Obsidian making Fallout: New Vegas

[Fionavar]

Part 1

[Llyranor]

In before lock.

[Zoma]

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.

[Axier]

Okay, read enough of the last topic to figure out whats what... Here is what I came out of it thinking...

 

There are a lot of Beth haters. I would disagree with them, but that's just personal opinion, hopefully we are civil enough to agree to disagree. As with the Beth haters, some people don't seem to like Fallout 3. Understandable! I stepped in to

Fallout 3 after playing both 1 and 2 with a grain of salt. (Okay, more like a pint of EverClear and a pound of salt.) The game is a complete rethought, and I, personally liked it! I do admit, I also entered Fallout 3 after Oblivion, witch for some odd reason, people don't like here either, to each his own right? Ive loved Bethesda and Obsidian both.

 

Anyway, this will most certainly help with any Financial issues, as some of you here may have jumped off the Fallout bandwagon with 3, Fallout 3 introduced a lot of people to the game that would NEVER play an Isometric RPG, or never knew about Fallout. Also, a lot of Oblivion players liked it as well. Since all of them know about it, and I'm sure some of you hardcore Obsidian fans (KOTOR & NWN FTW!) will buy it, even if you don't like it, Obsidian is about to get helladolla from it... And I'm sure, that it is likely using the Fallout engine, witch I like.

 

Also, I R NUB!!!!1!11!!1!!11!!!!11!!1!0n3!!!

Edited April 22, 2009 by Axier

[Hurlshort]

Well, I think there was a pretty gigantic difference between Oblivion and Fallout 3. If you hated F3, you will most likely not like Obsidian's version. If you were lukewarm to it, then it might have a shot.

 

Personally I loved Fallout 3 and I am stoked to play this Obsidian title. But I also thought Oblivion was a fun open-world RPG.

[Trenitay]

I was never able to get into fallout and I have never liked the elder scrolls games. I do trust Obsidian however and will buy this this game just for that. Bethesda doesn't matter to me.

[Axier]

I think the main problem people had with Oblivion is that it wasn't as big as Morrowind... The Irony with Fallout 3 is that I feel it was bigger than fallout 1 or 2. The main reason these games are so small compared to older games is that games like Morrowind for example, are obviously less visually intensive on data-space. I still <3 Oblivion just as much as Morrowind, mainly because it is the stepping stone to the, will obviously be better TESV. So, Im hoping that Fallout: New Vegas and Fallout 3 will combine the experience of FPRPG Fallout into the obviously will be better Fallout 4! (Here's hoping to be crawling through Manhattan's broken carcass is 2012.)

[Gizmo]

The Irony with Fallout 3 is that I feel it was bigger than fallout 1 or 2. The main reason these games are so small compared to older games is that games like Morrowind for example, are obviously less visually intensive on data-space.

But Fallout 1 & 2 covered about an tenth of the continental US [not including Alaska], Fallout 3 covers a small part of Maryland.

 

* I do get what you are saying, but IMO that's kind of a design flaw... Making a game that covers a wide area at less detail is still providing a bigger picture than a game that covers a fractional area in extreme detail. Its like comparing an aerial photo of a mountain range to a close up photo of a rock garden.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Gizmo

[Maria Caliban]

Okay, read enough of the last topic to figure out whats what... Here is what I came out of it thinking...

 

There are a lot of Beth haters.

 

There are. If Fallout: NV is great, we'll hear how wonderful Obsidian is. If it has any problems, we're going to hear about how it's all Bethesda's fault because they didn't give Obsidian enough 1) Time, 2) Money, or 3) Creative Freedom.

 

The Irony with Fallout 3 is that I feel it was bigger than fallout 1 or 2. The main reason these games are so small compared to older games is that games like Morrowind for example, are obviously less visually intensive on data-space.

But Fallout 1 & 2 covered about an tenth of the continental US [not including Alaska], Fallout 3 covers a small part of Maryland.

 

And yet Fallout 3 feels bigger. Maryland must be a Tardis or something. We thought we were walking around DC, but instead we were in a phone booth in London.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Maria Caliban

[Pop]

At this point I'm hoping for a synthesis of 1/2 map travel with the gameplay of 3. There's no other way I can see this game coming out without it being abbreviated and/or unbelievably buggy.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Why do people call Fallout 3 puny? I hit location 164 on the map after 90 hours of gameplay.

[Tigranes]

I'd put my money on the FO3 model of New Vegas taking up a lot of room, and then with some outlying areas... but with the differences that 'New Vegas' might well be much more vibrant and developed (a la San Fran/New Reno) than the pile of rubble that was D.C., and so this 'new urban' area is the point of the game. It would make sense with the title, and differentiate the experience from walking over some more brown-grey rubble.

 

edit: Fo3, Morrowind and Oblivion were all massive. I wouldn't really say that's the issue. In terms of what you experienced there was a game-wide, fundamental difference in the way Morrowind perceived you as an entity within its gameworld and Oblivion did, for example.

