Longknife

Can I also suggest keeping the big city far away from the player at first? Personally I hate if I play Skyrim or Morrowind and then my first playthrough I think "wow, Whiterun/Balmora is so awesome! Can't wait to see more cities" and then I find out those are easily the most convenient/accessible/interesting cities in the game by far and other cities struggle to compare. On the other hand in New Vegas, my first playthrough I loathed Freeside, I loathed Novac. I wanted them to get the hell out of the way so I could go see Vegas. But later? Later I realized how cool they were. They were towns that, after reaching the "big city," I was able to look back and appreciate more. I just prefer finding a surprise awesome city later to having the awesome city thrown at me ASAP and then later having my hopes smashed and dashed when I slowly realize I've already seen the best city in the game.

On par with. Not stronger, not weaker, but on par. Becoming as strong as them, however, shouldn't be a walk in the park and not something that EVERY character can pull off. It's not nearly as satisfying, fulfilling or special if every character is destined to become a demi-god. However it's also kind of disheartening if no matter how strong your character gets, they cannot be the strongest. Therefore, make it possible to be on par in the sense that maybe your character has the best defense in the game but the enemy has the best offense, and make this something that only some characters are capable of.

Avellone should sue the grocery store for causing problems to his health, causing him to age twice as fast as he should've.

Why does everyone want Michael Bay to direct the combat scenes?

No that would have the same effect, because by the end of the day, one style typically comes out on top. Taking Skyrim as an example, sure, there's reason to use fire damage or paralyzation or absorb fatigue, but eventually one of them becomes tested and proven to be the safest bet. Once people find that one, they basically don't look back. You could say "well I'll limit myself and try others," but as a long-term player of TES games and Bethesda games in general, I don't really think asking the player to limit themselves or to have them roleplay that character #12 likes using a ****ty weapon is a good game design. It's not fun, nor is it something that every player is capable of. I actually am capable of limiting myself, but after playing a game where I didn't have to (New Vegas) I have far less appreciation and enthusiasm about playing a game that makes me limit myself. I believe the only time a weapon should be "worse" than another one is if it can be significantly better off than that other weapon in another category. For example the Medicine Stick hits a helluva lot harder than Lucky, but Lucky is far more cost effective and efficient to the point where no matter how many waves of enemies come at you, you can be rest assured that Lucky will ALWAYS be repairable and you will ALWAYS be able to find ammo for it. Said it once and I'll say it again, cause I think it'd work: simply reserve certain effects or ailments to be player-crafted only. Make a Legendary sword that you can find have a chance of paralyzing the enemy and making them lose their turn, but let the player have a weapon that has a unique knockback effect that takes on a strategic use and purpose. Since the player-crafted weapons would be the only way to get certain ailments, then they have purpose and you have reason to actually use them and be proud of them. Allowing them EVERY ailment and EVERY design seeks to make all other legendary items moot, much like Skyrim.

I'm still waiting on Cain, Avellone and Sawyer to sing "Don't Stop Believin'" by Journey for my pledge of €50.

Yeah n also ur character lyk goes super saiyan 4 n his hair starts glowin n the wizard screams all dramatic like "nooooOOOOOOOOOOO" as u go towards him n then it like zooms in on his eyeball n when ur done it shows u standing there behind him wit ur eyes closed n not botherin to turn around (cuz ur a badass) n then the wizards torso slowly slides off his legs and hits the ground, then it cuts over to a short clip of the moon like shattering like glass or sumthin deep and metaphorical or sum bull**** lyk dat, den blood sprays like a god damn fire hydrant out of his body n it rains blood and den it goes to a cutscene of ur sensei miles away having tea with a disciple and then suddenly he's like "Hmm!?!?!?" and the disciple is like "wut is it sensei!!11" n he says calmly and without emotion "the wind has changed directions" and more metaphorical bull**** like that n then it zooms out dramatically at rapid speeds and reveals all of this to be in ur characters eyeball. He blinks n then it goes away and we zoom out and return to the battlefield. ya datd be awsum.

