Well no. We're talking about a videogame after all, there's little that's going to be mutally exclusive by any inherent aspect of design. Just saying that the end result left me with different reasons to like both games. (Todd Howard has some... unique ideas on what a sequel is supposed to be though. There was some interview or other I remember him talking about that, a number of years back; when FO3 was still in early development.)

Unconnected to that, though - you ever been trying to sleep but you can't because you've got one thing that keeps running through your head? I'm just going to throw this out, and then maybe I can finally be done with and just go to bed:

I think a lot of people misunderstand what the "point" of a turn-based game is supposed to be. I always have trouble putting this into words, but I'll try to illustrate by way of example. Basically, the fun to be had in any game, is from the way that the game itself is played. Take Chess and Football, for example. I think those are good anologues to TB and RT play. (I think the parallels between the two are immediate upon close inspection, but to explain - both Chess and Football - American Football, specifically, are really quite similar means to the same end. Both consist of two ranks of opposing forces set a specific distance from each other. The first rank acts as obstacles for the more specialized second rank, with the goal of eventually reaching the key piece. In Chess that's the King; and in Football it's the Quarterback. There's some differences, sure - but I think the similarities are rather obvious.)

Both are games. The fun to be had in either is in the way in which they are played and the strategies that evolve from that. In Chess, that emerges as a focus on conserving your forces and making necessary sacrifices towards your overall goal (which, come to think of it, could well be applied to Football, as well.) The fun is in cleverly thinking steps ahead of your opponent, forcing them to make a disadvantageous move, and then exploiting their weaknesses (similar to Football, again, actually.) In Football, it's much the same, but through different means. The fun materializes as a focus on the individual meeting of opposing units, a steady advancement across the field, and so forth.

That's TB and RT in a nutshell. They both do the same things, but just in different ways. The fun is to be had in the very way they are played.

Another example is Puzzle Games. Back in college, a friend and I got very addicted to Kirby's Avalance (Puyo Puyo is much the same; and they're all very similar to Dr Mario when you get down to it.) We got very into it and began drawing parallels between that game and martial arts or some form of duelling. There were many anologues, really - timing, baiting, counter-attacks, parrys, etc. When Puzzle Fighter came out, it was even more pronounced. The game was very anologous to a game of Street Fighter, at it's essence. Choosing between big strong attacks or intricate combos, blocking, counter-attacks, etc. It was strategically very parallel to Street Fighter, but both were abstracts of an actual martial combat. One wasn't a natural progression of another - each were their own means to an end.

The fun to be had in playing a puzzle game was in the very way that you played that game. The way you approached it, and such.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. It really just comes down to preference. Some people like Football over Chess, or Street Fighter to Puzzle Fighter. One isn't inherently better-suited than the other, however. They are mutually exclusive means to and end - one does what the other can't. They're all abstracts of higher concepts - the appeal is the way in which they are played out. Just as Football isn't "dumbed down Chess," Football isn't a natural progression from the technical limitations of Chess.

Fallout 2 turn-based play was fun and stimulating in the way you could really get into calculating strategic step-by-step battle movements to win. That's if you are into specific number calculations.

Fallout Tactics, it was optional turn-based play or real time. I played real time and the strategic movements were still there but not the precise calculations of allowable movements and action points. It was just as stimulating and as much fun, with no loss of mental calculation of what the outcome should be, and the game happened faster. I had a try at turn-based play but by impatience threshold kicked in and I switched back to real-time.

Fallout 3 just wouldn't be any good for me playing turn-based, and besides, the game content is so much bigger than the early turn-based Fallouts that it would never end. No, the game is just too big and my patience too small.

Real time beats turn-based any day IMHO for Immersion.

But as many have said, it's really down to preference - there is no Correct way. I'm just grateful that Bethesda did it in real-time, its much more enjoyable.

M

I can, but with real time I have to.
But personally, I am very happy with this current system of Bethesda combining both RT and TB. Best that I can imagine to get these days.

I'm happy enough with Fallout 3, as well. But just to nit-pick for the sake of it, they're only combining real-time with a pause or bullet time mechanic that does one specific thing that the old Fallout did. I can call a time-out in Football, but that doesn't make it any degree of turn-based.

Knights of the Old Republic was a combination of real-time and turn-based. Fallout 3 is straight up real-time.

I like turn based. However, the way Fallout 3 is set up makes for the best hybrid system on the market. Turn based can be just as intense as real time but it's different.

A fallout 3 without Vats is no good imo.

Realtime turnbased is dumb to me.Why would I let the enemy attack me.

anyway what does this have to do with FO3

This is old harping, but... There is no TB component to FO3, VATS is just a pause. (Some would say pause / and super move, which sounds right to me).

A parallel between VATS and FO turns does exist though...

• Both VATS and FO turns, are assumed to be realtime, but are presented statically so that you can navigate the menus and make your choice.

However, the differences are clear.

