Obsidian making Fallout: New Vegas

[Sarkus]

Sure the game sold ok, but as you might recall Age of Conan sold okay too at first. If FO3 title was competing on a MMO area where sub-par products are forgotten real quick then it would be a bust.

 

And this is why you don't understand what is going on here. Fallout 3 did not sell "ok." It sold extremely well. It shipped over 4 million copies its first week. It was the #9 for PC sales in the US for all of 2008. It sold about 2.5m copies on the PS3 and 360 in 2008. It is still selling for full price in most areas. It was not a title that just "sort of" did well enough to justify a sequel. It's a title that did so well Bethesda realized it was necessary to farm out an immediate sequel using the existing engine to Obsidian, something that never happens with Bethesda titles where they have a tradition of just building a new engine for every game.

 

Anybody who did not like Fallout 3 because of the game engine should just take FO:NV off their list right now. It's not going to be anything different in that regard.

[Tagaziel]

Sure the game sold ok, but as you might recall Age of Conan sold okay too at first. If FO3 title was competing on a MMO area where sub-par products are forgotten real quick then it would be a bust.

 

And this is why you don't understand what is going on here. Fallout 3 did not sell "ok." It sold extremely well. It shipped over 4 million copies its first week. It was the #9 for PC sales in the US for all of 2008. It sold about 2.5m copies on the PS3 and 360 in 2008. It is still selling for full price in most areas. It was not a title that just "sort of" did well enough to justify a sequel. It's a title that did so well Bethesda realized it was necessary to farm out an immediate sequel using the existing engine to Obsidian, something that never happens with Bethesda titles where they have a tradition of just building a new engine for every game.

 

Anybody who did not like Fallout 3 because of the game engine should just take FO:NV off their list right now. It's not going to be anything different in that regard.

 

Shipped =! Sold

[Kjarista]

Shipped =! Sold

 

They haven't posted sales numbers, but they have made several comments about how pleased they are with it's performance.

[Kjarista]

Well hopefully the PC in NV is a structured PC like The Nameless One or The Jedi Exile.

 

Oh, I hope not. There's nothing wrong with structured RPGs per se, but I prefer freeform RPGs, like the ones Beth makes. I want to make my own story, not be dragged along some canned story. I thought the main quest in FO3, for all it's faults, was pretty good in scope. One can follow the quest or not, and work on it when the mood strikes, and still have plenty of exploring to do.

 

And maybe I don't want to be the nameless one. That really irritated me in PS:T. I want to create my own character and make my own way in the world.

 

That is, if the game is story driven, there better be more to do than follow the story, and there better be a way to make a character I feel comfortable with playing.

Edited April 29, 2009 by Kjarista

[Killian Kalthorne]

*Also... can you role play a sniper without called shots?

You can in Mass Effect.

I've never played Mass Effect... What's the draw for choosing to play a Sniper in that one?

 

Its all real time combat and the sniper skill your character has is governed not only by the skill of the character and weapon, but also the modifications you place on it. Such as I often traded out back and forth between a sniper rifle set up for multiple rapid shots for easy targets with a sniper rifle geared with high explosive rounds and accelerators that makes "one hit one kill" work quite nicely, especially in the end game. Its like a portable tank gun when you use it against heavy turrets when you make the end run.

 

If you haven't played Mass Effect then you should. Best story driven CRPG on the XBox 360.

[Promethean]

Well hopefully the PC in NV is a structured PC like The Nameless One or The Jedi Exile.

 

Oh, I hope not. There's nothing wrong with structured RPGs per se, but I prefer freeform RPGs, like the ones Beth makes. I want to make my own story, not be dragged along some canned story. I thought the main quest in FO3, for all it's faults, was pretty good in scope. One can follow the quest or not, and work on it when the mood strikes, and still have plenty of exploring to do.

 

And maybe I don't want to be the nameless one. That really irritated me in PS:T. I want to create my own character and make my own way in the world.

 

That is, if the game is story driven, there better be more to do than follow the story, and there better be a way to make a character I feel comfortable with playing.

 

Well then the story wouldnt have been as good without TNO's connection to the rest of the world and characters. And FO3 is what you want out of story? Christ thats sad. And how was it good in scope? That crap was over way to fast, and you basically were worse then the structured PCs cause all you did was follow your dad and then carry out his work. It was his story pretty much. You're just the follower.