This is something I've thought about for a long time, and I know I'm not the only one. For Fallout, for example, I could see why someone might prefer a "realistic" difficulty setting, where enemies deal heavy damage on you (enough to oneshot you with a decent rifle) but they're also susceptible to dying quick to a decent rifle. New Vegas sorta covered this with sneak attacks and very hard difficulty, but nevertheless... Why not have two difficulty sliders? One that governs incoming damage, another that governs outgoing damage? They could even add a third that simply shows the "default" difficulty slider and what it does to the other two, but the point is....difficulty sliders typically either make you a ton stronger or make your opponent a ton weaker. With two, people can customize the gameplay style, and I do think there are instances where people would prefer that both they and their enemy are offensively stronger but defensively weaker.. I just think more customization opportunities are always better. For example, I was just browsing the New Vegas nexus and found a mod specifically for making companions non-killable in hardcore mode, but otherwise keeping all of the other parts of hardcore mode. I also personally like some of the tweaks to weapons and armor in J.Sawyer's mod, but do not like the severely reduced level cap. These are examples of cases where people would like to pick and choose, and thus I think it'd be an appreciated feature if things like a difficulty slider or hardcore mode or whatever were more customizable.

The only "cutscenes" I would like to see are ones as brief as what's seen in Fire Emblem. (like 1-2 seconds) Otherwise no.

My concept was less building a weapon from scratch but bonding with a weapon over time and making it your own. I was not suggesting anything like the Skyrim crafting engine which you just churn out weapon after weapon armour after armour til you raise your level and get better stuff. For me it was more about fulfilling certain requirements. A bloodthirsty blade (Muramasa) would be one coated in the blood of hundreds of enemies, taken to a magical smith and imbued with the blood it is coated in, which makes it cursed, but fantastically strong. I also really like the idea Trashman mentioned where you can customise the look too, also gglorious mentioning the lightsabre customisation. Both of these would be fantastic and add new depth to your items/weapons. You find a tiara encrusted with rubies, well pop them out and into your family crest medallion. I think there should be a limit to how many times a weapon can be upgraded, but no limit to what you can do with it during those. If you want to focus on crit's and leave the damage as it is then go for it. If you want 5 completely different effects, then let it be. Of course it would be balanced in house by the devs to fit with their weapon scheme but I think it could be really well done. The reason I suggested limiting custom-made (or custom-upgraded, either way) weapons to unique effects is because the conundrum is that people will want "their" weapon that they get to name and design and that's unique to their character to be a good weapon. If it only has 80% of the damage of some other legendary weapon and is otherwise inferior, people will call it a failed feature. If it's the best and other legendary weapons have 80% of it's capabilities, then you have the problem that EVERYONE will use it. Therefore, reserving certain effects for custom-made weapons seems the best way to guarentee that the weapon CAN be weaker than other legendary weaponry in several categories while still being a very useful and appealing choice. For example, Nephi's Golf Driver in New Vegas is modest in damage and basically every stat, and yet it's still an extremely useful item because it's VATS attack is a 100% guarentee knockdown. Such an effect, if reserved for player-crafted items, gives them purpose no matter how modest the actual damage may be.

I would ask a different question, which is do we WANT a villain we love to hate? Just wanna clarify... I personally prefer Caesar over Benny. Benny has "no redeeming qualities" (not entirely, but close) because he'll literally keep trying to stab you in the back whenever he gets a chance, Caesar on the other hand is a definite villain for many, but you can understand his motivation. If loving to hate a villain comes at the cost of them being so senselessly evil that they lack a sympathetic motivation or the like, then I say it's not worth it. Kefka and the Joker are fine for their settings, but personally I do NOT want to see another cliché fantasy setting where you fight the bad guy "becuz he's evil." I prefer morally grey, with an enemy I can sympathize with and have a chat with them. I prefer killing them not because they're downright disgustingly evil, but because they simply have an opinion on how things should be that vastly opposes my own and they refuse to back down from their own opinion and I from mine, thus forcing a fight. I prefer Caesar and Dagoth Ur over Ganondorf and the Joker.

