Ok...
Not from where I sit... but, what you say is of course quite true; But do you not see that as terrible? (That Bethesda's Fallout 3 is basically more like Oblivion than Fallout)

That was not among the choices.


Nothin'.
That's also one of them questions that really need not be asked ~the answer is obvious to all.

I never advocated "isometric view with real time combat".

@Cliffworms:
Well... It never should have been FPP (or FPS) :shrug:

In fact... IMO It should have looked a bit like Dawn of War (graphically speaking), but played like Fallout ~with improvements done to the established TB mechanics, rather than complete abandonment of them.

~Even http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wf_2V7wLkI&feature=channel_page would have been ok.

My thoughts exactly. It would have worked perfectly with a Dawn of War-like engine, so that you can both look at a standard 3/4 Isometric view while also being allowed to rotate the camera around to discover the environment.



Hehe, seems like we both posted the exact same gameplay element at the same time. :goodjob:

But since it is FPS... might as well have some fun with it...
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=7751

I already commented on that.



Your looking for a way to say it's FOBOS2 which is false. If anything it's more like Oblivion better done with guns.

Not at all. ~well... :hehe:
What I said was that to someone who had no experience with the series, IMO FOBOS seems the likelier candidate for a FO3 to be the sequel to (based on looks and gameplay).

Bethesda games are RPGs yes they allow you to play the game the way you want to with yourself as the character vs. other games where you play as predetermined character. Gizmo would tell you Bethesda games do not qualify as RPGs because they are simulators they are not RPGs. Quite frankly I'm not going down the road with the conversation because it's going to get ugly fast. Sort of like you're TB vs. RT thread which general ends up pissing almost everyone off.

You're on a fishing expedition here.

I know I would ask what is the point of having a name in Oblivion (or FO3 for that matter). What is the point of the PC's aptitudes, and inabilities ~ if one will just be playing themselves? (and picking their own locks )
Does the game reward the careful player that follows the main quest because it matters to the character they are playing?

~What makes an RPG(?), The gameworld or the game's reactions to the player?

Why is Planescape [and BG2] so much better than IceWind Dale2? (or IMO NWN, Oblivion, FO3, Arx Fatalis, and many many others...)
IWD2 was broaching the mindset of the future of RPG's way back then... and FO3 is what we have today.


**There is also the game system that makes the games good. Jeff Vogal's http://www.avernum.com/ has a fantastic system. (and also has TB combat )
*** Arx Fatalis is very cool BTW, its almost unfair to have lumped it in as I did above.

I think quite often around here we get confused with the meanings of the terms we're throwing around. Stuff like "RPG," "Simulation," etc - those aren't definitions. They're descriptives. It's like saying a movie is a Horror or a Drama or a Comedy. These terms don't exist so that you can shoe-horn everything into dinstinct categories - it's so that you can describe what sort of game it is.

Take Children of Men, for example. That's a Sci-Fi movie, sure. But it's also a Drama. And it's also most definately an Action movie. Which one is it, though? Doesn't matter - they're just adjectives. The terms only describe the movie - they don't define it.

Fallout 3 has RPG elements and places you in a role that you play in the game. That makes it an RPG. What's more, the game designers set out to make an RPG - that means that's what it is. Even if you didn't like Paul Blart: Mall Cop; that doesn't mean that it's not a Comedy.

Back on topic, though - these turn-based vs real-time discussions never get anywhere. I don't see why it always has to be so personal, though. That continues to confuse me to no end. I've never seen such heated discussion about Fighting Games, or RTSs, or what-have-you. But for some reason when you bring up turn-based games (which is nothing more or less than another genre of game) people have very solid views on what it's supposed to be. I mean, would anyone argue with me to the same degree if I said Fight Night Round 3 was a Fighting Game? Or would people say that it can't be a Fighting Game because it's not all about complicated button combos?

For my two cents, I think it's like Modern Art or going to the Opera. Most of the people who don't like it or can't see the point of it simply haven't taken the time to understand it. Saying you don't like it is one thing. We all have opinions; and this is the internet. If I start a thread saying I like pie, there's going to be a lot of posts saying "Well, I hate pie."

But saying there's no place for it, is simply not taking the time to understand why that's such a clear falsehood. Clearly, it's a very niche genre. They're never going to sell as well as a real-time game. (For example, Fallout 3 wouldn't have sold nearly as well if it were a turn-based RPG.) But that doesn't invalidate it, either.

I prefer VATS to real time and turn based like in the previous Fallout games. Real time in FO3 was fairly annoying though, as I like precision shooters based on being able to aim than stats based, so if I tried to shoot something with a rifle for example, and where it should be a straight shot and a direct hit, it goes off (Well, early levels anyway) To be fair, that happened a lot more in VATS, but I like the cinematic feel of it and takes away some of the unnecessary chaos of combat.

That would be American Werewolf in London

Clive Owen must hold the record for the most films featuring babies, births and gunfights in the same scene.


I have the perfect example, (A conversation with someone I saw on the Bus that I'd gone to grade school with)...
but it would be taken wrong ~as good examples all too often are

So I'll summarize it sans details...
At its core I believe the heated arguing stems from the speakers ("typers") personal idea of what is fun. Those on the RT side are many times genuinely flummoxed and baffled at how TB can be preferable to anyone at all ~Much less preferred over RT gunplay .
*Those on the TB side usually appreciate both styles. :shrug:

Fallout was designed from the ground up around a TB combat system (and then they filled in the rest). FO3 is said to be a direct sequel, but eschews all pretense of blending in with the series proper ~this takes away the fun for me IMO, there is a new FO and its not made for fans of the series...
Just fans of the setting.