 

Not to mention how stupid it is that you can take huge breaks from this urgent quest to fool around yet nothing bad happens

Edited April 29, 2009 by Promethean

[Aristes]

Sure the game sold ok, but as you might recall Age of Conan sold okay too at first. If FO3 title was competing on a MMO area where sub-par products are forgotten real quick then it would be a bust.

 

And this is why you don't understand what is going on here. Fallout 3 did not sell "ok." It sold extremely well. It shipped over 4 million copies its first week. It was the #9 for PC sales in the US for all of 2008. It sold about 2.5m copies on the PS3 and 360 in 2008. It is still selling for full price in most areas. It was not a title that just "sort of" did well enough to justify a sequel. It's a title that did so well Bethesda realized it was necessary to farm out an immediate sequel using the existing engine to Obsidian, something that never happens with Bethesda titles where they have a tradition of just building a new engine for every game.

 

Anybody who did not like Fallout 3 because of the game engine should just take FO:NV off their list right now. It's not going to be anything different in that regard.

 

Shipped =! Sold

The reason I'm frustrated by these arguments is because it puts me in a position of arguing on behalf of FO3 when, in reality, I don't have a personal stake. If Obsidian took what BIS had completed so far for Van Buren, dusted it off, and finished it, I'd buy the game. If they took Fallout 2, tweaked it, redid the graphics, and made a sequel from there, I'd buy it. I'm not arguing that Fallout 3 sold well because I'm a Bethesda fanboy, although I guess I might as well be a Bethsoft fanboy as anyone else. *shrug* The fact is, I'm an Obsidian fanboy. That's why I spend all my time here.

 

Aside from the obvious deficiencies in comparing a title like Fallout 3 to MMORPG titles, which must not only sell well initially but also sustain a large subscription base, the fact is that Fallout 3 sold well. Arguing against that sounds almost exactly like the folks who argued that the sales for NWN weren't all that great. Yeah, some folks still do, several expansions, a sequel, and expansions for the sequel later. haha *shaking head*

 

Okay. You guys win. Fallout 3 didn't really sell all that well and the only reason it had decent sales to begin with was because of the flashy PR, marketing, and a few folks who got suckered into buying who thought they were getting Super Mario World. Actually, I'm sure Fallout 3 really was Super Mario World.

 

Pretty soon now, after the true believers have shown the truth about the terrible gameplay to the unwashed masses, Bethesda will own up to the horrible sales and bury the unsold boxes of the game out in the desert. Then, you guys will finally have your way as Obsidian makes the top down, sprite populated, turn based combat game for which you've been waiting these many years. Good luck with that.

[Aristes]

Seeing as how PST is still my favorite game, all these years later, I would love to have something that has a similar approach as TNO. I thought it was perfect to have a character who was literally yours from the ground up. I understand that a lot of folks didn't like that his ultimate backstory was preset, but whatever you did with him from the time he woke up in the mortuary was all your decision.

 

I don't think the backstory for FO3 was bad, per se. It did allow for a lot of free roaming, I guess. However, I do find it disconcerting when the PC goes on his own way with allegedly important things afoot and nothing happens in other parts of the gameworld while he's gone, sometimes for rather long periods of time.

 

This is probably what I'm hoping most to see from NV. I want a tighter story in a more coherant gameworld. I'm happy if we're given the same sort of freedom as in FO3, but I'd like to see consequences for where we decide to spend our time. Your choices are a lot more meaningful if you not only have to live with what you decide to do, but you also have to live with the consequences of what you decide you don't have time to do. You shouldn't be able to save every fair maiden, rescue every village under attack, and still climb that tree to bring down a lost cat. It's like you're on a sinking ship with your mom, your wife, and your best friend to whom you owe your life. Maybe you can find a clever way to save two of them, but you won't always be able to save all three, and you've got to be really clever to save two of them in the first place.

[jero cvmi]

Pretty soon now, after the true believers have shown the truth about the terrible gameplay to the unwashed masses, Bethesda will own up to the horrible sales and bury the unsold boxes of the game out in the desert. Then, you guys will finally have your way as Obsidian makes the top down, sprite populated, turn based combat game for which you've been waiting these many years. Good luck with that.

