Jump to content

Obsidian making Fallout: New Vegas


Recommended Posts

Do we have a winner?

 

https://twitter.com/jesawyer

 

fats domino - my blue heaven (owns) http://tinyurl.com/colld8

about 1 hour ago from web

 

 

hmmm I kinda like it. Doesn't give off a Vegas vibe. But good nonetheless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of history, I was surprised by my ignorance about Las Vegas. If Obsidian stay royal to 1950's Las Vegas, which was at the beginning of modernization, it merely had 64,405 people even at 1960. Even a brief search on the net shows this. :) However, I wonder how many people think that it suites the image of the city established by now. Indeed, it's misconception but...in FO world are full of misconceptions about radiation poisoning... :lol:

 

Wow...it's getting hard to catch up with these threads...

An overland map that behaves a bit like Google Earth, where you set your destination on the Pipboy, and the camera backs away from the PC in a rising arc towards the new location. The player sees a red line tracing the 3d topography of the land (and a traveling PC at first ~and in the end), while a day counter rapidly ticks off the hours of the trip. (This would pause and shoot straight down to the current location if a random encounter occurred, and the PC will have a fight/sight/or passive encounter).

A hybrid of the quick-travel and a modernized FO 1/2 map, then.

 

I'm not sure if anyone has posted this yet, but there is a F3 mod that adds a F1/2 style world map, taking you to different worldspaces at different locations, car, foot, and water travel, random encounters. It's more of a modders resource, so I'm not sure if anyone has actually put it to use yet, but it's nice to know that it's possible.

 

http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=3157

Thanks for the info. Of course, some people must have the same idea.

 

You know what would be cool, replacing the mounts, which are still in the engine, with a beat up motorcycle or something like that.

The lead designer is a carnu... fond of automobiles, so, it could be interesting. Then again, I guess the reason why we tend to think automobiles should be able to run post-apocalyptic road is Mad Max movie. Even about tougher vehicles which can survive Paris Dakar Rally, how could they keep them in a good shape? Well, the same thing goes to firearms as J.E. Sawyer implied. If it fine with Mad Max, then, probably, it would be fine with FO, I guess.

 

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.

Do you mean something like a motor-cycle armor? :p

 

If you have a desert, you probably have a half-withered road (if you start in some sort of civilized area, which I assume you will). The road might lead into the desert, and all you can see is kilometer after kilometer of sand and a mountain range on the horizon.. except for a small dot in the distance along the road. When you bring out your binoculars, you notice an abandoned gas station a few kilometers away.. and so you start walking.. and the game is on.

 

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), let the players play almost an adventure game trying to assemble the vehicle to working conditions, let them drive it along the road and end up in Vegas (or lost in the desert if they choose that path).

 

Huge map, not much combat (perhaps a few sand worms along the road), lots of tiny quests in the starting suburb/village/house, even more tiny quests in the gas station, and then it's off to Vegas where the real adventure begins, (I assume).

Both classic FO started from humble beginning...so, it seems to be O.K. but I wonder it doesn't scare off modern gamers too much. In fact, Chris Avellone mentioned that the slow beginning was one of the failure in Planescape: Torment in one of his recent interviews. Alternatively, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. did quite a nice job to make the players feel the map larger than it really is, I think, if we avoid the overland map approach. o:)

 

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.

If you'd like to enjoy honeymoon with Bethesda, then, it's O.K. I guess everybody here would like to see the game is shipped. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now I'm wondering if I should buy Fallout 3.

Hey now, my mother is huge and don't you forget it. The drunk can't even get off the couch to make herself a vodka drenched sandwich. Octopus suck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Right now I'm wondering if I should buy Fallout 3.

 

I still am refusing to buy/play it. It's such an awful Fallout. Here is a great review that *surprise surprise* actually recommends it. If you are looking for a Fallout game, and are a fan, this is just not it.

 

But, I have a feeling New Vegas will be billed as an "expansion":

 

Please keep this on topic - how OEI working on the Fallout 3: New Vegas expansion ....

 

so thus we would need to buy it. :/

 

That quote from Rob could have just been a typo though. I'll wait for an official announcement.

Edited by Jaesun
Link to post
Share on other sites

That review made the game seem a little bit horrible.

Hey now, my mother is huge and don't you forget it. The drunk can't even get off the couch to make herself a vodka drenched sandwich. Octopus suck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do people call Fallout 3 puny? I hit location 164 on the map after 90 hours of gameplay.

 

I call Fallout 3 puny because I hit max level after playing only 30 hours. Maybe not puny, but the leveling is way off kilter. I hope Vegas has better leveling design than FO3 did. After 30 hours I should only be level 10 tops.

"Your Job is not to die for your country, but set a man on fire, and take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Levels are a random abstraction. It's impossible to say what level you should be after a certain amount of time, given that no level based system is the same.

