I can enjoy either so long as the real-time has some form of pause built in.

I wonder who of those here preferring real-time play, would feel a loss if VATS were no longer to be in Fallout. Personally the only loss I would feel would be of liking it to be present for-old-times-sake, but would opt out of using it.

I was using VATS for some time into the game, until I questioned why, and stopped using it as I considered that it put me at an unfair advantage over the enemy, making the game too easy.

I now prefer the real-time play, without VATS, that requires immediacy of action and thought, that gives a more realistic and exciting play. Strategies and actions still being considered as would have been with turn-based play. The thought is there as much as it was in early Fallout leisurely paced games.

FO2 had the number crunching mental stimulation, at leisure, but FO3 without VATS and in real-time has the greater mental stimulation and play in my view.

No, it's because of their complete lack of respect for others opinions. They're too elitist and arrogant to be taken seriously.

I said "turn based" because that was an integral design choice in the first two.



That can be found amongst the newer fans as well right here on the Bethesda forums, it's not exclusive to NMA.

If I count my favorite games, there are more RT than TB ~and its not for lack of TB, its just the games that I like ~some are TB, others are RT. Some are shooters, others are RTS, or RPG. I would not miss Vats in FO3 (but it would be even less connected without it ~Even though VATS has nothing to do with the series... they at least tried ~and they didn't have to).

This was half the game for me [in Fallout 2]... and would have been a gaping hole had they chose similarly and reduced its presence to the like of F3's VATS. [Its missing in FO3, so FO3 has that gaping hole].

The Bethesda forums don't operate on a hive mind of hate.

That's a generalization, I could just as easily say that all newer fans operate on a hive mind of Bethesda-worship. :shrug:

I'm not a big fan of NMA, but they're just the Bethesda Fallout 3 forums with the opposite opinion.

It's popular on NMA to hate anything Bethesda does, AND it's fans just because of Fallout 3. That makes no sense to me.


You'll find plenty of people here that don't worship Bethesda.


That try their best to degrade anybody that thinks the opposite of their ideas.

My point was that you're generalizing, regardless we're going off topic here.

Yes, NMA does have some good people. I'm not going to think the same of anybody from NMA. These topics always go off topic.

Turn-based. Played with such TB classics like Jagged Alliance and Fallout 1,2. Though, most people will probably disagree with me. They are too impatient these days :nope:

I like both... which is better for Fallout depends on who is making it, and thus what kind of Fallout game it is. I could never see playing a Bethesda style Fallout game with turn-based combat, ever.

Try reading some of the threads here, man. Those in glass houses.



Let's hear how this disrespect is shown. Is it by simply arguing against those opinions ?

As for the combat...I can't say I liked either more. I'm more accustomed to TB games, and I liked being able to take my time and/or deal with distractions afforded to me by TB heh

..No. It's for downgrading anybody that doesn't share theirs. It would be fine if they just said "Alright I don't agree with that, here's what I think...." Instead it's "You're a troll, right?" "Haha Beth really devoted fan" "Stupid kid".

And you've seen none of this here ? Not even within this thread from the side these NMA boogyeman are aligned against ? Heh. I must be blind, I've not seen any of that name-calling - almost all of these "people" just state their opinion, reason for it, done deal.

IMO, Bethesda's style [Style in general] should be series specific (and conform to new series). :shrug:

A professional can alter their work to suit a project; Its the amateur that complains of needing to do things in a familiar way.

Bethesda is not comprised of amateurs ~so what's the excuse?

Try reading the comments of a favorable Fallout 3 review. Or any topic where somebody says they enjoy the game. I must be blind too, because I don't see that here. I guess it's just we're each from the different communities, and don't want to see it. Don't take anything I say personally, I'm just one of those people that need to express their thinking before it eats at them.

Like I said, the Bethesda Fallout 3 forums with the opposite opinion. Bethesda Fallout 3 forum-goers (usually) love Bethesda and Fallout 3, NMA (usually) feels the exact opposite. I've noticed that NMAers usually give valid reasons for why they dislike Fallout 3, they usually don't say that it "just svcks" like RPG Codexers often do.