 

I'm sorry but i dont recall anyone asking for "top down sprite populated turn based" game.

 

And i don't get why someone should like something just because it's popular, that's like trying to sell BigMac to a vegan.

Must a discussion on personal tastes always turn to a popularity contest? When someone sais "it's terrible", they usually mean "i don't like it" not "it's unpopular".

 

And if it must always boil down to economic success/failure, one thing that hasn't been mentioned is that success is relevant to the budget. The higher the budget, the more sales you need to be successful.

[mkreku]

Well then the story wouldnt have been as good without TNO's connection to the rest of the world and characters. And FO3 is what you want out of story? Christ thats sad. And how was it good in scope? That crap was over way to fast, and you basically were worse then the structured PCs cause all you did was follow your dad and then carry out his work. It was his story pretty much. You're just the follower.

 

Not to mention how stupid it is that you can take huge breaks from this urgent quest to fool around yet nothing bad happens

If you can't see the flaw in your own argument, then the discussion might as well end here. You bank your entire argument on your opinion that Planescape: Torment had a great story and that Fallout 3 sucks in every aspect. Well, my opinion states that Planescape: Torment's story wasn't very good and that Fallout 3 had some good moments. What do we do now?

 

Why would it be "sad" if someone happened to enjoy Fallout 3's story? Do you really think you're in a position to judge people like they were less worthy than you to make up their own minds about what to like and what not to? Do you somehow think your opinion outweighs anyone elses opinion?

 

And what's so urgent about

talking to Three Dog

? Or

fixing an antenna

? Or

saving your father from a virtual world that's been on for 200 years (with people in life-sustaining chambers)

? This is what's the most sad about people still stuck in the nineties: they have to make **** up to discredit everything made after the year 2000 and especially Bethesda/Fallout 3. Well, I guess it's much better to create a sandbox world and then put a time limit on it so people can't explore it even if they wanted to.. biggest flaw of previous Fallouts, in my opinion.

[TwinkieGorilla]

Why would I quote the entire post if I only disagreed with one sentence?

 

dunno. i'm kinda puzzled why you'd quote it at all since it was neither the point of the post as a stand-alone sentence or very important at all.

[Aristes]

Pretty soon now, after the true believers have shown the truth about the terrible gameplay to the unwashed masses, Bethesda will own up to the horrible sales and bury the unsold boxes of the game out in the desert. Then, you guys will finally have your way as Obsidian makes the top down, sprite populated, turn based combat game for which you've been waiting these many years. Good luck with that.

 

I'm sorry but i dont recall anyone asking for "top down sprite populated turn based" game.

 

And i don't get why someone should like something just because it's popular, that's like trying to sell BigMac to a vegan.

Must a discussion on personal tastes always turn to a popularity contest? When someone sais "it's terrible", they usually mean "i don't like it" not "it's unpopular".

 

And if it must always boil down to economic success/failure, one thing that hasn't been mentioned is that success is relevant to the budget. The higher the budget, the more sales you need to be successful.

 

Okay, you've got me. Bethesda blew the budget, the game didn't sell well enough to make them sufficient money, and they're banking on an Obsidian success to make up the difference.

 

Seriously, I don't want to argue with folks in order to prove that they should like Fallout 3. I'm just saying that my assumption has been that Obsidian would take advantage of the things that made Fallout 3 a popular game. That doesn't mean they have no room for change, even what I would consider dramatic change. ...But to deny the essential fact that Fallout 3 was a popular title scews the argument.

 

Cronicler claimed the gameplay was "so... so... bad." That's fine as a statement of opinion. If it's all just opinion, then no argument has any more sway than another. Why bother talking? I understand that folks here advocate what they'd like to see in a game, which includes folks who have advocated a "top down isometric game." (Do a forum search if you'd like.)

 

Go ahead and advocate what you'd like to see in a game. Honest engine. I don't begrudge folks saying what they want to see in a game. On the other hand, I'd expect to find that NV will use the same engine and that it will retain the most prominent features. If that assumption bears out, then it makes a lot more sense to argue for things that are possible from within the confines of the engine. Certainly it sounds futile to argue that they scrap the engine, although you're free to do so.

