Wombat

Thanks for the video clips. Game-play seems to be solid enough and pretty intuitive, too. However, as for immediate purchse, I wonder. I waited for core i series gets mature and, when I finally began to play FONV on my Sandy Bridge machine, its like where are bugs people mentioned. Now that purchase as a vote doesn't work considering my particular tastes and the size of the market. In fact, it makes less sense for me to be eager for the info on titles before their releases especially when I can be spoiled occasionally. In any case, I'm still playing FONV and won't have time for this one and the Witcher 2 for a while.

Well, you have no idea how long I had to wait till I put my hands on FONV even after I had waited for another fallout so many years. Just saying.

Started Fallout New Vegas, finally. Sheer first timer to FO3 engine. To be honest, I'd prefer STALKER as a shooter game-play but the setting feels definitely familiar. I think the designers did a good job although I don't know how much is Obsidian's part outside of the content since I have never played FO3 or have no plan to play it. Anyway, I couldn't resist urge to build a PC with Core i7 when 2600k is released. Comparing the previous machine of mine on Pen4, it feels quite stress free. Even with maximized settings, it only uses at most 10%. Indeed, I feel bit stupid to pay around $1000 for a PC nowadays especially I don't play many games while I could have bought a console. However, I cannot use it for daily tasks outside of gaming, can I? So, don't blame me for being so geeky.

Three or two, either case is probably wrong... After all, we don't even know what are called "stances" in reviews. They can be abilities and, if so, the choices are 9 for each fully-developed character. And abilities can be further customized through proficiencies... In any case, if the divisor is 9, instead of two or even three, accessible /competent abilities through the the course of the game would offer reasonable number of choices on-the-fly. For they are gradually unlocked and a player can only invest limited number of points. Well, I just like speculating.

I don't follow, what is wrong with this? This isn't "save resources", that's, well, customizable characters. You want 4 different types of warriors that are all 'locked' into one specialism? It's not right or wrong issue. I'm just wondering. I used to think the two stances are for tactical choices. For example, Lucas can change his stances depending on the circumstances. Sword + shield for a single strong opponent while two-handed weapons for crowds, which was an explanation in earlier reviews. However, now, the article tells that players seem to be able to develop one stance over the other in terms of character customization. Also, as it continues, if the AI finds the player developed his character in such a way, it uses the more developed stance over the lesser one. Naturally, this choice at the character customization stage would diminish the tactical importance of on-the-fly tactical choice between stances. This made me wonder what the stance system is about: character customization or on-the-fly tactical choices. Of course, it can be both but I cannot think of the way where one doesn't interfere with the other, by myself. Hence the question. BTW, where the number of "four" came from? Lucas' stances are two-handler and a one-handed weapon + shield while Anjali's ones are fire mage and monk-ish melee. So, two stances for each character. In any case, why the two aspects would be needed to be in one character if it were only about character customization? So, "resource-management" part is more of my speculation, which is why it is presented as a question.

This is true. Till reading this, I thought that the stances were for tactical choices but, if a player chose to develop his character in favor of one stance, then, doesn't it diminish the tactical importance of the other stance? Or stance system may have an aspect of resource management? I mean, rather than allowing a player to make two characters such as a monk and a mage or a two-handler and a sword+shield tank, Obsidian decided to put two aspects into one character to save some graphic content-related resources? Furthermore, how about loot-drops, related with this? If a player likes to use one stance over another, is the dropped item is going to be different? For example, if a player likes to play Lucas as a tank, then, he will get a shield rather than a greatsword? If so, it will widen the powers between two stances even further. On the other hand, if he get a greatsword, for example, while it may cover up the gap, players choice on character customization would be diminished. This kind of "issue" wouldn't happen in a pure action game where player is not offered much choice on character development, though.

O.K. Back to norse-themed Skyrim. Shame they had lost writers.

