Obsidian making Fallout: New Vegas

[Jaesun]

i'm quite excited, to be perfectly honest. without getting into a long series of nitpicking ('cause i really could) the biggest problems i have with FO3 are the failure of SPECIAL and the dialogue/writing/atmosphere which i view as ranging from tacky to downright embarrassing. i trust old Fallout devs to cure...at the very least, these things.

 

There is the potential to fix these things, especially the dialogue, which I think Obsidan tends to do especially well. This is why I think it's going to be a perfect fit. What would fit my playstyle nicely is a FO3 with stellar dialogue and well developed quests, while still giving me plenty to explore on my own.

 

This. And if they can fix/alter VATS, rapid perk accumulation, and slow the leveling process. With Josh at the helm, I'm sure many things will be changed/made better.

 

The one year dev time for this scares me, but I think they might be able to pull it off.

[alanschu]

I'm not convinced, given that Fallout 3 did have you randomly encountering significantly more difficult enemies as you gained levels. I'd rather deal with the random knife welding savage than one of the psycho plasma firing robots or even a Deathclaw.

 

IDK, I played the game at Very Hard almost from the get go,and had my character been in a really difficult situation only a couple of times, especially when caught off guard by a Deathclaw or a bunch of Radscorpions or that nasty Talon mercs.

 

There was an over-abundance of

[Kjarista]

Meh, I just played on normal and while I rarely found myself thinking "man this game is hard" there were still times I found myself needing to be particularly conservative with stimpacks and even ammunition (though usually I had to be conservative with weapon durability).

 

I don't really play the game for combat, so the "normal" setting is about right for me, although many find the game too easy. With the robust modding tools provided, however, there are plenty of mods out there to boost combat difficulty. One I would recommend is Marts Mutant Mod, which adds some really tough mobs.

[mkreku]

I don't share most of the likes of this group. I'm a fan of all the Fallout RPGs, including FO3. I prefer the open, sandbox, freeform exploration style of RPGs over the story driven RPGs that most of you here favor. No surprise there: Obsidian excels at deep story driven RPGs, and Beth excels at Sandbox games. Most of the drama over the past several years have been over gameplay styles more than anything else. I hope that we can focus more on this new game than on the old, tired Fallout debate.

There are a few of us here too. I have the same wants as you do and funnily enough I've been lowering myself to playing with the animals on here too. But there's no point, apes enjoy slinging **** around. I don't.

[Ping5000]

At the very least, New Vegas will have more than a voice actor.

[TwinkieGorilla]

There is the potential to fix these things, especially the dialogue, which I think Obsidan tends to do especially well. This is why I think it's going to be a perfect fit. What would fit my playstyle nicely is a FO3 with stellar dialogue and well developed quests, while still giving me plenty to explore on my own.

 

heck yeah. aside from, as i said, a list of specifics...this is all i really could hope for as well.

[Tel Prydain]

I've been lurking the last couple of days, trying to decide if I want to be active here. I don't share most of the likes of this group. I'm a fan of all the Fallout RPGs, including FO3. I prefer the open, sandbox, freeform exploration style of RPGs over the story driven RPGs that most of you here favor. No surprise there: Obsidian excels at deep story driven RPGs, and Beth excels at Sandbox games. Most of the drama over the past several years have been over gameplay styles more than anything else. I hope that we can focus more on this new game than on the old, tired Fallout debate.

 

And that is why I am excited about F:NV. With any luck, we will get the best of both of these RPG genres, and if we do, many of us will be happy campers.

Agreed. It's kinda scary that different styles are just assumed to be 'bad' or 'wrong', rather then different.

I like story driven RPGs (like KotOR and Mass Effect) most, but I can appreciate a good open world RPG like Fallout 3 or Morrowind too.

 

lol @ people defending any aspect of Oblivion.

Obviously Oblivion was so crap, and that's why it sold so very badly....

