Zembar said:
In regards to your first paragraph - we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
Well, we could, but then you'd be ignoring what the actual developers of the game
have said.
Zembar said:
I believe the setting and atmosphere and such is more important than turn-based or not. I guess it's pen and paper-related in my case a well - I believe that any good roleplaying setting works equally well regardless if you're using D&D, GURPS, Rolemaster or a freeform system. The holy grail in emulating pen and paper roleplaying is not in getting the gritty details of a system - it is in allowing freedom to play the character you want in a compelling world.
No, that's the 'holy grail' in roleplaying. However, what the Fallout team attempted to do wasn't to bring that experience to the PC, they attempted to bring the experience of playing a pen&paper game (a GURPS game specifically) to the PC. Remember, it started out as a GURPS game as well.
Why then did Fallout use graphics at all? A text interface could feasibly reach the same goal. Making the graphics prettier isn't a result of dumbing down - it's a direct result of technology improving.
Pen&paper gamers often use miniatures.
And ehm, besides that, who said anything about it being a shame that the graphical quality gets better? No one's complaining about that.
In regards to the combat mechanics, I would also prefer turn-based, but pausable RT where you can queue up attacks allows me the same control, and relief from twitch-gaming (provided it's implemented as an actual way to do all combat and not just a novelty).
Actually, this is not what Fallout 3 is going to let you do either. All it's going to let you do is queue aimed shots. Everything else is in real-time. So everything in combat, including moving, reloading and whatnot does not fall under paused RT.
The other elements you bring up as butchering:
Child-killing: If the original FO didn't have killable children, it would still be a brilliant game. It's great that you could do it; but if it wasn't possible, I would have shrugged it off and paid no attention
Unkillable NPCs: Yes, it's lame, but if done sparingly it could work. Some others have brought up Horrigan from FO2, which is a good precedent in that sometimes you want to be able to show off an important character early without completely destroying the plot. Preferably, I'd see that it was handled at least slightly better though, for example that the character escapes in some manner instead of just not dying.
Chivalric BoS: I can definitely see it happening over a few generations, to at least some degree. If not because traditions are formed, but as a way to create mystique to control others. Think Bene Gesserit from Dune here.
Just because it's possible doesn't mean it fits the setting.
Isengard Mutants: I think that's just fear-mongering. The super-mutants in previous games were mostly aggressive attack-on-sight mobs as well. It's been stated that there are mutants you can communicate with and even befriend
Ehm, Isengard Mutants refers to the look of the Mutants, not their hostile intents.
Radiation-Zapping ghouls: I see this as a part of the radiation mechanic. As I understood it, they would so much use radiation "laser" beams as they would be radioactive, and prolonged exposure could raise your radiation levels. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
No, the ghouls have a zap-attack. Full-stop.
If people want to play Fallout or Fallout 2, there's a great solution: Fallout and Fallout 2. (Even though I wish there would be graphically updated versions of them. The games are still just as great, but after 10 years one's eyes get used to better resolution and whatnot.)
'Hey, there's a game out there that does what you want, why don't you stop wanting anything new and just play that game for thousands of years'
