New Fallout 3 interview

[213374U]

Huh? Your inability to act in a real-time environment doesn't extend to everyone. Some people can actually play without pausing. It's not necessarily a handicap.

 

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.

No. For those who can't/don't want to play without pausing, there is the PAUSE feature. See?

 

 

No. Rather because chess and Fallout have zero similarities

 

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.

Chess is combat due? Gee, and here I thought it was about "troop" deployement, movement, and general strategy. Combat in chess plays a very minor part. So irrelevant it is, that the attacker ALWAYS wins. Apart from being turn based, Fallout and chess have ZERO similarities.

 

 

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.

Not as full of holes as your proposing that FO should be randomly unrealistic (just as much you die-hard fans say so) just because a bullet can't kill you.

 

 

The mutants I insta-killed before returning to cover would disagree.

 

Thats not firing back, thats an interupt. You can fire back on your turn.

Call it what you will. I was able to get from behind a corner, shoot two of them in the eyes, and get behind my corner again without giving the mutants a chance to blink an eye.

 

 

O! is it "Say it and it's magically true" Day? Thats my favorite holiday! Here goes: I'm a billionare!

What's that gibberish? Is your feeble grasp of reality finally beginning to give out? Get your medication upped before you do something you might regret.

 

 

No matter what you argue, TB isn't an outdated concept. How ignorant can you get.

From the moment there's a better system and no good reason to keep the old one, it's outdated. How irrational 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.

Following that reasoning, 640x480 max resolution is what made Fallout what it was. Hooray for 640x480 graphics!

[NeverwinterKnight]

Huh? Your inability to act in a real-time environment doesn't extend to everyone. Some people can actually play without pausing. It's not necessarily a handicap.

 

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.

No. For those who can't/don't want to play without pausing, there is the PAUSE feature. See?

 

 

No. Rather because chess and Fallout have zero similarities

 

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.

Chess is combat due? Gee, and here I thought it was about "troop" deployement, movement, and general strategy. Combat in chess plays a very minor part. So irrelevant it is, that the attacker ALWAYS wins. Apart from being turn based, Fallout and chess have ZERO similarities.

 

 

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.

Not as full of holes as your proposing that FO should be randomly unrealistic (just as much you die-hard fans say so) just because a bullet can't kill you.

 

 

The mutants I insta-killed before returning to cover would disagree.

 

Thats not firing back, thats an interupt. You can fire back on your turn.

Call it what you will. I was able to get from behind a corner, shoot two of them in the eyes, and get behind my corner again without giving the mutants a chance to blink an eye.

 

 

O! is it "Say it and it's magically true" Day? Thats my favorite holiday! Here goes: I'm a billionare!

What's that gibberish? Is your feeble grasp of reality finally beginning to give out? Get your medication upped before you do something you might regret.

 

 

No matter what you argue, TB isn't an outdated concept. How ignorant can you get.

From the moment there's a better system and no good reason to keep the old one, it's outdated. How irrational 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.

Following that reasoning, 640x480 max resolution is what made Fallout what it was. Hooray for 640x480 graphics!

 

 

as you have failed to show why it needs a large change in combat.

No. I have pointed out the many flaws of the FO TB system. Your irrational denial of facts means nothing.

 

 

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.

Read nostalgia.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

needed to quote this for hilarity sake. numbers guy made a quoting error. :D

[213374U]

as you have failed to show why it needs a large change in combat.

No. I have pointed out the many flaws of the FO TB system. Your irrational denial of facts means nothing.

 

 

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.

Read nostalgia.

 

 

 

needed to quote this for hilarity sake.  numbers guy made a quoting error.  :D

Nope. It seems that there's a maximum number of quotes you can make in a single post. If you go over that number, the quote tree gets screwed.

[NeverwinterKnight]

Nope. It seems that there's a maximum number of quotes you can make in a single post. If you go over that number, the quote tree gets screwed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

damn you. let me have my victory.

