Obsidian making Fallout: New Vegas

[Ausir]

That is how I would start the game if I had to start it in a desert. Make people walk to that gas station, find an abandoned motorcycle (or Humvee or any other vehicle)

 

Humvee is too modern for Fallout's divergent timeline. It did appear in Fallout Tactics, but it was a mistake (Chris Taylor originally wanted a jeep there, but he was overruled by the Microforte devs).

[TwinkieGorilla]

Yeah it's silly, the oversights can be bugging indeed. I still find it funny that the basic necessaries for humans to live, isn't available to them, yet people are still thriving... kinda.

 

 

well...it's not necessarily that FO1 & 2 were "totally realistic, yay!" but more that FO3 is kinda arbitrarily unrealistic. like..., ok a thin chance that after rummaging around on shelves you'll get a rotten meat platter that barely heals you or 5 billion stimpacks, boxes of food everywhere, and well...you get it.

 

 

now the computers, i agree it's silly...but as i said, i really liked that element and thought that was a good example of well-implemented suspension of disbelief because they actually enhanced the story.

[Ausir]

By the way, I do hope that if any super mutants appear in New Vegas, they'll look more like they did in FO1 and 2 than like they do in FO3. I don't mind the Vault 87 mutants being different that much, but if any were to appear in Vegas, they'll be from the Mariposa strain, and should look more like they did in the originals.

 

Although I'll also understand if they'll just use the FO3 models because of time constraints.

[mkreku]

By the way, Wasteland didn't have map travel. You had to manually walk the map to every town/Citadel/village/farm yourself. So in a sense, if you accept Wasteland as the 'real' start of the series, Bethesda went back to the roots when they made Fallout 3's players travel by foot everywhere :D

[Gizmo]

Yeah it's silly, the oversights can be bugging indeed. I still find it funny that the basic necessaries for humans to live, isn't available to them, yet people are still thriving... kinda.

 

 

well...it's not necessarily that FO1 & 2 were "totally realistic, yay!" but more that FO3 is kinda arbitrarily unrealistic. like..., ok a thin chance that after rummaging around on shelves you'll get a rotten meat platter that barely heals you or 5 billion stimpacks, boxes of food everywhere, and well...you get it.

 

 

now the computers, i agree it's silly...but as i said, i really liked that element and thought that was a good example of well-implemented suspension of disbelief because they actually enhanced the story.

In Fallout... was there a single above ground computer that worked? (maybe; Lets just say there was..)

In F2 there were two that I know of, one in Gecko, the other in San Francisco.

~That's three in the first two games combined.

 

*Now I could be wrong of course... so lets triple it and add 1 for good measure.

Now compare that to the number of working terminals found above ground in the nations capital 200 years after the war....

Edited April 22, 2009 by Gizmo

[Ausir]

By the way, Wasteland didn't have map travel. You had to manually walk the map to every town/Citadel/village/farm yourself.

 

Not really, walking through towns and through the wastes looked the same, but the world map and town maps had different scales. If anything, it was more like FO1 and 2 than like FO3, since you transitioned through exit grids from the more detailed town map to world map that showed the various locations as single squares, and had random encounters on the way.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Ausir

[Maria Caliban]

There's always a point to talking about what you like/don't like, but we can't discuss the direction we're taking with the game yet.

 

Okay.

 

Don't bother changing the map/gameplay/level-up/etc. Focus on the story,quests, and characters.

[Aristes]

Gromnir had a great post a while back about B-movie goofiness in Fallouts 1 and 2. Stimpaks abounded in the original titles, bottle caps (with no inherent value) were used like cash in a barter economy, ghosts, GECKS, and super mutants. Fallout 3 really doesn't seem that different to me. I prefered the ap combat of 1 and 2, but I don't think any of them trump the others in terms of just plain silly.

[TwinkieGorilla]

In Fallout... was there a single above ground computer that worked? (maybe; Lets just say there was..)

