Aristes

I think folks should be able to choose, at least somewhat. I liked TNO, but having something exactly like him in a Fallout universe would be tricky. I would hope we'll have more choices this time around.

How about a "what will I be playing soon" question? Witcher enhanced edition for 40$ or Mass Effect for 20$?

Hey, take care of yourself, man!

Right. The balance should be to add a little piquancy, some suspense, to the the quests, not to beat down the player with excessive time limits. The main quest should not be timed, and I think it's possible to write a main quest that need not be timed. (As opposed to Oblivion, where the quest was clearly urgent but the player could ignore it.) I think some quests should be under a sort of time constraint, but the nature of time and how it relates to the main quest line and side quests is tricky.

Yeah, but at least it provided us with a funny review. hehe

I especially like the part about the Americans' dialogue and voice overs. hahaha

But there would be no reason why they couldn't include at least some of the ideas from Van Buren. I think the biggest reason to leave out some of van buren is because too many of the small details seems to have made it to various places. I'm they don't want to have the entire story blown before they ship the product. I also agree with bhlaab. Obsidian simply has to fix some of the "in your face" errors in NV.

I don't really want a time limit, per se. It's entirely possible for Obsidian to create a story where the final goal is not so urgent that the PC doesn't have time to "prepare" or some such. I'm thinking more of specific quests. "My cat is stuck up in the tree." "A group of hungry raiders just stole my dog." "A small tribe of vampires just stole my sister!" I think there should be something significant about what the PC chooses to do. I also think that some of the consequences will not be immediately apparent. Of course, I think the consumers have voiced their opinion on this issue, so I'm probably just SooL. I'm going to say that's what I want anyhow, damn it!

hahahaha I don't know if that's true, you pirate, but that was funny.

I'm sorry but i dont recall anyone asking for "top down sprite populated turn based" game. And i don't get why someone should like something just because it's popular, that's like trying to sell BigMac to a vegan. Must a discussion on personal tastes always turn to a popularity contest? When someone sais "it's terrible", they usually mean "i don't like it" not "it's unpopular". And if it must always boil down to economic success/failure, one thing that hasn't been mentioned is that success is relevant to the budget. The higher the budget, the more sales you need to be successful. Okay, you've got me. Bethesda blew the budget, the game didn't sell well enough to make them sufficient money, and they're banking on an Obsidian success to make up the difference. Seriously, I don't want to argue with folks in order to prove that they should like Fallout 3. I'm just saying that my assumption has been that Obsidian would take advantage of the things that made Fallout 3 a popular game. That doesn't mean they have no room for change, even what I would consider dramatic change. ...But to deny the essential fact that Fallout 3 was a popular title scews the argument. Cronicler claimed the gameplay was "so... so... bad." That's fine as a statement of opinion. If it's all just opinion, then no argument has any more sway than another. Why bother talking? I understand that folks here advocate what they'd like to see in a game, which includes folks who have advocated a "top down isometric game." (Do a forum search if you'd like.) Go ahead and advocate what you'd like to see in a game. Honest engine. I don't begrudge folks saying what they want to see in a game. On the other hand, I'd expect to find that NV will use the same engine and that it will retain the most prominent features. If that assumption bears out, then it makes a lot more sense to argue for things that are possible from within the confines of the engine. Certainly it sounds futile to argue that they scrap the engine, although you're free to do so. I see sales as perhaps the single most relevant factor in framing the debate. It takes our discussion of personal tastes to a higher level because, at the end of the day, it gives us a few parameters. If the sales had been bad, we probably wouldn't have any expansion. If the sales are as good as I expect, and there is quite a bit of evidence to support the idea of strong sales, then Obsidian will likely not want to rebuild the game from the ground up. ...And folks have most definitely advocated scrapping virtually all of the FO3 design in order to dramatically change it. Hey, I'm with you, bro. You should be able to say what you want. Likewise, I should be able to say, "wow, that doesn't make sense. Why would they take a popular title and scrap all of it's most prominent features." However, if it turns out I'm wrong, I will come back to whichever thread is open and eat crow. I won't even hold it against you, or Cronicler, or anyone else.

