There has been a lot of talk in the last few days (again) about why we, the Fallout community, are so set in our ways. One thing that has been really bothering me while reading comments on various forums has to do with gameplay. Take this for example, a comment made by aries100 on the RPGWatch forums:
To me, clear it is, that NMA basically wants the same gameplay as in FO1 and FO2.
Maybe they will agree to updated graphics, and the use of a PhysX
engine in the game, but they still want their turnbased combat and the
other things in FO1 and FO2. However, this isn't a realistic approach
in today's competetive market.
I don't think this has ever been really addressed. Why, please tell me, is turnbased combat an unrealistic approach in the market? The Fallout series was a commercial success, and Tactics held records for pre-order. Some of the most successful RPG and RPG-esque games in history have had turnbased combat, most notably the Final Fantasy series. You cannot tell me that Final Fantasy was not a commercial success.
So to anyone reading this, I pose this challenge: Prove to me that turn-based combat, or even any other aspect of Fallout gameplay, is not marketable.
I don't want to see baseless claims like this one by aries100. If I (and the rest of the FO community) am to be convinced that turnbased combat is unreasonable, then I need a very convincing argument.
I also encourage any developers that read this, whether from Bethesda or from another company, to add some input to this as well.