Haha jesus, that does sound terrible..I'll read it after I finish my review..I try not to be influenced by outside opinion.
Kinda unfortunate..I thought RPS was one of the good ones..between that and various other things lately (esp. that Witcher 2 nudity bullshit) I dunno..they're not what I thought they were.

It amuses me seemingly every one of the readers disagrees with the review..

Good to know! Thanks. I am actually looking forward to getting around to 3. Is there a mod that helps the dialogue? I really wouldnt be able to stand crummy writing.
I'm enjoying New Vegas so far anyway. I consider myself pretty open minded and not one to look for reasons to hate something (RPS apparently).

If you're enjoying NV, chances are you'll like F3 then, its pretty close to the same level

Both those things are directly related to their new writer Quinton Smith, who I pretty much disagree with every time he posts. He was never a flat-out bad writer/reviewer before though, which he is in the New Vegas review.

As for liking Fallout 1, 2 and 3 I personally do. Fallout 3 (and New Vegas for that matter) is not the same type of game, but I thought it captured the spirit and mood of the original games and also offered that great Bethesda-style exploration. My main issues with it were poor quest design and poor writing. I'm not sure what happened after Morrowind, which had great writing and an incredibly deep and twisted plot, but Bethesda's writing has gone to shit.

New Vegas fixes the writing and quest design and also throws in some scattered extra depth in the RPG mechanics, making for a game that really combines the best of Fallout 3 and Fallout 1 and 2 into one modern game. I don't care about bullshit numbers, but it's a must-play and absolute success for people that liked all three prequels.

I'm actually stunned by that RPS review. It seems to be completely opposite to the feelings of everyone replying to it. Not to mention when it was first up it was littered with spelling mistakes and they little dig at the pronounciation of Caesar is easily answered with a quick look in a Latin book. Eeesh, I expected better from RPS.

On the subject of Fallout 3 yes the writing can be crummy but once it hit's you just how big the whole world is you kinda just blank it out. And when I say big you probably wont realize how big till you stand at Little Lamplight or Snipers Point and look back across the Wasteland to see the Washington Monument in the distance. I've sunk about 300 hours into the game and I expect more of the same from New Vegas. Once the mods start rolling in then New Vegas will be transformed just like Fallout 3 was.

It's not just about the nature of the game but also how clunky Fallout 1 & 2's implementation of combat was.

I even prefer X-Com Apocalypse's turn based combat and the UI on that looks like you're trying to pilot a spacecraft or something. It's another example of a really unnecessarily cluttered UI. But the gameplay itself seemed more fluid because the pace of play is not broken in the tactical sections.

User interfaces and controls have become more intuitive and responsive since then. Ultimately, the design behind them has become more intelligent and aware of the gamer's experience. That's the kind of thing that an AAA budget helps buy. If done correctly you should be left with any less options. They're simply available in a more naturally intuitive way.

Real time combat that can be paused has the benefits of both worlds. It makes a lot more sense. Turn based combat's tactics are based around the rules of the game, rather than the combat itself. So you're going to attack, then if any enemies are left alive in range of you, you're going to try and shield yourself from attack. Which in Fallout 1 & 2 sometimes simply meant moving out of range of your enemy.

There's also the fact that it's much more intense and skill based than turn based combat. Hence it being much more involving. It doesn't represent a break in the flow of play either. That's something which is vital to a role playing game. It's not like here's you talking to someone then here's you attacking someone.

One of the biggest improvements in Fallout 3 was how the transition from exploring to talking to attacking was as seamless as it could be. You never stopped being the vault dweller taking on the wastes to enter into attack mode. Fallout 3 could have been better in terms of combat though. A better example is Mass Effect 2. Especially in the way you get to issue orders to your squad.

I thought for once it was nice that they got that detail right in game. Perhaps it's the time I spent around people mangling the Latin when using it for taxonomy purposes, but Latin is really a pretty language when you get it right. As opposed to those morons that decided back in the 90s that Chile is pronounced Chilay. Chilly isn't the proper pronunciation in Chile, but Chilay definitely isn't right either.

That being said, is it just me or is the game world significantly smaller than FO3 in terms of actual size? I'm not sure if it's a matter of the location markers being bigger and me moving faster, but it seems to take a lot less time to get places.

from a content vs squarefootage of game space F3 has NV beat in spades... NV has a larger worldscape but not more content, rather things "to do"

finally got to see it playing.. still looks like a really well done mod for F3 imo... But from what i saw i do want it, i'll be waiting for next xmas though so i can snag all the delicious DLC at the retail price ^_^ by then all the problems with steam and mods will be fixed.

