However, at the beginning of Van Buren, we sat down for a few weeks and made outlines of the various areas you could explore in the game. It was pretty damned big. So, I went back and I looked at Fallout. Fallout only had 13 areas. Fallout 2 had 23 areas. Does Van Buren really need to have 23, or even 20 areas? Personally, I think it would be better off with 15-17 very good areas than 23 really rushed areas. And if, in those 15-17 areas, you can get better gameplay balance than you would have been able to in 23 areas, I think that's a good thing. I would rather have crazed lunatic people complain that 100 hours of gameplay isn't enough than have the majority of people quit the game because the first 10 of its 300 estimated hours just suck.

Summary: yes, balancing real-time and turn-based will take time. Yes, real-time and turn-based battles will not play out the same even under the most ideal circumstances. However, enough people are DIE-HARD ADAMANT about only playing one way or another that we believe it is genuinely important to pursue. Will turn-based combat be as balanced as it would without any real-time component? Of course not, but if the difference of that balance is minor, I believe allowing both of the die-hard groups to have a fundamental element of play to enjoy is important.