I stand a better chance of success playing chess than I do with turn based RPGs. It's faster too.

Epic fail Gizmo.

Disciples series is a strategy game, not rpg (although it has some minor rpg elements.)
And your "f3 is like doom" comparison... that's like comparing witcher to diablo. :facepalm:

I would offer a counter-post but I'm too darn tired.

To be continued(perhaps?)

:lol: Think again (and re-read my post), I said that Oblivion is to Fallout 3 as Heretic is to Doom ~and they are.

And Disciples (2 at least) is indeed a damnably tough strategy game, but its got quite a lot of RPG elements ~more than enough IMO.
~and its irrelevant whether its RPG or not. The example was Turnbased 3D.


Ask yourself this... Which game does Fallout 3 most resemble? have gameplay that seems most derived from...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMPkVY088VE&feature=related or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMFSwYuSgFw&feature=related?
IMO FO3 is a practically FOBOS 2. :shrug:

So if you don't expect decent fallout games from Bethesda and Obsidian because the impression you're giving off is that TB is the only real thing that makes the game. So I have to ask why bother keeping an eye on it if you know you're not going to like it.

I like both, but I prefer RT.

If you've ever been to Klamath in Fallout 2 and gone to fight the rat god/find the fuel cell regulator, you know what a nightmare TB can be, waiting for every one of nigh-hundreds of rats to skitter along one at a time...

I also feel it's worth mentioning that the original Interplay "van Buren" F3 was going to be RT, albeit with an overhead, point-and-click interface.

How does Fallout 3 being in RT resemble BS dark Alliance style game play?

Because You never know. These guys wanted to do the sequel; One of the original team discribed the sale to Bethesda as feeling like their ex-wife sold their kids... You never know what they might manage to include (or get away with). I do think that Bethesda will keep them on a short choke chain though... But I'm still interested in what they might create.


Do you know the history of the series? Why it was Turn Based, ~The game Tim Cain worked on before was StoneKeep... A real time(ish) First Person Dungeon Crawl. Fallout was made the way it was for a reason, and it mostly had to do with the reason they made it. :rolleyes:

Van Buren was to be Turn Based, with the option of Real Time (as with Tactics). The Jefferson Engine was RT, and the demo only had RT implemented at that point.

Does it?

I never played Dark Alliance. But look at FOBOS, and consider what you do in it more than anything else... Consider the setting they relate, and consider the structure.

Don't you mean No Intelligence Allowed?

Well what do you want me to say? Interplay was [censored] up and had to sell it to save themselves. Bethesda makes games in RT so them ditching TB was not an unexpected thing. I know that aggravates a lot fans of the originals but come on everyone knew that Bethesda was going to stay with doing games the way they have been for years. I agree Fallout 3 is to similar to TES and I wish they would've tried to make Fallout 3 different but doing it TB doesn't really have much to do with that at least for me. :shrug: Again though you say your not sure even though if it's not TB which seems to be your biggest aggravation with FO3 you aren't going to like it. So why are you bothering with it?

Yep, real time for me to...

It uses the same stupid effects, inventory and the Dark Alliance game engine as well plus that game was made by Black Isle its Dark Alliance with guns and even dumber TBH. Your comparison between FOBOS and Fallout 3 is pretty terrible man.

Bethesda is a professional outfit, they have capable artists and coders that can do whatever they are asked to do. They certainly could have done a game in better keeping with the series they planned to graft it onto. Its not, "Bethesda does 3d RT games"; It is that they want to sell it to a market that never heard of the series, and would likely never play it if they had. They also want to pull in their TES fans with a TES clone. It is that the studio leads want a First Person Simulator above anything else, and had no intention of ever continuing the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc6gvAzuipU&feature=channel_page.

When I consider all that can be accomplished with modern consumer hardware, it makes me sad to see it wasted like this.

You are focusing on all the wrong aspects, and missing the point. :shrug:


Because it is official.
Because the tools are powerful.
Perhaps even powerful enough to fix the game with a mega-mod

I'm a big fan of the turn based Fallouts. It gives you time to think, and makes the game more about your player character's actual skills than dumb luck. Don't get me wrong, Fallout 3 is fun, but turn based can be as well. Also, in response to countrybluegrass, if you go in to options you can set how fast enemies attack you.

Really, i though it was someone in troika who said that, not obsidian.
And i'm not impressed with obsidian tbh... Kotor 2 had horrible story, nwn2 was mediocre, MoB was actually good but SoZ svcked like a vacuum cleaner (and i do mean that in a bad way.)

