Obsidian making Fallout: New Vegas

[Slowtrain]

Fallout 3 would have been a much better game if the main quest was stronger,

 

 

I agree.

 

but it would have been a much worse game without the freeform aspects of it.

 

I also agree.

 

Make no mistake I like freedom in my games. Not a big fan of super linear games. Even good ones like Half-Life.

Edited April 30, 2009 by CrashGirl

[Kjarista]

Fallout 3 would have been a much better game if the main quest was stronger,

 

 

I agree.

 

but it would have been a much worse game without the freeform aspects of it.

 

I also agree.

 

Make no mistake I like freedom in my games. Not a big fan of super linear games. Even good ones like Half-Life.

 

So I was playing awhile ago, and found the way to get up to the bridge across the road between Dukovs, and the bridge to Jeff memorial. Sounds stupid, that after several hundred hours of gameplay, I just now decided to find a way up there. Point is, after all this time, I'm still finding things I didn't know about.

[mkreku]

So I was playing awhile ago, and found the way to get up to the bridge across the road between Dukovs, and the bridge to Jeff memorial. Sounds stupid, that after several hundred hours of gameplay, I just now decided to find a way up there. Point is, after all this time, I'm still finding things I didn't know about.

Why would it sound stupid? That's one of the main points of having sandbox, exploration-heavy games.

 

I'm playing Gothic 3 right now (even though I recently finished it) because I realized that after you found like.. 48 (or something similar) of a certain type of chests in the gigantic land, they start giving you amazing items. Yesterday, I finally found a blueprint for the best one-handed sword in the game. This is after 200+ hours of playing! I had great fun trying to create/find the ingredients to forge that weapon.

[bhlaab]

If Fallout 3 fails in this regard, it's because it was TOO restrictive in who the PC is to be. It is possible, however, to play FO3 and never touch the main quest. IMO, the game is much better played that way.

 

People keep saying this, but maybe it's just me I CAN'T play an RPG unless I'm interested in the story, or even if I hate the story I need to know that there's something I'm "meant" to be doing. In Fallout 3 I beat the main quest, hated the ending, and then decided to reload an old save and continue exploring where I left off and just couldn't do it.

 

I need that knowledge in the back of my head that all the exp and loot I'm getting is building to something, and if that something is more exp and better loot then I'm bored. Same reason I can't play Diablo or MMOs, I guess.

 

Even Fallout 2, which I love, I can replay it as many times as I want but I can't keep playing after the end. Yeah, there are some quests I missed along the way but damn it the Enclave is destroyed my journey is DONE. Going back for anything just seems empty and hollow.

Edited April 30, 2009 by bhlaab

[Aram]

I just hope someone making a Fallout game at some point will actually realize that they're making a game set in a post-apocalyptic wasteland far into the future.

 

It was easier for me to find food in Fallout 3 than it is for me to find food in my kitchen. You could find enough food in ten minutes to encumber yourself in any given area. Apparently nobody else goes into abandoned stores looking for food, and apparently in the Fallout universe they created food that will never, ever go bad or even stale. Fallout 3 was set, what, 300 years after the fall? Food does not last that long.

 

I did like that in eating old food and drinking water the player finds, one makes a sacrifice by absorbing a small amount of radiation. Unfortunately, because we never actually need to eat or drink in Fallout, and the health benefits are so small as to be worthless, we mostly avoid eating anything like the plague, and leave most of the food where we find it.

 

I'd like to see finding food and conservation of food become an enormous consideration for the player, at least for certain parts of the game. Finding water in the desert should be a task in itself, requiring such gadgets as an electrical dousing rod, portable filtration systems, and sanitization tablets to make the water one finds drinkable. The food one finds that is actually left over from before the bombs should almost always be inedible--instead, the player gets nourishment from finding mutated cactus fruit and by killing rats and dogs for meat. Bringing a companion should be a sacrifice not because they drain XP but because you have share your food with them. An animal companion like a dog or a Brahmin could help you find food, or help carry the load, or become food in an emergency, but you'll also need to feed it. The player could resort to cannibalism if desperate, but doing so would have an impact on his karma, even brand him permanently.