 

I see sales as perhaps the single most relevant factor in framing the debate. It takes our discussion of personal tastes to a higher level because, at the end of the day, it gives us a few parameters. If the sales had been bad, we probably wouldn't have any expansion. If the sales are as good as I expect, and there is quite a bit of evidence to support the idea of strong sales, then Obsidian will likely not want to rebuild the game from the ground up. ...And folks have most definitely advocated scrapping virtually all of the FO3 design in order to dramatically change it. Hey, I'm with you, bro. You should be able to say what you want. Likewise, I should be able to say, "wow, that doesn't make sense. Why would they take a popular title and scrap all of it's most prominent features."

 

However, if it turns out I'm wrong, I will come back to whichever thread is open and eat crow. I won't even hold it against you, or Cronicler, or anyone else.

[Promethean]

Well then the story wouldnt have been as good without TNO's connection to the rest of the world and characters. And FO3 is what you want out of story? Christ thats sad. And how was it good in scope? That crap was over way to fast, and you basically were worse then the structured PCs cause all you did was follow your dad and then carry out his work. It was his story pretty much. You're just the follower.

 

Not to mention how stupid it is that you can take huge breaks from this urgent quest to fool around yet nothing bad happens

If you can't see the flaw in your own argument, then the discussion might as well end here. You bank your entire argument on your opinion that Planescape: Torment had a great story and that Fallout 3 sucks in every aspect. Well, my opinion states that Planescape: Torment's story wasn't very good and that Fallout 3 had some good moments. What do we do now?

 

Why would it be "sad" if someone happened to enjoy Fallout 3's story? Do you really think you're in a position to judge people like they were less worthy than you to make up their own minds about what to like and what not to? Do you somehow think your opinion outweighs anyone elses opinion?

 

And what's so urgent about

talking to Three Dog

? Or

fixing an antenna

? Or

saving your father from a virtual world that's been on for 200 years (with people in life-sustaining chambers)

? This is what's the most sad about people still stuck in the nineties: they have to make **** up to discredit everything made after the year 2000 and especially Bethesda/Fallout 3. Well, I guess it's much better to create a sandbox world and then put a time limit on it so people can't explore it even if they wanted to.. biggest flaw of previous Fallouts, in my opinion.

 

Well we could argument about writing quality, ideas, quest structure, dialogue. And its would all be opinions. You really arent saying much. Yeah I think my opinion has weight, TO ME. Would you like me to prefix IMO before every statement? I even gave some reasons why I thought his statement about the Lone Wanderer being a open NPC wasnt entirely correct.

 

And you could say Planescape's story wasnt very good, but I also noticed you didnt say Fallout 3's was better, just that it had good moments. Moments dont make a story and neither does Fallout 3's level of writing.

Also the time limit is Fallout was insanely generous. I think time limits used correctly giving a proper weight and urgency to your actions and to the story.

[Malcador]

Well hopefully the PC in NV is a structured PC like The Nameless One or The Jedi Exile.

 

I wouldn't count on that, previous Fallout games weren't done in that way. And they'd turn off the virtual-LARPers that Fallout 3 has, heh.

[H]

A question to Mr Sawyer, one he can hopefully answer without giving too much away.

 

What's the status of the SIMPLE in regards to Fallout? Is information contained therein to be considered an oficial part of the Fallout universe, considering F:NV et al?

I hope some of the perks will make it in. Specifically, El Bandolero, Six-Shooter and Unbreakable. The first one will require giving ammo weight.

[Promethean]

Well hopefully the PC in NV is a structured PC like The Nameless One or The Jedi Exile.

 

I wouldn't count on that, previous Fallout games weren't done in that way. And they'd turn off the virtual-LARPers that Fallout 3 has, heh.

 

 

True. I always thought KotOR II had the right idea though. It gave you a character that has a past but also presented you with a chance to justify and choose why he did those things that defined him.

 

And like I said, blank NPCs can work. They just need stronger C&C and/or NPCs, which it why a game like Fallout or Bloodlines works.

 

Or they can just have a really good antagonist and setting, like System Shock 2.

[cronicler]

People please. Discuss the Merits and Flaws of different approaches on the other title. Leave this on clean and only for suggestions/ Wishes not reasions.

Edited April 29, 2009 by cronicler

[Malcador]

True. I always thought KotOR II had the right idea though. It gave you a character that has a past but also presented you with a chance to justify and choose why he did those things that defined him.