[Pop]

Why do people call Fallout 3 puny? I hit location 164 on the map after 90 hours of gameplay.

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.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Pop

[Zoma]

Why do people call Fallout 3 puny? I hit location 164 on the map after 90 hours of gameplay.

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.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Zoma

[Pop]

I have no doubt that F:NV will be different in terms of (some) game mechanics than vanilla F3. I just can't see Josh refraining from tinkering as Lead Designer. He knows his ****.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Pop

[Wombat]

Why do people call Fallout 3 puny? I hit location 164 on the map after 90 hours of gameplay.

As some people have already implied, that free roaming sense by Bethesda doesn't belong to Obsidian, I guess. Even some ex-Black Isle Studios designers don't have much experience in this area. FO 1 and 2's sense of free roaming is built in a different way with some important areas, random encounters and the world map which gives the players an illusion of making these "pieces" feel like a consistent world. If you use FO3 engine, you don't have this trick. Even a team which are accustomed to make a sand-box type game, make a blunder as you can see in Gothic III. Now speaking about it, even Oblivion felt quite repetitive, showing the struggle between quality and quantity.

 

This is why I thought it may be better for Obsidian to "play their game" with their own engine rather than trying to imitate the game-play of Bethesda but the scenario is very unlikely. Also, Obsidian don't have stealth magician like Emil Pagliarulo. I know it's dated but Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines' "stealth-play" was...

 

Although the game is very different, in NWN2 OC, I think Obsidian tried too many things to live up with the reputation of NWN. You are good at management and have earned some experience through these years but I think the development period is rather short to make the game live up with the expectations from people played FO 1/2 and FO 3.

[Zoma]

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.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Zoma

[J.E. Sawyer]

Why do people call Fallout 3 puny? I hit location 164 on the map after 90 hours of gameplay.

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!

[alanschu]

The Irony with Fallout 3 is that I feel it was bigger than fallout 1 or 2. The main reason these games are so small compared to older games is that games like Morrowind for example, are obviously less visually intensive on data-space.

But Fallout 1 & 2 covered about an tenth of the continental US [not including Alaska], Fallout 3 covers a small part of Maryland.

 

* I do get what you are saying, but IMO that's kind of a design flaw... Making a game that covers a wide area at less detail is still providing a bigger picture than a game that covers a fractional area in extreme detail. Its like comparing an aerial photo of a mountain range to a close up photo of a rock garden.

 

 

Disagree entirely.

 

 

I don't care if it covered the entire continental United States if it doesn't let me interact with very much. An overwhelming majority of the 1/10 Continental United States in the first two fallout games was world map filler.

[alanschu]

Why do people call Fallout 3 puny? I hit location 164 on the map after 90 hours of gameplay.

 

 

Because it's only the surrounding area of a single city of course!

[Zoma]

Why do people call Fallout 3 puny? I hit location 164 on the map after 90 hours of gameplay.

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.

[alanschu]

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.

 

 

So would Mass Effect be made more epic if they didn't instantly travel you there and made it possible to have the warp drive interdicted?

 

 

The random encounters weren't horrible in Fallout (though I found more often than not unless I was late game and geared to max, they were often overwhelming), but for the most part I found them a drag.

[Zoma]

So would Mass Effect be made more epic if they didn't instantly travel you there and made it possible to have the warp drive interdicted?

 

 

The random encounters weren't horrible in Fallout (though I found more often than not unless I was late game and geared to max, they were often overwhelming), but for the most part I found them a drag.

 

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.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Zoma

[Pop]

Mass Effect doesn't really have much of a sense of scale, I think partly because of how small the main quest maps tended to be on foot (Virmire and the planet that came after it did pretty well mixing on-foot with MAKO rides and that helped, actually), but mostly because of the sense players got that they were landing on the same planet with different skins over and over in sidequests. Did anyone feel they were actually going places in that game outside of the main quest?

 

world map filler.

Huh, I thought Fallout 3 had that in abundance, even with its dungeon hack tendencies. And now that we're going into the desert around Las Vegas how can we avoid that in any case?

 

The biggest thing for me is the diversity of locales. Van Buren had that coming out of its ears (pretty much every location was inherently unique) and I loved it. I don't really feel like Fallout 3 had enough of that, but then I didn't really like the designs of Rivet City and Megaton even though they were relatively distinctive. Fallout 2 had a fair bit of diversity, with Arroyo and Vault City and Gecko and New Reno and NCR and Navarro and San Fran all having a fair bit of personality just in the way they looked (Den / Modoc / Redding / Broken Hills, not so much) with F3, with the exception of Oasis, there was DC, and then there was the wasteland outside of DC, and then there were steel corridors. I hope I'll be proven wrong but I feel like the seamless nature of the Gamebryo engine prevents a lot of smoothly separated variation in visual design. Compound that with a total map size that will probably be much smaller than F3's and I've got myself worried.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Pop

[Zoma]

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