This sounds good on paper.... BUT Please refer to Skyrim. I think Skyrim addresses this desire perfectly in that self-crafted weaponry in armor is ALWAYS superior to anything you can find. ....And this COMPLETELY destroys weapon diversity and any and all thrill of finding unique loot anywhere because you KNOW it'll be inferior to your own. This came at an incredibly high price, because the result is that EVERY character you make will aspire to have full self-crafted daedric armor and weaponry. To me, that's boring. No one wants their unique weapon to be weak, so of course the demand kinda ties in with "please let me make a god-like weapon named after my character." IF such a system were implemented, they need to take care that your choices for self-crafted weaponry are very limited. Do NOT let the player craft whatever they like, but rather limit them on damage or effects. For example, perhaps what they could do is allow the player to craft a weapon with the highest potential crit rate in the game, but make it's base damage rather modest. Or let self-crafted weaponry have a unique effect that pushes the enemy back two movement squares with each strike or some other unique effect that no other weapon in the game has while keeping it's other stats rather modest. As long as it has a unique effect and use found nowhere else, it's worth carrying, but if it's in it's own class when it comes to power, then no, it'll kill weapon diversity. Another alternative is, I was a big fan of Lucky in New Vegas. Why? Because Lucky has no owner. You don't find it on a body, there's no implied story behind it, there's no enemy that carries it and no quest it's tied to. Lucky is just there. For me, that says that Lucky IS the Courier's signature gun, because for all we know, he's the first person to wield it since the Great War. It was a very simple difference in Lucky's introduction into the game and how it lands in the player's hands, and yet Lucky truly feels like it belongs to the Courier, which is a nice change of pace. Instead of meeting some legendary bounty hunter in the wastes and then looting his legendary sniper rifle (which might be named after him ffs), now YOU feel like a character of legend and YOU have your signature gun that people identify you with. I think we can all agree that it'd be nice to have, but I hope NOT at the cost of weapon balance. Skyrim tried to appeal to this demand, and give them credit for trying, but holy crap it was suicidal for weapon balancing AND dungeon diving for the purpose of finding sweet loot.

No, trust me I have. Nevertheless, for me that video is pretty fringe because....well wtf I can't make sense of it. She's arguing a sci-fi trope that shows horror pregnancies somehow victimizes women? With that argument, any mythological or fantasy setting that shows dudes being hopelessly lured to their death by the alluring call of a siren is victimizing men. I'd never draw that conclusion though, so all I can do is watch that vid and think "wat."

This might be sorta off topic, but any women on here wanna explain how in the HELL this trope allegedy "demeans and exploits women:" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rhH_QGXtgQ Not saying all women consider this trope offensive, nor am I trying to say "stupid opinion!11" But in all honesty, how a sci-fi trope about pregnancy could be considered exploitation or demeaning? That's beyond me. If someone considers it so, please explain, cause I'm curious to hear what the perspective that agrees with her sounds like. There's two groups that I think, while their causes are just at their core values, they're polluted with TONS of extremists who release fringe videos like this that only work to alienate the entire group from popular opinion. Those groups? PETA and feminists. PETA with their "hey instead of informing people about the atrocities that occur on test animals for haircare products and perfumes, where the animals will sometimes have some of their legs broken to keep them from resisting too much and then have the perfume sprayed in their eyes and basically every orifice they have to see how sick it makes them, let's attack delicious Kentucky Fried Chicken, complain about a dog being shot in order to save a woman it was attacking and throw paint on fur coats. People will love us." And feminists with....well, vids like the above. All it does is leave the general populace scratching their heads thinking "wtf" as they develop a tendency to NOT listen to those groups because they have a habit of making stupid points and arguments. But that's also why I ask for a perspective that agrees with the vid: because I've met plenty of respectable PETA members and feminists, just wtf the dramatic end of the spectrum (any spectrum) is generally not pretty, and unfortunately there's lots of extreme feminists.

We need to buy Tim Cain some jewelry. He looks like he'd make a good Mr. T.

23, got here from New Vegas. Not an RPG geezer. :C Morrowind was my first and then I just pretty much followed Bethesda. Also kudos on noticing how friggin' amazing age 20-25 people are and basically basing poll options around us.