That's why I said almost didn't say everyone. nu_clear_day I do agree with your comments. Personally as I have stated earlier I don't like TB games. There just not my taste. :shrug: What I was getting at with my comment is to the fact that bringing up some topics like what is a true RPG or which is better TB or RT are just going to end in fights no matter what with almost every post being a flame because someone who says they prefer something different then the person posting.

I myselve like both.

No both option? Huh? Ohh man, I can't vote... I like both...

I have no preference... it will be awesome either way.

Real Time, since TB turns into overpowered chess sooner or later. It was easy to beat multiple enemies in Fallout 1/2 when you had all the time to plan your moves. In Fallout 3, you gotta twist, turn and shoot without planning too much ahead.

You can play your turn as fast as you please right? :shrug:

[In fact I'm sure a lot of folks do... Immediately clicking on something to shoot and waiting the long wait until they can shoot something else ]
* You would have to remember "http://www.gamesas.com/bgsforums/index.php?showuser=366751"... its an inside joke.

Turn based combat was alright in FO1&2, but svcks in every other game that has it.

I prefer Real Time any day.

True but having a timer vs. being able to take your time are two different things. That's why I just never got into TB to me it's like playing chess normally where RT is more like playing it on a timer. Granted I like playing chess either way but when it comes to video games I like it to be more...fast paced I guess? :shrug:

You could become really overpowered in Fallout 3 all the same.

thats what i was about to say

I can understand that. :foodndrink: ; My favorite games tend to be RTSs' like Myth and Homeworld, Dawn of War, C&C Generals, etc...

*But (time jokes aside), I will play a good TB strategy for hours (I remember playing Disciples 2 for 18hrs straight one night ~Though I can also remember playing Quake for 12hrs the first time I tried Multiplayer :gun:).

Even though with TB you can take as much time as you want to plan your moves, it can make it very hard.

Should I move there and risk a shot?
Should I heal myself now and skip the turn?
Should I take more action points to cripple his groin and knock him?

While I find that in Fallout 3, VATS makes combat way too much easy. In VATS, you can resist the explosion of a nuclear powered car because it reduces the damage you get. And it also makes you deal a higher damage to enemies. If you are not using VATS, it's a matter of taking cover or rushing through the enemy with dozens of stimpacks ready to be used.

:P

You know, I never thought of that, but between that and Shoot 'Em Up, you're probably right. (If he'd been in the Way of the Gun, he'd probably have monopoly even.)

Well, you kind of have to, I think. Not only because I'd have missed out on tons of good games if I'd only confined myself to one style; but because it would be terribly limiting to the potential of videogames to keep everything in just one style.

I think that's fair. I might like Fallout 1 and 2. And I might like Fallout 3 (around here, I always feel the need emphasize that last point...) But I don't like them for nearly any of the same reasons. (The ruleset, dialogues, and procedural engings of the former; compared with the atmosphere and art direction of the latter.)

I was going to add this in response to Gizmo's post, but I feel it's apt, here. I agree, though.

I think the problem comes when people can't accept anyone else's definition of "fun." We're all going to have different opinions. I don't expect people to agree with mine, or even to understand them. The only problems come about when they're dismissed out of hand as objective value judgements. If I were to say "I like turn-based games; and I'd have rather seen a turn-based Fallout 3," that's all that means. It's no different than if I were to say "I'd have preferred a Fallout RTS or a Fighting Game." It's not a knock against the game - it's just a statement of preference.

When someone posts "I don't like turn-based games, and I never play them," there's nothing I can say against that. Because it's no different than someone saying "I don't like Cheeseburgers." Even if they say that they hate it or despise everything about it, that's not a problem, either. It's uninformed stuff like "The turn-based genre is a technical limitation," or "It has no place in the modern world," that there's anything to dispute. And that's because both statements are just as silly as saying "I hate Cheeseburgers, they shouldn't exist, and it's only because they don't know how to make a decent sandwich."

I love the art direction (and landscaping in FO3), but I don't see it as mutually exclusive... We could have had the ruleset, the dialogs, especially the procedural endings, and the world they built.

But their goals for the project were opposite the goals of the series. Take Todd's comments about gun ammo, and ammo weight. Fallout was not GURPS, but Fallout was GURPS ~in that a good bit of the enjoyment came from having all those options to play with (and seeing their effects ~even the useless ones). Consider the lack of text comments, and the loss of all traits, and the [IMO absurd] way they implemented Perks, (and stat boosts, and TAG skills, and...). All of the things they could have done in FO with a 3d engine, they could have done in FO3 (including an FPP mode for examining areas), but a native Fallout 3 would not [I think] have focused on run-n-gun as a crutch (at least I find it hard to believe otherwise).

A bold statement. I sincerly hope you're wrong. All best tactical games (and I'm not even talking about computer games) are turn based. Chess is the best example. Turn based require thinking. Real time just dumbed everything and removed the tactical aspect of playing.

Fallout Van Buren was supposed to be part turn-bast, part real time. It's an evidence that original developers tried to expand the franchise fanbase.
I don't think that the problem with Fallout 3 is that it's real time. That's just the way the games are made these days. F3 doesn't have what predecessors had. Exelent character development. F3's S.P.E.C.I.A.L is a joke.