mandrake776 said:
It's cute how you think turn based makes it better, or at this point has any chance of happening again.
What makes you think I think either one of those things?
Turn based doesn't make the franchise better, turn based is what it is. It is part of the franchise core concept. "Better" indicates a relative scale that is not present here, we only have a yes/no dichotomy.
mandrake776 said:
Pen and Paper only use turn based because there's no better system for P&P.
Man you're just here to rehash chewed out subjects or what?
You're skipping a logical point here: Fallout is not emulating pen and paper combat in the sense that it has the same goals as pen and paper combat (i.e. emulating reality), but in that it emulates the original experience.
mandrake776 said:
No.
Fact.
mandrake776 said:
That they shouldn't change it is *opinion*.
In an extreme postmodernist sense, sure. But who in the world does not agree with the adage that a sequel should be true to both the gameplay core concept and setting of its predecessor?
mandrake776 said:
They never should have tossed GURPS. It's fundamental.
It was never a choice. Ideally the game would have used GURPS.
mandrake776 said:
It changes what Fallout is.
Really, the original magically becomes real-time? No?
What you're trying to say - I think - is that Bethesda's take on the franchise will be what the franchise is for now. And that's true. Bethesda's Fallout franchise is a FP/RT franchise. That changes absolutely nothing about the heritage of the original or what the franchise should be.
You seem to think these pragmatic arguments are going to saw anyone here. That is odd. We're way too Quixotic for that. The word belongs to Cervantes:
Too much sanity may be madness and the maddest of all, to see life as it is and not as it should be.
You honestly think what the franchise was originally intended to be will change simply because Bethesda threw millions of dollars at it? That TB is not simply an alternative and valid combat mode simply because the media all say it is dead?
Are those things true? Yes, but in what sense? They're simply assertions of what is happening now, they're not statements of intent, will or even opinion. In that sense, they are meaningless. It's like Ford's "the customer can have any color as long as it is black" - that is a statement of reality, not either how things should be nor of how customers should react. Only in this example, rather than adding colours eventually Ford would just have kept rolling out black cars while shouting "it is what it is!" Do you see how meaningless that is? Ford's assertion that all cars are black is not an argument that proves anything, it's a statement of fact.
Also, if you keep dismissing points people make in these snide one-liner manners I'm just going to assume you're a troll and ban you. Sorry pre-emptively. Unless you shape up
