Shadowstrider

Do you have any idea how much game development costs? Hypothetically, lets say Fallout 3 was using TB combat. Do you know how much time and money it would require to add in RT combat? How about the opposite? Its not as if we could sit a programmer or two down and say "Alright, now program in real time implementation. You have two days." It requires teams of people, and gobs of time. A game development company has to balance workload with the rewards associated with it.

LOL! Compromise = Do everything I want! And who could forget: "If it isn't turn-based it isn't Fallout." Baiting isn't very nice. Stop it.

Lionheart was just a bad game, it had little to nothing to do with S.P.E.C.I.A.L.'s implementation. Ask Sawyer or one of the other developers whether the tech demo supported turn-based combat. Odds are it didn't. They may have had plans, or begun working on, or even completed the turn-based implementation. However, I'd wager the tech demo didn't support it. Unless my memory of Tactics is flawed (possible, I hated that game and barricaded most of it into the deepest recesses of my mind), the turn based combat was craptastic. Even the original Fallout's had some fairly bad combat. Even with the slider turned up, it was slow and somewhat clunky. Not to mention it was EZ mode to the max.

Once again... Not FULLY turn based. Thats because Fallout != turn based combat. That is YOUR preference, not the Fallout's setting. S.P.E.C.I.A.L. works well in either TB or RT.

1) Bethesda once had a Fallout 3 forum open. They closed it, very smart folks here where I work. 2) Fallout's game world has zero to do with turn-based combat or 2d graphics. Van buren was going to be in 3d, BoS was in 3d. Fallout: Tactics was not fully turn based, nor was Van Buren or BoS. Shows what you "true fanz" know. That boat don't float.

Even if I could comment, I wouldn't dignify it with any sort of tangible response. You've already got your mind made up about the game, despite having no idea what you're talking about. The quote you guys are so fond of throwing around was not only misrepresentative, but also very, very old. When Hines said that, the game was barely in the planning stage. In addition to all that, the quote you refer to has nothing to do with dialogue. It was about isometric 3rd person vs. first person and real time vs. turn base.

Hades reminds me of a Morrowind dialogue. You say a keyword, he spits out the same lines over and over again. Dialogue Choice: Fallout 3. Hades: I haven't heard anything to make me want to buy this game. Its being made by Bethesda, so it will suck. Dialogue Choice: Fallout 3. Hades: I haven't heard anything to make me want to buy this game. Its being made by Bethesda, so it will suck.

Self pwnt. No more off-topic!

Intarweb dramas. Stop.

So do adventure games, and platformers. This is what an RPG is. Not fighting fantastic creatures, or leveling up. RPGs are about character progression in terms of personality. RPGs need more ambience and mood than action or adventure. Having action and adventure definetely help, but this idea that "RPGs need high adventure" came in when Gygax started pumping out his drivel. Setting has no bearing on whether a game is an RPG. Unless you're saying that Prince of Persia or Legend of Zelda are RPGS and Fallout isn't (LOLZ!). So you made this post, with specific details about what an RPG is, then say that half of it doesn't matter, yet it needs all these things? h8 u.

I'm enjoying Fallout 3, not PLAYING Fallout 3. Why would I take offense? Even if I had worked on 'em? Aside from the fact that you have horrible tastes (Jade Empie *gags*), millions and millions of people enjoy them. People should enjoy games for what they are, not dislike games for what they are not. Only fanatics dislike something because of something it isn't.

This is absolutely untrue. You could very easily create a sports RPG. In fact, most WWE wrestling games are more RPG than the Final Fantasy series. You have to keep the crowd amused by doing high-entertainment moves, you can try to charm female characters to be your manager/teammate, you have ultimate control over everything from your ring entrance, appearance and even combat reportiore. You get to allocate stats (and since half the people here associate stats with RPGs, anyway half the people here should say these games are RPGs to the max!!!), and in some of them (at least the very first smackdown, you could even name your moves, giving them quite a bit of character. Same with many of the modern sports titles. Sure, they're RPG-lite, but they have more RPG features than many so-called RPGs do, nowadays. I would love to play a full-on RPG sports game, where I have to work my way up from benchwarmer to starting, and taking the team to a superbowl. Hell, you could do it based on actual playing skill, or brown-nosing coaches. Then once you become an actual starter you could become an arrogant prick, or a mentor towards new players. Closed mindedness for the loss.

Just because something is created out of fantasy does not mean it cannot be logical, or even realistic. Realistic does not mean real, it means implemented as if it were real. For example, the ability to jump exists. Everyone can jump, some at greater heights than others. So why can that not be extended to "super jump" where someone, somehow acquires the ability to leap to extreme heights. This could be gained through magic, technology (good technology is indistinguishable from magic, anyway), or the yellow sun of the earth. Flight? Same thing here, flight exists. Why can that not be crafted realistically into a game? Just because something is created from a fantasy does not mean it cannot be realistic. Kobolds might not exist on Earth, no. That does not mean the concept is unrealistic. Humans are sentient creatures who evolved from lower origins. Why could this have not happened to lizards, as well? Or rats? Or lions? Or anything? Simply because something has not happened does not mean it COULD NOT happen. The whole concept of creativity is "what if X was real," if you don't get that, then I have trouble believing you're very creative. Well-written fantasy can be realistic, logical, and entertaining.

Or something in between. Right? RIGHT?!?1!ONE?

Oh, something about Star Trek :D <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Again, we (Bethesda Softworks) are just publishing/QA'ing the games.

The fact of the matter is you've probably got the game pre-ordered. Logic > u.

You're next. KILL HIM MY ONIONS!

Reading comprehension => ;_' It weeps for you.

Whose defensive? You've probably already got the game pre-ordered, anyway. I'm presenting the facts of the matter.

http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8340 The original thread is gone, but I found that on NMA. Pete Hines on the infamous quote you all enjoy so much.

Cannot and will not answer. Todd Howard and Pete Hines have made some comments on Fallout 3 which cover this, though. Google it.

Yes.

I'm enjoying Fallout 3. Oh, and we're only publishing/QA'ing the Trek games. Not developing.

Damn it! I was finally going to get in, now you're chasing all the hotties out. You're a dead man.

Bloodlines was not difficult. At all. User error. Back on topic, nothing he said in that leads me to believe the game will be easy. Powerful does not mean overpowering.