entrerix

i guess I'll throw in my 2 cents on it as well. Yours is a fine sounding suggestion to me bhlaab, though I confess I prefer a roving sight like in deus ex, coupled with a slight affect on damage but a large effect on critical hit chances, so that with a high skill you have a much higher chance of one-shotting enemies. it doesnt hide the ball that way, though some people may dislike the moving sights, when the skills maxes out and it stops roving you really feel like an expert marksman. I may just feel this way because I'm in love with deus ex though.

are enemies leveled with us? how much so on a scale from zero to Elder Scrolls: Oblivion?

I coordinate the viability of things all day, except when I'm not working. also: this is a personal question for any developers reading this - Do you prefer to PLAY games that use systems where the skill level of a given weapon (say small guns or rifles or melee or whatever) affects your accuracy or your damage or both? What I'm getting at is where you think the most fun balance lies between systems found infallout 1 (ie only affects accuracy, damage is purely item based) or deus ex and morrowind where it was primarily accuracy but a little effect on damage (please correct me if I am recalling these wrong) or the systems of say fallout 3 where it was primarily damage being affected with only a small effect on accuracy. again, you don't have to say what you're implementing in F:NV if you can't, but I'm genuinely curious about your own preferences. I know many players hate games where your accuracy is skill based but I wonder how much of that is based on the decision to have a moving reticle (like deus ex where it's size and roving aspect change based on skill) or a fixed reticle with wildly inaccurate shots that dont go where the reticle is pointed (ie I expect most people are ok with a roving reticle as long as the shots go where the reticle is pointed) lots of questions and subquestions but seriously this is fascinating stuff.

then in that case let me reiterate my desire to have caesars (sp?) legion be a central part of the story. less enclave, more raiders and realistically survivalist/merciless towns/factions

ah yes, but then... whining will ensue regardless of anything ever.

i get it from sawyers view, if he shows us unfinished stuff we wont be impressed. however, if he just tells us things that are being worked on... like "today I looked over some designs for the hoover dam, looked pretty cool." then we at least know there is a dam and can talk about something.

some games are announced alongside screenshots and concept art

I have to say I'm very disappointed that we got not a shred of info at e3. no concept art, no interview, no screenshots, nothing. cmon you seriously don't have single piece of concept art that could be shown?

hurlshot, I get what you're saying about the non-successful MMO, and it actually proves my point further because they may ACTUALLY need the 15$ a month, unlike Wow which probably only needs about 2$ a month to maintain their servers, the rest is all profit (warning my numbers are mere speculation). and that profit is what I've been talking about, I've been saying that WoW is making a killing off of people by charging so much more than mere server upkeep -which is what people often claim to be what the monthly fee is for. If company A said, hey guys we want to make an mmo with lots of content updates, but we've only got 1 million subscribers and we need 10 million a month to keep this bad boy going, plus we'd like to make some profit on the side for our next game development project, so we have to charge $15 a month to do that, and then three months later they have 10 million subscribers, and don't lower their fee... i'd start to feel like I had been duped into agreeing to way more than was needed.

a predator would be so easy for batman to stop its not even funny. Batman beat superman. nuff said.

I think you misread his post. it looks like he was saying we should change the terms of the issue without changing the issue. kids in game should behave exactly as other actors when struck by a bullet (ie physics) or maybe I misread his post in which case ignore me

hey crash, yeah I think we've discussed the value for dollar stuff in some other thread, I actually think the idea of spending 15 a month on entertainment is a fantastic bargain, my issue lies elsewhere... sometimes people in general have a hard time with pointed or specific arguments, and choose instead to swing haymakers at the entire debate instead of selecting an actual statement with which to drive home a point. this is what I deserve for arguing on the internet.... I need more work to do...

"Haha, actually I was testing something, because intimating that you get your money from your mom made you say "I make $5 500 a month" and now this. I got two thumbs up for you, champ!" ?? I'm not sure I follow you here, you're choosing to ignore what I'm saying in favor of ascertaining the identity of my employer? Is this how they teach you to argue where you're from? also nightshape: I hate to break it to you but I am extremely underpaid (I blame the current economy for discouraging people from spending money on their estate planning work right now). I am tight fisted, by training and desire. I only spend money on things I think are worth the value as measured by entertainment and edification and necessity. I'm also getting close to purchasing my first home, and thats gonna set me back several hundred k.

also this was the crux of my post which was ignored: "besides the whole - "they need the money for the servers" is utter garbage and you should be ashamed of yourself for falling for that. How many times have people in the press and industry refferred to wow as a cash printing machine, or a license to print money? those phrases mean that WoW is goddamn profitable as all hell, server costs be damned. which means that your $15 a month is paying for a hell of a lot more than just the bare cost needed to make the game. I dont begrudge blizzard, I wish I had been the guy who thought up their marketing strats I DO however expect the people who buy it to at least own up to the fact that they are getting reamed every month because they have an urge for more drugs... er mmo and no expectation for fair treatment." this was all just intending to point out the problem with the argument that the 15 dollars is somehow "maintenance" fees that are providing you with some direct benefit - ie you've fallen for some slick salesmanship (for the record I imagine some small percent of the 15 goes to maintenance)

but I already said I played guild wars, which was sans fee. And thats a neat story about your friend with "principles"... what exactly was he standing up for, because it sounds more like he had social issues than was taking a stand for something he believed in. And I hope that you weren't intimating that I have problems with women, because that couldn't be farther from the mark. and no, I don't believe its proper for a party to overcharge, of course blizzard doesnt actually overcharge, because the market obviously bears it, but thats why of the few people I've met who really like WoW, most of them aren't really avid appreciators of the medium capable of recognizing the loss of value they are receiving for their dollar in comparison to someone who wants to experience more than one work. I could pay 100 dollars to look at the mona lisa over and over again to the exclusion of all other paintings, or I could pay 100 to go into the louvre and see the entire museum and all the pieces therein. both are valid choices, but only one of these choices will really expand on your knowledge and experience, the other is just indulgence with no intent to learn beyond whats right in front of you.

