Quote:
Originally Posted by antikristuseke
I passionately disagree with you. Fallout should have never gone from turn based to real time, nor should it have ever been first person perspective, but to each his own. At least New Vegas is a decent game, unlike Fallout 3 which was meh at best.
|
Yes, to each his own.
Personally, I detest turn-based combat. I understand why it was used in the early days of RPGs, but game engines have evolved and improved. RPGs strive for realism in the choices the player makes and the effects on the surrounding world, so why not include a quasi-FPS approach to combat? It certainly is far more realistic than having two guys take turns whacking each other until one of them falls over. Really, I don't see how the evolution of RPG game combat is a detriment; it brings it up to par with the decision-making aspect of the RPG, allowing the player to be fully engrossed, rather than relegating combat to a series of abstract menu commands. Certainly the combat has a ways to go in terms of functionality and freedom, but Oblivion (the forerunner of F3 and NV) was a tremendous step in the right direction.
Of course I'm going to disagree about Fallout 3, but I have never been a Fallout 'purist'. I tend to put the game experience before canon, and in that regard, F3 shines. I loved the free-form sandbox play of the game, but I know that it turned a lot of people off. I really like New Vegas too, but one of the things that I don't like is the story-heavy play. I feel forced to pick a path and move down it. For example, from Goodsprings, I am
forced to go south, as there are creatures to the north that are far too powerful for a new player to handle. This is intentional, designed to funnel the player into a series of plot devices. It is well done, but I still prefer being able to go where I want when I want to.