TB is an awesome thing... it allows to fully enjoy combat...

No, it allows you to fully plan out combat when its well done, which it wasn't.

True. Turn-based allows combat to become a fully tactical affair. Fallout's implementation turned out more of a slot machine, and could use improvement :P
The implementation of TB, that is.

The thing is, the fact that it was turn based was part of the general spirit of the game. Putting something different in place changes a mechanic that lay at the core of the game, spiritually and practically.
Sure, it's but one part of it, next to dialogue, character development (which is tied to the TB, by the way) story, setting etc. Not to mention all kinds of abstract things like atmosphere, feel, immersion, humour... But it is one thing. One thing that matters to people, and actually has a huge bearing on their preferences and capabilities too, making it even more fundamental.

Only thing I liked about the TB is that it made character's comments fit in at appropriate times, instead of being awkward.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Doubler @ Jun 16 2007, 03:09 PM) [snapback]294709[/snapback]</div>I'm going to have to agree w/ everything you said re: TB play of Fallout. The same thing I hate about M&M 4 (Haven't played 5 yet) is the character speed. You're a freaking computer using programmed logic. Move on your stupid turn and let me play again. One thing I actually liked a lot about Tactics was the fact you could use TB or RT(realtime) so if you wanted the action of 3 guys running up on you while another was holding you down with a rocket launcher, you could. Or, TB - see above. For the record, I got my GI magazine yesterday (or was it Saturday?) and I can back up anything that was said re: screenshots, the character creation, etc. If you want me to post screen shots, so be it, but whoever denies that stuff is true, you'll be laughed at as a skeptic soon. I'm really interested in playing F3, but like anyone else who absolutely loved 1, 2, and Tactics, I'm a little nervous. From what I saw and read (which was the whole article 2 times) it looks to be a good spiritual successor from the other games. I'm a little iffy on the behind-the-back camera view or First Person, to me it seems a little cheap to steal from Oblivion, which according to this thread we knew all along, but, I can get over not having the same camera view if they do a good job with the gameplay. I'm not as interested in the way they do the graphics and camera as I am with the content, replayability, open-ended choices, multiple endings, etc that made Fallout so great in the first place. I can gripe and complain for the next 15 months, or I can shut up 'til I buy the game and then rant if I hate it. I'm going for that option.

I remember playing the first Fallout and using the "Ask About" box to type in "Sex" and "Gay Sex" and they would say "I don't know anything about that" and I'd be like "Sure you don't".

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Blood-Pigggy @ Jun 16 2007, 02:00 PM) [snapback]294694[/snapback]</div>It's not dumb - it's Fallouts BFG :titan:

After reading I believe the game will be OK. One thing that makes me a little bit worried is combat. I hope it won't get too much FPS-like ...

One more thing - do you remember Lionheart? That game was great for first half, multiple speech options, a couple of "guilds", lots of enemies, S.P.E.C.I.A.L. Ok there was a little annoying fighting. It was all great until the war - after that all the magic was gone ... game became Diablo-style - last chapters was totally crap and made the game just average or even below. I hope this won't be F3's fate

Handheld nuclear bombs are not particularly Fallout imho. The nuclear explosion in Fallout is a popular 50's (not that it’s changed that much) idea of huge devastation that might just end all life on the planet if there's any decent number of them. You know, the kind you go blind looking at, produces lots of Fallout and turns the general area into a wasteland?

Not some bomb you can throw a couple of meters away to kill some beastie.

Well, we have plasma fusion technology and powered assault armour, why not a handheld WMD? I think the fatboy was more of a flavour text thing than anything else though. I personally wouldn't care if it does make it in, or if it's left out.

Because of two reasons mainly:
1 - Those things fit in with the popular retro-future vision. A hand-held nuclear bomb doesn't for the reason outlined above.
2 - Those things make a minimum ammount of sense, ie. launching plasma or walking around in power suits or even ray guns are within the imaginable, while throwing a full-fledged nuclear bomb 5 meters away and coming out without a scratch and happily smiling requires you to suspend your disbelief to absolutely ridiculous levels.