Right? I only brought that up as an example, and the more I thought about, the more I thought might be actually have some potential in some strange way...

Yeh... Last time I tried that mod it didn't work so well. The game's just not scripted for something like that. To take Gizmo's food examples, that mod is like taking a blueberry pie and then adding some peas and carrots into it to try and make a shepard's pie - it just doesn't work.

I'm not complaining. I like Fallout 3 just fine as a real-time game. I play lots of real-time games, as well. I usually find them too hectic, and for example I still haven't been able to beat Gears of War 1 on it's easiest setting. But I don't let that get in the way of a good game. Mass Effect, for example, I had no problems with. (The pause-and-play does help, I find.) But it's a case of "close, but no cigar." Fallout 3 is a real-time game. What people like about turn-based is not just the matter of taking orderly turns - there's a whole other side to the strategy inherent in the gameplay. No mod is going to be able to do that.

But as to the topic of this thread - all things being equal if I'm at the store and there's a really good real-time game and a really good turn-based game - I'll pick the turn-based one every time. That's the sort of gameplay I prefer. In the same way that some people prefer FPSs or Fighting Games, or what have you.

No. Just...

...no. (I already have a recently-locked thread in Series General Discussion that I started and it only lasted two days. I'm not getting into this.)

But still:

No.

I remember the first time I played an old "Gold Box" game on a Pentium CPU. [These games just do not expect a machine to be that "impossibly" fast]
The speed at which the enemies make their moves is so blindingly quick as to make the games un-playable for not being able to see what occurred during the round.
**************
I never liked or used the Fallout speed slider. (Also I've heard that for most that resort to it... it doesn't really affect the game enough to matter).

The series though is now Bethesda's for better or worse. As far as the simulation nonsense goes if that's what you believe then fine.



How so?

It's not that big of a deal, I've only used it maybe once or twice.

Indeed it was. Troika was founded by members of the original team. (I think it was Leonard Boyarski that said that.)


Why is it "nonsense"? Its plain to see that that is what they created... a Post Apoc simulator of a skewed Fallout setting. :shrug:

Well... FOBOS re-writes the Brotherhood as saviors of the wastes (and Bethesda copied them). Fobos is primarily a run-n-gun shooter where you spend most of your time fighting random critters between quests. The camera in FOBOS tags along behind the PC as they run willy/nilly across the land ~instead of offering an unlocked camera that allows the player to scroll and examine independent of PC position. The games are basically marketed to the same demographic. The dialogs are too close for comfort :yuck: (I can't post links because they have gratuitous profanity).

Basically I was saying that to anyone not acquainted with the series... If they had to choose which game FO3 was derived from... I'd think most would select FOBOS over Fallout :shrug:

Yeah, I think you have a point.

Without applying any sort of value judgement to it (because this is obviously treading on dangerous ground around here,) I think both FOBOS and Fallout 3 came out of the same goals. Basically, a group of developers who were big fans of the series and wanted to reinvent it as something that would appeal to a broader audience. (Fallout 1 and 2 obviously being rather niche games in the first place.)

I don't want people to get me wrong on this, though. I think FOBOS was just a fundamentally-flawed game with an art direction that just didn't "get" it. As basically a Dark Alliance clone with guns, it wasn't a very well-polished game even compared to other games with that same gameplay. (ie, Bard's Tale worked very well, and I think is an example of illustrating what FOBOS did wrong by virtue of what it got right.) Actually, I think that as a spin-off, it could have worked. The problem was more that it didn't, and not so much that it tried in the first place. Whereas I think Fallout 3 is a much better game, game-wise; even if it wasn't what I would have as a sequel to the series, given my druthers.

Edit - But both FOBOS and FO3 were attempts to "actionize" (for lack of a better word) a game series that had had a different style of gameplay.

I'm not going to respond to the simulation remark because it's not going to lead anywhere productive.



Fallout 3 is more like Oblivion then anything else which was like Morrowind which was before FOBOS so your comparison here is still terrible.



They would and have said Oblivion.

So question is: If member of troika said that, what does it have to do with Obsidian?

Well dang, that sounds like a lot what you have advocated here in a past: isometric view with real time combat.

I don't want to drag this off-topic too much; but isn't the "simulation" aspect what people generally like most about Bethesda games? What is an "open world RPG" if not a game that adequately simulates the world to the extent that you're free to do whatever you want?

For the Fallout series, I will always prefer turn-based combat. But now that the series has bone FPS, real time does a much better job. Playing an FPS with Turn-Based elements would be not be as good as Isometric turn-based.



So because they don't like Beth's Fallout 3 and clearly state it they are bad people?