Sorry, but that’s utter bollocks. If it’s purely down to the numbers, you may as well just literally roll dice and declare yourself the winner if you get a six. See, I love strategy and tactical combat games, but this “even if I’m a total cretin, my super-hard mega-soldiers should magically survive any of my stupid decisions anyway!” approach sounds hideously dull and pointless.

no decent GM will allow a player to role play their character beyond the character’s abilities.

Sorry, what? We’re not supposed to be “allowed” to play a game the way we want now? X-COM Apocalypse had a lot of people whinging because it included a real-time mode. But you know what those whingers could have done instead of crying out for it to be removed? They could, y’know, just play it the way they wanted to, and let the other people play it in real time. Why cry for something to be removed if you can just choose not to use it instead? All that does is ruins it for everyone else.

There’s nothing stopping people from roleplaying and forcing themselves to abide by their own restrictions – just look at the guy who’s playing Oblivion as an NPC – and that a game can allow you to do that is great. But what you’re proposing is effectively forcing everyone who plays to play to your own personal rule set. If you don’t like it in real-time, don’t play it in real-time – your reflexes can’t be so bad that you can’t even press (say) the space bar to activate VATS when you suspect an enemy is nearby. That, in fact, is precisely what the first two games did, and there are plenty of cases where your reflexes and timing in initiating combat are of paramount importance – sniping and sneaking, for a start.

It’s true that the demos focused mostly on the real-time combat, but hey, it’s E3. They were playing to that crowd on that day. I very much doubt there’s any reason you couldn’t just activate VATS anytime an enemy approached (and I’d imagine there’ll be an option in a menu somewhere to have it pause automatically a lá X-COM Apocalypse. Another game, incidentally, in which player skills and character skills were blended superbly in real-time mode), and that’s what happened in Fallout anyway. real time wandering with automatic pauses for combat.

Besides which, you were complaining about turn-based mode a minute ago – now you’re banging on about stats. What evidence is there, exactly, that character stats aren’t every bit as important as they were in Fallout? The bloke playing the demo clearly had souped-up skills to make the demo easier and more instantly obvious, but I’m sure that won’t be the case, and there’s nothing stopping Bethesda from copying Mount and Blade for combat skills – you might aim your crosshair directly at the other guy’s temple, but if youre character shoots like a plant, you’ll still miss.

Sure, queueing moves isn’t literally the same as taking turns, but it effectively plays in the same way because the ‘queue’ is basically a series of turns.

Okay, fine, I get it, you wanted shiny graphics in the same style. I was just pointing out that earlier you said you just wanted decent graphics, when what you actually want is decent graphics in a specific style. Fine if that’s what you’d like, but is it really that big a deal? It’s an aesthetic quibble. Was the 50s-esque style of the tat you could pick up really something you even noticed after the first couple of hours of Fallout? It’s a loss, perhaps, but hardly a dealbreaker. I’d be content if they just gave the place a bit of colour and life – given current fashions, their using more than three colours in the entire game would be a bold gesture.

“I liked the originals too, though they just fell short of the Black Isle games due to combat” So Fallout fell short of Fallout 2 due to the combat? Yeah maybe I suppose since in 2 you could change what armour and weapons your npc followers used and tell them to keep their distance or move up close. Though really it didn’t make that much of a difference.

And what has VTMB got to do with Fallout’s design? So some of the same devs made that also, it doesn’t mean that’s the type of game they wanted to make all along but couldn’t because of the technology limitations. They did go onto make Temple of Elemental Evil afterwards, which I haven’t played to my regret, as it’s regarded by many to be the best example of turnbased combat going.

“but I’m still going to judge this game on it’s own merits.” Well forgive me if I judge the game compared to the two games it’s meant to be a sequel for. I shall, and so probably will many others, just as likely judge Half Life 2 Ep 3 against the early games in that series, the same with Half Life 3 if Valve ever make one. Likewise Baldur’s Gate 3, KotOR 3, Jagged Alliance 3 etc if they ever get made, that’s what people tend to do when a game is touted as part of a series. If the game is just going to be judged on it’s own merits there wasn’t much point in them making it Fallout 3 in the first place.

@sinister agent, Deus Ex I can play that without putting skill points into the weapon skills, thanks in part to the weapon mods. Likewise with Mass Effect the only weapon you need training in is the sniper rifle, since the game won’t let you use the scope without it. All the other weapons can be used untrained (if you don’t care about the power attacks) allowing you to put your points in the non combat skills. That makes action rpgs unbalanced depending on how good the player is. Low character skills only hinder those who can’t compensate for them. In pen and paper games reactions don’t come into it, it’s purely down to rolling the dice and the formulas based off your stats and skills and no decent GM will allow a player to role play their character beyond the character’s abilities.

If you make a dumb decision in an action rpg and run straight into a trap then how many character points you have won’t really get you out of trouble, if you have slow reactions your character will probably end up dead. In the same scenario in turnbased then if you send your highly skilled character into the same trap then it comes down to their skills and the roll of the dice as to whether they survive.

You make the decisions but the outcomes are purely down to the numbers that is the heart of pen and paper mechanics.

As for the graphics, I haven’t been changing my reasons, though somebody is certainly changing their arguments, but my comment about decent graphics was to Metal Circus who said what do fans want Fallout 3 with the same graphics engine? Did I really need to say I want decent graphics on an updated engine that follow the same design style as the originals (when I had already mentioned that earlier in the same post)?

And that has nothing at all to do with turn-based combat. You could easily have a first-person, real-time shooter where your character was only as fast or strong or accurate as you made them. Off the top of my head, Deus Ex, Oblivion, and even Rainbow Six Vegas to a slight extent (character with more armour = slower, but tougher) all managed this just fine.