• VATS is a stylized representation of the choice to aim, (which is but one possible action during a turn in Fallout ~and usually you perform more than one during your turn); But where Fallout allows you to gamble with an aimed shot or two, VATS only allows to shoot! ~and only with your equipped weapon (and only with aimed shots).
  
• Fallout treats aiming as the optional choice to refine your attack at the cost of higher shot penalties [chance to miss], and uses commensurately more APs for the shot than normal. VATS treats all choices as aimed shots, and does not allow for switching your weapons mid-sequence.
  In Fallout, you may (during your turn) pick and choose between aimed and "from the hip" shooting or melee, using either of your equipped weapons ~and also have the choice to reload or to conserve APs; (All APs not spent during the round directly increase your Armorclass ~representing that the PC is actively defending during the remainder of the round).
  
• VATS auto reloads for you, because AP's are meaningless to the game except when shooting ~and unlike FO1, there is no reason in FO3 not to reload on the spot.

VATS seems [to me] like the epitome misunderstood FO1 gameplay, as so many assume that you only shoot, wait, and shoot some more during a turn; and so it was designed as a targeting que. ~Turns out its EXACTLY like RT/wP, and not Turn Based at all. There is no strategy in VATS, no deductive logic, no possibility to anticipate ahead of your game. It really IS point-n-shoot, point-n-shoot again.

*Also... While both FO1 & FO3 allow you to freely heal as much as you like (outside of combat); FO3's design in practice, allows you to freely heal as much as you like inside of combat too. Where as in Fallout, you had to have the AP's to enter your inventory, and could not access healing if you carelessly spent them doing something else

You don't... But this bit has been gone over in detail many time in these threads.

*Still... In this thread it would actually be on topic...
Point: As mentioned above, turns are presumed to be RT. While its not completely accurate in all cases... You can safely consider all Turns in a fight as being the personal perspective of the acting attacker during the same few seconds. It is not the case that you "let" them hit you, as all attacks are considered simultaneous, and the fact that they "let" you hit them, cancels out the advantage. [*except in the case high combat skill combined paired with low sequence ~but this is the result of character development and should provide an edge].

Indeed true, but it's that little pause (or lack there-of) which forces the mind to use Twitch-reflexing as often as it requires strategic thinking.

In alot of cases I think Real-Time cators too-much to 14 year-old kids, but with Fallout3 I think they got right in the sweet-spot for timing.

M

I like the current Fallout 3 system. I picked up a copy of Fallout 2 yesterday, and I actually find it pretty fun. I don't mind either of them.

I can't stand turn based. I would rather have complete control over how I attack or how much damage the enemy does to me. Then I can use my skill to kill the enemy instead of hoping the enemy misses a few times or that I get a critical hit.

RT for me. I enjoy the gameplay so much more in RT then TB. All of the modern RPG's seem to be mostly RT and I could never go back to the old TB system. While KOTOR allowed you to pause after each turn it still played more RT then TB. And really for all you TB fans did you always pause after each turn? For every battle? Gets boring(too me) after a while. But too each their own.

Besides I don't think Fallout 3 would have been nearly as successfully sales wise if it had been turnbased. The RT element introduced the Fallout world to a lot of new fans, and I don't think a lot of people would have purchased a TB RPG game.

Now, some games like Civilization could never be done in RT.


My 40 year old self seems to handle it pretty well! Unles you have the reflex of a snail I think most people do alright.

I'll just say this. If it wasn't for the likes of the old school turn based games we wouldn't have games like Fallout in the first place. Most of these rpg's get their roots from turn based games or dnd for that matter. The good old turn based is evolving, for the better imo.

I would've preferred perspective and control options similiar to what The Witcher did with additional (perhaps even optional) TB combat to the top down pointn' click view.

But seeing how thing have turned out (and most likely how they will turn out in the future too), real time probably works the best; though I would prefer a lot more statheavy combat.

I agree with tweaking the combat to an even more stat dependent perspective but still allowing real time interaction. Gives something for the rpg nerds, like myself, to do. % for hits and miss and % for damage on your real time shots but with stricter parameters. Can I get a saving throw, man.

Both!

Kotor [2 ~I never played 1] was RT/wP. You can only pause the combat, change actions, and resume.

This is the argument that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegemite would not be as popular in the States if it was Vegemite. (and that you'd have to change the taste to make it palatable to the masses ~except.... that Vegemite is prized for its taste :ahhh:).
*I don't think that I could stomach the "new & improved" Sarah Lee strawberry Vegemite (if such a ghastly thing were made )
The new fans may have never liked Vegemite as it is, and the new "Vegemite" [that they might like] would not really be Vegemite at all would it?

*Edit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-1G1ttk5o4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WS2Gzp8XgFQ

I do agree ~but what are your reasons here? ~specifically.

