Wombat

Do you mean the episode in which he enjoyed FO but thought he could do better and entered the industry? Yes, it came across to my mind when I happened to glance at his Xbox profile. Also, he is one of a few designers who have kept in touch with their fans through forums despite the hardship they had to get through. I, however, must say that it is still too early to congratulate. Off the top of my head, he lead IWD: Heart of Winter, IWD2, Jefferson, Van Buren, NWN2 OC, and Aliens RPG. Only half of them have been completed and, even completed products were not satisfactory even to him. I think HoW was quite good in its own right, though. I'm yet another who'd like FO:V to be released in a good shape. I guess "Good Luck" is more like it.

This explains why only a few people complained of the issue. Guess Bethesda did a good homework after Oblivion.

If Obsidian optimize the world for seamless world like Bethesda did, I think it's O.K. even in that case, the fast travel function will help those who have weight on following quest/plots lines than exploring. Likewise, if the compass and quest marker are still not optional in Fallout, probably it would be desirable for Obsidian to make it optional. The same thing goes for VATS arguments...players can choose between VATS and real-time play, so, why do you need to improve VATS? Shouldn't they optimize real-time combat? I find it odd that the same people who think that Obsidian should improve VATS while they, at the same time, think that they don't need to implement possible fast-travel tweak to FO1/2 style, insisting that they should optimize the seamless experience. I guess this is more to do with subjective game-play preferences rather than logical thinking. Since there are almost no feedbacks from the designer side, I think it's O.K. to discuss the possibilities but, sometimes, I feel that we are running in circle especially about VATS improvement and the fast-travel tweak. I know it's partially because we are confined into one thread, though. PS BTW, Tigranes, why do you omit the link to the original post? It is designed to help the reader to read the original post you quoted. That's a good point, I guess.

Or, scientific reality does not necessarily suit "realism" or our feel of reality.

IIRC, a designer of Bethesda said that they initially aimed at "real scale" Washington and that they began to realize that it doesn't work well...probably...in terms of game-play. So, I take it Bethesda probably did a decent job in balancing "realism" and game-play. ED:O.K. I found the interview.

sadface How much of the dialogue was actually completed for the project? Even if it just turns out that FO:V feels like just an expansion of FO3 with recycled graphics and game-play, that would suffice to me, especially since I haven't played FO3. At least, I cannot expect these factors in Bethesda's works. The last story-focused expansion by Bethesda was, TES IV: Shivering Isles, even which I haven't played. All the Fallout expansions don't seem to be praised of these essences.

I thought at least some people in this forum may mention the reputation system of Jefferson aka BIS version of the Black Hound but, since no body mentioned, I'll link Porject Jefferson page by Sammael. You can see some ideas around the reputation system, such as regional/factional reputations, fame/infamy and epithets in the gamplay section. Probably, it should be noted that Jefferson's reputation system was quite complex* and the time passed after J.E.Sawyer posted these ideas. So, we most likely cannot the expect the exact same thing in FO:Vegas and/or other upcoming games but you may take a glance at how J.E.Sawyer was thinking about reputation system. Also, J.E.Swayer, if he feels like to, may give us his insights/opinions about the reputation system of Jefferson since it's not directly related with FO:Vegas. *It's so complex and comprehensive that even Chris Avellon was burnt out by writing a part of dialogues according to J.E.Sawyer.

It would be just arrogant to declare a certain style is "true." There are a few factions fan-bases involved...roughly divided, they would be Obsidian, BIS Fallouts, Bethesda and Fallouts 3 fan-bases. Some areas may have conflicts but, probably, there should be some other areas to satisfy a certain fan-base without annoying the others too much. Indeed, assignable resources are limited but I guess there are more conflicts between game-play/level-up system of Oblivion and that of BIS Fallouts. Maybe, the designers have already started to divide possible expectations to preference groups and are wondering what they can do to satisfy each group/segment. Personally, considering that I didn't hate Morrowind and Bloodlines, I guess I'm rather forgiving for game-play but not so in terms of the content such as lore, believable world settings, story, dialogues and NPC interactions, which is considered as the forte of Obsidian, if they haven't changed their human resources dramatically. BTW, talking of NPC interactions, how about Karma system? Was it just simplified good/evil approach? J.E.Sawyer had an interesting approach to the Black Hound, which is more complex NPC reaction system. Even Bioware is going to throw out the good/evil global morality slider in Dragon Age. Is Obsidian going to stick to the karma system or thinking of implementing a different system?

I think any hardcore RPG gamer forum would fit if you would like to bash games by Bethesda but what I wanted to do is to examine the possibility of "the greatest common factor" for both hardcore gamers and other gamers who make enough money to keep a company stay in the market at least. Oblivion did some things better at least about combat game-play compared with Morrowind. Also, NPC dialogues became more concrete although the quality is rather disappointing. The game-play of Oblivion made the game more friendly while the lack of deeper content made me bored pretty quickly. I think, for those who played older TES games, it was pretty obvious from the start. Now, if Bethesda managed to do better job with FO3 than they did in Oblivion as some people here mentioned, then, I think Obsidian could do a better job with dialogues and balancing if they are given enough time. That said, something bugs me is what Annie VanderMeer Carlson, one of the former Obsidian employees, complained of at ITS forum. http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index...g23598#msg23598 http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index...g23602#msg23602 Even in Obsidian, is this tendency of shifting weight from the content to the game-play happening? Even with the game lead by Chris Avellone? Then, again, AVC seems to be yet another person who is in the dark. http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index...g23802#msg23802 What we know is that the company seems to have became quite huge.