To try and drive this discussion back on topic, some NMAers dislike the lack of turn based combat. That's a fair opinion. Some NMAers don't like how Bethesda chose to focus almost purely on action based gameplay, that's also a valid opinion. Some NMAers can be extreme, but I don't think there's an awful lot of those folks over there. Most of the more extreme, elitist, arrogant guys are Codex posters who may visit NMA from time to time. Hating Bethesda simply because of Fallout 3 is a little unfair, but most of the time NMAers express disdain with Fallout 3 and Bethesda's design decisions with it, not Bethesda in general.

Turn based combat was an important part of the first two games, and I don't blame NMAers for being upset over the lack of this as well as many other design decisions that were fundamental to the series. They can be unreasonable sometimes, but how is that any different from any other fanbase? Even Bethesda's? I'm sure there would have been a lot of upset Bethesda fans in the same boat us pro-turn based folks are in right now if Bethesda decided to make Fallout 3 turn based isometric.

Those must be who I am running into every time I visit over there, then. Like I said, NMA has good people. The ones I've run into were horrible, though. Actually, I'm starting to think of NMA has a diet soda. The first large gulp of it is good. Then you have that last gulp (the codex posters\just plain arrogant people) who leave the bad after taste in your mouth.

I happen to know that Gizmo and nu clear day both play table top RPGs in their spare time, I think that's true for most hardcoe TB supporters, not everyone who play RPGs plays those games, everyone has their different hobbies, I personally really enjoy kung fu movies, I like that they always have terrible plots and kickass kung fu moves, but I know that the things I like about kung fu movies are not ideal for anything, it's just a niche thing that I wouldn't expect any movie or video game to follow, not even if they made a kung fu game that paid homage to kung fu movies, it's backwards for any piece of entertainment to forget about the plot only to focus on cool kung fu moves, so I wouldn't expect it

I think these guys coming from tabletop RPG backgrounds want video game RPGs to cater to their niche preferences, but what works for tabletop RPGs is not ideal for video game RPGs, I think turn based combat is one of those things, where the game is real time but the combat is turn based, it really hasn't worked that well in any game I have played, like when you are forced to enter turn based combat just so a scared civ can run away, the system used for combat conflicts with how the rest of the game is played, Final Fantasy does it differently where nothing you do in combat affects the real time world, it works better even though I don't prefer that either

I have been listening to people tell me why they prefer turn based combat for years now, and I still don't get it, just like a lot of people would not get why I enjoy kung fu movies with bad plots, it's a niche thing, but kung fu movies have gained popularity and I don't doo doo on Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon for not catering to my niche and what my idea of a kung fu movie should be, I didn't think it was that good of a movie for other reasons, a lot of people who I would say would also enjoy Honey probably would prefer it to Young Master or Snake in Eagle's Shadow, that may irritate me, but that doesn't mean kung fu movies aren't headed in a better direction for the purposes of entertainment, so I embrace it and continue to watch my old Master of the Flying Guillotine kinds of movies.

Tsk, tsk guys - I believe we all know cross-site trolling is a lock-worthy offense around here. Not only is generalizing groups of people and painting them in a harsh light off-topic, but it's probably already got the mods with their finger over the lock button. I'm very suprised this thread lasted so long (twice what my original thread got last week,) I'd like to see how long it can go. So uhm... can we stop with the fan-bashing and NMA hate? Because those are really productive topics for conversation...

Actually, I'm a big fan of "real-time w/ pause" in modern games. I loved it in Mass Effect, for example. (One of the things that threw me off about Bioshock, actually - is that I kept trying to do that in that game, but it wasn't really set up for that. The game did pause if you held down your weapon toggle, however.)

Actually, this might be sound wierd coming from a pro-TB proponent, but it's not necessarily true. Sword of the Stars actually pulled off real-time 4X quite well, all things considered. I'm still a fan of the Civ games - and yes - it wouldn't be Civ anymore if it was RT. But there's more than one way to skin a cat. Like you said, though, it all comes down to preference.

Of those you listed - only the Sid Meier ones are turn-based, though... Halo Wars is real-time, and so is Empire at War.

Again, no.

You might not personally like a TB modern RPG, but that's hardly evidence that there'd be no place for it. Would it sell as well as a RT RPG? Absolutely it wouldn't. It would be a niche game, certainly, for a very specific crowd. But there's always a place for niche games - where would we be without Katamari Damacy, Parappa the Rapper, etc?

