Kjarista

That argument, of course, cuts both ways. As a Fan of Beth style sandbox games, I expected a Beth style game and I got one. If Obsidian delivers something sufficiently similar, i will buy it. Otherwise, i will consider buying it. What I won't do, however, is bitch about it for years if it turns out to be a game I don't like.

uhhhhhh...gee, really? maybe because Fallout 1 and 2 had good writing? I don't recall FO1 having stellar writing either. Fact is, sandbox games, almost by definition, isn't going to have good writing. Frankly, I'd rather have had FO3 not have any main quest at all. When I want storytelling, I'll go play something from Bioware.

I understand DLC designed to expand games. I have a harder time understanding DLC released at the same time as the main game. The DA:O DLC came with the digital distribution I purchased so that it didn't much bother me. As long as DLCs don't end up like micropayments, I can live with them....I either buy them or not. But if I ahve to pay extra for content that seems like part of the story, that's where I quit. Broken Steel came real close to that.

If by badly implemented you mean that it wasn't perfect, well, nothing ever is. I really enjoyed the radio system, and I liked it even more when I installed a mod that added 100 more songs. There were instances of quest tips...Oasis and Evergreen Mills come to mind. Also, the play between GNR and Enclave Radio told a great story. Frankly, I think the radio system was a great part of the game, and yes, i agree that future Fallouts should have this feature.

Every graphics problem I've had with FO3 were the result of extra codecs on my system. With everything but MS codecs disabled, the game runs fine. It is annoying to have to do that though. Folks are wondering if Beth will now use the engine ID is using for their new game.

That's the only one I haven't played yet. So far, Pitt is my favorite. Pitt gave me a "This is so cool" moment when I climbed up the tower and looked across the city ruins. Was one of the more visually impressive sights in a game I've seen for quite some time.

That's next. I think PL was the best DLC by far, although I'm more interested in background for sandbox play then most anything else, so your mileage may vary.

I would agree with you that detailed repair systems wouldn't likely be fun. I didn't have any problems quickly finding weapons and armor for repair though, perhaps with the exception of a few powerful weapons. It didn't seem like much of a chore to me.

It was pretty much a shooter romp, but i did like the visuals. I would have rather had more of a Point Lookout DLC.

This never really occurred to me - I always assumed there was little or nothing in a MMORPG if you didn't want to play cooperatively with others, but apparently lots of people are doing it. Mr. Schubert identifies different kinds of lone-players ("New kid on the Block", "Sociopath" and reasons why people game alone in MMORPGs. With regards to The Old Republic, if I were ever to play it, I would fall into the "I'd really rather be playing Kotor3, but as you haven't developed that, I'm giving this a go instead" group. Even those who normally group can find themselves solo playing at times, and normally solo players might group for instances or grinding. One of the reasons for WoW success is that it is one of the first AAA MMOs that featured a large amount of solo play. Games released without substantial solo play have not been highly successful, and I would argue that any MMO which wishes to be successful ( I'm talking about WESTERN MMOs here), needs to have substantial solo content.

I recall killing someone inside a building in NCR (FO2) without alerting the guards as well.

Every thread on the Beth boards eventually turn out to be that, and most all of the threads involving FO3 end up that way here. I've gotten used to it. I can't agree with Ramza, but tastes vary.

Most of us here know how NOT fun it is to be unemployed. Making profit makes jobs. Every company needs to make profit, and every public company, or private company with investors, are obligated to make as much profit as possible. In a situation where a great deal of money is invested up front, with no ROI until the product is shipped, things have to be kept lean and focused. That's the reality of the situation. We've laid of about 35% of our employees this year. Those of us remaining are picking up the responsibilities of those who left. I haven't had a day off this month. Nothing at work is fun right now, and I have to account for every dollar that is spent in my department. I have people I've never heard of before calling me every day asking if I can cut yet another 5% of my costs. I look at my people and wonder how I'm going to be able to meet my commitments if I have to let another one go. Money is everything...profit is everything. Without either, there is no product. The idea is to make the best product possible within the budget. When times are good, sometimes the budget can be expanded a bit. When times are bad. you have to justify every expense, and yes, the end result may be adversely affected. It's business, not art class. The people who put up money expect maximum return. Those investors interested in art and innovation, at the expense of return, are few and far between.

Although I like several of the original Battlemechs, I don't think entirely new mechs would keep me from purchasing the game.

EXP for killing mobs is part of the explore dynamic. If I am exploring, I'm going to come across (random or otherwise) mobs that need to either be bypassed or killed. I'd like to get EXP for killing these mobs. It doesn't need to be huge amounts of EXP, but there should be some. If there is no exploring, then perhaps I can see limiting the impact of grinding. As far as breaking the game by providing too much potential for EXP, I would submit that some percentage of players will find a way to break the game by abusing systems and min/maxing. It would be difficult and probably counterproductive to cater to these outliers, especially if the cure is worse than the symptom. FO3 is, in large part an exploration game. I've level capped solely on explore EXP and killing mobs, with absolutely no quests completed, and it turned out to be a highly enjoyable play-through. Killing mobs in FO3 does dramatically increase the velocity of leveling, but it's not like leveling on huge quest rewards is any slower. Remove mob-kill EXP and you shut down explore based gameplay. But then again, I've not played any Obsidian games. How much exploring opportunities are there in Obsidian games?

This shouldn't be framed as an "either/or" situation. It is possible to have both, as FO1/2 had both substantial stories/quests and grinding opportunities. Removing either is a bad move, IMO. Frankly, I don't get EXCLUSION arguments like yours. I'd rather have the opportunity to approach a game in as many different ways as possible, and not be forced to approach it in one way. I don't see any problem with being able to grind mobs in any game, as part of the whole feature package.

Play LOTRO and see. Seems to me that many game players like to kill things. Limiting things that players like to do is poor design, no matter what sort of social engineering you are trying to do. I don't think that any quest should be forced on players. If someone wants to set aside questing to just explore and kill mobs, then they should be able to do that without stalling their character advancement.

That's not a bug. People asked for a more challenging experience and they got it. As you found out, you CAN kill them, but you need to be paying attention, not just bebopping around. Can't win for losing with this crowd.

Beth distributed those games, not developed them.

Arguably, it was a story hinged on the assumption that everyone loves Dad. Nope, not at all. The only assumption is that you want to find him, maybe to kill him for being an Ahole, but even that is a weak assumption. You find him eventually even if you aren't looking for him.

It all sounds craptastic. That game needs new classes badly.

From the OP pictures, I almost didn't go look at the trailer. I'm glad i did, though...looks like fun.

Back atya. If you don't understand what I'm trying to say, ask and I try it a different way. If you disagree, that's fine.

It's a pretty amazing game, but it is not for everyone. Whereas most MMO's try and disguise the grind and treadmill effect of the genre, Vanguard embraces it full bore. You can create your own boat, but it will take you months to mold each piece and all that. Still, the scope of the game is epic. Huge world, with tons to do. I tried it out but just couldn't get into it. When I tire of Lotro I may give Everquest 2 a shot. I've heard they've done alot of good things to make it better. Vanguard really should have been Everquest 2. I'm back playing EQ 2 and having fun again soloing mostly.

Outdoorsman skill allows you to avoid them no ? There's one option. So I'm forced to take a skill I might otherwise not want to take, just to avoid immersion breaking OOC real world references?