 

 

Wait...I think I've had this discussion before :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do people call Fallout 3 puny? I hit location 164 on the map after 90 hours of gameplay.

 

I call Fallout 3 puny because I hit max level after playing only 30 hours. Maybe not puny, but the leveling is way off kilter. I hope Vegas has better leveling design than FO3 did. After 30 hours I should only be level 10 tops.

 

And I would note (again) it was easy to hit max level in FO1 that early as well too. You might try keeping that fact in mind before protesting. Especially since BethSoft said that they were trying to keep the challenge rating closer to the initial FO as opposed to FO2. Honestly, I'd say they accomplished that, generally. And as the main quest was designed to be done in 30 hours, it's really not surprising you'd hit the cap in that time. Heck, in FO2, after 30 hours, I'd have been to almost that same level. So really, the leveling worked out at close to the same rate as the previous versions. If anything, maybe slower.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FO and FO2 were smaller in terms of in-game content, though. The levelling speed should be judged in relation to the projected number of hours to finish a standard playthrough. Without becoming too pedantic, you mostly played FO and FO2 without undue grinding or skipping and would find that you would approach the higher levels as you neared end-game; with FO3 you would have half the game remaining to be played as an all-powerful God (especially since the SPECIAL is much more generous in FO3 and you are pretty much amazing from level ~12 onwards).

Link to post
Share on other sites
FO and FO2 were smaller in terms of in-game content, though. The levelling speed should be judged in relation to the projected number of hours to finish a standard playthrough. Without becoming too pedantic, you mostly played FO and FO2 without undue grinding or skipping and would find that you would approach the higher levels as you neared end-game; with FO3 you would have half the game remaining to be played as an all-powerful God (especially since the SPECIAL is much more generous in FO3 and you are pretty much amazing from level ~12 onwards).

 

I'll agree that you became more relatively powerful earlier than you did in FO1. I think whether or not you were half-way done or not really depended on how much random exploring you did. I don't disagree that the leveling rate can't be dialed back slightly. But I do think that the degree to which this is true is exaggerated. Especially if the comparison is made to the capped FO1, and not the (functionally uncapped) FO2.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Right now I'm wondering if I should buy Fallout 3.

 

I still am refusing to buy/play it. It's such an awful Fallout. Here is a great review that *surprise surprise* actually recommends it. If you are looking for a Fallout game, and are a fan, this is just not it.

 

But, I have a feeling New Vegas will be billed as an "expansion":

 

Please keep this on topic - how OEI working on the Fallout 3: New Vegas expansion ....

 

so thus we would need to buy it. :/

 

That quote from Rob could have just been a typo though. I'll wait for an official announcement.

 

I was always thought that review was condescending, it made some good points but then ruined it with childish remarks. I read that as soon as it was released and it's the only review I remember for Fallout 3.

 

We don't know how it is going to be released exactly, but it will be to PC, XBox 360 and PS3. As it is going to the PS3 it makes me believe this game will not require the original game but can be played stand alone on all formats.

Link to post
Share on other sites
FO and FO2 were smaller in terms of in-game content, though. The levelling speed should be judged in relation to the projected number of hours to finish a standard playthrough. Without becoming too pedantic, you mostly played FO and FO2 without undue grinding or skipping and would find that you would approach the higher levels as you neared end-game; with FO3 you would have half the game remaining to be played as an all-powerful God (especially since the SPECIAL is much more generous in FO3 and you are pretty much amazing from level ~12 onwards).

Is the a reflection reaction to the complaints about Oblivion, where PC doesn't become remarkably stronger than enemies even after gaining levels?

 

As I see it, it's a tough call since "the problem" is deep rooted. Modern players tend to like quick paced games while these classic gamers prefer slow building-up. It's like modern sports entertainment. Modern people are busy with other things, so, each entertainment needs to cost less time. A part of the reason why Oblivion was supported is, I think, that it adjusts game-play time for the players. If a player likes the game, he/she can indulge him/herself by spending just as much time. Like a buffet, you can take anything form it and go back to your life any time you like. Bethesda designers mean business. It's much more accessible than classic role-playing games are. Even older gamers, who have probably now jobs and things to do, have to admit that the game is easy on them in terms of time-constraint.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to music, they should include this

, the best one in Fallout 3.

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength

Baldur's Gate modding
TeamBG
Baldur's Gate modder/community leader
Baldur's Gate - Enhanced Edition beta tester
Baldur's Gate 2 - Enhanced Edition beta tester

Icewind Dale - Enhanced Edition beta tester

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is the a reflection reaction to the complaints about Oblivion, where PC doesn't become remarkably stronger than enemies even after gaining levels?