[mEtaLL1x]

No matter what some say, I'm freaking happy that SOMEONE is at last MAKING Fallout 3!

 

Yeah, I don't like Bethesda's previous games at all. Morr sucked... Daggerfall... well just not for my taste.... what else? Nothing. But Oblivion seems REALLY good, Not just the gfx (they are so phat that none of the current video cards can work well with them), plus the gameplay might be good at last.

 

My point is that everything changes. Every company has ****ty games, even BIS has. But they can always change. That's my hope.

 

And I'm quite sure that F3 won't be "Morrowind with guns". They just CAN'T mess up that much. I mean, it's ridiculous even to think about it.

 

I say, give 'em a try. Don't set yourselves on hate right away.

 

 

And combat? You know, I don't really give a damn. Yeah, of course I really enjoy TB and would be freaking happy if Beths pull it off. But at the same time I won't mind pseudo-TB (with pause), or even action-based.

 

What matters to me is whether they succeed in retaining the Fallout atmosphere, dialogs and style. And make a good nonlinear story, of course. If they do, then I'll LOVE it, no matter what kind of combat system it will use.

[213374U]

You are mistaking turns and rounds. Your lack of knowledge on this matter is beginning to show up.

 

No I am not ... saying NWN uses "rounds" shows your lack of knowledge.

I don't know about NWN because I didn't play it much. However, a turn is comprised of ten rounds, which makes sense if you had actually stopped to think about it for a second. One round lasts for six seconds. One turn lasts for a minute, that is, sixty seconds. So yes, the difference between rounds and turns is important, even if you refuse to realize it. Even more when the D20 stats are round-based rather than turn-based.

 

 

Fallout isn't based on the D20 ruleset so your point is moot.

 

Now, can we get on with the issue at hand?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, its based on GURPS system that is a turn based system.

Yeah, just like every other PnP game system. Does that mean that just because the ruleset was originally conceived for PnP (and hence, TB), it can't be made to work in a RT environment? Weak argument, you lose.

 

I don't care what's based on, it's not GURPS. SPECIAL can work in RT, and you can't prove otherwise.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

TB RPGs are kinda dull. Really not enough going on to make them worthwile.

 

You can load them down with pointless options like TOEE did. But all that does is show up how poor the AI is at dealing with them.

 

Take FO , once you pass a certain skill, may as well shoot everything in the eyes. Pain that you have to keep clicking through the targeting menu just to do it.

 

With basically one character under your control making the game TB would be a pointless excercise. The workload just dosnt warrant it.

 

If people cant press a pause button, well they have more to worry about than playing games..

[Drakron]

I don't know about NWN because I didn't play it much. However, a turn is comprised of ten rounds, which makes sense if you had actually stopped to think about it for a second. One round lasts for six seconds. One turn lasts for a minute, that is, sixty seconds. So yes, the difference between rounds and turns is important, even if you refuse to realize it. Even more when the D20 stats are round-based rather than turn-based.

 

What the hell are you talking about.

 

I said in 2nd Ed. AD&D a turn equals one minute and in d20 a turn equals six seconds.

 

The reason of why time is meantioned is because sometimes times is a factor (like a door opening at midnight and close after a hour) and there is no way that can be factored into turns since turns only exist during combat, another reason is a player saying he wants to do something not mentioned in the rules during and the DM have to decide how many turns it takes and its easier to calculate when we can have a actual time unit convertion to use.

 

Why they reached those time is boyond me, I am not or were part of TSR or WotC staff to decided how long sould a turn last.

[mEtaLL1x]

I said in 2nd Ed. AD&D a turn equals one minute and in d20 a turn equals six seconds.

 

No, it's the round. And 6 secs/ round is , as far as I know, only in CRPG Dnds.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

In AD&D (not 3e) A round is 1 minute long. Each round is split into phases which deterimine when in the round your character acts.

 

10 rounds make up one turn which makes a turn 10 minutes long.