 

I think using the NCR-run Hoover Dam from Van Buren would be a good thing, even if not as an actual location (although it is quite close to Vegas), then as a major faction with its stakes in New Vegas. Hoover Dam's government would be a good contrast to a (likely) mob-run Vegas, and it would be interesting to see what the relations between the two towns are.

 

I'm not sure I'd like that... I mean, that idea is good. And the setting is great. But I'd be kinda bummed out that I'd spoiled myself by reading the Van Buren doc.

 

As for Fallout 3 and Oblivion... I can't help but see them as two sides of the same coin. Almost as Warhammer & WarHammer 40k. [To me] the games play the same, but for a few trivial changes. I know that some don't see it that way... but they don't often explain why.

I'm not such an Oblivion fan, but I love Fallout 3.

 

First thing is that there were far more

[Tigranes]

Agreed. It's kinda scary that different styles are just assumed to be 'bad' or 'wrong', rather then different.

I like story driven RPGs (like KotOR and Mass Effect) most, but I can appreciate a good open world RPG like Fallout 3 or Morrowind too.

 

Obsidian forums have hardly seen a consensus regarding this. At any rate, those who did criticise FO3 as 'wrong' didn't do so because they thought the gameplay style was 'wrong', but because it was 'wrong' considering the original premise and intent of the Fallout franchise.

 

Obviously Oblivion was so crap, and that's why it sold so very badly....

 

Sales are not an indicator of quality.

 

I bought Oblivion, I put 60 hours into it and I liked it for what it was. I bought FO3 too and thought it was a much better game. Doesn't mean I'm not going to criticise its flaws, and doesn't mean I'm going to subscribe to arguments like "it sold well so boo hoo to all the complaints". They both remain good products with serious, serious flaws.

 

In any case, I think it is assured that to a degree, Obsidian will put their story-oriented approach into this engine and setting. There really isn't any technical issue with Gamebryo stopping them. I'm hoping for fewer, wackier, more complicated areas to explore, and also more creative uses of the engine such as seen in IWD2.

[Pidesco]

I don't share most of the likes of this group. I'm a fan of all the Fallout RPGs, including FO3. I prefer the open, sandbox, freeform exploration style of RPGs over the story driven RPGs that most of you here favor. No surprise there: Obsidian excels at deep story driven RPGs, and Beth excels at Sandbox games. Most of the drama over the past several years have been over gameplay styles more than anything else. I hope that we can focus more on this new game than on the old, tired Fallout debate.

There are a few of us here too. I have the same wants as you do and funnily enough I've been lowering myself to playing with the animals on here too. But there's no point, apes enjoy slinging **** around. I don't.

 

I'm a fan of the open exploration type RPGs as well, and my problem with Bethesda is how poorly I feel it does the open, sandbox, freeform exploration style of RPGs Kjarista mentions. Honestly, as far the open world building goes, I think Bethesda has been on backwards track after Daggerfall was released. As I've stated before, the problem with Bethesda's games is how their worlds always feel dead, shallow and repetitive with too little world exploration to make me go back to them. Their game worlds are like overgrown versions of Mass Effect's uncharted planets. In that respect, Gothic 2 is infinitely better than any Elder scrolls game.

[alanschu]

Meh, I just played on normal and while I rarely found myself thinking "man this game is hard" there were still times I found myself needing to be particularly conservative with stimpacks and even ammunition (though usually I had to be conservative with weapon durability).

 

I don't really play the game for combat, so the "normal" setting is about right for me, although many find the game too easy. With the robust modding tools provided, however, there are plenty of mods out there to boost combat difficulty. One I would recommend is Marts Mutant Mod, which adds some really tough mobs.

 

 

No I'm in the same boat. I never found the game to be too easy or too hard, so the difficulty wasn't an issue for me. I didn't play it for the challenge either (and rarely play RPGs for the challenge).