I absolutely disagree. Real Time and Turn-based are just completely different beasts. Real Time with pause is still real time. It's not in between or a "best of two worlds" thing. Neither one or the other is "best" - they are just different - and as with any game design decision it matters so much on how you do it, rather than what you do.

The question is what type of game you want; what the definition of role playing game is. I am not among the "purist" people, but I do think they have a good set of arguments. Originally role playing games aimed at playing a role of a character, including those with vastly different skills and abilities than what you as the person playing possess. With that in mind abstraction becomes a necessity. It's not about how quick your - you as a player - reflexes are or how accurately you can use your mouse, but about what the character you role-play can achieve or not, based on their skills, traits, etc. Turn-based is essential if you aim for this type of game.

[To take it away from a computer role playing game situation - it's not about how agile/strong/charismatic or not you as a person are - but about what the character you control can or can't achieve.]

In these type of RPGs player skill base should not enter the picture (aside, from, of course, the fact that you are more intelligent than the AI - which is unavoidable no matter what game-play mechanics you use)

I strongly disagree that real-time for whatever reason is more "intense" by default than turn-based. X-COM can be pretty damn intense, as can Jagged Alliance be. Both feature well-designed turn-based combat, and that's the key. If the system you use is implemented well enough the person playing will experience intense moments. In a well implemented turn-based game this is more of a "mental" intensity, whereas with real-time focused systems it's a more "physical" type. Neither one or the other is better. Just different. A badly implemented real-time system can be just as "intensely" boring as a badly utilized turn-based one.

I don't get the last part of your argument. By and large (Alpha Protocol being probably the only example against) interactive dialogue in games is much closer to turn-based than real-time.

If the Steam sale around Christmas offers the game for $5 or $10, I may consider it.

Depends how you define "role playing game"

The first (modern) tabletop RPGs were really just squad-level tabletop warfare games (often in dungeons). All about the rolling of dice and the like.

The first CRPGs were mostly dungeon crawls, which tended to have even less "role playing" than the average FPS.

JRPGs are Final Fantasy and Chrono Trigger. Great stories, but again, abut as much roleplaying as the average FPS.

Unless you go with the broad definition of "role playing", at which point, Super Mario Brothers counts.

Yeah. My bad. Definitions are tricky. [I'd argue that even in the turn-based wargames character skill over player skill is also at least somewhat valid / as is the case with early dungeon crawls.] Definition isn't what I want to get hung up on here nor is it the important part of my argument in the post before. I do absolutely adore Vampire: Bloodlines and enjoy loads of real-time based stuff if the game itself is done well.

But the key is that game play mechanics depend on the game you want to make. Real-time vs. turn-based should follow from that. Neither is better or worse than the other, but there's levels of how well implemented either are.

Both systems have a place and fully deserve to exist.

Ah yes, I remember hearing about him going full time. The Witcher thing was written by Alec Meer though who I believe has been there for ages. And if I recall he's done that sort of thing before.

New Vegas: yep, that's the impression I'm getting so far. :) It feels like a Fallout game. Great to have it back.

The pen and paper game often seems to be as much of a hindrance to computer roleplaying games as it has been a benefit. Perhaps this will pass with time, as the games market starts to come into its own.

The very nature of the pen and paper game is built around its rather obvious limitations. This means that statistics need to be a very opaque aspect of the game. It means that dice have to be rolled to emulate the element of chance (something which could easily be replaced by player skill in a computer game). Then of course there's the fact that the combat needs to be turn based.

These things don't make the pen and paper game a roleplaying game. These are merely its limitations in that form. Therefore not qualities that are at all necessary to translate into a computer roleplaying game.

For instance, you mention that you're roleplaying as a character and have to adhere to their limitations; yet why can't you see how this can so easily be taken into account in a far more seamless manner? Especially when so many games have already done this.

You attempt to fire a shot, but your character's aim isn't steady enough to be accurate at that range. You miss. You try and pick a lock, but your character is a brute whose fingers snap the lockpick almost instantly. You fail. You attempt a spell your character barely knows. Against the odds, you make it work. But you won't be able to take that kind of chance again in future without perfecting your newfound art.

No need for dice rolls. No need to take turns. No need to even level up and certainly no need to take turns in combat.

To me a roleplaying game is very much about playing a role. Being that character and shaping them as they affect the people and the world around them. Fallout segmented that experience; broke it down into chunks. The roleplaying experience becomes less involving as a result.

I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with turn based games. I love a great many of them. But they're mostly strategy and tactical games. Games that are immersive in an entirely different sense than the Fallout style RPG.

I would just like to say that Fallout: NV is brilliant. Really enjoying it so far. Now I haven't fully explored the wasteland yet but even if it is smaller than the Capitol Wasteland it feels much more like Fallout then FO3 did and there is a lot more to do.