kumquatq3

If your about to go into your "why Bozo the Clown is the greatest American" speech again, just don't.

It has a habit of getting it's head stolen too.

I thought ALOT of the jokes fell flat and that it wasn't near as funny as the family guy.

the review was basically a cut and paste of the xbox review

maybe it's the website only but : LINK

According to 213374U, you have both lost your grip on reality, welcome to the club How can you argue a point when someone takes a position like that (who, mind you, hasn't played a recent TB game). Just don't.

I never said you can't choose to use it. I said, that since the combat is designed with pause in mind, as K2 was designed with several classes in mind, then the game is designed to use pause if the player wants. Now, if the player wants (lets face it, how many people went through K1 without pausing, or BG2?) then the player can pause, that itself is a reflex action. If the player doesn't pause, then his reflexes matter even MORE, as he is fight the enemies on screen and the clock now. So in the end, either way you slice it, RT brings reflexes iportance in the game up and stats importance down. TB rpgs and chess starts the side at various positions across the board. The only difference in this is that so TB games can have the player help determine where he starts. After that, both games then use strategy by moving units based on their individual strengths. If you have multiply pieces in the area, you use all of them. Um.... ok, I won't call it combat, I'll call it "taking a piece". Happy? I didn't say chess and TB were exactly alike, I said they were similar. I have tried to show that, you have failed to show why they are not. I can almost smell your ignorance. Bishops don't have the ability to move straight up and down do they? Nope. They have the ABILITIY to move on a diagnol. You tried to break down the comparisons one by one, but you forget they are grouped together to make a point. Since there are soooo many similarities, that is what makes the games similar. I know you just don't want to admit your wrong, but please don't insult your own intelligence. but when you unpause it back to reflex city You again, big surprise huh? This line: was me showing you want it both ways, you want realism sometimes, and not others, not my arguement for why games don't need to be totally realistic. I was challenging your opinion, not sharing my own. That is clear if you read. Stop lying, just stop. After reading the rest of your replies, I just don't have the heart to go on. Your lying about what I've argued, you use opinions as truths, and are ...just plain ignorant. It's like arguing with a retard brick wall.

I don't think all RPGs should be TB, I prefer it, but thats like eating hte same ice cream flavor for my whole life ...but I take it you want me to explain more anyways TB combat adds tactical depth (assuming your comparing good TB and good RT). Deeper RPG systems or rules add depth, well not as a rule, but lets assume the depth added is benificial to the game instead of clutter. A good rpg, IMO, is about choices and depth. Not brain power. These things require you to think tho. It's more of a side effect of a good rpg, than why a good rpg has to do more with the mind than your reflexes. Tho it is obviously best if you can have depth, but explained to the user in a simple way. hope that wasn't too generic

The definition of feature: a prominent part or characteristic . Note that feature doesn't mean a small part that doesn't really effect anything. If a game is RT with pause, it was meant to be paused. If you can play without pausing, good for you, but I'm willing to bet thats not how the game was designed. Wow! Exactly like TB combat, go fig huh? Well, lets face it, that depends on how you play, but that aside I'd like you to win a chess game without take the enemies pieces. Now, chess has a few VERY rare setups where someone can win without taking a piece. So does TB, via critical failures. guess what, if your defending a position by attacking something, your still attacking. So in both TB and chess, the attacker always wins, failing to attack is like not swing your ax. Again, chess has a few VERY rare setups where someone can win without taking a piece. So does TB, via critical failures. Now if you want to talk about the overall strategy of defending a position and attacking a position, in both chess and TB, neither are a sure bet for victory. Really? Like different pieces that have different ranges and abilities? TB: check Chess: check On your "side" you have a specific unit that yo can't lose or you die? TB: Check Chess: check A type of grid system that restricts movement and determines range on the units on it: TB: check Chess: check but, you might say, some rt games have all that (even tho you might not see it). True, then whats the difference here, why can't they play chess in realtime or rt with "Pause/Timeouts"? Because it elimnates indepth strategy and in it's place makes the game MUCH more dependent on reflexes of the players. So when you dismissed the similarities as "just TB", you failed to notice that is a HUGE similarity. Again you are lying. I NEVER said that. What is wrong with you, seriously? you did read my posts were I proposed adding cover and "interupt" (a la Silent Storm, I assume you havn't played it), right? If not, then you argue out of ignorance. If you did, then you are lying. Which is, might I add, the only way you win this arguement. You are the one who is arguing random realism. You said you want cover and such, but not realistic damage. Thats fine, you can want both, but not under the flag of "realism" you can't . If TB is "outdated" then I have lost my grasp on reality. And so have many others. If it isn't tho, might be time for you to reconsider the difference between opinion and fact. OOOOOOOOPINION, and a foolish one at that. Have you played any recent TB games. Silent Storm or the like? I doubt it (if you say yes, I'm going to test you ). So you have NO idea what your talking about. You base your conclusion on games that are 7+ years old. Thats like saying no updates to RT combat have happened since Diablo and therefor it is dated. O my... No, it would not be, because that would not be a "logical change or evolution".