If you don't like diatribes, you're in the wrong place. As far as EFCA, I think most unions believe that secret ballots discourage unions for a couple of reasons. First of all, the emplyer can use the time to try to persuade workers that unionizing is not in their interests. Unions figure, in this scenario, that time is not on their side. Because of that, some places will not unionize who normally would. If the process were simpler like, say, checking yes or no on a card, then employers would not have time to use propaganda to sway workers to vote no. In fact, most unions claim that Employers use varying forms of coercion, from intimidation to outright termination (nope, not assassination. Simply termination of employment.) to prevent unions from forming. So, as you can see, a quick decision would favor unionizing. Also, unions view workers as part of a unified population and cite the fact that industries do better by the workers when that particular industry has more union presence. In other words, workers in a particular industry, as part of that industries population, fare better when unions are strong, even if they are not part of a union themselves. By making it easier for more of an industry to unionize, the workers will do better across the board, and that would mean an increase in the American middle class. Aside from everything else, I distrust the EFCA because I don't take for granted that the union is less coercive than the employer. In fact, both unions and employers have a long history of using strong arm tactics in their struggles with one another. Both unions and employers have had long histories of criminal activities. That's my take at any rate. Hopefully, someone who agrees with the EFCA legislation will chime in with what would certainly be a better argument, although I've certainly tried to be fair. I held the diatribe to a minimum. lol

Seeing as how PST is still my favorite game, all these years later, I would love to have something that has a similar approach as TNO. I thought it was perfect to have a character who was literally yours from the ground up. I understand that a lot of folks didn't like that his ultimate backstory was preset, but whatever you did with him from the time he woke up in the mortuary was all your decision. I don't think the backstory for FO3 was bad, per se. It did allow for a lot of free roaming, I guess. However, I do find it disconcerting when the PC goes on his own way with allegedly important things afoot and nothing happens in other parts of the gameworld while he's gone, sometimes for rather long periods of time. This is probably what I'm hoping most to see from NV. I want a tighter story in a more coherant gameworld. I'm happy if we're given the same sort of freedom as in FO3, but I'd like to see consequences for where we decide to spend our time. Your choices are a lot more meaningful if you not only have to live with what you decide to do, but you also have to live with the consequences of what you decide you don't have time to do. You shouldn't be able to save every fair maiden, rescue every village under attack, and still climb that tree to bring down a lost cat. It's like you're on a sinking ship with your mom, your wife, and your best friend to whom you owe your life. Maybe you can find a clever way to save two of them, but you won't always be able to save all three, and you've got to be really clever to save two of them in the first place.

And this is why you don't understand what is going on here. Fallout 3 did not sell "ok." It sold extremely well. It shipped over 4 million copies its first week. It was the #9 for PC sales in the US for all of 2008. It sold about 2.5m copies on the PS3 and 360 in 2008. It is still selling for full price in most areas. It was not a title that just "sort of" did well enough to justify a sequel. It's a title that did so well Bethesda realized it was necessary to farm out an immediate sequel using the existing engine to Obsidian, something that never happens with Bethesda titles where they have a tradition of just building a new engine for every game. Anybody who did not like Fallout 3 because of the game engine should just take FO:NV off their list right now. It's not going to be anything different in that regard. Shipped =! Sold The reason I'm frustrated by these arguments is because it puts me in a position of arguing on behalf of FO3 when, in reality, I don't have a personal stake. If Obsidian took what BIS had completed so far for Van Buren, dusted it off, and finished it, I'd buy the game. If they took Fallout 2, tweaked it, redid the graphics, and made a sequel from there, I'd buy it. I'm not arguing that Fallout 3 sold well because I'm a Bethesda fanboy, although I guess I might as well be a Bethsoft fanboy as anyone else. *shrug* The fact is, I'm an Obsidian fanboy. That's why I spend all my time here. Aside from the obvious deficiencies in comparing a title like Fallout 3 to MMORPG titles, which must not only sell well initially but also sustain a large subscription base, the fact is that Fallout 3 sold well. Arguing against that sounds almost exactly like the folks who argued that the sales for NWN weren't all that great. Yeah, some folks still do, several expansions, a sequel, and expansions for the sequel later. haha *shaking head* Okay. You guys win. Fallout 3 didn't really sell all that well and the only reason it had decent sales to begin with was because of the flashy PR, marketing, and a few folks who got suckered into buying who thought they were getting Super Mario World. Actually, I'm sure Fallout 3 really was Super Mario World. Pretty soon now, after the true believers have shown the truth about the terrible gameplay to the unwashed masses, Bethesda will own up to the horrible sales and bury the unsold boxes of the game out in the desert. Then, you guys will finally have your way as Obsidian makes the top down, sprite populated, turn based combat game for which you've been waiting these many years. Good luck with that.