 

And like I said, blank NPCs can work. They just need stronger C&C and/or NPCs, which it why a game like Fallout or Bloodlines works.

 

Or they can just have a really good antagonist and setting, like System Shock 2.

 

Oh, that kind of game is fine by me. The Witcher is sort of similar to KOTOR II in that aspect, you've got amnesia and have a chance to define yourself through choices throughout the game, anyway, both of them worked wonderfully.

 

And what's so urgent about talking to Three Dog? Or fixing an antenna? Or saving your father from a virtual world that's been on for 200 years (with people in life-sustaining chambers)? This is what's the most sad about people still stuck in the nineties: they have to make **** up to discredit everything made after the year 2000 and especially Bethesda/Fallout 3. Well, I guess it's much better to create a sandbox world and then put a time limit on it so people can't explore it even if they wanted to.. biggest flaw of previous Fallouts, in my opinion.

 

Yeah, there's some persecution going on here clearly - dare say a conspiracy! In any case, Fallout 3's story weakness isn't the lack of urgency in the main quest- you could ignore Arroyo in Fallout 2 for a long, long time, for example - just things that help make up the story, the writing for the NPCs, dialogues, stuff like the ridiculous way you can defeat the Enclave). Overall it wasn't total crap though, even if there was a...familiarity to the plot

[Promethean]

Bah you are going too easy on Bethesda, especially with their resources they should be able to get a better writer and not have continuity errors on par with Tactics.

 

And I dont think Geralt is quite the same since his amnesia doesnt really make to much sense in regards to the books. Geralt is much more structured then the Exile was. I think they should have scrapped the amnesia thing. The best thing about KotOR II other than Kreia and the definition of love was that your character didnt have amnesia and his dialogue options reflected that fact and Geralt would have been the right kind of character to continue that model.

Edited April 29, 2009 by Promethean

[HoonDing]

The Witcher was weird to me since at the end of the books, Geralt died with his sorceress love who was trying to heal him. The game doesn't really do anything to explain Geralt's return either, beyond throwing around the word 'destiny' on various occasions.

 

KOTOR 2 makes sense mainly because you start as a Jedi who soon re-establishes his/her connexion to the Force and gradually becomes more powerful as the game progresses.

 

Morrowind makes sense, too, since the first Quest PC basically tells you to buzz off and join a Guild, or free-roam, basically do anything to become stronger and be able to tackle the slings & arrows that lie ahead.

 

Compared to this, Oblivion didn't make any sense whatsoever gameplay & storywise, what with the auto-levelling removing any incentive to become stronger, and giving one the impression one is some kind of 'superhero' that just happened to be previously imprisoned. Roaming around exploring dungeons feels very peculiar when the hordes of Oblivion are apparently invading Tamriel - yet the game never gives you a feel of urgency unlike Morrowind, where NPCs all over Vvardenfell will comment about 'soul sickness' and other strange behaviour if you talk to them.

 

All in all, FO3 was a huge step-up compared to Oblivion and much closer to Morrowind.

[Promethean]

Yeah and you really cant look at The Witcher as a standalone story. Its definitely suppose to follow the canon.

 

It hurts an otherwise strong story.

[Gizmo]

And maybe I don't want to be the nameless one. That really irritated me in PS:T. I want to create my own character and make my own way in the world.

 

That is, if the game is story driven, there better be more to do than follow the story, and there better be a way to make a character I feel comfortable with playing.

Have you never played a PnP RPG with assigned characters? Personally I don't see the problem. Nameless was not a player designed character because the game was about an immortal that had walked the ages, and forgotten his past. A 25th level character in all disciplines, slowly recalling past professions and old memories.

 

RPG's are all about R-playing the PC, but none are dependent on user created PC's. Even Baldur's Gate had a mandatory backstory for the main character, its just that that story could allow for any kind of child to be Gorion's ward; Planescape called a specific man with a past ~and that's what the player got.

[TwinkieGorilla]

and furthermore, since the Nameless One cannot remember himself at the beginning of the game...you have carte blanche to decide what type of person he is "this" time.

[Promethean]

True yet its highly likely that what you learn about your past will affect how you act in the present, at least for your first playthrough

[cronicler]

Personally I am wondering If Obsidian will use any of the Van Baurren materials. Playing the prisoner number 13 could have been nice