Ya I know because I'm the God Damn Longknife and I'm awesome like that. You're welcome. Well I dunno the guy personally so of course I can't really say that, but his formspring is very active and open for questions AND discussion. Trust me, the New Vegas forums have been following it for a while now and we've actually gotten some lore-based questions answered, as well as questions about cut content, design decision regrets, etc etc. I also recall that he answered one question about what skills someone needed to be a game developer. Among experience with RPGs, experience with other things (said one should have a hobby and enough experience with it that they can recreate it in games) and good analytical skills, I believe he listed "the ability to admit when one is wrong."

The whole point about character assination is exactly this. Create enough negativity around an individual so that they or their endeavours are discredited. If a project or group decided not pursue a project with her because of the rumours on the internet, then the harrasment achieved it's purpose. I'd never heard of this lady until this thread, and while I do agree there seems to be a lot of unneccesary hate towards her trying to discredit her.... She honestly doesn't seem that credible to begin with. :U I just mean the quality of her work seems poor. Watched the above posted criticism vids of her work along with some of her channel vids, and although I think the criticism vids themselves were quite poor aswell, she DOES seem like a follower and not a thinker. As in, she's basically quoting what she learned in her studies, applying it to media, then she seems incapable of expanding from there. One person for example pointed out how she applies "the Smurfette Principle" (a show with only one token female that's basically the personification of her sexuality) to the Big Bang Theory and gave a point about how they thought the show doesn't actually fall under that trope because Penny being the only female is justified by the show's premise (it's a show about nerds. If anything, she's kind of a tool used to reinforce the nerd trope, if anything, since part of the nerd trope is that nerds can't get womenz), and her response was nothing more than "just because you like the show doesn't mean it's not guilty of the trope," which didn't actually address the person's point at all and just immediately dismissed the person's rather fair point altogether. The criticism vid also shows her statement on how media portrays men and women and how she would LIKE it to portray men and women, and the only difference is that she added negative stereotypes of men and even left the negative ones for women....which seems odd, because you'd think the first goal would be to get rid of the negative stereotypes for both men and women, no? In that sense, it doesn't seem as though she's actually stated a PURPOSE or a GOAL behind her work, at least not clear enough. As I said, the criticism vid was poorly done itself, imo, but I think he did hit the nail on the head about her basically being nothing more than a student. Long story short, while I think the degree of hate she gets is definitely uncalled for, I also don't think she's in any way qualified to be the face of feminism in video games. She does a lot of rigid lecturing and telling, not so much productive discussion and debate.

If you played any of the Fallout New Vegas DLCs (save Honest Hearts), then Chris Avellone is largely responsible for the storylines, general character personalities and dialog options. If I may be so bold, I'd actually be willing to say he's quite literally the best writer in the video game industry. I'd give examples, but a story isn't really something that you can cite as an objective point, but rather something that has to be experienced yourself. However, I WOULD be willing to bet that a good amount of people in this thread will agree with me that he's one of the best, if not the best, writer(s) in the video game industry. Josh Sawyer was the project director for Fallout New Vegas. This means that much of the basic design of the game, he takes credit for. He was at the top, making sure good ideas were produced and shooting down bad ideas. In particular, I'm a big fan of his work on weapon balancing. New Vegas is a game where EVERY weapon can be useful, it's just a matter of who holds it that decides whether or not it'll be useful or sub-par. I find this system does world's for a game's replay value, as games where the system is literally "steel is 20% cooler than iron," every character will end up with the same equipment by the end of the game, nor does the equipment ever change in it's application (how you use it, how you handle a fight) but rather it's the same the entire game. Should also be noted that this guy did research into firearms (think he took up firearms as a hobby too, could be wrong) for the sake of developing New Vegas. Likewise, he took a biking trip through the Mojave and Las Vegas because they felt the game should have a personal feel for the people of the Mojave. Sure enough, much of the locations you'll find in New Vegas are real: The Prospector Saloon (and Goodsprings), Helios ONE, Primm, the Devil's Gullet, the Yangzhe Memorial, and tons more....ALL based on real life locations. You can google it and come up with Iunno how many blogs by people who took a trip through Nevada and found real life counterparts of New Vegas buildings. Personally I see that as a testament to their dedication and passion towards a project. Tim Cain created Fallout dude. The entire franchise is thanks to him. The tone, the themes, the lore....yeah, him. If you like Fallout and think it's an exceptional RPG series, then basically you like Tim Cain by default. I also have to say that as a huge fan of New Vegas, I frequented the New Vegas forums (on Bethesda's site) from release until....well actually I still hang out there. But one thing I really liked was that quite often we'd actually see Sawyer or Avellone on the forums. Whereas other companies, seeing a dev is like seeing a yeti, we probably saw them ~once a month. It was nice and refreshing to see developers that got engaged with the community and talked to us, whether it be answers to questions, status updates or just a simple "o hi." So yeah, throw money at them.

