Slowtrain

My biggest hope: a large and complex linear story at the expense of a plethora of sidequests. Lots of memorable characters with interesting things to say. Choices in your actions that have serious, far-reaching, and unrecoverable consequences in the gameworld. If I could have one thing in FO:NV, it would be this. Or is that three things?

not being facetious, just wondering where the lines are drawn in this regard. 'cause truth be told, i have a really hard time respecting this company. Just address the game(s), not the company. That's what I am going to do.

Josh has previously expressed reservations about VATS. If Obs has the freedom to do so, I would not be at all surprised to see significant changes to VATS. I would also not be surprised to see a reduction in XP awards, especially for combat. I would also not be surprised to see new perks and possibly perk level changes.

I don't disagree with you in regard to the Fallouts. My point was just that it would be nice to see video games attempt to adhere to some of the basic concepts of even poor and mediocre genre fiction. I would like to see less self-awareness in game design and more attempts at creating a real suspension of disbelief, that same suspension of disbelief I enjoy in genre novels that wrap me up in their impossible/improbable world for hours at a time. Referring specifically to Fallout 3: I get tired of a game reminding me constantly that it is in fact a game. Not being a particularly big fan of metafiction, when an story starts reminding me constantly that it is fact a story, an artifice, an authorial creation, I tend to lose interest. Its a personal preference, of course, but I would just like to see games work harder at trying to captivate me more like a novel and less like a pinball machine.

Often it is the believability of the minutiae that make that suspension of disblief possible when it comes to the larger impossibilities/implausibilites. Its a pretty basic tenet of fantasy/sf writing.

WHat does the ganeplay show. Running around shooting splicers?

That would be awesome, Matthew, if you guys can swing it. EVen just three threads such as Aristes outlined some time back would be fantastic. Thank you

I don't mind total crap as long as it is amusing.

Yeah, I probably have. It's just hard not to, you know. I'll try to turn it down. Sry.

He's not overcompensating. He's just excited about getting his picture taken.

I thought there was a bit too much imbalance in the weapon numbers in FO3. A huge number of small guns, a lot of melee weapons (although only a small number were really useful), but then a pretty small number of big guns and energy weapons. I'm partial to the Big Gun category and I would have liked to see a couple more options in that skill. Also a couple more in the energy weapon skill. Maybe go back to FO: Tactics and bring back the Browning M2! Hey, if you can carry an minigun why not a big ol .50 cal heavy MG.

From what I understand, their biggest saving grace, vs the Thompson, was that the M3 was relatively cheap to manufacture.

I think 10mm recoil is even worse than .45 ACP. Then again, you carry around miniguns in Fallout so... I think it is more the dimensions of the weapon that make it seem unwieldy for one handed firing rather than the power of the cartridges. I see the M3 as more along the lines of a Thompson, which I also have difficulty imagining being fired one-handed.

So make it nothing like Fallout then. I don't really defend and/or praise Fallout particularly. I just beat on Bethesda.

FO2 had the M3. And it used the one handed sub-machine firing animation of the 10mm. WHich always bugged me a little. I've never fired an M3 myself, but I find it difficult to imagine it could be fired accurately with one hand.

I guess in the end, I would love to see Obsidian really concentrate on a single major story that has conseqneces and ramifications on the gameworld and not spend so much (or even any) time on these minor sidequests that don't really have any significance. Turning the sidequests into related sections of the main narrative would be OK. One major, well thought out, and complex narrative, combined with a decent amount of freeform exploration would be a good combination, I think.

It's cool. I've got no problem with people liking it and defending it. I've also got no problem with people disliking it and attacking it. That's what these boards are for, after all. None of us are going to agree in the end, but that's all part of it.

Yeah, but I was playing a good pc, who went to get the sherriff and wasn't about to shoot anybody. :shrugs: It didn't bother me that Simms got killed. The utter lack of reaction from his townsfolk and even his son was just pretty weak. Personally, I think my pc should have been held rsponsible for getting simms in a position that got him killed and probably run out of town by angry citizens. Or something. Anything, really. The entire "disarm the bomb" quest was stunningly inconsequential.

While I am sure there are a few Fallout fans to whom this statement could be accurately applied, I think many would be greatly satisfied with much less than that. As for myself, ultimately the only person that I can speak for confidently, I could care less if it is like Fallout 1 or 2. I just want to see less of Bethesda's design idelogoies and more of Obsidian's. Mostly, I just can't stand how Bethesda has come to interpret the crpg genre. They haven't made a good game since Daggerfall. IMO.

I could give you a lot of examples. It just takes work, which I am loathe to do, but here are a coupel quick ones that disappointed me: edit: added spoiler tags

I ordered 300 rounds of surplus 8mm Mauser and UPS left it on my doorstep with no signature w00t. So Aram likes guns, CrashGirl thinks F3s guns were poopy, and SteveThaiBinh thinks guns are boring. Any other opinions? Make them do damage. Using three magazines from the submachine gun to kill a dog is pretty weak. ALso, just a question, something I'm curious about. SInce you are workign on the game you might have an answer. Nothing to do with the new game, just a question about FO3 mechanics. It seems like the raiders have a faster rate of fire from the combat shotgun and have better accuracy with the auto weapons than a pc with very high skills in small guns. Is that true? Does each raider get individual stats for things such as small guns, big guns? If a raider carrying a 10mm pistol, picks ups a laser rifle dropped by someone who just got killed, does that raider use different skill numbers when firing that laser rifle than the 10mm pistol they orginally came with? I'm just curious.

I want one of those 101 headbands.

Options without consequences are meaningless to me. That's why I think it fails so badly as a crpg. But yes, it does have a lot of options, I agree. I just think those options have to lead to something meaningful, rather thad just existing as options, an end in and of themselves.

The firearms are almost as badly done as the dialogue. But if Obs can fix the dialogue side that would be good enough.

The dialogue is horrible, beyond horrible. Almost every line makes me either cringe or roll my eyes. DIdn't this game win some kind of best writing award or something? IIRC. IF so, that is absolutely INSANE.