In F2 there were two that I know of, one in Gecko, the other in San Francisco.

~That's three in the first two games combined.

 

i know man, i get you. i'm not arguing that (i just said it was silly!) but ANY time in FO3 where there is decent writing or exposition on back-story, hell...i'll take it. because the dialogue and the rest of the writing is as poor as it comes.

 

of course, that being said i'd still like to see a more realistic approach with dialogue & story done better.

[Gizmo]

By the way, Wasteland didn't have map travel. You had to manually walk the map to every town/Citadel/village/farm yourself.

 

Not really, walking through towns and through the wastes looked the same, but the world map and town maps had different scales. If anything, it was more like FO1 and 2 than like FO3, since you transitioned through exit grids from the more detailed town map to world map that showed the various locations as single squares, and had random encounters on the way.

Indeed... Wasteland and Fallout were tremendously alike in some ways.

http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/G...nk/example1.jpg

http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/G...nk/example2.jpg

(Which of course, had to be deliberate.)

Edited April 22, 2009 by Gizmo

[mkreku]

I prefered the ap combat of 1 and 2, but I don't think any of them trump the others in terms of just plain silly.

I agree (except for the combat part). But the hatred for Bethesda and new, scary things somehow colours all their opinions about Fallout 3. Yes, the quests were bad. Does that automatically mean the combat was bad, the technology was bad, every new idea that Bethesda brought to the game was bad? No, not really. And this is why it's so annoying trying to discuss Fallout with fans of the series. It's like they all played the old games ten years ago and forgot 95% of them.

 

I've actually seen conversations on this board that went something like this:

 

"Should I play Fallout 3?"

"No, the animations suck, the graphics suck and the technology sucks."

"But how about Fallout 2 then?"

"Oh yeah, that game is the best!"

[Gizmo]

It's like they all played the old games ten years ago and forgot 95% of them.

As nu_clear_day will likely soon confirm... most of those guys [probably] played Fallout last week

~or surely within the last

Edited April 22, 2009 by Gizmo

[mkreku]

By the way, Wasteland didn't have map travel. You had to manually walk the map to every town/Citadel/village/farm yourself.

 

Not really, walking through towns and through the wastes looked the same, but the world map and town maps had different scales. If anything, it was more like FO1 and 2 than like FO3, since you transitioned through exit grids from the more detailed town map to world map that showed the various locations as single squares, and had random encounters on the way.

Huh. I distinctly remember walking up to a town in Fallout 3, only to be faced with a short loading time and a "different scale" on the inside. Scale as in much more detailed, totally confined and full of interactivity. Just like in Wasteland. The actual size change of going from one map to another is more like the old Fallout's, yes.

 

I also remember walking through the wasteland in Fallout 3, only to be constantly attacked by random encounters. Just like Wasteland. Not much of a difference from either Fallout 3 or Fallout/Fallout 2 there. Although in Fallout 3 you were able to avoid the encounters altogether so that's a plus.

 

I guess it depends on how you see it. The main difference between Wasteland/Fallout 3 travelling and Fallout/Fallout 2 travelling was that there was no interactivity on the map travel in Fallout/Fallout 2. In the other two games you manually had to walk to places (through deserts, over bridges, swim rivers, getting stopped by mountains etc.). The sense of exploration was much greater for me in those two titles than in Fallout/Fallout 2, where all you had to do was click on a point and watch a dot creep over the map.

[Gizmo]

I guess it depends on how you see it. The main difference between Wasteland/Fallout 3 travelling and Fallout/Fallout 2 travelling was that there was no interactivity on the map travel in Fallout/Fallout 2. In the other two games you manually had to walk to places (through deserts, over bridges, swim rivers, getting stopped by mountains etc.). The sense of exploration was much greater for me in those two titles than in Fallout/Fallout 2, where all you had to do was click on a point and watch a dot creep over the map.

