It looks to me that even as a hybrid it's going the other way and tries to mitigate the character influence even more than before. Todd practically said so; with the "new" gameplay - designed with some FPS experts - it should now be even easier to compensate for character ability by player skill than it was in Fallout 3 and NV (and that already wasn't anything to write songs about).

Not really, though. I don't think that's even possible, personally. Turn-based games rely on more than just making called shots a la VATS, after all, or making use of die rolls. It's more about having a discrete set of rules that allow you to weigh your options, with everyone working on a level playing field and having access to those same strategies.

For example, I could make a real-time version of Chess where all the pieces constantly move around in real time. That might even turn out to be a fun game in it's own right. But even if I then added a button that allowed me to pause the game and give orders - I'm just buying myself more time to strategize what's going to happen in the real-time game. A Grand Master Chess player would not be able to just adapt the same approach to a real-time Chess game - by changing the very foundation of the way the game functions, you're changing all the rules, thus changing all of the strategies.

This doesn't mean I think VATS "failed" at turn-based. I just don't think that was what the attempt was. I enjoy making use of VATS. It's a fun feature, I think. But I still think it's got more in common with bullet time than anything else.

I think there's more than one way to skin a cat. My preference is for a focus on character skill. But not doing so only makes it a different type of RPG, I think. I mean hell, even tabletop gaming has it's own factions and opinions on what constitutes a "pure" tabletop RPG. (White Wolf's old World of Darkness system for example was streamlined specifically so as to not get in the way or narrative and to focus more on roleplaying than rules. Whereas something like GURPS took the approach that by attempting to simulate and abstract as many variables for as many situations as possible you supported the narratives and possible roleplaying opportunities by leaving as little up to guess-work as possible.)

Anyway, I think there's plenty of room for a real-time game to allow character skill to influence outcomes and combat. The question is whether or not that's going to happen in Fallout 4.

Is the grenade hotkey confirmed? From what I've seen the melee hotkey looks all but confirmed to me, with the pistol whip. And I'd like to think the ground attack (dog) would also mean the PC could use that melee button while enemy is grounded.

Thinking RPGs = entirely reliant on character skill is just a willfully ignorant statement.

Having such a strict definition of a genre is pointless. Witcher 3 relies entirely on player skill, and is widely considered an amazing role playing game.

Strict turn based combat isn't around anymore because there's no market for it...because it's an uninteresting and boring way to handle combat.

Some may enjoy it, but hipsters don't pay the bills of a triple A release. Turn based is a small market for a reason;there's little appeal to it.

You can spout nonsense like those games are more "cerebral" to feel better about yourself, but you'd be very wrong. If it were an interesting way to handle combat, the market would obviously be larger.

OT: with 3 different stats affecting vats directly (luck, perception and agility), I think it'll be a powerful tool should you build a character around it. A character focusing on those 3 stats may seem "OP", but they would have low health from low endurance, level slower from low int, etc.

During the atom bomb baby music/combat video you clearly see a scene where the player is throwing a grenade while stile holding there gun.

As for the dog move..I think that a dog exlusive skyrim like kill animation.

It will definitely be good in Fallout 4. Todd Howard specifically mentioned making a VATS build in Fallout 4 and he said that it was extremely powerful.

Ahhh I didn't catch that good eye. I'm hoping for a melee button as well. Even if it's just a bump and not a full swing. Knocking back a raider or ghoul would be helpful

Consider they bother adding a bayonet as a mod option for guns I would assume a dedicated melee button is in.

VATS is Press X to pay respects level stupidity. Hopefully Fallout 5 will finally make the jump and do away with it altogether.

Pillar of Eternity and Wasteland 2 beg to disagree with you.

I wasn't aware that those were triple A releases.

Oh, they weren't.

Pouring millions of dollars into a triple A game, only to slap on turn based would be like releasing the next Avenegers movie in silent/black and white.

Yea, some hipsters will go see it but that's such a small market you may as well burn all your money; it'll accomplish the same goal.

So it exists in the rather deep ocean of crap known as Indy?

How is Pillars of Eternity an Indy title?

4 mil budget. Published by paradox (not exactly a household name) , steamspy putting it at around 300k sales. Relying on kickstater.

It's more indie than anything, it just so happened to be a good game as well.

I think it's more a case of "VATS was included in FO3 as a callback/refence to the aimed shot mechanics in FO1 & 2" (the body with outlined target areas, % hit numbers, etc). Not an attempt to put actual "turn-based" gameplay in the game.

DA:O was AAA and sold well.

an DA2 who improved DA:O instead of pissing off the fan base would sold better.

Note that DA:O is not entirely turn based but you can stop action and run it step by step, Baldurs gate has the same. This is an much better solution as its no need for detail control if then running into weak enemies.

This is an common issue with turn based combat. its cool then you face an overwhelming force and manage to outsmart them. Less fun then you get pushed into combat mode bu nuisance enemies all the time.

Yes, they have no plans of making fallout turn based, VAT is an helper and an legacy from FO1&2, it works well and is unlikely to go away unless few are using it.

Its an balance issue, hard to not make it OP at close range with moving targets, on the other hand most uses guns in fallout and is pretty hopeless in melee.

I am pretty good with FPS games.
That said, I almost always use VATS.
It just feels better as skill based combat than lining up a shot only to (rightfully, if the attack skill is low)) miss the shot.

I do like that there is movement added to it this time.
I personally would have made it actual turn based, but I like the movement as well- hopefully it makes it harder to become overpowered in VATS, like you do about half way through the previous two installments.

DA2's flop status didn't have much to do with the combat; that was a bad game over all.

Inquisition was an improved version of 2's combat, and sold much better than the first or second game.

VATS exists for me for two reasons-- making sure I'm not about trip into something that wants to eat my groin, and for lining up dramatically appropriate head shots.

Yes, I agree. (I think that's what I said...)

Another reason why it was over powered in Fallout 3; if I had 3 raiders charging towards me, all I had to do was hit VATS to stop time, then select the highest percentage chance on the first target then do the same thing on the next 2 targets. Sometimes that would take all 3 out right then.

I think seeing how the percentages seemed to be much lower in the video, the fact that it just slows time down, and those numbers can change with the movement of the targets, using vats will actually be more of a challenge in Fallout 4.

I like the concept of Vats and it being in Real Time is a good thing. It looks similar to the Bullet time thing from Project Nevada which isn't bad at all.

Bah, I vastly prefer full-turn-based isometric games to that "real time with pause" crap. If you want me to micromanage a party, give me real control please.

(I actually got Baldur's Gate & Icewind Dale waaaay back in the day, but I never finished either of them. And DA:O's combat was the worst part of the game for me - wanting to see how the story turned out was the only thing that managed to drag me through to the end, with it turned down to Easy. Although it probably didn't help that I had basically no AoE - my only mage was a healer, alongside tank Shale, melee Leliana, and my melee Rogue)

I typically use vats for either very close range, or for long distance shots. I often hit it out of reaction, when an enemy gets real close. I think that with weapon modifications, and what appears to be better scopes implemented I might use it a little less than I did before. Is it a bad feature? In my opinion, no. It is a feature that may actually be completely optional this time around. I felt I needed it more in Fallout 3, because even with great skills, I would miss quite a bit. Which is why I often reverted to vats for very close range, and for distance shots....