But is can be a handicap and then it is reflex based. So those that have a hard time without pause are hurt, and it because largely about the players reaction time, rather then the role playing. chess and FO's TB combat due, in fact, have lots of base similarities. I can't believe you can't see that. No wait, no I can believe it. you can't slip out of the arguement like that. You don't need a burst at close range to kill someone, unless::gasp::, not everything is realistic in video games. This arguement of yoru is full of holes, and you know it. Thats not firing back, thats an interupt. You can fire back on your turn. O! is it "Say it and it's magically true" Day? Thats my favorite holiday! Here goes: I'm a billionare! No matter what you argue, TB isn't an outdated concept. How ignorant can you get. It's not that you want logical changes and evolution of what was once THE RPG OF THE YEAR, you want to overhall the game, eliminating elements of what makes it FO and not BG or diablo, too match your tastes. So much for diversity. as you have failed to show why it needs a large change in combat. You need a reason tho? Because FO3 is a sequel to FO1/2. It stands to reason that most of the games elements remain the same. While game series do get massive changes, even in a case of GTA2 to GTA3, the most of the core of what made it GTA remains. It is logical evolution. This prevents the loss of much of your orignal fanbase, while bringing in new fans. There are plenty of things that could use updates in FO, TB being one of them, but eliminating things that made FO great (to MANY people)and the RPG of the year is not the way to go.

O ya, you can choose to sit there and take damage and not click and swing your ax as well, doesn't mean it's a good idea or that you arn't artifically handicapping yourself. Because chess and TB have zero similarities ooooooooooooo, ok. So then you only play RPGs were you die from one or two bullets or one good hit with a mace? Where you can't be repaired with a "stimpack". Please, you can't have it both ways. see above comment, but you CAN fire back when fired apon. That being said, if a "interrupt" (ala Silent Storm) was put in to the game, I assume you would still have a bunch of problems with TB combat. So again, you want the game to be alter to fit your tastes, rather than for any logical purpose. I NEVER said TB shouldn't be updated, see above post, but I said and implied a FO version of TB should be kept. You can, and prolly should, added "interupt" and cover (both a la Silent Storm) You put words into my mouth to create an arguement.

having to hit pause is, itself, a relex based action I guess chess is "lame" then And as for unrealistic, so is just about everything in the FO universe to some degree (super mutants and radscorpions anyone?). So I understand your position now. You don't like this type of game, so you want to completely alter large chunks of it to fit you tastes. While I can't argue with your feelings, it's clear that reason isn't the strong suit of this conversation anymore.

In it I can hide behind a object, move a litle to the side, fire and move into cover again without being hit as in "real time" it becames a matter of how fast my reflexes are. Right, by eliminating the reflex portion of combat, it allows combat to be broken down in to two things: players tactical choices and his characters stats. RT combat can limit the amount a characters skills actaully matter.

Feb 15 I didn't see another site that did this, but we'll see

is the arguement that TB or Iso is outdated. Either way thats retarded

isn't this fun?

Only my mind eh? Run over to any number of the FO/RPG communities and see if it's just my mind.

at worst, they at least seemed to be swinging for the fences

FO isn't Spellforce. They bought the rights to Fallout. I'd hope they did that for a reason, namely to make a third FO. Not "hey, let's mix and match things we like from other games with the FO universe!". Besides, FO is, and should be, the opposite of twitch combat. Say what you want, but no matter how you dress it up, RT still depends on twitch combat.

There is a theory that the game might function in over the shoulder or fp, but the camera swings out to 3/4 for TB combat. Heres hoping.

Link My favorite role of his was when he play JFK in Bubba-Ho-Tep. RIP.

Everytime I remember this is going to be a console game too my hopes come crashing down. You have to wonder what effect that will have. Time will tell I guess, but for now I'm just not excited.

While I assumed controls would be different and you can pull better graphics than the box on the pc, I don't see how banter almost single-handedly saves the game. I saw this tho, it amuses me: LINK

there shouldn't be a big difference, in terms of gameplay. yea, thats right tho, K2 for the box had the demo on it right? So why didn't you like it.

FO 1 or 2. I played FO2 before FO1, so it's not that big of deal, in terms of order.