Sorry, my bad here. I guess I speculated too much to mix it up with my own speculation. There seems to be focus meter, which can be charged through basic attacks, compared with mana meter, which needs to be recharged through mana potions. General attacks seem to work as a power generator for special attacks. I remember when I was playing DS demo, which was quite fast-paced action RPG at that time but have to stop at times to wait mana/health healed, occasionally. The time felt quite long for me due to the pointlessness and I can understand why Obsidian needed to do something with that. I just mixed it up possible solution in my head....something like cool-down timer for each spell. The problem with CRPG is that, different from its PnP counter part, even if I have some frustrations, I cannot change it by myself. I don't think good-old D&D level 1 magic user, who could only cast a spell once per day (Well, I know the time when they couldn't even cast a spell at level 1...), wouldn't find a place in modern action RPGs. They worked in the context of squad-based tactical RPGs but probably not action RPG. I remember some CRPG old-timers made fun of Oblivion's magic staff, calling it a locket launcher. Different from Oblivion, DSIII is still party-based but there won't be enough people for magic users to shield them. Also, what should mages do while being "shielded"? Even D&D shifted into more multi-class friendly scheme rather than pure class stereotypes of old times, where we needed 5 to 6 people rather than 3 to 4 in the recent editions. And now, we are talking of non-stop action RPG, here.

That's pretty limited list in my book. According to what I read so far, characters are customizable in terms of their functional roles but they are tagged with given backgrounds...and no magic ??? Does no mana necessarily mean no magic? D&D doesn't have SP or mana but have magic, for example, if I have to point this out at all. If you replace the resting time of D&D with the cool-down timer in modern RTS/RPGs, you will get the system. It's just adjusted to fast-paced action RPG. Also, magic and magic-like abilities seem to have been unified into the same system, which may have caused confusion to you. Communication doesn't seem to go well either with me or, probably, the designers. Reading info here doesn't seem to be so helpful to you. You may need to play the actual game in a way or another...such as visiting demos or using rental services.

On the contrary, I found its in the right direction. About Alpha Protocol, I felt they were putting action game factors in RPG context while now it seems they are putting RPG factors in action game context. Will DSIII have fewer RPG factors, then? I don't think so...RPG is innately flexible but you may have different opinion if you don't know various rule sets. I have seen quite many people find it tough to adjust themselves to new rule sets. Its ok for players but, if game masters are like that... I've gotten an impression that Obsidian may have found there are still more room for their originality than they thought even in contemporary game development.

Yea... this is like more of statements of sentiment, which we have indeed seen a lot of these on these boards. I won't buy it if it doesn't play like DS I/II, Fallout I/II. Even if you think you sound sarcastic to a certain group which don't share your taste, it comes back to you just by replacing the name. The scheme is "I won't buy it if it doesn't play like *insert the name of your favorite game*". As I wrote, probably most of Obsidian have gone through it already. Even Emil at Bethesda confessed the pressure he felt while making FO3. Well, actually, I haven't bought FO3 while I bought FO:NV (Haven't played it since I'm planning to buy a Sandy Bridge machine...I might be taking care of my current machine too well) but its not out of sentiment and I kept one of the my eyes on the development process as close as possible and had a general idea about what I was buying. So, come to the boards, pay attention to what the designers tell as well as what they have to tell in public (I mean, some are just business lip service conscious of their sponsors). As for DSIII, although this is just my personal impression, probably, they won't have as much as numerical details in previous DS but, the team are making sure that every choice should have "meaning" about character customizations as well as other decisions. It will appear to have fewer choices at a glance but they will probably cover most of the stereotypes with distinct characters.

If I need to remind at all, DA was originally designed for PC exclusively. Bioware needed to "adjust" this part for the sequel. I guess this is inevitable as long as the majorities are playing on consoles. Recent devices such as Kinect will probably make the development more complicated. However, at the moment, probably, Obsidian built Onyx capable of dealing with either PC and consoles, which would suffice at least for the current major market. IIRC, Sawyer mentioned this one somewhere but, building the core game-play first and doing the underlying data later would be a desirable process for the development. Obsidian must know quite a few tricks to deal with these underlying data, they needed people to build the core game-play. Even though they seem to have staggered upon UE3, the designers always appear to be happy with Onyx even back to Aliens RPG. If you are looking for some of these "classic" style games, though, you may like to look for portable devices/web-based ones. The new Tactics Ogre is out now, for example. Some designers mentioned dreaming of making such games for Ipad/pod, too (although I have to point out that's just the "dreaming" stage of "development"...well, if we can call it development at all). I wonder if something like TO can be sold well so, lets see.