[213374U]

What the hell are you talking about.

 

I said in 2nd Ed. AD&D a turn equals one minute and in d20 a turn equals six seconds.

 

The reason of why time is meantioned is because sometimes times is a factor (like a door opening at midnight and close after a hour) and there is no way that can be factored into turns since turns only exist during combat, another reason is a player saying he wants to do something not mentioned in the rules during and the DM have to decide how many turns it takes and its easier to calculate when we can have a actual time unit convertion to use.

 

Why they reached those time is boyond me, I am not or were part of TSR or WotC staff to decided how long sould a turn last.

Your point?

[kumquatq3]

No. For those who can't/don't want to play without pausing, there is the PAUSE feature. See?

 

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.

 

 

Chess is combat due? Gee, and here I thought it was about "troop" deployement, movement, and general strategy.

 

Wow! Exactly like TB combat, go fig huh?

 

Combat in chess plays a very minor part.

 

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.

 

So irrelevant it is, that the attacker ALWAYS wins.

 

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.

 

Apart from being turn based, Fallout and chess have ZERO similarities

 

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.

 

Not as full of holes as your proposing that FO should be randomly unrealistic (just as much you die-hard fans say so) just because a bullet can't kill you.

 

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 .

 

What's that gibberish? Is your feeble grasp of reality finally beginning to give out? Get your medication upped before you do something you might regret.

 

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.

 

From the moment there's a better system and no good reason to keep the old one, it's outdated.

 

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.

 

Following that reasoning, 640x480 max resolution is what made Fallout what it was. Hooray for 640x480 graphics!

 

O my...

 

No, it would not be, because that would not be a "logical change or evolution".

[Loof]

I have a question for all the peopel that think that a crpg system must be TB or you cant roleplay since your abilitys are based on your reflexes and not the character.

Does this mean you also think that all rulesystems should be brainlessly simplistic? Otherwise stupid players might not understand them well enough and couldn't roleplay their characters in a effective way?

Why is analytical and tactical thinking a nessesity and hand eye cordination and reflexes are not?

It simply doesn't make sence...

 

(Just for your information my analytical thinking is better then my hand eye cordination and I don't realy have anything against TB, I'm just curious :D )

[213374U]

No. For those who can't/don't want to play without pausing, there is the PAUSE feature. See?

 

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.

Eh? The Sentinel, Consular, and Guardian classes are features in KotOR. You may or may not choose to play as one of those, thus not taking advantage of a game feature because you choose to do so. The same with pausing the game. You choose wether you want to pause it.

 

 

Chess is combat due? Gee, and here I thought it was about "troop" deployement, movement, and general strategy.

 

Wow! Exactly like TB combat, go fig huh?

You still don't understand the difference between troop placement and large scope strategy and combat tactics, do you?

 

 

Combat in chess plays a very minor part.

 

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.

No. Combat in chess is just moving in a piece and then you have automatically taken the opponent's piece that was there before. There is NO combat at all.

 

 

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.

Your going off on a tangent so blatantly proves you're just arguing for the sake of it. It was a retarded comparison and you're just making it worse. It's fun to watch your efforts to get yourself from the hole in which you've gotten, though.

 

 

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

Pieces in chess have different ranges, but not different abilities. They all work the same. Move it in, take the enemy piece. So much for 'different abilities'.

 

About the specific unit you can't lose or you die, you can apply that very example to say, Half Life. Yeah, chess is so much like Half Life. But then again, you compared it to Fallout, so it probably makes sense to you.

 

All old tactical games share the grid system, only because counting hexes is much easier than calculating the exact distance between two entities.

 

If those are all the similarities you can find between Fallout and chess, you're just doing my job for me. I can't thank you enough for proving how nonsensical the comparison was.

[213374U]

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.

No. You keep basing your arguments in the same false premise. There is this pause feature you can use to stop combat at any time. Thus, the player's reflexes importance is negligible. Well, not negligible but if you can't hit a key when you think things aren't going well, then you've got a serious problem.

