Obsidian making Fallout: New Vegas

[J.E. Sawyer]

What about the guns

No guns more advanced than the M1 Garand.

 

Just kidding.

 

 

I just got ammo for my K98k.

 

[Aram]

JE you're a great guy with great skills and you're gonna do great.

[Kefeinzel]

I only have this rusty old Five seveN =/

 

It's okay, though.

 

I think my stimulus money is going to a winchester model 70 or remington 700,since I can't get a M25 white feather.

But I digress. :D

Edited April 27, 2009 by Kefeinzel

[Aram]

Get that plastic modern crap outta here.

 

I recently acquired a 1957 vintage Colt Python. Original old style grips, and four digit serial number.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Aram

[TwinkieGorilla]

What about the guns

 

lulz.

 

i love how people basically have to troll in this thread in order to change the topic. good thing we're limited to ONE THREAD!!!

[bhlaab]

Make every weapon really wacky like a butt gun that shoots butts and you can only target peoples butts

[TwinkieGorilla]

Make every weapon really wacky like a butt gun that shoots butts and you can only target peoples butts

 

lolercoaster!

 

 

(i'm TwinkieGorilla, and I approve of this message)

[Gizmo]

Make every weapon really wacky like a butt gun that shoots butts and you can only target peoples butts

Sounds like something Rob Schneider would say.

 

* Or Stimpy...

 

On the subject of guns... How about putting in a good twenty or thirty and let the player decide if they like it or if its crap, or collectible [merchant fare].

 

*How about a small caliber pistol with pathetic damage, but adds a few % to hit due to its excellent accuracy and quality; In the hands of an expert, it could be the [close range] weapon of choice for the sharpshooter due to the ease of criticals, and the improved odds of an instant kill. (varied items that are of more use to some than others.)

Edited April 27, 2009 by Gizmo

[Tigranes]

I always failed to see why it was so important to have 'real life' scales and such. Who really cares if Washington & its outlying areas are not represented 'properly' in FO3, or if the gameworld doesn't measure up to the size of the real world? Do you really want a world which is as big as real D.C., and populated / balanced / scoped like a real world D.C. would be if bombed out? Pretty crap game. Or are some people really that desperate to see their neighbourhood in a game? Probably not, for most.

 

I think expecting FO1/2 style map travel for NV is unrealistic, and would present a lot of problems. I'm still hoping that they will present a more developed and urban setting that makes it easier to populate the world the Bethesda way.

[GreasyDogMeat]

Speaking of M1 Garands, I would love to see some real world weapons added to Fallout: NV. Fallout 2 and Tactics both added numerous real world weapons like the WWII 'Grease Gun', Thompson etc.

[Aram]

I found the gun selection in Fallout 3 to be a series of horrible mistakes.

 

Also the repair system was ludicrous. I like the concept of needing to maintain your weapon, but you shouldn't need to scrap an identical firearm every time you want to perform routine maintenance on a firearm. That's just dumb.

[bhlaab]

I think expecting FO1/2 style map travel for NV is unrealistic, and would present a lot of problems. I'm still hoping that they will present a more developed and urban setting that makes it easier to populate the world the Bethesda way.

 

 

Not necessarily. I mean, they've already got Fast Travel. All you need to do is keep it optional and give it more depth with random encounters. Okay, if I had to place a bet I'd say there won't be but it'd be nice.

 

I think Fallout 3 needed a whole lot more focus on towns and hubs. The ones that were there just weren't incredibly substantial, with lame quests like "walk around and patch up all the pipes!" or "I'll pay you 90 caps for each whatsit you bring me" making up the bulk of your time spent there. Wandering the wastes and stumbling upon random dungeon buildings should be secondary to substantial, story-filled quests.

[Aristes]

I'm just happy to have some hope of seeing areas outside of the city itself. I would gladly take a non-realistic scale as long as it means I get to see some of the outlying areas. I'd really like a chance to see Area 51 or maybe even Death Valley, but at least Hoover Dam, Lake Mead, and Mt. Charleston.

[Promethean]

Speaking of M1 Garands, I would love to see some real world weapons added to Fallout: NV. Fallout 2 and Tactics both added numerous real world weapons like the WWII 'Grease Gun', Thompson etc.