Fallout's overland map was topographic and your path through the wasteland took longer if you plodded through rough terrain. The map also had a "fog of war" that let you only see a bit in all directions. [You could see a settlement that was nearby, but not far off locations unless they'd been marked on your map]

 

IIRC... if you went on the Overland map without bringing enough water for the long trek, it would stop you and have you take dehydration damage.

 

The distances were vast, and the game only paused the trip if something interesting happened (done differently, you'd walk for a week with no encounters).

 

*I think Arcanum let you do that if you wanted to...

 

** Now you have me doubting it too... Fallout's travel marker did slow down on certain terrains, but I have not played the game in a few months, and really should re-examine the time behavior . (unless someone else knows for sure.)

*** It does seem to take longer and encounters I hit added to the clock.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Gizmo

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

I attempted to negotiate the wall of text and reply to something specific, but it was just too much.

 

Obsidian, I have faith in you.

[Morgoth]

I wonder if we get to see some exotic dancers and strippers. It's Vegas, after all!

[TwinkieGorilla]

I wonder if we get to see some exotic dancers and strippers. It's Vegas, after all!

 

if Bethie allows it. it's Bethesda after all!

[FabMan_UK]

I wonder if we get to see some exotic dancers and strippers. It's Vegas, after all!

 

I've heard we will, one is a Ghoul and the other is a Super Mutant.

[Nightshape]

I prefered the ap combat of 1 and 2, but I don't think any of them trump the others in terms of just plain silly.

I agree (except for the combat part). But the hatred for Bethesda and new, scary things somehow colours all their opinions about Fallout 3. Yes, the quests were bad. Does that automatically mean the combat was bad, the technology was bad, every new idea that Bethesda brought to the game was bad? No, not really. And this is why it's so annoying trying to discuss Fallout with fans of the series. It's like they all played the old games ten years ago and forgot 95% of them.

 

I've actually seen conversations on this board that went something like this:

 

"Should I play Fallout 3?"

"No, the animations suck, the graphics suck and the technology sucks."

"But how about Fallout 2 then?"

"Oh yeah, that game is the best!"

I hope you're not thinking of me when you say this, because I actually LIKE FO3 ALOT!

[Jaesun]

Hopefully Obsidian can finally include a Gay Male romance in this Game. <3

 

yes pls.

[Ausir]

Hopefully Obsidian can finally include a Gay Male romance in this Game. <3

 

It was already possible in Fallout 2. Well, a shotgun wedding isn't exactly romantic, even a gay one.

[Meshugger]

I wonder if we get to see some exotic dancers and strippers. It's Vegas, after all!

 

if Bethie allows it. it's Bethesda after all!

 

Probably not, Bethesda doesn't want nudity or sexual references while shooting bad guys into a pool of blood or nuking entire cities. They just don't wanna see it.

 

Somebody has to think of the children; nippleslips while committing murder? There has to be some morality and decency, goddammit!

[Morgoth]

I wonder if we get to see some exotic dancers and strippers. It's Vegas, after all!

 

if Bethie allows it. it's Bethesda after all!

 

Probably not, Bethesda doesn't want nudity or sexual references while shooting bad guys into a pool of blood or nuking entire cities. They just don't wanna see it.

 

Somebody has to think of the children; nippleslips while committing murder? There has to be some morality and decency, goddammit!

Why do you think that? Has Bethie always been so conservative about that stuff?

[TwinkieGorilla]

Probably not, Bethesda doesn't want nudity or sexual references while shooting bad guys into a pool of blood or nuking entire cities. They just don't wanna see it.

 

Somebody has to think of the children; nippleslips while committing murder? There has to be some morality and decency, goddammit!

 

yeah. "Violence is ****in' funny!" but nudity is "****in' scary!"

[Ausir]

Well, it's not only Beth itself, but the whole ESRB rating system. E.g. The Witcher, a Polish game, was uncensored in most of Europe, while in the US the nudity was censored.