 

This shouldn't be such an affair that it cuts into gameplay, but sort of mixed into it. Perhaps, during certain parts of the game, it could be the player's only consideration, just to show how bad things are. Say, at the beginning of the game, the player is wandering the Nevada desert in search of New Las Vegas, or half way through, the player is driven out into the middle of the desert, beaten, and left for dead, and has to find his way back.

 

It's also easier for me to find ammunition in Fallout 3 than it is for me to find ammunition in a gun store--and that's even before there was a shortage.

Reloading ammunition. J.E. make me happy again please.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Aram

[bhlaab]

I just hope someone making a Fallout game at some point will actually realize that they're making a game set in a post-apocalyptic wasteland far into the future.

 

It was easier for me to find food in Fallout 3 than it is for me to find food in my kitchen. You could find enough food in ten minutes to encumber yourself in any given area. Apparently nobody else goes into abandoned stores looking for food, and apparently in the Fallout universe they created food that will never, ever go bad or even stale. Fallout 3 was set, what, 300 years after the fall? Food does not last that long.

 

I did like that in eating old food and drinking water the player finds, one makes a sacrifice by absorbing a small amount of radiation. Unfortunately, because we never actually need to eat or drink in Fallout, and the health benefits are so small as to be worthless, we mostly avoid eating anything like the plague, and leave most of the food where we find it.

 

I'd like to see finding food and conservation of food become an enormous consideration for the player, at least for certain parts of the game. Finding water in the desert should be a task in itself, requiring such gadgets as an electrical dousing rod, portable filtration systems, and sanitization tablets to make the water one finds drinkable. The food one finds that is actually left over from before the bombs should almost always be inedible--instead, the player gets nourishment from finding mutated cactus fruit and by killing rats and dogs for meat. Bringing a companion should be a sacrifice not because they drain XP but because you have share your food with them. An animal companion like a dog or a Brahmin could help you find food, or help carry the load, or become food in an emergency, but you'll also need to feed it. The player could resort to cannibalism if desperate, but doing so would have an impact on his karma, even brand him permanently.

 

This shouldn't be such an affair that it cuts into gameplay, but sort of mixed into it. Perhaps, during certain parts of the game, it could be the player's only consideration, just to show how bad things are. Say, at the beginning of the game, the player is wandering the Nevada desert in search of New Las Vegas, or half way through, the player is driven out into the middle of the desert, beaten, and left for dead, and has to find his way back.

 

I think the HP/RAD system they have would be fairly novel and fun if you didn't have 200 weightless stimpacks and radaways on hand as little as an hour into the game.

 

Also, the fact that there are only 2 or 3 places in the game with an adequate amount of environmental radiation to kill you, and Rad-X magically does not work at those times.

 

As for everything else you said, I agree with the fact that food is far too common (And useless as a health restoration item, it's really only there to decorate the environment).

However all that other stuff seems like a bit... much. The most I'd be comfortable with is a hunger system such as in STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl but even that I wouldn't deem as necessary. They are making an RPG, after all, not a post-apocalyptic survival simulation.

 

Hunting creatures for a general store would be a cool side mission, though. With a hunger system you'd have to decide what to keep and what to sell, not to mention how you can afford to carry it.

[Aram]

However all that other stuff seems like a bit... much.

Then it's a good thing I'm always right and you're not!

[Pop]

Food was a broken mechanic in F3, but ammo was just as plentiful in the first Fallouts as it was in F3. I understand that Van Buren was going to curtail this to an extent, but Fallout is not Mad Max. There haven't really been survival elements in any of the games and it would be consistent not to include them in F:NV. There are plenty of inconsistencies in the Fallouts already (how lights are on at night, for example.)

[mkreku]

(how lights are on at night, for example.)

Oh, speaking of lights! I would love to see a level of darkness at night as seen in the STALKER games, where you saw NOTHING during night time unless you had a flashlight or nightvision goggles. It was incredibly atmospheric and really made the nightvision goggles useful (in most other games they just turn a blueish screen green). Also, several different nightvision goggles would be cool, so you can upgrade your view of the world around you. I don't think I've seen much of that in any game (except for in Deus Ex, but then it wasn't a piece of equipment..).

