See, this is the point where we will never understand each other since it's a preferencial point. I value RP part of Fallout over PnP feelingz sim. (does FNV hurt your PnP feelings, dear reader of this shitty engrish text?)
Well, I already made a disclaimer there that the system could be pretty much anything as long as it properly works as an RPG. PnP system is arguably the best one to convey RPG mechanics, but (like I mentioned some time ago in another thread) since there has been a kind of new school of thoughts on how cRPGs should stop emulating PnP system (and instead, make their own), that might change
Standard set of 1st/3rd person+free rotate isometric covers it all for a real roleplaying game, f2p spin-offs need not apply.
What's the example of the games that has "standard set of 1st/3rd person+free rotating isometric"?
For you.
Nah, it's debatable. We already know that combat is not really a Fallout's strong side, RT or not, first person or not. But if character's build still matters, I'm fine with it, and fine with F:NV since numbers still matter here even in RT, yet F:NV makes little things like weapon unholster duration or weapon's weight or weapon's rate of fire or bigger things like different ammo types matter. More like a tradeoff than taking away unless you suffer from holier than thou regarding RT vs TB question. Lockpicking I already stated somewhere would be fine if it wasn't locked behind "tiers" rather being easier to perform gradually with higher skill number by messing with "sweet spot" parameter dependent on the lock. No actual need to outright remove them. Hacking... Yeeeeeah it's crap, realistic or not. There are mods for both so fixable I guess.
Yet the impact that STR-Weapon Skill requirements has upon weapon usage were rather minimal, to the point of being so negligible that crouching eliminates the swaying almost completely. I'm not denying all the improvements New Vegas brought upon Fallout 3's broken system, since I also thought it was definitely a huge improvement to the RPG-FPS hybrid format. But, again, the execution were rather lacking, that the shooting mechanics does what it does instead of being truly affected by the RPG mechanics.
Then why only Nevada and New Vegas succeeded at utilizing SPECIAL for the said things and nailed the Fallout-like quest design and structure then while 1-2 stucked with useless skills, underused stats, boring quests featuring dungeon clearing/stealthing (holy shit what a decline and casualization
/s) and Toddouts didn't even try? (and a big "?")
Again, New Vegas leave a lot to be desired when it comes to moment-to-moment gameplay (like exploring the wasteland, combat, lockpicking, hacking, sneaking). Sure, SPECIAL felt much more meaningful and there's literally no useless skills, but where's their actual impact upon moment-to-moment gameplay?
Also, those things you said about 1-2, have you considered that they were old games, that the devs were pretty young and inexperienced with the system they've created, and so their successors pretty much seen it all to use the system better than the way it was in the originals? My point all along was to remove all the bad things, add new good things and improve existing good things in Fallout 1&2, not just keeping it as is.
You still press on PnP simulation and diceroll-driven combat but totally forget how the games begins. New Vegas has no defined character background (unless you installed Lonesome Road, but that's another holywar for another time) and Nevada has a nice plot-twist for this. And in 2D realm they begin with a character with already set in stone background, less in 1, more like throwing a stone in F2 but still, hampers roleplaying if even more than less dicerolls for combat. If you say it's not important, then I only can send you back more propsers.
Again, I've made disclaimer that any system could work, so long as they convey a properly working RPG mechanics. Taking the overall implementation, Fallout 1&2's system worked much better even though its results leave a lot to be desired. New Vegas was certainly a yuge improvement over Fallout 3's broken system AND much more favored its RPG mechanics instead of FPS's, but still nowhere near as good as how it was done by 1&2. And what does the protagonist background of each existing games has anything to do with what system is better and why? Are you saying that Fallout 1&2's system can't work if, for example, we place the Courier in there system instead of New Vegas's?
Devs would ditch this "let's simulate PnP even though actual PnP players don't need this shit on an inferior to their imagination computer" shit and make a proper RPG nailing all other things F1-2 devs failed. And yes it would be glorious game of the century like Arcanum. Arcanum was the shit, and still kinda is.
Again, read on the post you quoted here. If I'm to erase the word 'PnP' from there, then devs like Iron Tower Studio and Stygian Software (and pretty much every other devs who's part of New Age cRPG Incline) would definitely not the devs you described above.
Kohno is not the law abide to.
Nowhere I'm saying you should listen to him or whatsoever. All I'm saying is that what we're arguing here is all a matter of taste. I can advocate for an improved TB-combat oriented Fallout games, and so can you for an improved FPS RT-combat oriented Fallout games. I'm only referring to my discussion with Kohno because he actually got good suggestion as to how to improve FPS RT-combat oriented Fallout games so that they can work better as an RPG instead of the atrocity that we got spawned by Gamebryo.
Tradeoff is a better word, again. Obsidian still saved that "your build matters" thing that is vital part of RPG in F:NV, the reason I still consider this as a better game than 3-4.
Tradeoff is a better word in New Vegas's case, yes. But the future has been set in stone: it's all about sacrifice now. Let's get back to valcik's first post in this thread. All he's saying is that, basically, any other kind of 'Fallout' games would definitely gonna steer in the direction assigned by Bethesda, and it's gonna be fucking ugly. Hence why he wouldn't care unless, by some miracle or whatever, a Fallout game is made truly in the root of the originals in every way. Is it wrong to hope for that? Instead, you have to come and talk about the past; when all valcik talked about was the future.
Besides, we all secretly know that older games are better because of that sweet Speech skill letting us talk through the entire game, basically "driving through the mountain" in a VN mode and NV is worse because it expects us to take action and play the goddamn game, what an insult! Games should be accessible to everyone, amirite? Same with Nevada but too few people here or on the 'Dex actually played it to stirr the hornet's nest enough.
Nah, older games are better because it lets me to piece the puzzle all by myself (freely letting me to tie that rope so I can climb down a ruined elevator etc etc) instead of.... well, I actually can't remember if New Vegas gave me any kind of momentary gameplay like that. Not to mention the TB-combat, despite of its shortcoming, does it job to allow better roleplaying than its RT-combat counterpart.