 

As I see it, it's a tough call since "the problem" is deep rooted. Modern players tend to like quick paced games while these classic gamers prefer slow building-up. It's like modern sports entertainment. Modern people are busy with other things, so, each entertainment needs to cost less time. A part of the reason why Oblivion was supported is, I think, that it adjusts game-play time for the players. If a player likes the game, he/she can indulge him/herself by spending just as much time. Like a buffet, you can take anything form it and go back to your life any time you like. Bethesda designers mean business. It's much more accessible than classic role-playing games are. Even older gamers, who have probably now jobs and things to do, have to admit that the game is easy on them in terms of time-constraint.

 

The problem is not of fast v. slow pace. The problem is that the levelling (and thus xp / power balance, etc) are out of sync with the amount of in-game content there is, and the speed with which players normally progress through them (and the main quest). This is a basic problem, and it is an undeniable flaw (whereas a fast-paced or slow-paced game balance would be a stylistic decision). A true 'buffet' as you describe it would be a large game with an actually proportionate and consistent pacing.

 

The complaints regarding Oblivion were rather different; most people were not so bothered by the fact that the game worked to challenge you at all levels, but they were bothered by the immersion-breaking, illogical encounters and loot tables (and also by the fact that, as in FO3, you quite quickly became a God of All Proficiencies.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is not of fast v. slow pace. The problem is that the levelling (and thus xp / power balance, etc) are out of sync with the amount of in-game content there is, and the speed with which players normally progress through them (and the main quest). This is a basic problem, and it is an undeniable flaw (whereas a fast-paced or slow-paced game balance would be a stylistic decision). A true 'buffet' as you describe it would be a large game with an actually proportionate and consistent pacing.

 

The complaints regarding Oblivion were rather different; most people were not so bothered by the fact that the game worked to challenge you at all levels, but they were bothered by the immersion-breaking, illogical encounters and loot tables (and also by the fact that, as in FO3, you quite quickly became a God of All Proficiencies.)

I think that you are just looking at the same problem form a different angle. In Oblivion, there is no pacing due to the paralleled scaling while, in FO3, scaling is refrained but it caused the issue of pacing since there is no way to predict how much time each player ends up with spending his/her time on the open game.

 

The levelling speed should be judged in relation to the projected number of hours to finish a standard playthrough.

As I see it, the problem around "pacing" is that it is impossible for the designers to predict "the number of hours to finish a standard playthough" or time which players end up with spending on the the games like the Elder Scroll Series and Fallout 3.

 

If Bethesda expected the projected number of hours for the majority, or people who don't bother to complete most of quests, then, this "projected number of hours" are rather aimed for shorter time than the time which more hardcore gamers can wish for. So, I think Bethesda set the pace for the majority and that, for the people who'd like to spend the game time more, they treated it rather like additional content. Of course, if the designers expect less playing time, then, they make the pace faster, which is why, I guess that, in FO3, the PC quickly becomes a "God of All Proficiencies."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Likely, after 10/23, the Vegas city would not be able to sustain it for long, with utilities breaking down, police and military failing to keep the peace, power practically going out. The way I see it, there's practically no plausible way to create a New Reno rehash, rather, a ruined, yet preserved city (kind of like Pripyat), populated by scattered communities eking out an existence searching for water in the shifted climate, which made the already unpleasant climate akin to that of Arrakis.

 

Come to think of it, Dune could serve as inspiration, with the whole water regime, extreme efficency of the Fremen folk etc. I've no idea what story could possibly include Las Vegas, or rather, what's left of it, but that only makes me tremble with anticipation, as to what OE comes up with (yes, I am a fanboy).

[ The Vault ] [ The Wasteland Wiki ] [ Pillars of Eternity Wiki ] [ Tyranny Wiki ]


 


My, that's a whole lot of wikis!


Why, thank you, I love them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, there is pacing in Oblivion, in terms of the gameplay experience. Late game Obv is distinctly different from early game Obv, though not in the same way that late game FO3 differs from early game FO3. But getting back to FO3's issue:

 

Despite FO3 being a Beth-style 'go anywhere' big open world, some level of prediction and pacing is possible (and indeed necessary, as we can see now). If a player scours every inch of the map then complains the main quest is too easy (or vice versa) then that is really not the developer's problem, no; but that level of pedantry would be idiocy on the part of the complainer and thus not so relevant to us. OTOH, if players who quite 'naturally' follow the main quest hints with predictable levels of wandering and find themselves whack out of sync there is definitely a design problem. It's not a black and white matter and the openness of Beth's games doesn't and can't excuse them of the need to reach a reasonable level of consideration for issues of pacing.