There’s no reason at all why the new Fallout would have to be any different just because it’s played from a different perspective. Even if it weren’t for the VATS thing, it’d be very easy to, for example, make your gunfire less accurate if your character had lower gun skills. Have a look at Mount and Blade, for instance – all about action and fighting, but if your character was crap with a bow, you’d be crap with a bow. Simple. Given that it’s based on the same engine as Oblivion, this is if anything MORE likely than its being a mindless twitch shooter where any character with a rifle is as good as any NPC with a rifle.

Besides which, there’s nothing ‘pen and paper’ about your abilities being restricted to those of your character. Just look at any football game or even ancient side-scrolling shooters where you choose between a fast, weak ship and a slow, strong ship. Do you suppose those are all “going to the heart of pen and paper” whatever?

Look at the X-Com games, too – yeah, your soldiers have stats and such, but even if they’re hawk-eyed supermen, they’ll be cut to ribbons if you’re tactically inept.

Even when you’re totally in control of what, if any stats your character has, success at the game – any game – should still rely on player skill. Turn-based combat just generally requires different skills – foresight and resourcefulness rather than speed and accuracy.

Otherwise, what’s the point? If the game’s totally dependent on character skills and nothing else, you can just grind up an invincible player and cruise to the end without even thinking about it.

As for the graphics, what you’re actually complaining about, then, is that they’ve changed the style. You earlier claimed that you wanted ‘decent graphics’ and would be happy with that, but despite the fact that they’ve given you decent graphics (although I maintain that what I’ve seen so far is far too grey for my liking), you’re now complaining because they’ve changed the style.

I’ve no problem with your not liking the art direction, but, y’know, pick a bloody reason and stick with it, please.

What makes you say the straight turnbased combat and the isometric perspectives were intentional. This was 1998 and Baldurs was arguably among the first true real time rpgs. As for why it was isometric, do you really think it could have been made in the Quake engine? If this is true then why did the makers go on to create Vampire Bloodlines as a real time, third or first person game. A game based on a pen and paper rpg.

I’m not saying you have to kiss the game and marry it but sheesh at least wait for a review before you dismiss the writing and dialogue you haven’t even heard yet.

See fanboy. I liked the originals too, though they just fell short of the Black Isle games due to combat, but I’m still going to judge this game on it’s own merits.

“How do you know none of these are in there?” Metal Circus asked what was wanted, how is answering that bashing the game? Though we do know that there’s no dumb dialogue for low intelligence characters because they’ve said there won’t be, and the examples they’ve given of the game’s dark humor just aren’t of the same style as the Fallout cRPGs. As the fine tuning excuse, the game is due for release in a few months, the voice acting would of been recorded a long time ago. Hmm perhaps that’s why none of the dialogue choices in Mass Effect matched with what your character actually said, they fine tuned the dialogue at the last minute.

Why do new graphics need a redesign? Aren’t their artists capable of recreating the same style but in glorious next gen 3d? Why does power armour have to go from smooth retro 50ish styling to clunky medieval knight with pistons, or why does the pulp sci-fi like skintight vault suits become a baggy ill fitting suit? Or why do the super mutants need to go from early marvel hulk like creatures to generic monsters?

Oh, please. “Pen and paper mechanics” can lick a socket. Turn-based combat is fun because you have to plan your moves and think tactically, not because it’s just like being a tedious spod throwing dice around.

Same dialogue, same quality of writing certainly, same dark humor and level of irony, same ability for your stats to affect what dialogue choices you have and most definately the same level of consequences to what you say and do.

How do you know none of these are in there? The demos have focused almost exclusively on shooting. Yes, that is a worrying sign, but it doesn’t mean that there’s nothing else to the game. Apart from anything else, they’re probably saving the dialogue fine-tuning until later on, when the world’s been properly put together and all the possibilities programmed in. You’re talking as though it’s already been released. Express reservations, by all means, but damning the whole game before it’s even finished, let alone without playing it is just silly.

And get your arguments together, man – you say you (well you say “we” actually, which is pretty presumptuous by the way) want “decent graphics” but also complain that they’ve redesigned things and that you want the talking heads from the first one back. Which is it? How are they supposed to give you new graphics without redesigning anything, particularly given that it’s set in a different town with different people?

Fighting the urge to bludgeon anyone using the word ‘canon’ outside of a cathedral…. arghnnkk!

Same characters no, why would we expect that, Fallout 2 might of had a couple of cameos from the first game but didn’t set a precedent for a direct continuation of narrative, though it’s funny that despite the location change and advancement in years Bethesda are using the same organisations and can’t come up with a more original name for their dog companion. Same dialogue, same quality of writing certainly, same dark humor and level of irony, same ability for your stats to affect what dialogue choices you have and most definately the same level of consequences to what you say and do.

What we wanted basically is a new game with decent graphics and interesting storyline that’s a continuation of the series in both terms of gameplay and canon. Not a generic sandbox shooter with rpg elements, that picks bits and pieces from the previous games (including Tactics which they’d declared non canon) and jumbles them all up together.

I think a lot of Fallout fans are just scared of seeing something new, even if it ends up being a good thing or *gasp* benefitting the game! What do you want? Fallout 3 with the same graphics engine and the same combat system, characters, dialogue etc…?

:edit: watch the latest 1up show… they had the same guy come in and do a demo of fallout 3 and he talks quite deeply about what’s in the game.

As for animations, I think you’re getting confusing producing animations for prerendered vs 3d games.

@Noc DC former swamp remember not an arid desert environment. His post might of been… confused but that doesn’t detract from from your need to highlight his comments on a totally different site where the game is also being dismissed. And there’s a big difference between over the top gibbing and limbs simply dropping off.