Play WoW, then. Well, where should I start? First of all, I wonder why do you need to find the game-play of this game should be like WoW. Obviously, Obsidian are struggling to make a game which feels native to each input device, ranging from consoles and PC while WoW is only for PC. As for originality argument, copying other works will eventually drain up the genre, even if it is done very well (and there were numerous unsuccessful Diablo clones, including Lionheart). Seeking for originality may be just risk management of one company called Obsidian but, it also works as one for the industry itself in the long view. In fact, Chris Avellone lamented how few new applicants try to be original, which is probably legitimate but, at the same time, they need to study popular game-plays which most people enjoy to secure a certain amount of the denominator or player population depending on the magnitude of the market. At the end of the day, its just a matter of balance. If I need to add at all, there are so many "Otherwise, I won't buy" comments in various fora boards but I guess most of designers know how to deal with these comments.

Planescape: Torment tried to challenge established Tolkien-ish fantasy settings as many as possible. Among them, it didn't have a sword. It's nice to have such attempt in good-old days of game development but, it is too risky for the business model nowadays. Then again, it doesn't mean that Obsidian designers don't need to give up all of their creativity/originality at all. They can just start with the game-plays/settings with which the targeted segments feel at home and turn the table with some twists. For example, loot economy is one of the important factors in scheme established by Blizzard and, probably, it would be unwise not to follow it but, focusing more on story/setting is what Obsidian are good at. Game-plays are more tricky with the common argument between abilities of chars and players and Obsidians past work was mainly focused on the former. The majority don't seem to be happy with Alpha Protocol while they seem to find New Vegas ok. I wouldn't like to see Obsidian repeating the same "mistake" by making something which people find half-baked. Hopefully, they will be able to strike a vein to trick more people into appreciating their dark scheme creativity. After all, quite many people in Obsidian seem to have game-mastering experience so they should know how to enjoy their players without scaring them away with forced "originality"/"creativity." We cannot do game-mastering without players, of course.

This quite sums up my own view to them, too. If I could add, they used to have this tendency of choking themselves by putting too many ideas into each of their project. Their ambition is definitely admirable but they needed to make these ideas accessible from players in their final products. Fortunately, Chapman seems to have made his team more conscious of their final products through his thumb of the rule. With this one, I, somehow feel confident with just seeing the development process. Keep the good work, team.

Of course, there are different types of improvements through different standards. Ground-breaking and original improvement can be nice but, IMHO, going back to the original and thinking how some essences/spirits of it can be done in modern context is also important. I think there are some often argued opinions about Fallout-ness. For some, its the canon, for some others, it's tactical game-play and, for yet others, the capability of free-roaming. However, for me, it's probably PnP feel, where we can enjoy order-made adventures. If I value Obsidian more than other "RPG" makers, I think its is because they seem to make their games with this PnP feel in their mind. Even the "new" reputation system is merely a device to realize the custom-made adventures for CRPG players. Reading quite many reviews now, I believe Obsidian is successful in carrying it for various types of players, at least to some extent. The game seems to be released in Japan and I read some comments in Japanese. Personally, I found this user review interesting. "More I play, More I feel how the designers put their efforts into it." "We live in the world where no majorly accepted justice, devouring some social evils, questioning our own faiths by ourselves: Shouldn't we give such a game, where we can realize our modern society, to our next gen? For we have fed up with a games where the good beats the evil." The reviewer obviously hasn't played FO or FO2 but, isn't it sweet to see even people who probably played mainly JRPGs make a comment like this? Its quite obvious that designers like J.E. Sawyer is heavily influenced by post-modernism and it's interesting to see that Obsidian was able to give some quasi-experiences to people who have different social contexts. BTW, "We prepared a stage for you, now enjoy your freedom!" is a catch in Japanese.