 

So, I think Bethesda set the pace for the majority

 

Except if that was the case, you would experience the 'right' pace if you just followed the main quest while getting lost a few times, checking out things a few times, but by and large leaving things be. But this is not the case. As I keep saying, if Beth did all this and succeeded in catering to a particular demographic, cool - that's simply a design decision and style that can be debated on. But at the moment it's really.. just broken for any demographic. Finally:

 

Of course, if the designers expect less playing time, then, they make the pace faster, which is why, I guess that, in FO3, the PC quickly becomes a "God of All Proficiencies."

 

This doesn't make sense to me - if you want to make a shorter game because you think people want this, sure, make a short game. But if you're going to make a LONG game, then you pace it appropriate to your own length. People who can't/won't finish your long game will simply experience early and mid game up till the point they quit. Or should people who only want to play 10 hours be allowed to experience late game FO3 as well? That's not really a logically sound design decision.

 

FO3 has such a rapid scale either because of problems in the development process (e.g. while modifying encounter frequencies, experience point gains, power of perks, accuracy rates from your SPECIAL stats/skills, etc), or because of an indefensible design approach that somehow wants most people to become Godlike much too quickly in comparison to the content available. Once again, I stress, this is not about people who complete every quest and go everywhere. FO3 SPECIAL, and things like Fat Man, 'cheating' VATS and Bobbleheads, give you a tremendous amount of power no matter how you play.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have liked to see longer scripted 'adventures' in the wasteland. A computer terminal is not sufficient for me to provide a back story for an area. I really liked 'Rogers Rangers' for instance, there weren't many missions of that caliber though.

 

Bethesda are still pretty bad at character interaction, that is the dialouge screen, but the extra time they spent on some NPCs does show.

 

and ohh yeah,The pipboy map needs to be improved, having to backtrack because you couldn't find the correct exit was a frequent source of annoyance. Obsidian is probably not going to spend time they could have spent on their content correcting interface problems in the engine, I'm just saying it needs doing, by someone.

Edited by Gorgon

Na na  na na  na na  ...

greg358 from Darksouls 3 PVP is a CHEATER.

That is all.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm...I haven't played FO3, so, my opinion on that system mainly from speculation.

Of course, if the designers expect less playing time, then, they make the pace faster, which is why, I guess that, in FO3, the PC quickly becomes a "God of All Proficiencies."

 

This doesn't make sense to me - if you want to make a shorter game because you think people want this, sure, make a short game. But if you're going to make a LONG game, then you pace it appropriate to your own length. People who can't/won't finish your long game will simply experience early and mid game up till the point they quit. Or should people who only want to play 10 hours be allowed to experience late game FO3 as well? That's not really a logically sound design decision.

 

FO3 has such a rapid scale either because of problems in the development process (e.g. while modifying encounter frequencies, experience point gains, power of perks, accuracy rates from your SPECIAL stats/skills, etc), or because of an indefensible design approach that somehow wants most people to become Godlike much too quickly in comparison to the content available. Once again, I stress, this is not about people who complete every quest and go everywhere. FO3 SPECIAL, and things like Fat Man, 'cheating' VATS and Bobbleheads, give you a tremendous amount of power no matter how you play.

FO3 isn't necessarily be a long game. Even if FO3 may have a lot of content, you don't need to play to complete them all, which is why I compared it to a buffet. It can be from a short game to a long one, depending on each player. Some players may not like to grind/solve many quests and go for the main quest straightly while some other player may take more time on the game world. If Bethesda targets at the latter people, then, the latter people would be unhappy since the game is too "slow" and cannot be completed in a short period of time. If Bethesda targets at the former people, they may not be completely happy with the "quick" pacing but they still like the game enough to spend their time on it. So, I think Bethesda took the middle and probably near to the former people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are going in circles - as I have already said, the completist who does everything does not even factor into my argument at all. In fact, I'd answer you again, but I'd be saying the same thing as above - it's not a question of "who Beth is catering to", because the current pacing doesn't cater to anyone (except, I guess, people who like God Mode.)

 

I would have liked to see longer scripted 'adventures' in the wasteland. A computer terminal is not sufficient for me to provide a back story for an area. I really liked 'Rogers Rangers' for instance, there weren't many missions of that caliber though.

 

That would be good, and I think if NV is the more urban/developed setting as we expect, should fit in quite well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol @ people defending any aspect of Oblivion.

 

I'm just glad FO3 wasn't THAT messed up. The leveling rate is totally ridiculous though. Its like Beth is afraid everyone who might buy their game has ADD and if they are not rewarded with constant string level ups, they won't buy it.

Notice how I can belittle your beliefs without calling you names. It's a useful skill to have particularly where you aren't allowed to call people names. It's a mistake to get too drawn in/worked up. I mean it's not life or death, it's just two guys posting their thoughts on a message board. If it were personal or face to face all the usual restraints would be in place, and we would never have reached this place in the first place. Try to remember that.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...