I have my likes and dislikes, too, and, to me, Oblivion was a huge disappointment to me since I liked the politically complex Morrowind. The direction is almost totally opposite of what I wanted it to be. However, it sold well especially on Xbox 360. It is very easy for us to tell what likes/dislikes but most likely we are rather ignorable portion of demographic in the major game industry share battle field. Nobody need to defend Oblivion since its strongest defense is the sales figure.

However, it doesn't explain why so many people bought the game. If it hadn't sold well, then, I wouldn't even bother to try to figure it out.

O.K. I felt in the same way. I was not trying to defend any game but was simply trying to figure out how design decision worked and why they were so successful, which is, unfortunately or fortunately, an unignorable fact.

Hmmm...I haven't played FO3, so, my opinion on that system mainly from speculation. This doesn't make sense to me - if you want to make a shorter game because you think people want this, sure, make a short game. But if you're going to make a LONG game, then you pace it appropriate to your own length. People who can't/won't finish your long game will simply experience early and mid game up till the point they quit. Or should people who only want to play 10 hours be allowed to experience late game FO3 as well? That's not really a logically sound design decision. FO3 has such a rapid scale either because of problems in the development process (e.g. while modifying encounter frequencies, experience point gains, power of perks, accuracy rates from your SPECIAL stats/skills, etc), or because of an indefensible design approach that somehow wants most people to become Godlike much too quickly in comparison to the content available. Once again, I stress, this is not about people who complete every quest and go everywhere. FO3 SPECIAL, and things like Fat Man, 'cheating' VATS and Bobbleheads, give you a tremendous amount of power no matter how you play. FO3 isn't necessarily be a long game. Even if FO3 may have a lot of content, you don't need to play to complete them all, which is why I compared it to a buffet. It can be from a short game to a long one, depending on each player. Some players may not like to grind/solve many quests and go for the main quest straightly while some other player may take more time on the game world. If Bethesda targets at the latter people, then, the latter people would be unhappy since the game is too "slow" and cannot be completed in a short period of time. If Bethesda targets at the former people, they may not be completely happy with the "quick" pacing but they still like the game enough to spend their time on it. So, I think Bethesda took the middle and probably near to the former people.

I think that you are just looking at the same problem form a different angle. In Oblivion, there is no pacing due to the paralleled scaling while, in FO3, scaling is refrained but it caused the issue of pacing since there is no way to predict how much time each player ends up with spending his/her time on the open game. As I see it, the problem around "pacing" is that it is impossible for the designers to predict "the number of hours to finish a standard playthough" or time which players end up with spending on the the games like the Elder Scroll Series and Fallout 3. If Bethesda expected the projected number of hours for the majority, or people who don't bother to complete most of quests, then, this "projected number of hours" are rather aimed for shorter time than the time which more hardcore gamers can wish for. So, I think Bethesda set the pace for the majority and that, for the people who'd like to spend the game time more, they treated it rather like additional content. Of course, if the designers expect less playing time, then, they make the pace faster, which is why, I guess that, in FO3, the PC quickly becomes a "God of All Proficiencies."

Is the a reflection reaction to the complaints about Oblivion, where PC doesn't become remarkably stronger than enemies even after gaining levels? As I see it, it's a tough call since "the problem" is deep rooted. Modern players tend to like quick paced games while these classic gamers prefer slow building-up. It's like modern sports entertainment. Modern people are busy with other things, so, each entertainment needs to cost less time. A part of the reason why Oblivion was supported is, I think, that it adjusts game-play time for the players. If a player likes the game, he/she can indulge him/herself by spending just as much time. Like a buffet, you can take anything form it and go back to your life any time you like. Bethesda designers mean business. It's much more accessible than classic role-playing games are. Even older gamers, who have probably now jobs and things to do, have to admit that the game is easy on them in terms of time-constraint.

Oops

Speaking of history, I was surprised by my ignorance about Las Vegas. If Obsidian stay royal to 1950's Las Vegas, which was at the beginning of modernization, it merely had 64,405 people even at 1960. Even a brief search on the net shows this. However, I wonder how many people think that it suites the image of the city established by now. Indeed, it's misconception but...in FO world are full of misconceptions about radiation poisoning... Wow...it's getting hard to catch up with these threads... A hybrid of the quick-travel and a modernized FO 1/2 map, then. Thanks for the info. Of course, some people must have the same idea. The lead designer is a carnu... fond of automobiles, so, it could be interesting. Then again, I guess the reason why we tend to think automobiles should be able to run post-apocalyptic road is Mad Max movie. Even about tougher vehicles which can survive Paris Dakar Rally, how could they keep them in a good shape? Well, the same thing goes to firearms as J.E. Sawyer implied. If it fine with Mad Max, then, probably, it would be fine with FO, I guess. Do you mean something like a motor-cycle armor? Both classic FO started from humble beginning...so, it seems to be O.K. but I wonder it doesn't scare off modern gamers too much. In fact, Chris Avellone mentioned that the slow beginning was one of the failure in Planescape: Torment in one of his recent interviews. Alternatively, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. did quite a nice job to make the players feel the map larger than it really is, I think, if we avoid the overland map approach. If you'd like to enjoy honeymoon with Bethesda, then, it's O.K. I guess everybody here would like to see the game is shipped.