We should compromise and make the women strong, independent workers and fighters that don't have to take **** from no man and no man is her boss... But she's still got a killer body.

Chainmail bikinis give them massive amounts of defense. Somehow hardens their skin or something.

I've posted this before, but.... A sorta like the idea of a hypocrite thief. Y'know, a thief that knows stealing is wrong and has a strong sense of justice and seeks to help people, but due to whatever circumstances, whether it be bad luck in his home community initially leaving him little choice (but not anymore) or simply having no talent beyond those of theft or hell-if-I-know what, he continues to live as a thief, day in, day out. Deep down it bothers him, he feels bad for doing so and he knows he shouldn't do it, but somehow he always ends up doing it, telling himself "tomorrow will be different," always able to actually convince himself to steal again in the heat of the moment thanks to that sort of blind survivalist instinct we all have. I just think such a character would touch on the theme of "actions speak louder than words" and to my knowledge I don't REALLY recall that many hypocrites who know they're hypocrites portrayed in media. Typically they're portrayed as unlikeable jerks, but the reality is guilty hypocrisy that knows of it's own flaws is practically a fact of life: plenty of parents are hypocrites when they lecture their kids, but are gladly hypocrites for obvious reasons (trying to teach their kids better). Likewise, thieves are typically portrayed as even being Robin Hoods or basic thugs, never something in between. At any rate, I think it could be an interesting character concept because it presents to you a character that could be sympathetic for some. He DOES know right and wrong and will often give reasonable opinions on situations, but when it comes to actually acting, he's different, and he's sorry for it. For other people, they might hate this character and view him as "the worst kind of evil" in that this is a person that is fully aware of the wrongs they're commiting but somehow continues to do so anyways. It presents two different polarized directions in which the player can react to the character, both with good arguments. Do you try to change the thief (CAN you change him?) or does he deserve punishment for his actions because sorry and good intentions aren't enough? I suppose it's sort of a similar theme or direction to that of the film Jakob the Liar, for anyone who's familiar with it. (good film) I just find it an interesting character type that manages to touch on various means, such as if actions speak louder than words (or is the result more important than the intent), do the ends justify the means (for if the thief is actually given a "higher purpose" in which his "talents" are put to use for a good cause), etc etc. Should also clarify that I by no means mean he should be a depressed mother ****er that's constantly self-loathing because he's doing wrong and he knows it and feels bad for it. A sense of humor can't also be a good escape, and a far more entertaining one. Obviously he wouldn't be the MOST cheery guy around, but he could shrug something off with a half-there smile and a small joke; no need for him to be a whiny emo character.

This was puzzling until I played FO3 in a drunken stupor one night and realized that the Bethsoft grunts were too afraid to notify Todd Howard about his unlikable/unkillable typo in one of the design docs and then just stuck with it over the years in favor of consistency. You read it here first. Suddenly it all makes sense. Thanks alcohol.

I really don't see the neccesity of children. If they can't be killed (if allowing killable children makes the game harder to market in certain countries or whatever) then maybe it's best not to include them. Otherwise sure why not, makes the game world feel more alive for some people I guess. Sorta off-topic, but I always find it funny that Sawyer will say he regrets the Mick and Ralph's crier, citing his design of trying to make kids as inoffensive as possible, so as not to provoke the player into attacking the child and realizing they can't, thus breaking immersion. Meanwhile, Bethesda takes the EXACT opposite approach and you struggle to find a single child in a Bethesda game that isn't in some way offensive, annoying or antagonizing.

Just copy-paste New Vegas' design philosophy in regards to this. Problem solved. /thread