 

I actually enjoyed the combat in FO3 for what it was. I didn't find that Vats got old or anything like that, and watching enemies turn to dust with a laser blast makes me smile the 100th time, just like blowing chunks off the sprites in FO1/2 did

[Tel Prydain]

But the goal of selling games has always existed, and it seemed like that was the point of the poster's comment. The fact that the XBOX 360 was where the bulk of the sales went is just extra fluff. If developers aren't making games for the XBOX 360, they're doing it for a different system (including the PC).

I commented on this before

[Llyranor]

Case in point: Morgoth complaining about Last Remnant and Lost Odyssey being too hard, and then whining about how they suck instead.

[Tel Prydain]

Obsidian forums have hardly seen a consensus regarding this. At any rate, those who did criticise FO3 as 'wrong' didn't do so because they thought the gameplay style was 'wrong', but because it was 'wrong' considering the original premise and intent of the Fallout franchise.

Fair enough. I was responding to posts specifically in this thread and it's predecessor.

 

Case in point: Morgoth complaining about Last Remnant and Lost Odyssey being too hard, and then whining about how they suck instead.

Playing Last Remnant now, actual. Surprised that I'm enjoying it - the combat is kinda different.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Tel Prydain

[Gizmo]

Has anyone here seen the 'Ground Zero Tech demo'?

 

When I first saw it 2

Edited April 24, 2009 by Gizmo

[Kjarista]

I'm a fan of the open exploration type RPGs as well, and my problem with Bethesda is how poorly I feel it does the open, sandbox, freeform exploration style of RPGs Kjarista mentions. Honestly, as far the open world building goes, I think Bethesda has been on backwards track after Daggerfall was released. As I've stated before, the problem with Bethesda's games is how their worlds always feel dead, shallow and repetitive with too little world exploration to make me go back to them. Their game worlds are like overgrown versions of Mass Effect's uncharted planets. In that respect, Gothic 2 is infinitely better than any Elder scrolls game.

 

See, I just don't agree with that. I've played FO3 at least a hundred hours and I'm still finding places I haven't been before. For example, I recently came across a skeleton sitting in front of a radio, pistol in hand and a bloodstain on the wall. Now, I'm the kind of player who generally notices that kind of thing, and will ponder how this all came about. Who as he talking to on the radio, and what happened to them? Why did he finally end it? He seemed well protected and reasonably well supplied. It's a sort of subtile storytelling that Beth never gets credit for. There are other examples: Skel in bathtub with a toaster....skel in bathtub with empty booze bottles all around and a pistol nearby....holotapes and terminals that carry ongoing stories. These things are all over the place, waiting to be found, and waiting to be thought about. No doubt many players never see/find/think/care about things like this. That's fine: I'd like to see every player find fun any way they can, wherever they can.

 

No, you don't get lead around by a story you can't get away from. You are required to decide where you want to go, and do want you want to do, and IF you want to follow the main quest at all. I currently have a level capped character that has done NO quests in FO3, and a mid level character in Oblivion with dozens of open quests.

 

As I said before, clearly, the style of game play supported by these two companies are highly dissimilar...diametrically opposed even. That I prefer one style and you another is hardly surprising. That you would perfer an Obsidian game or earlier RRPS is also understandable. But it is this difference that's going to make F:NV a very interesting game...for both of us.

 

Not trying to argue that Beth games are better then, well, anything else, including previous Beth games. Arguments like that tend to be subjective to the point of nonsense. I can, and will tell you why I like FO3 better than FO2, or better than NWN2 for that matter, but I'm not going to try to tell you why you should agree with me.

[Tigranes]

It's a sort of subtile storytelling that Beth never gets credit for.

 

I've seen most of your examples and they were very nice; and FO3 was indeed much better than their previous attempts in what they did with holotapes. I think Beth do get credit for that. Rather, what they are criticised for is that these good 'subtle stories' don't build up to interesting things you can actually DO (it just boils down to shoot more idiotic, unimaginatively conceptualised super-mutants with a broken VATS system), and that the big stories just don't make that much sense (e.g. Main Quest). I personally was pleasantly surprised at all the small things Beth managed to put in various areas.