 

 

Not as full of holes as your proposing that FO should be randomly unrealistic (just as much you die-hard fans say so) just because a bullet can't kill you.

 

Again you are lying. I NEVER said that. What is wrong with you, seriously?

Well, I don't know the level of protection afforded by power armor, but if you received a SMG blast at close range without power armor, you were pretty much dead.

 

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.

You answered that when I brought up the realism issue. The underlined sentence was the base you used to argue that the game doesn't need to be totally realistic. So, then again, it's you who says what's acceptably unrealistic and what's not.

Who's lying now?

 

 

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.

That solves only the problem of the opportunity fire. It doesn't do anything to allow tactics involving multiple NPCs, or cover fire. You lose.

 

 

If you did, then you are lying. Which is, might I add, the only way you win this arguement.

I've won already. I won the moment you compared Fallout to chess. It's just that your brain doesn't accept it.

 

 

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 .

Where did I say I don't want realistic damage? Because I do want it. I do understand, however, that implementing a totally realistic wound and healing system may be unfeasible.

 

 

If TB is "outdated" then I have lost my grasp on reality. And so have many others.

You said it, not me....

[213374U]

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.

No. The TB concept is fundamentally outdated. No matter how much garbage you add to it, it's still obsolete, when compared to the possibilities of a RT system. It's not the accessories or the interfaces that are outdated, it's the concept itself.

 

 

Following that reasoning, 640x480 max resolution is what made Fallout what it was. Hooray for 640x480 graphics!

 

O my...

 

No, it would not be, because that would not be a "logical change or evolution".

The same can be said regarding the combat system.

[kumquatq3]

I have a question for all the peopel that think that a crpg system must be TB or you cant roleplay since your abilitys are based on your reflexes and not the character.

Does this mean you also think that all rulesystems should be brainlessly simplistic? Otherwise stupid players might not understand them well enough and couldn't roleplay their characters in a effective way?

Why is analytical and tactical thinking a nessesity and hand eye cordination and reflexes are not?

It simply doesn't make sence...

 

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

[213374U]

TB combat adds tactical depth (assuming your comparing good TB and good RT).

False. It's the other way around, in fact.

[Loof]

I have a question for all the peopel that think that a crpg system must be TB or you cant roleplay since your abilitys are based on your reflexes and not the character.

Does this mean you also think that all rulesystems should be brainlessly simplistic? Otherwise stupid players might not understand them well enough and couldn't roleplay their characters in a effective way?

Why is analytical and tactical thinking a nessesity and hand eye cordination and reflexes are not?

It simply doesn't make sence...

 

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree with most of what you say but you didn't answer the central question I asked.

(Only thing I desagree with is that TB has more depth of options, take for instance any good fighting game: RT but with both tactics and depth of chioces in combat).

Which was why is brainspower more naturaly nessesary for a rpg then reflexpower?

 

(I should also say that im more interested in other choices when i play a rpg, such as dialog choices, different ways of solveing problems without combat, and choice of "quests" and motivation... but that doesn't realy have much to do with this discusion.)

[Oerwinde]

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.

No. The TB concept is fundamentally outdated. No matter how much garbage you add to it, it's still obsolete, when compared to the possibilities of a RT system. It's not the accessories or the interfaces that are outdated, it's the concept itself.

 

Just because real time is faster, doesn't mean TB is obsolete. And thats the ONLY advantage real-time has over turn based. Thats like saying a volvo is obsolete because a ferarri goes faster.

[Loof]

Just because real time is faster, doesn't mean TB is obsolete. And thats the ONLY advantage real-time has over turn based. Thats like saying a volvo is obsolete because a ferarri goes faster.

 

I agree that TB isnt obsolete, but I must disagree with you bout speed being the only advantage of RT over TB. I think they both have different strengths, an dif i was to simplyfy them as much as posible I would say "TB is interesting and RT is exiteing".

