Now this new game may allow for more FPS combat.
An option which will upset some, and please others but I see it like this if VATS remain in the game its comes down to players choice if they want a purer RPG experience they us VATS for combat.
But if players want a FPS experience they avoid VATS. ( as long as the game allows for a full FPS experience).

This seems to be a running theme adding things that are actualy optional, like the new settlement areas which it seems like we can have as much or as little to do with as we want. Build a town or just raid it....

As long as combat offers VATS as an option, as far as I am concerned the game will be true to its roots.

If you want a FPS version you may well get one but your weapon damage, critical hit chance, will still be based on your SPECIAL's which is as it should be....
Role on November .....

I love VATS - I think it's a brilliant concept (and throwback to FO 1 & 2) that makes the modern Fallout games truly unique in their combat.

People shouldn't be worried. The real-time combat is vastly improved, and VATS itself has been moved from pausing the game to a slow-mo effect, which will make for some really interesting combat situations and decisions to make.

I'm sure I'm just reiterating what other people have already said though. I relied on VATS in FO3 because the combat was so poor, but in NV the addition of iron sights excited me enough to encourage me to use it far less. Although I love it, I do wonder how often I'll use it in Fallout 4.

If you're gonna do a turn based combat AAA title in 2015 it needs to feel like Kotor or DA:O.

Anything deeper than that is pushing it.

if no one is taking turns it can not be turn based, and real time means no politely waiting your turn. you are, or at let way older rpg gamers tend to mean, the button mashing is just really slow, and you can pause to give you time to press a button or two on the rest of the party. and not pausing alot doesn't mean people are taking turns. your just pausing alot

and bad news 99% of western rpgs are arpgs the good news though arpg actually doesn't mean action game with rpg elements like at lot of older gamers think., it actually comes from action adventure game which pretty means a little bit of everything except rpg elements. add those in and you get me a whole lot of headaches trying to explain that genres have real definitions, not at all about anyones subjective opinions, mine included.

and I don't know what mods you had in DA: O but my orders sure as hell were not general. it was do this move on this person here, very specific.

You know, ARPG? Diablo, hack-n-slash, stuff like that? Push a control forward, your guy runs forward, press the attack button, he attacks?

As opposed to the "real time with pause" isometric games, where you tell a party member "attack that guy" at which point it pathfinds to the target and then starts attacking (or doing another action you've ordered) generally on a regular turn sequence basis? (like in the D&D games, where a low level fighter has "1 attack per round", so he'll stand there next to the guy he's attacking until a new "round" comes up, then swing his sword....)

Just because an RPG is "live" instead of turn-based, doesn't necessarily make it an ARPG.