 

I'd rather they do it Fallout 1 style and steer clear of real world firearms

[Sarkus]

Wow, what does that say for some of the outlying areas? I mean, you're not going to get all of Henderson in there with a 2x2 world, let alone Lake Mead and especially Area 51 or Baker. That really sucks.

 

I take your word as authority, then, that the density could be less without dramatically changing the formula. With that in mind, I guess my argument as regards the large and open areas has had its legs cut out from under it.

 

Just to expand a bit on what JES said, when he referred to the map being 2 x 2 miles, he meant that the in-game scale is like that. In other words, walking in-game from one side to the other would be like walking two miles in real life in terms of how long it would take you. Now obviously, the map represents a much bigger area as it's almost 2 miles in RL from the Pentagon/Citadel to the Washington Monument. Using reference points, others have determined that the area enclosed inside the map world of Fallout 3 is about 15 miles on each side. And even then some things are added/moved to make it more interesting. Areas like Germantown and Ravens Rock (or at least their RL equivalents) are far outside of the 15 mile zone used by the game, but are still included, for example.

 

Not that this is anything new in RPG's, where we always see scaled down versions of things. Like the city of Baldur's Gate in that RPG or the vaults in all Fallout games. Speaking of which, I'm hoping that Obsidian gives us a more traditional vault layout in FO:NV, assuming there is a vault involved. One of my biggest disappointments with FO3 was that the vaults were not layed out as they had been in previous games. I internally justified it as there being different designs on the east coast, but going back west it just won't seem right to have a vault with stairs in it again.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Sarkus

[Tigranes]

Not necessarily. I mean, they've already got Fast Travel. All you need to do is keep it optional and give it more depth with random encounters. Okay, if I had to place a bet I'd say there won't be but it'd be nice.

 

Sure, but you'd be giving up the whole 'wandering big world' gameplay that is fairly fundamental to how the entire engine is built. Is it really worth it? Random encounters would be pretty poor in the FO3 engine as well, IMO - worse than SOZ. There just isn't a lot of tactical options, the AI is too idiotic and so forth to make closed map random encounters + on-the-map travel a viable alternative in terms of enjoyable game experiences, IMO.

 

One clear advantage would be that they can add a lot of different locations without having to worry about bunched up maps or filling in all the space - BG2 like, we could just get the areas. I wouldn't mind that.

[Mikhailian]

I always failed to see why it was so important to have 'real life' scales and such. Who really cares if Washington & its outlying areas are not represented 'properly' in FO3, or if the gameworld doesn't measure up to the size of the real world? Do you really want a world which is as big as real D.C., and populated / balanced / scoped like a real world D.C. would be if bombed out? Pretty crap game. Or are some people really that desperate to see their neighbourhood in a game? Probably not, for most.

 

I think expecting FO1/2 style map travel for NV is unrealistic, and would present a lot of problems. I'm still hoping that they will present a more developed and urban setting that makes it easier to populate the world the Bethesda way.

FO1/2 style map travel not as problematic as you might think, it's already mostly done.

 

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

 

...oops, looks like someone beat me to it.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Mikhailian

[Tigranes]

Once again, the 'problematic' part I refer to is not just 'getting it done'.

 

I fail to see a net advantage in the gameplay experience if you strip out the seamless wandering in a game & engine built around the concept of seamless wandering, introduce random encounters in a closed map to a game which generates fun through finding enemies and encounters within that seamless world, and provide the singular benefit of being able to provide a more diverse range of areas (which is a pretty big +, though).

[mkreku]

Another thing: Does the map area really have to be a big square? Aren't there better methods of stopping the player from going out of the map zone than by putting up an invisible wall and going "You don't want to go there?"

 

I'd much prefer an asymmetrical map area and "natural" walls. A mountain range, a canyon, a fast-flowing river, way-too-radiated zones, anything is better than invisible walls.

[Wombat]

If Obsidian optimize the world for seamless world like Bethesda did, I think it's O.K. even in that case, the fast travel function will help those who have weight on following quest/plots lines than exploring. Likewise, if the compass and quest marker are still not optional in Fallout, probably it would be desirable for Obsidian to make it optional.

