Slowtrain

I'm hoping you'll find it impossible. But who knows.

That's cool. Just remember that getting too excited about a game usually only leads to disappointment as expectation turns out to exceed reality. I'm looking at NV as fun game that will be nearly identical to FO3, for both good and bad, with a few tweaks and additions. WHich is good enough for me.

This is assuming of course that in NV your starting stat and skill levels and tag choices actually matter in more than a trivial sense. I'm hopeful, but not any more than that.

If I thought NV was going to be exactly the same as FO3, gameplay-wise, I'd go for a small guns, explosives, repair character. But for NV the speech skill might actually be worth using. IF stealth is actually more useful that's a consideration as well. But most likely, given that NV will still be pretty similar to FO3, small guns, explosives, repair, makes the most interesting character for me to play, I think.

It wouldn't be a Fallout game without the bugs. And I don't mean radscorps.

Protect the truck? Nice to see game developers haven't been able to improve mission design in the last twenty years. Protect the truck. lol.

I started a new game of FO3 just to get myself back into a Fallout mood. Despite having spent quite a few hours on the game since it was freleased, it is still enjoyable. I'm looking forward to seeing the changes in NV.

Selective memory aside, if they'd compare with the quest quality of the Dark Brotherhood & Thieves Guild, then very few games would indeed compare with Oblivion. OK. I can see the point about quests, although I'm not as enamored of the TG and DB quests as a lot of people apparently. But the exploration? Srsly? Oblivion has some of the worst exploration I've ever seen in any game, open-world or not. I mean, FO3 kicked the snot out of Oblivion exploration-wise.

I don't even understand how that would be possible.

New Vega is Fallout 3 in a new pair of socks. If you hated or were sick of Fallout 3, then the new socks probably aren't going to change your mind. But other than that, the game is what it is. Pretty much impossible to screw it up.

Nasty whispers? I've seen it once with Alpha Protocol. I'd like to not see this to repeat. Granted, to be honest, that's just Dan Stapleton. He may be just talking for himself. We all knew Alpha Protocol was a problematic game long before it hit the shelves. Likewise, the aliens crpg. No such indicators with NV. ANything's possible, but unlikely enough to not bother considering.

That's exactly why embargoes are placed most of the time. That's why I was asking, because if this isn't usual Bethesda policy, it could mean that New Vegas isn't doing that good.. No need to start nasty whispers. There's nothign to indicate there's any problems with the game. Maybe its just punishment for all the jack-off reviewers who couldn't figure out Alpha Protocol

Ass Rights Management. It's coming.

UFO appears again in CHina

It doesn't matter anyway. Coporations will own the world soon enough. Won't be too long before you won't be able to take a **** without paying some corporation for the rights to wipe your own arse.

My single biggest fear. Judging by the some of the content we've seen. But until I can play through the game and see the content in context, I can't judge it. Yet.

That is fabulous. WIth that many quests, the odds are that quite a few of them are going to be interesting. Quality over quantity. Stop it. I'm trying to be celebratory.

That is fabulous. WIth that many quests, the odds are that quite a few of them are going to be interesting.

If you find other stuff you didn't do and would like to, its easy enough to revert to a save or start a new game. There is no "end of game" state to the gameworld unless Obs chooses to put one in. so there's nothing to be gained from continuing to play after the ending that can't be gained from playing before the ending.

No question it is a negative. ANd for me personally, it is wrong to do simply out of respect for the time and effort put into making the product. But is the response appropiate to the level of the problem? Which to me is a completely valid question for me to ask, since corporate responses to piracy have generally a greater negative effect on me that they do on the pirates. I'd say the responses are all over the map. Some are terrible, like Ubisoft's solution. But I think they have an ulterior motive that isn't just about piracy. Some are meh, like Steamworks. I like Steam, I think it is a great service, but there are some kinks to work out there, mostly with the fact offline mode isn't perfect. Some I don't even notice. I just don't think they are ever going to go away though, at least not unless the world changes and everyone stops trying to infringe on other people's copyright. I also think Steamworks is the future, being that it is offered for free to publishers and is a solid DRM solution. Yep, I hear you. For me though, the entire issue is based on the comparative cost and consequence of the problem and the response to the problem. Every response to a problem has a cost and consequences of its own and thus needs to be considered in a measured manner whenever possible. When does the response become more untenable than the problem itself? If an industry is losing 99% of its total sales to piracy then a more severe response can be tolerated than if an industry is losing 1% of its total sales to piracy. Which is why I think that the "lost sale" is the crux of the whole response issue for me.

But why not just do everything there is to do before you arrive at the ending sequence?

I don't really understand this complaint, which I've heard before. It's simple enough to take your time finishing the game so that by the time you finish, you've done and seen most of what the world has to offer. Unless the entire game is timed, forcing you to rush through it just to beat the clock, then I really don't see a problem. Obs has already said that trying to make the gameworld playable after the main narrative is done would cause a lot of potential problems. which, given their rep for buggy products, they would like to avoid. ANd for something that is really not a problem, I can see their point.

No question it is a negative. ANd for me personally, it is wrong to do simply out of respect for the time and effort put into making the product. But is the response appropiate to the level of the problem? Which to me is a completely valid question for me to ask, since corporate responses to piracy have generallya greater negative effect on me that they do on the pirates.

Is it a potential buyer though? It's definitely a potential player, but would this person buy the game if they had no other way to get it? If some kid is pirating 20 games a month, it's very unlikely the kid would be buying all 20 games if he couldn't pirate. In other worlds not 20 lost sales, maybe not even 1 lost sale, if the kid has no money to begin with. To me, the concept of the lost sale is the crux of the pirating issue, since no property is being physically taken from someone else.

There is an incentive on the companies behalf to look at their losses as due to piracy rather than because their product is of low quality. The just see the peer numbers in some torrent sharing site and they automatically assume that they are all lost buyers. Which is completely reasonable, as those are people using their product, despite not paying for it. Yeah, but is it a lost sale?