Good in and of itself? No, but I would really like to have some fiscally conservative voice in the government and the Republicans, at the crossroad, have been choosing to be socially conservative. I'm not entirely jaded. I want the republicans to do better, but I don't understand what they're doing squeezing out folks like Specter, and self serving or not, the Republicans in his state have been increasingly hostile to him based virtually entirely on social issues. Sorry, GD. I'm a Republican like you, man, but I'm getting sick of this business. I'm an unashamed and unabashed Reagan Republican. I believe in having hope for the future and standing strong and tall. What I don't accept is that we should stand or fall as a party based on abortion. Why is this a bigger issue for so many Republicans than stewardship of our resources and empowering our people? I'm not a fan of the Democrats. I've never let that get in the way of a friendship anywhere along the way. ...And some of my Democratic friends have said some stupid and crazy things. However, it's my Republican friends who insist that we're all going to end up in a socialist gulag. You know what, we Republicans used to be the party of optimism. Even when we were down and out, we were always sure there would be a better day and that our country would do right by itself and the world. Now I hear from my conservative friends that the US is going to fail, that we're on our way out. I'm disgusted. More than any other thing, Republicans used to be the party of a hopeful future. I never hated my liberal friends for saying that we were terrible and that things would get worse. I never hated them for saying that the United States wasn't as good as we Republicans claimed. I've always understood there needed to be people who kept our unrestrained exhuberance in check. However, now the Republicans are telling me to look fearfully to the future? Small government? Limited spending? Responsible stewardship of our resources? These used to be the gospel of the Republican party. Those of us who donated our money, not to mention our time and talents, to the needy never hated the Democrats for depicting us as greedy and selfish, either explicitly or by implication. We knew it wasn't true. ...But, if we're going to deficit spend, why shouldn't we spend it on social programs? And corrupt and self serving Republicans have eroded my faith in the party. I don't want to see the Republicans to be dispersed as a party, but if it gets rid of the dead weight when the new conservative party forms, I'm all for it.

I don't see how talking about FO3 could be offtopic in a thread about the next game in the franchise.

You know what would be cool, is having a situation where the factions are at war with one another for drinkable water or some other resource. The basic premise is, the PC has to decide to help one side or the other or just follow his own way. ...And then depict each faction reasonably. Kind of like an argument between Republicans and Democrats, don't just throw out cliched viewpoints. Make the best argument for each side that you can. Will NCR get the water, or New Vegas? Make the best argument for each and then leave room for the player to feel crappy no matter which side he chooses. If doesn't choose a side, then let everyone suffer even more! Yee Haw!

I think some combat changes must be inevitable. I just don't think that removing VATS is feasible, nevermind making the game a stealth FPS the likes of spliter cell or thief. The question isn't whether or not there will be changes. It's what changes there will be.

Yeah, here too.

You don't cover your mouth with your hand, silly. You cough into the crook of your arm or your shoulder. At least that's what I do.

I really hate level scaling also. Not only on principle, but in the game as well. I know the idea is to give the player balanced encounters, but it still sucks.

I think your posts are interesting, cronicler, but I have to say, statements like this just cause me to groan. Fallout 3 was extremely popular. If the gameplay were so... so... bad, then Obsidian would not be working on a new Fallout game at all. Sure, as a matter of opinion, you might not like the gameplay. Sure, you might be one of the crazies who claim that the massive sales for Fallout 3 were derived solely from crafty PR, marketing, and the slack-jawed, unwashed masses. However, constructive arguments regarding the new title would be better coming from someone who is willing to concede that the game is popular and scrapping all of the most prominent features is not a good idea. If your essential point is that the gameplay in Fallout 3 is so... so.... bad, then frankly I would take every single point you make with a grain of salt. I say tighten up what's there and maybe add new things to make FO:NV a title in and of itself. Don't go scrapping or completely removing features that built into the success of the first game. So, advocate what you want. Fair enough. ...But coming from the perspective that Fallout 3 was essentially a failure and Obsidian needs to raze most of it to rebuild from the ground up is simply nuts.