Basically, I agree but the setting is in Nevada. How do you manage to express a vast and waste desert in a game without boring the players, then? I would only add that I do think some of the quests had potential, but such potential is never developed. They never go anywhere or lead to anything that has ramifications for your character. The quests just kinda...end. And leave me with a real sense of how utterly pointless that just was. Bethesda definitely believes in quantity over quality: they throw out a bunch of things, but instead of developing those things to the point where they have significance, Bethie instead just throws out a bunch more things, and then more and then still more. I guess their thinking is that if they throw out enough ****, people won't realize how utterly devoid of meaning and conseqence it all is. Those are exactly my thoughts on Fallout 3. A lot of times there were quests, or details in quests, which spawned some curiosity in me but every single one of them ended without really making some kind of impression. The quests in F3 felt just like reading random Twitter posts, or playing Starcraft matches which ends with your opponent lagging out, or something like that. It's never concluded or tied together in a way that doesn't feel clich

Hmmm... How did that quick-travel turn out in FO3? It may have random encounters, too, which might not kill the sense of survival totally. I wonder if I can call it "hybrid" of Fallouts, though.

That's what I'd like to suggest. S.T.A.L.K.E.R. did it pretty well in building up sense of survival in a rather small area.

Fryda pointed me to this great .gif. http://www.gifbin.com/982739 Watch Lake Mead on the right. Whoooosh. I wonder how people can survive in Nevada without the lake. With a huge water chip? Since I haven't played FO3, I don't know how it is expressed but is there a desert in the game? I encountered a large desert in a game called Gothic III and, as a game, I think it was a failure. I needed to keep pressing the move-forward key for a long time to travel through the empty desert. It did feel vast but...yes, that's where I gave up completing the game. Guess I'd prefer random encounter system here, letting my character travel through the map and enjoy the sense of survival. Yes, I'm a wimp compared with those who enjoy the game while dealing with its numerous bugs and the empty areas... The sense of survival worked nicely in small island was dulled when the stage is replaced to a continent with a huge desert.

At least, the choice of the city is wise in terms of both its distinction and density.

As some people have already implied, that free roaming sense by Bethesda doesn't belong to Obsidian, I guess. Even some ex-Black Isle Studios designers don't have much experience in this area. FO 1 and 2's sense of free roaming is built in a different way with some important areas, random encounters and the world map which gives the players an illusion of making these "pieces" feel like a consistent world. If you use FO3 engine, you don't have this trick. Even a team which are accustomed to make a sand-box type game, make a blunder as you can see in Gothic III. Now speaking about it, even Oblivion felt quite repetitive, showing the struggle between quality and quantity. This is why I thought it may be better for Obsidian to "play their game" with their own engine rather than trying to imitate the game-play of Bethesda but the scenario is very unlikely. Also, Obsidian don't have stealth magician like Emil Pagliarulo. I know it's dated but Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines' "stealth-play" was... Although the game is very different, in NWN2 OC, I think Obsidian tried too many things to live up with the reputation of NWN. You are good at management and have earned some experience through these years but I think the development period is rather short to make the game live up with the expectations from people played FO 1/2 and FO 3.

http://twitter.com/jesawyer/status/1208521245 http://twitter.com/jesawyer/status/1241475092 http://twitter.com/jesawyer/status/1242814392 Yes, it was around the same time he stopped updating his BH blog. funcroc easily surpasses me when it comes to use the web as a "research" tool, which is one of our modern daily skills in both works and private lives. Vegas located relatively near Santa Ana, I guess they chose an interesting place relatively handy for researching. In any case, "educated guess" seems to turn out to be just as simple. I don't know why Hines needed to drop hints like that if it's just their Gamebryo engine, though. However, I guess the engine isn't a big problem to me. Talking about Van Buren made I realize what kept me from buying Fallout 3. While I admit that people at Bethesda are talented in their own way, I think I still cannot totally forget about the canceled project. IIRC, a guy at Bethesda, I think it was Peter Hines, said something like they'd like to talk about the ideas while they were developing FO3. So, J.E. Sawyer's insanity passion may have payed off in a way. Also, Feargus and the other ancient elder game-designers, seems to have quite a lot of acquaintances and friends in this industry. In any case, if things go well, fingers' crossed, FO:NV is going to be the first FO game I'll play after these years.

Realistically speaking, Gamebryo is more likely but Onyx would be an interesting candidate since it is probably better suited for the team to "import" some ideas from Van Buren. Then again, you are right...we cannot but wait and see.