Duck and Cover

Very true, and as a fellow drinker I definetly see your point. But I was working today, I'm in a construction trade, and we're currently turning the old fallout shelter in a school into class space, so of course I was thinking about fallout and mainly diferent styles of play.... And then it hit me. It's a combination of real time and turn based that I've only ever seen in large scale strategy games, and a few battalion based strategy games. It wasn't implemented very well, but it has a lot of potential should it finally be used right and in a game like fallout where most if not all of the combat is squad based, it could work. It's a system where commands are given in a turn based fassion and then the action is implemented in real time. Like player A moves his character "spike" 15 meters to a point inside a building, and then allocates the rest of his action points to covering an area outside the building. Computer orders raider A to walk down the street spending some of his action points for reaction, while raider B is using his action points to cover raider A. Player presses play, and "spike" moves to the building and starts covering the street just as Raider A starts walking down it. "Spike" shoots raider A, raider A returns a snap shot as his life leaves him, and raider B sees "Spike" shoot, returns fire, misses, and we're back to the planning phase. It has everything everybody wants. A little realism, and things happening as they do, plus all the time for planning your strategy, time to sip your beer, smoke a cigarette, and all the time for skills and stats to be properly brought into play. But like I said, we'd need an engine that properly uses the system, and not just hate it because previous games that used the system didn't work to good.

Make the fuckin game

uh what was wrong with fot's combination of turn-based and real-time?

Stupid.

Hey, first post. Had to register to get in on this discussion.

I had the somewhat unique "advantage" of starting with FO:T and later playing FO1 and 2. Since I did that, I didn't get used to one particular style of game only have it switched up on me in a mostly non-canonical "sequel" that ignored most of what made the first two games so good.

From that perspective, FO:T was actually a pretty good game. Not fantastic, but good. It was good enough to get me to try out the first two Fallouts, and of course I've been hooked ever since.

Point being, I actually did get used to CTB since it was (I believe) the default setting on FO:T. So now, I like it better than TB. As a result, I found the pace of FO1 and 2 to be a bit... well, dull. Sorry for the blasphemy, but you know what they say about opinions. So anyway, I'd think the best bet would be to offer both. I don't think you'd have to tweak the actual gameplay any, if at all, to allow for both options, and it keeps both sides happy. First and foremost, I think, we want this game to sell. All of you do. If it doesn't, I think it's a pretty safe bet to say that the Fallout franchise will finally and completely die. So with that in mind, I think we want this game to have mass appeal. Unfortunately, that probably means a few concessions here and there.

Personally, my major fear is that it's going to end up being first person. Did I understand wrong, or did one of the developers say in an interview something to the effect of "we've been doing first person all this time, so we're not about to switch to a third person top-down isometric now"? THAT would suck.

they haven't said anything that drastic just yet

Can we expect something similar to the work done on Morrowind, in terms of that style of game experience?
Pete Hines: Again, it's early to say, but it wouldn't be a leap of faith to say that we plan to use technologies in development otherwise. You could make some fairly safe leaps of faith that it would be similar in style. We're not going to go away from what it is that we do best. We're not going to suddenly do a top-down isometric Baldur's Gate-style game, because that's not what we do well.

That sounds a LOT like they're intending to make it first person to me.

Uh when did he say that? I've never seen that quote before, and I find it hard to believe he would open up Bethesda to the inevitable amount of criticism such a statement would bring, so early on in development.

I prefer turn-based, it accenutates the tactics a lot more than RT or CTB. But seeing as how Bethesda certainly won't make a pure TB FO3, I'll pick Both. I was pretty happy with FO:T's options; of course small things within them needed work, but the lack of a forced mode was appreciated.

Keep the turn based combat. I would like an adjustable camera. So I could do top down, top down at an angle, or standard 3ed person, and also be able to freely move the camera like in Dawn of war.

FOT's combat system was ok, but buggy, it wasn't finnished, so to speak. If Fallout's combat systen is ditched, then I'd pick FOT's...allthough fallout's TB would be absolutely preferable.

There is a box surrounding most of you. Climbing the sides of its walls leads to the edges of your sealed fate. Frantically you keep trying to move beyond your imprisionment, but alas it is hopeless.

If game design boils down to turn-based or real-time then you know that you would never, personally, make a good game designer.

Theres more to a game then the systems that make it flow. Look at D&D games as an example. You can only be stuck on D20 for so long before it starts to hold back the creative element.

If FO3 encompasses the history of its predecessors, the immersion of the world that surrounds the character, and the unique development of the character as the first games. It will be a success.

Regardless of whether any of the minority, the extreme fanbase, think.

Sorry....