I make $5,500 a month and I wont pay the $15 based on principle. and you seriously cannot pretend to be a fan of videogames as an entertainment or art form if you only play one game. and obviously iron man and dark knight arent the only real movies - did you want me to write a list of every movie that came out since LOTR? I just picked two that most people would know as examples

problem becomes people willing to accept monthly fees. If everyone just said no we wont pay a monthly fee then the next wow would have no fee. I dont know about this server updating stuff, i use the internet all the time for gaming and I dont have to pay squat for monthly fees. besides the whole - "they need the money for the servers" is utter garbage and you should be ashamed of yourself for falling for that. How many times have people in the press and industry refferred to wow as a cash printing machine, or a license to print money? those phrases mean that WoW is goddamn profitable as all hell, server costs be damned. which means that your $15 a month is paying for a hell of a lot more than just the bare cost needed to make the game. I dont begrudge blizzard, I wish I had been the guy who thought up their marketing strats I DO however expect the people who buy it to at least own up to the fact that they are getting reamed every month because they have an urge for more drugs... er mmo and no expectation for fair treatment. and if wow is all you play you're about as much a gamer as a "movie fan" who only watches Lord of the Rings over and over and over and has given up on other movies and so missed the dark knight and iron man. ie not really a gamer

the real question we're all afraid to ask: will this game be as good as Deus Ex? (answer = no, but maybe someday we'll have something close...)

I played guild wars for over 100 hours. same as diablo 2 thats the extent of my online rpg gaming wow looked stupid, you had to buy the game, and then pay a monthly fee to play it? who the hell thought that was a good idea should be given a few dozen raises because apparently 12 million people thought it was brilliant. I was raised among the age of gaming where you buy the game and then can play it all you want without a goddamn nanny making you cough up more cash just to play. retarded bull is what that is.

we know nothing. SAAAAWWWWYYYYYYEEEEEEERRRRRRRRR! why I pick you, I don't know. Cause you in charge I guess.

damn straight fallout is a work of art of course, in my opinion there are dozens of games that I consider art. Fallout was just the first one I played so it has special place in my heart disclaimer: i still liked fallout 3, just for completely different reasons. disclaimer the second: fallout is art, but art is imperfect, so don't mistake me for a crazed fan who thinks it was perfect. the inventory system, the lack of being able to go prone in combat, only a handful of great characters, inconsistent difficulty - the game had its problems. but goddamn the end of that game makes me tear up every time. That game had soul. And soul is really at the core of what was missing for me in fallout 3, there were snippets of it, in some of the recorded notes you find (the teacher in little lamplight comes to mind, so does the story of why the kids started hating "mungos"). But largely the game lacked that special something that lets you connect with it emotionally. For all its melodrama, there are truly some heartbreaking moments in PS:T, and those moments plus the sheer epic level of creativity in that game really put it firmly in the realm of games with real soul. An interesting conversation is why does fallout create that emotional connection with so many players? I think its largely because of the implied impact the player has on the people, you feel like when you leave the town after doing the quests there (ie junktown etc) that the people there will always remember you and the things you did for them, it makes you feel like a hero (or villain) in a way that many games attempt to do, but fall just short. fallout 3 almost gets there sometimes - big town for example. But it always falls short in a way thats a bittersweet. when the people thanked me for saving them from the supermutants all I could think was "i dont feel like a hero, there were only 4 supermutants, you could have handled that without me" it just didnt feel like I accomplished anything. Unlike going with the sherriff to clear out gizmo when half the deputies die and we really would have lost without my presence - then I feel like a goddamn hero (i still agree that the people could have recognized it better - but the end cutscene was enough for me) anyway, fallout 3 is a great game, but with a little more special sauce it could be a game really worth remembering ten years from now. and THATS why I frequent these boards. (ie I think obsidian is bringing more sauce to the BBQ that bethesda organized).

man warcraft 2 was a great goddamn game. starcraft was good too, but they havent made a good strategy game since then. if the new game will be so different as to not compete with WOW then I can't help but feel like it will either be cyberpunk or space opera. space opera is a bit starcrafty though, so cyberpunk seems more likely

I'd like a weapons overhaul this time around guns that do more damage, I had to use a mod to double all weapon damage because it was just ridiculous in the vanilla game the amount of shots I had to put into a person to make them stay down. if you're going to use a FPP you need to actually make it feel real or why switch the view at all? if i point blank someones head with a magnum, they need to be dead, not wounded the most fun i've had playing the game was with all weapons dealing double damage (including enemy weapons), not using vats, and playing it on hard difficulty. one burst from an assault rifle and you're toast makes sneak and strategy a hell of a lot more valuable

lulz speaking of shotguns can we see a combat shotgun that doesnt look retarded this time around? I really liked the combat shotgun from the first 2 games

i've never seen much harm in transparent game making, I get it if they dont want to spoil surprises, but whats wrong with telling us stuff like: we're working on some areas outside of vegas, one of them sounds like moover ram or we're thinking of making weapon damage a little higher so it takes fewer 44 magnum rounds in the head to kill a raider. or whatever