 

The same thing goes for VATS arguments...players can choose between VATS and real-time play, so, why do you need to improve VATS? Shouldn't they optimize real-time combat?

 

I find it odd that the same people who think that Obsidian should improve VATS while they, at the same time, think that they don't need to implement possible fast-travel tweak to FO1/2 style, insisting that they should optimize the seamless experience. I guess this is more to do with subjective game-play preferences rather than logical thinking.

 

Since there are almost no feedbacks from the designer side, I think it's O.K. to discuss the possibilities but, sometimes, I feel that we are running in circle especially about VATS improvement and the fast-travel tweak. I know it's partially because we are confined into one thread, though.

 

PS BTW, Tigranes, why do you omit the link to the original post? It is designed to help the reader to read the original post you quoted.

 

Another thing: Does the map area really have to be a big square? Aren't there better methods of stopping the player from going out of the map zone than by putting up an invisible wall and going "You don't want to go there?"

 

I'd much prefer an asymmetrical map area and "natural" walls. A mountain range, a canyon, a fast-flowing river, way-too-radiated zones, anything is better than invisible walls.

That's a good point, I guess.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Another thing: Does the map area really have to be a big square? Aren't there better methods of stopping the player from going out of the map zone than by putting up an invisible wall and going "You don't want to go there?"

 

I'd much prefer an asymmetrical map area and "natural" walls. A mountain range, a canyon, a fast-flowing river, way-too-radiated zones, anything is better than invisible walls.

For the most part, I think F3's walls were physical barriers (high fences, mountains, etc.) with invisible walls behind them as insurance. Personally, I only hit the edge of the world once.

[Wombat]

For the most part, I think F3's walls were physical barriers (high fences, mountains, etc.) with invisible walls behind them as insurance. Personally, I only hit the edge of the world once.

This explains why only a few people complained of the issue. Guess Bethesda did a good homework after Oblivion.

[Luhaja]

In my opinion the best part of oblivion was exploring around. I didnt like the story, or the combat system and i would much rather ignore all oblivion gates because their content didnt appeal to me...

 

BUT

 

What I enjoyed a lot about oblivion (and more so than in fallout 3) was just exploring the world. It is a very beautiful craftmanship and it is very immersive just walking around and listening to Jeremy Soule... Almost Zen. (I think my point is that might enjoy just wandering around listening to dark music)

 

Fallout 3

[Aristes]

Another thing: Does the map area really have to be a big square? Aren't there better methods of stopping the player from going out of the map zone than by putting up an invisible wall and going "You don't want to go there?"

 

I'd much prefer an asymmetrical map area and "natural" walls. A mountain range, a canyon, a fast-flowing river, way-too-radiated zones, anything is better than invisible walls.

 

Actually, I like the idea of including a asymetrical map just because it allows more freedom. Imagine an adventure in the Carlsbad caverns. There is not only an asymetrical layout to the caves horizontally, but also vertically. Squares will give the feel of a developed area, and will be entirely appropriate for the city areas, but basin is definitely not a big square. There are mountains surrounding Las Vegas, but also passes leading through several spots, as well as several freeways. Valley of Fire is to the East and Red Rock is to the west. There's a lot of changes in elevation between Las Vegas/Henderson and Lake Mead.

 

So, using the idea of terrain isn't so bad at all. Hell, if the lake water really is radatiated, then that's a boundary in and of itself. Not to mention more or less reasonable man made barriers, such as a possible blockade between Nevada and the NCR. I don't know what the story will be, but there are probably some dynamics that will effect which areas are easily accessible to the PC.

[Cantousent]

Sawyer: I just wanted to say congratulations. I recall reading, some time ago, that the reason you entered into the world of game design was for the chance, somehow, sometime, of working on a Fallout game. It must have been discouraging to have Van Buren pulled out from under your feet. Now, however, you've been given a second chance. I know I've criticized some of your work and statements from time to time, but I'm sincerely pleased on your behalf. I hope and pray that you find the experience as rewarding as you've always expected. Good luck!

 

To stay on topic, could we have called shots to the groin and eyes, please?