[Aram]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking for a vidjagame version of The Road or even Mad Max. I would rather it was a little more like A Boy and his Dog. That had a character with enough guns and ammo, but it showed him going out of his way to steal some food and actually had a wastelandish feel until it just got weird.

[Malcador]

Ammo being plentiful would have been less of an issue if it had weight, still don't get the design decision there. As fun as it was walking around with huge amounts of varied ammo, was sort of cheap.

[Slowtrain]

Ammo being plentiful would have been less of an issue if it had weight, still don't get the design decision there. As fun as it was walking around with huge amounts of varied ammo, was sort of cheap.

 

 

Problem could have been solved by making weapons actually do damage. Having to go through two full magzaines for your assualt rifle to kill a raider guard dog was pretty ridiculous. 1000 assault rifle rounds didn't actually go very far.

[Aram]

I got so pissed off with radscorpions in FO3. It took more ammo to kill one than sixteen soldiers in power armor, and you could kill it with a BB gun if you strafed around long enough.

 

That's really why 1st person shooter RPGs annoy the **** out of me. Early in the game when you do very little damage, it's like playing a shooter in which all the weapons are retardedly underpowered and enemies won't seem to die and don't even react properly when you shoot them.

 

I'd like it if, at least for a long stretch of the game, ammo is scarce but very powerful. Giving someone both barrels is basically an I Win button, but you don't know if you want to waste the ammo when you can sneak around, stare/talk him down, or bludgeon him to death with a hammer.

[bhlaab]

I just thought of another thing I hated about Fallout 3: Tiered skill checks.

 

Lockpicks were either Very Easy, Easy, Medium, Hard, or Very Hard.

In Fallout this means 0, 25, 50, 75, 100

So it is completely pointless to have a lockpick skill of, say, 80. (It makes the minigame easier, but the minigame is incredibly easy to begin with!)

 

So Lockpicking is a hard limit, yet they make Speech checks a dieroll. That's like wearing shoes on your hands and gloves on your feet >=^(

[GreasyDogMeat]

I got so pissed off with radscorpions in FO3. It took more ammo to kill one than sixteen soldiers in power armor, and you could kill it with a BB gun if you strafed around long enough.

 

That's really why 1st person shooter RPGs annoy the **** out of me. Early in the game when you do very little damage, it's like playing a shooter in which all the weapons are retardedly underpowered and enemies won't seem to die and don't even react properly when you shoot them.

 

I'd like it if, at least for a long stretch of the game, ammo is scarce but very powerful. Giving someone both barrels is basically an I Win button, but you don't know if you want to waste the ammo when you can sneak around, stare/talk him down, or bludgeon him to death with a hammer.

 

I'm able to simply think of it in terms of a top down RPG instead of a FPS when it comes to the ridiculous amount of bullets enemies can absorb before dying so it didn't bother me. Certainly understand the felling though.

[HoonDing]

I got so pissed off with radscorpions in FO3. It took more ammo to kill one than sixteen soldiers in power armor, and you could kill it with a BB gun if you strafed around long enough.

God, radscorpions are the cliffracers of FO3 for sure! At low levels they're a minor annoyance, but at higher levels they suddenly become 'giant' and are simply everywhere, popping up in pairs at the least opportune times just like the cliffracers in Morrowind.

 

I'm now playing FO1 and I hate the scorpions even more than in FO3. One of the first quests I did was the radscorpion cave and it was not pretty for my character.

 

Every RPG seems to have this type of incredibly annoying enemies that just keep coming to get the blood from under your nails. In the Witcher there's the drowner, for instance.

 

 

As for assault rifles being terribly ineffective in real-time combat, I think Bethesda did that to 'force' the player into VATS. In VATS you can easily blow off a raider's head from a fair distance even with low skill (I actually think VATS boosts your accuracy).

[Tigranes]

In Morrowind at least you could use Jump, Levitate, etc at higher levels to bypass the critters. In FO3 you just have to run like hell for ages (same with originals, really, up till the exit grid).