[kumquatq3]

Eh? The Sentinel, Consular, and Guardian classes are features in KotOR. You may or may not choose to play as one of those, thus not taking advantage of a game feature because you choose to do so. The same with pausing the game. You choose wether you want to pause it.

 

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.

 

You still don't understand the difference between troop placement and large scope strategy and combat tactics, do you?

 

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.

 

No. Combat in chess is just moving in a piece and then you have automatically taken the opponent's piece that was there before. There is NO combat at all.

 

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.

 

Your going off on a tangent so blatantly proves you're just arguing for the sake of it. It was a retarded comparison and you're just making it worse. It's fun to watch your efforts to get yourself from the hole in which you've gotten, though.

 

I can almost smell your ignorance.

 

Pieces in chess have different ranges, but not different abilities

 

Bishops don't have the ability to move straight up and down do they? Nope. They have the ABILITIY to move on a diagnol.

 

About the specific unit you can't lose or you die, you can apply that very example to say, Half Life. Yeah, chess is so much like Half Life. But then again, you compared it to Fallout, so it probably makes sense to you.

 

All old tactical games share the grid system, only because counting hexes is much easier than calculating the exact distance between two entities.

 

If those are all the similarities you can find between Fallout and chess, you're just doing my job for me. I can't thank you enough for proving how nonsensical the comparison was.

 

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.

 

No. You keep basing your arguments in the same false premise. There is this pause feature you can use to stop combat at any time. Thus, the player's reflexes importance is negligible. Well, not negligible but if you can't hit a key when you think things aren't going well, then you've got a serious problem.

 

but when you unpause it back to reflex city

 

You answered that when I brought up the realism issue. The underlined sentence was the base you used to argue that the game doesn't need to be totally realistic. So, then again, it's you who says what's acceptably unrealistic and what's not.

Who's lying now?

 

You again, big surprise huh?

 

This line:

You don't need a burst at close range to kill someone, unless::gasp::, not everything is realistic in video games.

 

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.

[kumquatq3]

Just because real time is faster, doesn't mean TB is obsolete.

 

I agree that TB isnt obsolete

 

 

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.

[213374U]

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.

No. The TB concept is fundamentally outdated. No matter how much garbage you add to it, it's still obsolete, when compared to the possibilities of a RT system. It's not the accessories or the interfaces that are outdated, it's the concept itself.

 

Just because real time is faster, doesn't mean TB is obsolete. And thats the ONLY advantage real-time has over turn based. Thats like saying a volvo is obsolete because a ferarri goes faster.

Can you provide cover fire in TB? No.

Can you make complex maneuvers involving several characters/units simultaneously in TB? No.

Does TB allow for enemy reaction to your action while it's being performed? No.

 

All of those are flaws of the TB system that can't be fixed, due to the very nature of the concept. The RT system accounts for every and each of those situations. Thus, my point is proven, TB is outdated.

 

 

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.

Yeah, it's really stressing to press the pause button every time you need to change something. I mean, it could cause you to suffer a heart attack or something!

 

 

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.

Now you can't even read? I proved that your 'similarities' were merely superficial or outright irrelevant. You ignored all that, just as I expected you would. Still, the facts are there.

 

 

I can almost smell your ignorance.

And I've been suffering your inane comments and kindergarten reasoning for two pages now. Guess none of us is going to be happy.

 

 

Bishops don't have the ability to move straight up and down do they? Nope. They have the ABILITIY to move on a diagnol.

LOL. You are mistaking 'difference' with 'ability'. All of the pieces can move. All of the pieces can take other pieces. The only difference between them are the way they move. That's not an ability.

 

 

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.

Absurd. Your 'similarities' don't resist even a superficial analysis. And if there are so many as you claim, please post them, I'd be delighted to destroy them one by one.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

There is still nothing in FO's combat system that makes TB a requirement. Or even desirable to any but those who have a strong preference for it.