No worry it already demands a lot of "mental simulation" (aka imagination) to be imersive. Maybe they will return to real pen an paper at 2077.

And that is what FO3 is. An immense success. A huge success, on a few months, more than FO2 in 10 years. I recognize the 2 first games to be good. What is impossible is for people to accept new. Ok, all the hate and jealosy is their way to say "its good too". If it was so bad why people need to constantly point things? An bad product would "reveals itself" without the need to for constantly pointing "hey remember its bad! No No its not good the way it should as i imaginated"

As to gameplay... What happens in Fallout if you break the law (in Junktown say...); What happens in Megaton? What happens if you murder some miners in Redding, or kill some Casino guards in Reno? In Fallout 3 I can point a rifle at Paladin Bale's head in front of the other Brotherhood guards; I can shoot to miss, and be told, "not so close" or "watch it" ~ I can shoot him outright in the face and talk to him later. Fallout 1 simply accounted for or omitted certain options should an NPC die (or stop liking you). Fallout 3 is so plot dependent on specific NPC's that its breakable if they die ~so they can't.

I'd call that a drastic change.

This tired old argument again, huh? You may want to recheck your facts or cite some sources, because I think you're quite mistaken on a woefully common misconception that turn-based games were born out of some mythical technical limitation.

The first videogames were realtime. There's never been any technical limitation - you've always been able to do real-time games just as easily as a turn-based one. Originally, it was actually easier to code a real-time game (still is, and always has been, actually) - there's a reason that Space Invaders, Pong, and Pac-Men were real-time. This follows all through the entire history of videogame design. You first started seeing turn-based games when the computing power was enough to catch up with the tabletop games that people were playing. A lot of fans of wargames very much liked the concept of a computer to handle all of the complicated math that was involved in resolving a round on a tabletop. That's where turn-based gaming comes from. History supports this.

Fallout 1 could very well have been real-time, had they so wished. The first Diablo came out (I think it was that year, but at the very least within a year of Fallout's release.) There was no technical limitation that "forced" the first game to be turn-based. That was the game they wanted to make.

There's also no inherent reason why turn-based is over-simplified. I cite Civilization, X-Com, Jagged Alliance, and any number of Napoleonic simulations. They've also very recently released Blood Bowl, which is a faithful recreation of the classic Game Workshop miniatures game. There's nothing "simple" about any of these games - their entire purpose is to be played turn-based; and I find it laughable to think that Civilization remains turn-based after all these years because of some hypothetical technical limitation (which is patently false to begin with.)

You might not like it - it's not for everyone. Not everyone likes Chess, Go, or Succession Wars, either. These days (and throughout the entire course of videogame history) a game is turn-based because that's the way it's intended to play. It's an ends to a means, and for those who are fans of it a major part of the fun to be had is in the system by which it is played. I could more easily argue that real-time is the old and outdated way to play - because that was the default and only way to play a game until computers were able to catch up with the complex calculations required for a good turn-based game.

In short - you've got it backwards. Real-time was a result of technological limitations. And it was only with increased computing power that game designers were able to overcome the technical limitations that had previously prevented them from making turn-based games.

So the FO3 haters/deslikers/enemies are great men because they have such successful an enemy as FO3?

No, what i mean is that FO3 is so great because it have a lot of haters/deslikers/enemies. Anything mediocre wouldnt.

yeah football. (chess is board game, thous both comparison are :facepalm: )

what does it matter who came the first ?

it was the time of experimentation and i said it was Hardware and Software limitation, their attempts at AI is total joke and even today game AI design takes in account the latest HW specs.

who is not fond of his child hood games TB games and still those TB games that was designed to simulate their non computer counterparts and to make the transition to computer gaming easier for the masses back then, now war games are simluating wars not board games and wars are not TB.

I really don't understand that whole turn based vs. real time argument.
It's obvious that each approach allows the player to do very different things.
Turn based doesn't have the potentials of real time and vice versa - which means one can not adequately replace the other.

FO1 and 2 do not require DOSBox. They run fine on any version of Windows from 95 to Windows 7.

Nothing. Just to point how illogical and fanatical are old veteran fans.

Most of "US" accept both styles as valid, while you clearly do not... (who is fanatical?)

No, that's just bad gameplay design, a sequel is allowed to be worse than it's predecessors, Fallout had an unkillable NPC, Fallout 3 has some more, not a design change, just bad programming.

Which one?

(Cuz I know that the Overseer's death is the most gruesome death in the game.)

Well, he's not killable during normal gameplay.

Well, he's not killable during normal gameplay.

Also, the rights for FO1/2 are held by Interplay, so if (and they won't) they do remake the games, they'll be isometric and turn based, pleasing the former fanbase

The series was "anti-sandbox", in that unlike Kvatch, the Necropolis would be destroyed; and the Vault Dweller could run out of time. (and NPC's kept their grudges)

It meant that you cannot play with such a cavalier attitude as you would in OB or FO3.

Well, Kvatch was already destroyed when you visited it. Only silly thing is that it keeps burning forever even after the main quest - but this was fixed by mod.

Then again, if one wasted too much time to pick up the great sigil stone outside Bruma, it was game over.

If Black Isle's Fallout 3 was a success then their Fallout 4 could have possibly introduced a camera system like Neverwinter Nights that allowed you to switch between isometric and third person making people who disliked isometric cameras happy.

Chess is a complex turn based game.

That's backing out rather quick... You make a simple mistake, but then flip-flop and say, "what does it matter?" ~It mattered to you, when you mentioned it first in support of your own position.

Look TB is not what you seem to believe.

TB is only good for board games and rare strategy games or for slow ppl who dont like the pause option in RT games,

Games with iso perspective as main will have poor graphics to be played as first person. All i seen to do this mixed view will surely favor one view over other. In the case, iso.

No developer will make enough detailed textures for a game that run isometric, top down, or whatever you call it.

TB is quite a simple AI. It basically just dices.

TB is quite a simple AI.

No developer will make enough detailed textures for a game that run isometric, top down, or whatever you call it.

TB is quite a simple AI. It basically just dices. People usually bash FO3 combat AI, however what is more advanced? An AI that considers several pathways, surroundings, and other variables, or a mere Stack with dices being rolled? What is more interesting, play combat in real time or play or play fallout 2 chess?

Real time will favor fast thinking. As you say, people who play TB will usually take eons to make decision. A mere battle can take forever.

I wouldn't be surprised if that has both iso and third person cameras

It does.