Zoma

I WAN E3 NAO! Looks like ammunition system will be streamlined to the type of weapon categories instead of specific. More arcadey in nature but AP never exactly tries to strive for realism like Splinter Cell so its cool.

Indeed.. I wonder if Rambo might've been based on that guy.. Geez, and he lived to 90! Wiki's description is very dull and missing some amusing details. I suggest reading from here instead: http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=529

The Fallout series were GREAT at its time of release. First and foremostly, the success was contributed to that the game was released at a time when people are very interested in the apocalyptic setting. This was stated in one of the Fallout dev interviews made some years ago though I cannot remember which one unfortunately. Secondly, the graphics were at its time, very impressive. There were lots of animation on the sprites, the background was beautiful as well as the immersive looking user interface and the iconic character design of the Pipboy. Additionally, it was the numerous ways of dying animations in the game that was unseen at its time was most often referred to as well as remembered for. The other such game I know that had ridiculous amount of kill animations at the time was the Crusader series. Remember that the nicest looking RPG graphically during Fallout's release was Diablo. So comparing the two games side by side, you can see that Fallout is pretty much on par with it. C&C wise, I like to think that BI's Fallout series is thus far the most extensive kind I've ever known. So at this point, I'm inclined to agree with Promethean's points.

Aliens is more of the 'Terror' side than horror according to James Cameron in the bonus interview. Knowing he is unable to replicate the horror moments in Aliens, he simply focus the pacing more on terror.

Not surprising considering Obsidian's only given a year or so to make a new game.

J.E's possible choice of song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncTSipsee7I

Those still concerned that Fallout : New Vegas might end up as Fallout 2's over the topness no longer has to. J.E made it clear back before that he had the same issues of Fallout 2 having too much 'cheese'. Regardless, I thought those moments of absurdity gave Fallout 2 its distinctive charm which is the reason why many people loved the game anyway despite being different from Fallout 1.

Lookz!

I dunno, I think he can pull it off: Some1 make an avatar out of it. He can have my babies.

Its cool. So long as Bethesda doesn't sell DLCs that involves an upgraded bike armed with missle launcher with nuke warheads and lazer beamz with twin miniguns that shoots $400 dollar worth of a single .50 caliber bullet.

Wouldn't the lake be radioactive poisoned after a post-nuclear war?

It doesn't also have to use Fallout gameplay designs to reflect the vastness of the world. Morrowind was designed for the players to feel the sense of 'hugeness' of the world. How did it achieve? By simply removing instant click on map and go design and instead, uses the sandriders(?) as a form of quicker transport to different regions. FarCry 2 succeeded in this area also, using buses or vehicles as form of transport to make the world seemed big. Now here underlies the problem that usually having such huge worlds often presents itself so empty and void with FarCry 2 being the perfect example of falling into such pitfall. But I think it can be avoided, since there are other similar games with huge worlds managed to avoid the pitfalls. GTA 3 and 4 certainly made the world felt responsive to a degree and definitely not empty.

Epicness aside, will Obsidian's Fallout utilize the same design continuity of Fallout 1 and 2? Like the armor, ghouls and mutant designs.

It certainly does contribute to the sense of scale of the world. Mass Effect at present is simply giving you a sense of. . . I'm not sure how to express properly. Maybe 'enclosed' due to the hub structure? But the point I'm trying to make is there is a sense of 'time' passing during the journey that the old Fallouts had that provides the the sense of consistency that the world is that huge and may even change as time goes by. Fallout's encounter can be avoided later if you decide to invest in outdoorsman skill, giving you a choice to evade enemy encounters. Pretty much depends how you build your character.

Fallout 3 was obviously a much smaller area than the (virtual) maps of Fallouts 1 and 2. The cardinal difference was that every square foot of Fallout 3 was mapped out and you had to traverse all space in real time from point A to point B to travel, whereas most of the (virtual) space of the first two games was a handful of recycled encounter maps and fast-forwarded overland travel. So getting from Vault 101 to Capitol Hill took more time than it took to get from Arroyo to New Reno, even though the distance from Vault 101 to Capitol Hill in F2 terms was probably about the distance from Arroyo to the Den. So Fallout 3 was bigger even though it was smaller (how's that for doublespeak?) and it required, what, 4 or 5 years of development? Contrasted with Fallout 2's relatively short development time (I remember MCA talking about how amazed he was that most of it worked at the end) and pseudo-"epic" scope, at least in comparison to Fallout 3. Fallout 2 made like a camper facing a bear and made itself look a lot bigger than it actually was. Which is what I'd like to see out of F:NV, obviously. I very highly doubt that it would be terribly "epic" if it was made in the Fallout 3 mold of WYSIWYG. There's just too much stuff. I would, again, hope for a synthesis. Perhaps even a Hegelian synthesis. Mass Effect is like the most epic game of all time because you travel for light yeaaaaaars! But in comparison to Fallout 1 and 2, it fails to capture the 'epic' size and scope of the world with this reasoning: Travelling is done in an instant from point A to point B in Mass Effect. Sure it has lots of planets and galaxies you could travel to, but it fails to capture the sense of scale for the player since there is no sense of 'time' being passed during the journey. The old Fallouts had it because it does not take an instant for the player to travel to another location and the time and days will continually tick during the journey. Some quests I believe is even associated with time itself. The travel is not always safe since there will always be a chance for hostile encounters depending on the distance needed to travel. Thus travelling from one end of the map to the other would seem to provide the sense of 'vastness' with an unknowing journey ahead that anything could happend. Mass Effect did not capture this at all.