This is pretty bad news for republican diehards, but probably a good thing for the party in the long run. The party has strayed. First and foremost, regardless of Iraq, the market meltdown, or any other issue, the Republican party stopped being the voice of small government, fiscal discipline, and integrity. Yeah, I've been a registered Republican from the time I turned 18. I was in the Navy at the time. I'd joined at 17. I'm not an internet tough guy, but I'd like to think that I've always put my country before any specific party affiliation. I was an American before I was a Republican. The Republicans need to clean up their act because, at the end of the day, I don't see a huge difference between Republicans who want to tax and spend and Democrats who want to tax and spend. ...And just because I've been a Republican all my life adult life doesn't mean I'm going to be a Republican for the rest of it. Graham is entirely right. I could rightfully be pilloried for being liberal by other Republicans (and I have been) then there is something weird with our party. I don't want to win the argument, I want to do what I think is best, and if losing Specter is the harsh medicine the party needs to find it's way, then so be it. The Republican message could win the day in the Northeast, but to many Republicans say it has to be the whole package or nothing at all. That's why we keep seeing Republicans defect.

It's especially effective if you can mamange to cough up large wads of yellow phlem.

I read your whole post, cronicler. I guess my biggest problem is that I don't have any strong feelings regarding VATS. No, I'm not one of those people who says, "if you don't like one of the core game mechanics, just don't use it!" I didn't use VATS very often, but my reasoning wasn't that that it broke the game so much as the frustration of watching the scenes play out in slow motion. I'm just too impatient for that. The gore was over the top, but it was funny at first and then mostly irrelevent thereafter. I mean, yeah, I shook my head at the excessive gore and thought "wow, that was over-done," but I never really dwelt on it. My gut instinct is that VATS will have some improvements, but I think it's a thornier issue than just whipping it into a star player. First of all, it really depends on how easy it is to deal with the program itself. In other words, will the programers get mired in trying to work through knotty problems with VATS? How much time do they have? It's not like it's a long development cycle. Another question is, are all these problems centered on VATS? Yes, change the crit. That's good. ...But invisible barriers and pathing and all sorts of issues folks cite for VATS are actually problems altogether. Maybe folks notice them more with VATS. I dunno. I was frustrated by the pathing and the weird sorts of line of sight issues just by playing the game. It's a good thing that the enemy AI killed themselves by shooting an invisible barrier, because I caused myself some grief in the exact same way until I learned not to trust certain features on the ground, sans VATS. Something else that Obsidian has to consider is how exactly many people hated VATS and for what reason. Don't get me wrong. You should advocate changes you'd like to see. That's your job as a consumer. Complain away, I say with all sincerity. However, from their standpoint, they need to figure out how big of a deal some of these things are and how to fix them. The gore thing is probably not a huge problem for a lot of folks and some folks might even like the excessive gore, but it's possibly also be an easy thing to fix if they so choose. I can't think of anyone who wouldn't be happier with better pathfinding and fewer problems with crap in the environment playing mayhem with targetting because it creates an invisible barrier. That's probably a much harder fix, but it's something that will add to the game for everyone. Well... maybe not folks who like to use LoS exploits when they play. Finally, the big question is, can they significantly modify VATS so it's more balanced without pissing off players who enjoyed the game because VATS made it significantly easier? My take is that we are over-represented by folks who prefer a more challenging experience. That's all well and good. If it's possible, I would simply make harder difficulties center, among other things, on bringing the nerf-bat to bear on VATS. That way, it works more or less as it did on normal setting, but becomes far less useful, although still viable, at the harder setting. As a general statement, I think the setting, from easy to hard, should have absolutely no effect on experience. A setting isn't harder if it results in significantly enhanced experience rewards. Likewise, I would hate to be the poor bastard who has a hard time with the game and sets it to easy only to have my experience reduced. Nice call, Bethesda! Yeah, that was sarcasm. Twinky has a point, though. I'll save some of my wall of text for the next post. That's where I'll say that called shots to the eyes and groin bring a level specificity to combat that is out of place in FO3 combat, which is probably why those called shots aren't there. Only I'll take a lot longer to say it. hahahaha

In real life there's something satisfying about a good blow to the groin.