Exactly! :icecream: I'm not totally opposed to turn based gameplay, although I'll admit I don't prefer it. However, a game could certainly be played from a 1st or 3rd person, 3D perspective and still easily have stat & turn based play I would think. It don't have to be iso view, which I find horrid.

As for the OP, I love the open world, go where you feel like going when you want to go there style of play. Because I just couldn't get into Fallout 1 I have only played Fallout 3. So from that perspective, one of the best things that I loved from it (and Oblivion) were all of the collectibles in the game that you could save as mementos to document your adventures. Every item I would put on display told a little bit of my characters story. :fallout:

Another favorite thing from FO3 was the ability to make mods! I can't wait to build me a player home with a huge display room in it for my characters to display their collectibles! :hubbahubba:

Rephrasing time: Unpopular
Well I dunno.
Once upon a time the gaming scene was smaller and that it's really grown during the years and with that growth a lot of limitations has been put on the gaming scene.
Studios are afraid to try new stuff and goes with what people are familiar with.
So yeah, all I know is that once gaming was awesome, epic, creative, fun.
Now it's complete crap with an occasional chipped diamond found around the sewage drain.
So that's why I with my great logic wishes for it to become unpopular again. (Maybe games will be more creative, fun, iconic and epic then)

But I have no idea how it actually works to design a game, how much time it takes, how much money is sunk into it etc etc.
So if it goes back to being less popular it might not be for the best anyway...
Games might go back to worse graphics and stuff.
But it's not something I mind, graphics mean little to nothing to me anyway. ^^,

I wanna see a Tommy Gun again. With a drum, not a stick

And that is what F:NV is cheered from.

However Fallout 1 and 2 will akways be the games that has invented the scene, but a First person shooter is alwats the game of the year.

Perkele! WTF?

:confused:

No vittu! Ehkei sitte!

I know I'm like a country away from you but I still can't speak finish.

I'm not sure if there's really anything I would demand be brought back, I'd say Harold but I've mourned his death already. I can't go through that again.
They've still kept most things that made me happy, and I'm satisfied from watching demos alone, so they seem to be doing a good job of keeping things I enjoy, and hopefully what others might enjoy as well.

It really has nothing to do with desire at all. It's simple economics, really. Despite what we would all love to selfishly believe, these companies don't exist to entertain us. They exist to make a profit. And the "risks" you are referring to are in the millions and millions of dollars. And not only the money, you're talking about the jobs of dozens and dozens of people just within the development staff alone. By the time you factor all the people affected from development, manufacturing, shipping and sales at the retail level, you're talking hundreds of people and likely several million dollars.

The fact is that they HAVE to make a profit (unfortunately becoming a dirty word to many people) to exist. It's simply supply and demand, and if there isin't demand enough to support the investment they have to make, it don't happen.

/hijack

As long as it has the Fallout feel, anything can be in the game.

Even try!

Technically aren't turned based rpg's an older thing so its not really lacking in creativity imo.
I for one find it significantlly more immersive walking around in 1st person in the exploring sense with relatively good graphics wandering around a fairly large filled landscape. I still enjoy fallout 1 and 2 as well as PS: T to this day and played a fair amount of Fallout 3. I found Fallout 3 was lacking in story, quality of writing for dialogue and just lack of some understanding of how a post apocalyptic game world should work ie Stimpak's & ammo everywhere as well as nonfunctional towns. After seeing and hearing everything that Obsidian has done in making this game im happily waiting to play it. I believe it is going to be be one of the better video games released so far and will be vastly improved in the areas that I had a problem with fallout 3. Like common how bad was the writing for the G.O.A.T and liberty prime and more than not the dialogue, but for FO NV I am more than optimistic. I think it will blend two of my favourite things, the immersion of a wonderfully crafted world for me to be in interact with its, and it being a game allowing for character creation and Role Playing with choice which has direct and vary degrees of consequences with that same old fallout feel. Just slightly funny looking clothes for some but thats the game engine.

and oh yeah... If companies can make games like R.U.S.E which can be considered "unconventional" in the market then I don't think it has to do entirely with the economics of a making a creative and different turned based or unconventional game. :fallout:

If a developer tried to refine turn based gameplay and make it more accessible to a modern mainstream audience (Like Firaxis did with turn based strategy in Civilizations IV and V), and publishers gave the game a strong marketing campaign, I believe a turn based RPG could sell quite well. Of course there's no way of knowing for sure since no publisher will risk funding a mainstream turn based RPG.



Well it's certainly not a black and white matter, I was never under that illusion. However we're talking about an industry based on creativity here, and if money is all that fuels your drive then creativity is going to suffer. Ideally there should be a balance between both creativity and profit, and there was at one point but that was long ago.

Obviously developers and publishers need to make a profit, but if you never think outside of the box and stretch your creative muscle then you will stagnate as an artist. At the moment there is no balance, all publishers like Activision care about is making a profit. They'd rather release Call Of Duty 5 and Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 than try something new. Profit's not a bad thing, not at all, but it shouldn't stunt creativity in an industry where creativity is so important.

That's just my two cents though.

I just say to you as you say to everyone else.... Press enter for a few times.

And read Talonfires post.

Look I like turn based games as much as all you guys, but you really gotta think about it this way if there was such a hugh interest in turn based games and so much profit in it then why did the fallout franchise ever get sold in the first place?
Fallout 1&2 are some of the best rpgs ever, but sadly you can make the best game ever and if not enough people will buy it then its bound to fail.

Anyway this is just my opinion on the matter, and flame away if you must.

Don't ask people to flame at you.
And uhm, I think Interplay sold it away because they simply can't do games anymore.
I mean, when was the last time they released a new game?

Fallout being sold had nothing to do with it being turn based to my knowledge; it was the result of poor management at Interplay. The Fallout series was actually doing quite well before Interplay's new CEO made a score of bad decisions that resulted in the company nearly going bankrupt.

That is right.

Now on turn-based I see no reason why both can not be done. It almost is with VATS as it is. Anyone every play Might and Magic 7,8 or 9? Those had both real-time and turn-based with a tap of the space bar. No risk there at all [to developers] and players have a choice.

This topic has gone from folks stating what they would like to see from past games in Fallout:NV to being a debate (oft repeated to no avail and flaming messy topic) about turn based vs RT or whatever. It's way off topic now with no hope of enough edits to get it back on track.
Some posts have gone away.