No, the default setting for KOTOR 1/2 was RT/with pause but under the options menu you could modify when the game paused. For instance you could pause the game when one of your companions died or when you spotted a enemy for the first time or after each turn. I started off using each turn but quickly dropped it. Except for the boss battles or any of the harder battles that needed a lot more micro/strategy. That applies to almost every Bioware/Obsidian game I have played lately.


What is vegemite? Yuck, Australian tree bark paste - does not sound too good to me. Now, if you covered it in strawberries and fried it I am sure it would be much more palatable.

The RPG market is already small, why not try to expand it and pull in more money. The modern computer games is extremely expensive to produce and F3 is no exception. If you were making video games do you want to sell a very expensive game that catters to only a niche market. Or do you go for a broader market? Like it or not, video games are still about making money. Would you bet your life savings and house that Vegemite would sell well in the states? Especially if it was not fried and covered in strawberries?

There are hardly any RPG's being produced any more, and even fewer of those are turn based. Game producers like Bioware and Bethesda have to make the game that the most people will purchase. Otherwise they risk going out of business. Like some of older developers who made awesome RPGs - including Black Isle.



Civilization has to be TB for a number of reasons. First, there just is too much going on and it is way to complex to play in RT. And Civ is a strategy game. RPG's are not about strategy - they are about role-playing. Second, each turn represents several years. Compared to combat in F3 which represents seconds. Lastly, if Civ was not turn based it would just be another RTS not a 4X game. Civ has found there niche and doing well.

And from a personal standpoint, it has to be turnbased or else it just would not be Civ. There I said it and go ahead and quote me that Fallout must be turn based. But I think the same argument does not apply to RPG's because combat is not the core aspect to the game.

The argument bout TB vs RT is entirely about your personal preferences, so it is hard to change someone's mind.

I've only played a few turn-based games, including Sid Meier's games, Star Wars: Empire at War, and Halo Wars. I wouldn't even compare these with real-time games, as I find the latter to be more interesting, varied and sometimes, strategic.

But a Pause itself does not constitute a turn, regardless of when you configure it... Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 both had that but they were not turn based games (even though they did loosely follow the "Round" structure under the hood).

I don't think I could manage it . I know what both taste like, and can't fathom the possible taste of that mix... Think "Strawberry jam with Anchovies".

I'd make my own IP [as Id has done with RAGE] before I would make a game based one system but using another. Would you bet your life savings and house that a Forgotten Realms RPG would sell well using a non D&D ruleset?



Black Isle was fine, Interplay was mismanaged (and took bad risks on "quick money" / "sure bet" games" like FOBOS) ~and canned the Black Isle staff as a cost savings.

RPG is about strategy if your PC is a strategist
~but seriously... Games are about gameplay, and the RPG labels are just components of the rule set. Fallout was designed as a combat engine, later they added the other RPG aspects. The series was intended to be the best GURPS (PNP style) implementation for the PC ~and its mechanics improved with the second (and combat wise it improved with Tactics), but FO3 abandons all concern to be the best possible DX9 class Post Apoc PNP implementation ~which is what a real FO3 should have been striving for.

Its true ; But it was also quite indeed a core aspect of the game ~This is evidenced by the intimate linkages between SPECIAL, and the combat system.
(Call that opinion if you must, but its no coincidence that I didn't have the problem with FO2 that I did with FO3).

I prefer Real time but if its an engaging game turn-based is fine, there just arn't that many engaging turn-based games out there so they are a dying breed

I prefer a sort of mix of the two, not VATS, though,but the realtime with pause, invented by Bioware in the Baldur's Gate game series. You can pause the game at any time, issue commands to everyone, then unpause the game, and your character(s) will perform the actions you've selected.

Turn-based, real turn-based, takes too long, and while I can certainly see its strategic and tactical potential and great, I don't think it has a place in a modern crpg.

Turn-based combat may stimulate the mind, therefore "progressive", but I prefer real time. It makes the game feel more real. In FO3's case, the real-time combat was amazing if you ask me. When I fight, I feel like a good Jason Staham or Terminator movie. Wild and good action.

Why exactly? I'm not disputing you, just curious...

*Is it that a modern RPG must sell to a modern audience? (why did TB games sell before)?


**edit:
The more I think about it, the more I draw parallels to Television.
Which is more fun to watch(?) Reality TV, or TV about reality (like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcSxL8GUn-g).

It depends on the viewer, and what they find fun, and interesting ~but it would be an awful shame to lose such programs like Nova, and Scientific American, and Nature simply because they can't compete with Survivor and Britain's got Talent ~and thus have comparatively no appeal to the modern audience.

Personally I think that both TB and RT have their merits and demerits but prefer the TB games.
While the modern RT games may look 'better', I tend to find that they lack substance and just don't hold my attention for as long.
The older TB games while they may look 'bad' if you just take a glance at them usualyl have a lot more substance to them and deeper gameplay which at least for myself compensates for the lack of 'glitz' with the way they look.