JE Sawyer replied to a thread about Turn Based or Real Time for Fallout 3, and he ended up talking about the size of Van Buren (latest Bis project in the works):<blockquote>However, at the beginning of Van Buren, we sat down for a few weeks and made outlines of the various areas you could explore in the game. It was pretty damned big. So, I went back and I looked at Fallout. Fallout only had 13 areas. Fallout 2 had 23 areas. Does Van Buren really need to have 23, or even 20 areas? Personally, I think it would be better off with 15-17 very good areas than 23 really rushed areas. And if, in those 15-17 areas, you can get better gameplay balance than you would have been able to in 23 areas, I think that's a good thing. I would rather have crazed lunatic people complain that 100 hours of gameplay isn't enough than have the majority of people quit the game because the first 10 of its 300 estimated hours just suck.</blockquote>And just behold this quote from JE:<blockquote>Perhaps I am showing an improper bias, but I am more inclined to err in favor of a good TB system if RT and TB clash on some aspects. Generally speaking, people who don't like combat in the first place would rather play real-time. That doesn't mean that people who DO like combat only enjoy TB, but... I think you see where I'm going. The TB fans tend to be more discriminating about the implementation of their preferred style of combat.</blockquote>We lub y00 JE!