Well, I have no choice but to trust J.E in this. If he managed to turn NWN2 around within the last six months itself, I guess its not unpossible mission for New Vegas. Make no mistake that despite all my whines and dines for Obsidian being involved with Bethesda, I'm getting this game because I lurv Obsidian. I simply can't help but voice out paranoid(?) concerns on this unproven working relationship with Bethsda that might utterly screw Obsidian up in worst case scenario. Gods, that reminds me. I hope Obsidian will never accept a buyout from Bethesda if the game happends to be successful.

Fallout 3 was obviously a much smaller area than the (virtual) maps of Fallouts 1 and 2. The cardinal difference was that every square foot of Fallout 3 was mapped out and you had to traverse all space in real time from point A to point B to travel, whereas most of the (virtual) space of the first two games was a handful of recycled encounter maps and fast-forwarded overland travel. So getting from Vault 101 to Capitol Hill took more time than it took to get from Arroyo to New Reno, even though the distance from Vault 101 to Capitol Hill in F2 terms was probably about the distance from Arroyo to the Den. So Fallout 3 was bigger even though it was smaller (how's that for doublespeak?) and it required, what, 4 or 5 years of development? Contrasted with Fallout 2's relatively short development time (I remember MCA talking about how amazed he was that most of it worked at the end) and pseudo-"epic" scope, at least in comparison to Fallout 3. Fallout 2 made like a camper facing a bear and made itself look a lot bigger than it actually was. Which is what I'd like to see out of F:NV, obviously. I very highly doubt that it would be terribly "epic" if it was made in the Fallout 3 mold of WYSIWYG. There's just too much stuff. I would, again, hope for a synthesis. Perhaps even a Hegelian synthesis. I guess one way would be using a travelling hub from location to location similar to Bloodlines. However, problem remains that I very much doubt Obsidian has all the time to make a game with such huge landscape scope if you consider that you have to design the map based on 3D environment rather than 2D tilesets. The former takes alot of painful and careful aesthetic design and the latter placing tiles in a logical manner as possible in real life counter parts. Another problem I want to raise is all these complaints of the levelling system in Fallout 3 which players reached 20 before they could even finish the game. I wonder how could Obsidian find solution to this problem which never happened in the majority gameplay of Fallout 1 and 2.

Unless Obsidian is able to make the game Fallout: New Vegas the scale of Morrowind rather than puny Oblivion and Fallout, I think its preferable that the game simply takes place in one city brimmed with factions and interesting locations in the town itself than adding other towns just 500 meters apart that could break immersion and logic.

If Obsidian's Fallout is going to have more than 80 characters in the dialogue like Fallout 1 + 2, it would require a new dialogue interface similar to Neverwinter Night's 2. At the present Oblivion's and Fallout 3 dialogue system was simply meant to maintain a sparse screen as possible. Probably for 'cinematic' experience.

They haven't even made a forum. It's just a single topic in the General Fallout section. Me three. The . . . difference of mindset and extreme difference of expressing passionate opinions in Bethesda forums is something I rather not read up on, for the sake of my fragile celebrality.

Bethesda being the producer means that they would be ones making final call what Obsidian could hire when it comes to parties outside of Obsidian's development team. Its their money Obsidian is spending on afterall, so I very much doubt Obsidian's got a free hand in those fields.

Will Mark Morgan be back to compose Fallout's music?

Can't be in a few months of development considering the contract was signed simply a week or two ago.

Sadly, Obsidian is beginning to make themselves known as Raven Software's twin brother.

Aren't you all getting a KOTOR2 vibe from this? How much can Obsidian achieve making a full fledged game within a year? Understandably Fallout 2 managed to be made within a single year but with a seeming flexible engine for quest scripting purposes. Look at the tons of branching side-quests itself. Also, the world was made seemingly bigger by means of illusion by utilizing simply bigger maps and more towns. Furthermore Fallout 2 was done without a second party breathing down Black Isle's neck to control the content and production quality. I'm not sure about Fallout 3. So those who managed to mod Fallout 3, an insight would be great.