Reading reviews and comments by the players at various sites, I guess I'd like to congratulate FONV team, despite of the score of some major sites. I read quite many non-professional reviews written by FO3 generation about how they were pleasantly surprised by how quests betrayed their forethought. Also, I came across discussions done thousand of times since FO and PST were out by old gamers who came back to the boards here, too. If this were not called a success, how could I define one? I even think Sawyer managed to achieve one of his main goals as a CRPG maker, which happens to be as same as my own view to the spirit of FO, with FONV...at least, to some extent. O.K. I haven't touched the game yet since I'm still planning to buy a machine which is capable of running Deus Ex: Human Revolution and the Witcher II, but I guess well-deserved congrats won't hurt

When I read reviews of Alpha Protocol, I wondered if the decision makers of Obsidian kept their eyes on modern game-plays. I can understand their views since I myself know older CRPG but they didn't seem to have analyzed why Vampire: Masquerade: Bloodlines was not accepted by the main stream. Especially they were releasing the game on consoles after something like Oblivion, I thought they could have made some analysis on the current main-stream game-play. For, if they fail to keep the players spend hours and hours on their games, the players won't be able to notice what shines in Obsidian games, which is definitely a shame. To make the world feel deeper with more traditional methods, I think Obsidian has upper-hands on other game companies and I'd like others to recognize them. Now, although I haven't touched FONV yet, I'm quite happy with the user reviews on that game. In fact, I could congratulate the team if Gamespot had given a better score since their reviews seem to be still important to some people. I'll play FONV probably after I buy a new comp...I'm away from gaming in general and am terribly bad at throwing things while they are still capable as daily tools. Now I'm just in carefully avoiding spoiler mode...

How about FO:NV? It saddens to see you keep saying that you are disappointed by the turn-out of the games you played bigger roles... Back on topic, DS3 seems to be on a good direction... To be honest, I was bit worried Obsidian might not be able to keep up with the modernization of the game industry but, about this game, I read the posts of the designers confidently.

It didn

Well, is there any hope for a revamp of the difficulties? If other factors remained exactly same, you would be in trouble with hardcore mode of FO:NV. However, information so far tells it is unlikely to be the case. The problem is that we haven't seen how things work in FO:NV, which is, indeed, based on the same engine but with some additions and tweaks such as twice as many weapons, re-grouped skill system, damage thresholds and weapon modification system. Nowadays, Sawyer won't give us detailed answers (I'm not blaming). So, I guess it would be suitable for us to come back after we have our hands on it since things are very unlikely to be changed in this stage of development, i.e. bug-fixing phase.

At superficial level, yes.

I find your analogy is rather opportunistic than analytical. Baldur's Gate introduced real time tactical combat to CRPG, which made CRPG more accessible than it was. Rather, IMO, what Baldur's Gate did is something similar to what Eidos Montreal is doing with Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Of course, they may fail in any way but, at least, judging from what I read so far, they sound more convincing than Alpha Protocol team was to my ears: It sounds like a plan although I was more skeptic when I heard the team is not composed of the original one. Now is different from "then." In the context of this thread, releasing Deus Ex then and Alpha Protocol now is totally different. You can defend Alpha Protocol at Obsidian boards but can you support Obsidian by yourself, I mean, with your own money? I saw BIS/Troika go down but I couldn't do anything with that. I don't know much about game development but I guess I'd better write something critical in an attempt to save them from themselves. IMO, they need to modestly learn from bigger RPG makers in terms of technical side while keeping their originality which bigger RPG makers fail to deliver. IMHO, Alpha Protocol's game-play doesn't seem to be original but the contextual role-playing/choice and consequences are not something other companies can do. Then, shouldn't they focus on this feature and try to deliver it in a more refined form? Some other people may have better idea for Obsidian but that's what I can think of at the moment.

[Off Topic] ??? There must be some misunderstanding going on here. Nobody takes unfinished products as positive and, commercial wise, it would be rather dangerous for Obsidians to think the majority of gamers are forgiving to "unfinished" products. In fact, some forgiving PC gamers didn't save Obsidian about the sales of Alpha Protocol. I'm going to buy it but I know it won't help Obsidian, either. [Edit]It's quite common sense that wishful thinking in business is not recommended. I know my preferences but I cannot ignore what my common sense tells me, where I'm prepared to some "trade-offs."