 

No, you don't get lead around by a story you can't get away from. You are required to decide where you want to go, and do want you want to do, and IF you want to follow the main quest at all. I currently have a level capped character that has done NO quests in FO3, and a mid level character in Oblivion with dozens of open quests.

 

That wasn't what Pidesco wanted though. You keep arguing against a fictional, imagined stereotype that just doesn't exist here in this discussion to validate Beth's approach... a validation that's not actually needed.

[Slowtrain]

I've been lurking the last couple of days, trying to decide if I want to be active here. I don't share most of the likes of this group. I'm a fan of all the Fallout RPGs, including FO3. I prefer the open, sandbox, freeform exploration style of RPGs over the story driven RPGs that most of you here favor. No surprise there: Obsidian excels at deep story driven RPGs, and Beth excels at Sandbox games. Most of the drama over the past several years have been over gameplay styles more than anything else. I hope that we can focus more on this new game than on the old, tired Fallout debate.

 

All my gaming life I've loved open, free form games. ANd not just crpgs. FLight sims with dynamic campaigns, space sims like the X universe, tactical combat games like XCOM and Jag 2. I generally prefer games that let me do what I want to do over games with tightly wound stories.

 

 

However, Bethesda's post-Daggerfall attempts at freeform worlds had made me less and less a fan of those sorts of games, especially when they are done by Bethesda.

 

Really, its quite remarkable that Bethesda has managed to take my favorite type of game and make me not really like it anymore.

 

Far Cry 2, which wasn't even that great a game, was in some ways a better free form game than anything Beth has done since Daggerfall.

[Maria Caliban]

A shame, Cyrodil after the Emperor's death would be an even better stage for Political Drama. Barenziah? Wolf Queen? That'd be pre-school compared to post-Septim Empire...

 

The Wolf Queen pwns your backwoods Septim Empire.

 

Hey, don't tell me you never wondered how a female Khajiit would... 'feel'.

Throw a fur blanket over your girlfrie-- uh, nevermind. Did you know a cat's **** has hooks on it?

 

My take on the leveling issue in FO3 is that it was the first time Beth used experience-based leveling in their sandbox, and they miscalculated the size of awards. Not really surprising and a mistake I see them unlikely to repeat (although in FO4 there's the chance they'll over-compensate and make them too small ).

 

I found Morrowind to be the best for leveling for the three Bethesda games I've played so far. I think for a huge sandbox, level scaling is a good thing. It's just that Oblivion went too far.

 

Unfortunately, NMA as well as the Codex are sites banned specifically by Bethesda and their employee's.

 

What? How can they *ban*

Edited April 24, 2009 by Maria Caliban

[Gizmo]

What? How can they ‘ban’ a site? You mean you can’t mention them on the Bethesda boards?

They use the auto-censor to break URL's leading to the RPGcodex.

 

~It replaces rpgcodex.com with [censored], so you can neither link to it, or name it in posts.

This is what members mean when they post "the site that must not be named".

 

** I'm not sure... but I believe that NMA is not censored, but possibly their own staff has been instructed not to post there. (again, I'm not positive about this.)

Edited April 24, 2009 by Gizmo

[TwinkieGorilla]

Throw a fur blanket over your girlfrie—uh, nevermind. Did you know a cat’s **** has hooks on it?

 

oh boy. and did you know that so does Mikael's?

 

 

Edited April 24, 2009 by TwinkieGorilla

[Slowtrain]

Gotta love the Bethie forums.

[Maria Caliban]

What? How can they

[Jaesun]

What? How can they

Edited April 24, 2009 by Jaesun

[Deadly_Nightshade]

It replaces rpgcodex.com with [censored], so you can neither link to it, or name it in posts.

 

And you know why that is? They gave Oblivion a negative review.

[Gizmo]

It replaces rpgcodex.com with [censored], so you can neither link to it, or name it in posts.

 

And you know why that is? They gave Oblivion a negative review.

Yep.