In turn based Fallout, the player's intelligence supersedes the character's. The games appeal to more intellectual players, or those who aspire to be thought of as more intellectual.
In FPS Fallout, the player's agility supersedes the character's. The games appeal to more physical players, or those who aspire to be thought of as more physical.
I wonder how many of the pros and cons don't really stem from this? Is this entire debate just a rarefied version of Brain VS Brawn?
No-no, it's not brain versus brawn, it's just not understanding, and what the shortcomings of TB play are, TB is RT in slow motion. Real-time play is turn-base play in real time having become adept with practice. THAT is how training and becoming adept is achieved. Equal intelligence in fact switching between TB and RT in a game, RT having become adept and achieved the thought processes.
More on that and a few other points.
Fallout2.
At the time it came out it was ground-breaking game-play, it was fantastic, the best game out at that time. I wanted more. I couldn't wait for the next version to arrive. The play wasn't perfection, never mind that, it was so different in play and it was all new. I did enjoy it immensely at that time.
Fallout2 (and 1) was a taking-turns type of combat where you could sit back have a sandwich and ponder your next move. It was interesting to calculate your next move and what the possible enemy counter-movements would be to get a win. Good fun for quite some time until all the movements and counter-movements were known. Fallout2 is by it's nature a much slower game.
Fallout2, the same calculations and actions that could have been done in real-time, making a much faster flowing game that is now done in Fallout3. The same judgements of enemy strengths and movements being done in your head and with combat practice you become adept, that is after all how combat is learnt nowadays and is a much more real kind of role-play. The taking-turns kind of combat can be good fun but there were often occasions when I just wanted to get to point 'B' that had something of more interest, avoiding a repetitive bit of same slow combat that I had done many times before. Sneak was a very high priority in the game.
The good old Hunting Rifle and Sniper Rifle were in Fallout2 as was the 32 mm revolver, the Hunting Rifle I use a lot in Fallout3. The perks in Fallout2, were mostly as useless as the ones in Fallout3, but for a few.
Fallout2 was excellent at presenting a desolate wasteland that contained very little, Fallout New Vegas is a lot like that. Fallout New Vegas is made by those that were involved in the making of Fallout2 yet they didn't make New Vegas a taking-turns combat game.
If you want a taking-turns combat game it is best to ask the makers of Fallout New Vegas (wasn't Bethesda) who were also involved in the making of Fallout2.
The writing in Fallout2 was about the same as it is in Fallout3, the quests in Fallout2 were less involved than those in Fallout3 where just delivering a letter turned into a quest that was a mini game in itself with many possible outcomes that had impact elsewhere, the writing there was very good. Actions in Fallout3 had impacts elsewhere in the map as I found out by my actions in Tenpenny Tower and the minefield town, they both affected and limited my options at Paradise Falls. Choices and outcomes are many and varied in Fallout3, the game is deeper the more you get into it.
For those that have not played Fallout2 or 1, the above gives a fair outline of what they were like.
Fallout 1, 2, and 3 had closely similar wasteland scenarios, theme and content play. The Fallout 1,2,3 sequels spin-off Fallout New Vegas is different in that there is quite some civilised development there comparatively to the Fallouts 1 2 and 3 sequels, the wasteland is more barren of very varied type of content that Fallout3 has. Fallout3, there was usually some that could be dug out of the rubble of a destroyed building. The random encounters and even random different play on a reload, made combat and exploration always interesting and varied.
Fallout Tactics, another spin-off of the sequels, is as the name implies a game focussing on tactical play, not made by Bethesda though Bethesda's combat tactical play in Fallout3 is pretty good, combat overall is excellent, especially in the beginning, expect to die often. Fallout Tactics, less on wasteland exploration, a great game, you can crawl on your stomach to lob a grenade over an obstruction, sneak up very close, or defuse mines without being seen. That was a game where the manual was stuffed full of stats, strengths and weaknesses details. Now that was really hard-core game-play, playing on normal setting was very hard, the placement and strengths of the enemies was superb, as was the artificial intelligence.
Fallout Tactics was a game where you could, at any time, switch between taking-turns play and real-time play. It was great and very exciting playing in real-time. On one occasion I did switch to taking-turns play just to see the comparison in play, and I soon switched back to real time. Taking-turns play was exactly the same moves that I would have made in real-time play but the time was just dragged out, and the excitement of immediacy was gone along with the more realistic role-play. The speed of the mind coupled with being adept at the play through practice, the game is more realistic and exciting .. more similar to a military learning curve in real life .. and didn't need a rapid trigger finger.
I you want to compare the plays of taking-turns with that of real-time, I say go and compare them in Fallout Tactics ... it's a fantastic game anyway.
I'm not against board games though, they can be great fun moving military hardware around the board, and in a sense they too are a kind of role-play.
Role-play is playing a role to the extent of a medium's capablilities of allowing you to play. For instance, playing a role on a theatre stage, it will be all talk.
Playing a role of pilot in an aircraft simulator, that's about the limit of role-play there.
Two groups stalking each other in woodland with paint-ball guns, pretty real role-play there. The same with a military exercise is even more real. The military do use computers as well for training purposes ... but you will not find them taking-turns moving ten paces, they need realistic role-play.
…… …… that’s my general thoughts on some of the pros and cons of the Fallouts.
» Tue May 17, 2011 8:14 am 