I think a common misconception is that TB games hit some sort of critical mass of development ten years past, and that there's nothing left for it to evolve. I find that patently false. The potential of an action game, what you can do with them, has greatly expanded in the past ten years. With modern graphics, physics, and procedural animation - not to mention computing power - there's quite a lot that you could do with a TB game that you wouldn't have been able to do years ago. For example, if hypothetically Fallout 3 had been turn-based, it still would not have played exactly like Fallout 2 or Tactics did. Placing it in a full 3D world in and of itself opens up tons of new options. A modern revision of X-Com with Red Faction: Guerilla's level of destruction capabilities could be quite interesting.

:foodndrink:
I haven't played a table top RPG in 20 years
(*The last one I played IIRC was Rifts ~so make that 19 years )

But I do enjoy that style of computer game. And I especially enjoyed it with Planescape, Baldur's Gate, and Fallout series.
~All of which (until most recently) are of the same caste.

I have to disagree though... I don't see why you'd not make a great game that focused on the moves. Here are two examples that I've played recently.

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHqB6lEE3Tg&feature=related (a turn based fighter game... that is all about the moves)
  
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5qGO8hBrOk (a Martial Arts homage that is all about the moves)
  ~Though admittedly it has a cool (and super corny plot... Its perfect )

(BTW for anyone that has RDKF... If you're interested, I made a Vault Boy skin for Multiplayer, that you can find http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/vaultboy-1.png, and see on Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YklXsnGvIjc&feature=channel_page.)

*Edited for clarity.

It depends on what you're playing a videogame for, though. (Nice post, by the way.)

For a lot of us table-toppers what we're looking for in a videogame is not the same as what a number of other people are looking for. Tabletop games are a lot of fun. But they're also by their very nature rather tedious. There's the matter of landscaping the battlefield, painting the miniatures, doing lots of complicated math, arguing over the rules, etc. Even the actual game takes a long time. It's not always easy fitting a tape measure and protractor between a bunch of plastic trees so that you can move one piece two inches. Then there's the matter of even getting your group of friends together at the same time, and having enough time to play for a great length of time before someone's wife calls or the cats decides to invade.

This doesn't just apply to in-depth strategy games, either. I play plenty of roleplaying games in the exact same manner. We'll even switch rulesets to work out our combat scenarios in the RPG campaigns we're playing (most RPGs even have rulesets for those - Mechwarrior and Battletech, for example - or GURPS and Car Wars, Star Wars and it's space combat games, Intercepter and Renegade Legion, Space:1889 and Sky Galleons of Mars, etc.) Even if I'm playing D&D, when we go into combat I'll line up some miniatures on some graph paper and work the combat out that way.

It's a lot of fun for those of who are fans of it - but what we've always looked for in a computer game is something that can all the aspects of what we like about those games, and simply does away with all the hassle. What can take days to work out on a table, you can run through in a matter of hours on a computer. Plus, you can just hit "save" and then pick up where you left off - as opposed to cluttering up a table for days and weeks and hoping nothing gets knocked over in the meantime.

Besides, just because it's had it's problems doesn't mean their insurmountable by any means. That would have been like saying years ago "Well, I liked Wolfenstein, but I don't think it really works for an action title - I mean you can't even aim upwards..."

Does every RPG need to be real-time? Absolutely, it doesn't. I like my action RPGs just as much as the next guy. I wouldn't have wanted Mass Effect to be done any other way, for example. But I still think there's a place (a niche, certainly) for a good turn-based RPG. I'm a rules nerd myself, with some vague plans of maybe making a game one day - I've got plenty of ideas as to what a modern turn-based RPG would look like. I think these days you could very well do something that actually looked more cinematic than any action game out there, by taking advantage of the particular strengths of the genre.

I have, and haven't seen a tirade of baseless rage made text. Plenty of the negative remarks re: fan reviews are based in something whether the review was positive or negative towards the game. Oh, and I hope they NEVER ever make a "modern revision" of X-COM. We'll end up with COD4 with aliens, heh.

But why are you so focused on the combat aspect of Fallout? Do you play RPG's solely for the combat system? But, really Fallout 1/2 was awesome because of "the other RPG aspects". Not the combat system. And not because it tried to be the best possible GURPS implementation.

The same could also be said Planescape, Arcanium, Baldurs Gate 2, Ultima IV, Morrowind or KOTOR. The combat system does not make a classic RPG.



Unfortunately, when you pay close to six million dollars for the Fallout license, you don't make a niche game.....