Search results

Pen and Paper only use turn based because there's no better system for P&P. Which isn't to say it's the best, it's the least bad.

Yeah, it was just as absurd that you couldn't leave the west coast in the others. There has to be some boundary, does it matter if it's a 200 mile area or a 2000 mile area? It's still a lot of space for things to happen regardless.

I assumed we were talking about Fallout as that's what this site is all about. And anyway, it's part of the core design philosophy? You mean that fallout is intrinsically turn-based and that you can't have fallout without turn-based combat? That seems silly to me. Fallout to me is the setting...

I really prefer the idea that if people are coming and going into the area we're in with some regularity, that there is a reasonable way in and out of the area we're in.

It's cute how you think turn based makes it better, or at this point has any chance of happening again.

No, they're not invisible. They're clearly marked on your map. I just said this. You quoted it. Clear barriers are better... sometimes. You can't have the whole game world surrounded by canyons and mountains without it feeling ridiculous.

I can, and did.

First, your assertion that bs reasons for not liking fallout 3 are always called out is ridiculous, or you have a very different definition of bs. Second, the link you posted refers mostly to invisible walls that don't tell you they're there. Oblivions map (which you always have access to)...

Less than half the franchise at this point is exclusively turn based.

Oh, no. 18 year olds are still retards. Functionally similar to a bowl of lukewarm pudding in critical thinking areas.

You could just say "MMORPG". It means the same thing.

Bunch of pedants. You know you're playing a game. The only games that can get away with the entire game map being limited like that are extremely linear games. Fallout had nothing beyond the map, Warhawk has "damage zones" and I think those are all acceptable choices. Honestly I'm more ok with...

Really? I just went "Oh, ok. That's the edge of the map."

Well, I haven't looked up the Fallout 1 examples yet, but it seems with the things they made give bad karma, they may have intended to make it a karma score more than a reputation score.

Not so much, I didn't have time to compile a list of everything, so I started with the game I'm more familiar with.

I meant more along the lines of raiders/traveling merchants and assassinations. Killing whole towns should reduce karma based on any system.

Grave robbing. Taking the money from the well in Modoc. Obviously killings where people don't know you did it, or leave anyone left alive afterward (this is especially egregious when it gives you positive karma). Blackmailing the doctor in Vault City (obviously, he knows what you're doing but...

Enough things give you good or bad karma that no one should be able to see that it doesn't work well as a reputation stat, which is probably why they renamed it.

It's lazy implementation if it's not supposed to be an objective measure of actual karma. It's lazy enough that I always thought it was intended to be a measure of actual karma, which is why I don't have a problem with this, I guess.

I'm sorry, are you disputing the "no one saw it, yet it contributes to my karma/reputation" being the way it worked in Fallout? Does it matter whether it's called reputation or karma?