[Wombat]

Sniper Rifles in Mass Effect are the single most powerful weapons when it comes to single shots. They take a bit of time to reload between each shot and overheat quickly, but, if upgraded properly and used with the proper talens, by the end of the game they're practically a fire-and-forget weapon. The game does include headshots, but due to the distances at which combat occurs, they're hard to get.

 

The draw is in the ultimate rounds, High Explosive VIII, together with double Rail Extension VIII when using the Spectre Sniper Rifle. End result is, each shot overheats your rifle, but it's damage output is similiar to the Mako main cannon. So, it forces to be polite, professional and have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

 

Plus, the sight of disintegrating enemies flying everywhere is amusing, to say the least.

Thanks for the explanation. Yes, I remembered that Bioware didn't need to balance ammo resource for players due to this system. Although in a different note, IIRC, Van Buren also had this heat-up limitation for extremely destructive weapons. The player can ignore the limitation but, if they do, the weapon will be broken by over-heating. The trouble is that you'd probably need repair resources/installment and Science Boy character or NPC to fix the weapon once it happened. Oh...nostalgia...

 

I know it's a charm of FO series to have maniacally detailed presentations and, I myself, share quite a bit of nostalgia. However, if it is consuming both resources and time, I don't mind seeing Bioware-style gameplay-focused designs here and there. For I think the forte of Obsidian, compared with that of Bethesda, is definitely deeper content such as convincing NPC interactions, story-telling, and well-written dialogs.

 

God, radscorpions are the cliffracers of FO3 for sure! At low levels they're a minor annoyance, but at higher levels they suddenly become 'giant' and are simply everywhere, popping up in pairs at the least opportune times just like the cliffracers in Morrowind.

At least, in Morrowind's case, it fits the lore* nicely...even it may not that "nice" as a game-experience.

*

Cliffracers managed to defeat dragons through their persistence and took "air supremacy."

 

 

PS I'm getting busy that it is getting tough for me to keep up with the thread...

Edited April 30, 2009 by Wombat

[Kjarista]

If Fallout 3 fails in this regard, it's because it was TOO restrictive in who the PC is to be. It is possible, however, to play FO3 and never touch the main quest. IMO, the game is much better played that way.

 

People keep saying this, but maybe it's just me I CAN'T play an RPG unless I'm interested in the story, or even if I hate the story I need to know that there's something I'm "meant" to be doing. In Fallout 3 I beat the main quest, hated the ending, and then decided to reload an old save and continue exploring where I left off and just couldn't do it.

 

 

It's just a difference in playstyle. That's why this project with Obsidian is so interesting. it's going to be interesting to see a story driven Fallout. Again, it's not quite my cup of tea, but I'm still looking forward to it.

[Slowtrain]

It's just a difference in playstyle. That's why this project with Obsidian is so interesting. it's going to be interesting to see a story driven Fallout. Again, it's not quite my cup of tea, but I'm still looking forward to it.

 

 

Honestly, I don't believe you have much to worry about. (not that you are worrying, really) Yes, it might be SLIGHTLY more story focused than Beth's Fallout 3, but I can't see any main departure from the Big Wasteland To Explore dominant gameplay.

 

As you said earlier, hopefully, we wil get the best of both worlds, an expansive free form world to play around with, but slight more fleshed-out characters and stories and consequences that give the time we spend in that world a bit more resonance.

 

 

Of course, there is always the chance that Beth gave this project away because they WANT it to be a lot more linear. My guess though is, no.

 

 

But until Josh talks more openly about the game, all we can do is sit around and ponder the possibilities.

[Slowtrain]

I just thought of another thing I hated about Fallout 3: Tiered skill checks.

 

Lockpicks were either Very Easy, Easy, Medium, Hard, or Very Hard.

In Fallout this means 0, 25, 50, 75, 100

So it is completely pointless to have a lockpick skill of, say, 80. (It makes the minigame easier, but the minigame is incredibly easy to begin with!)

 

So Lockpicking is a hard limit, yet they make Speech checks a dieroll. That's like wearing shoes on your hands and gloves on your feet >=^(

 

 

Well, at least they put some kind of check in, vs Oblivion where the lockpicking skill didn't even matter.

[Slowtrain]

As for assault rifles being terribly ineffective in real-time combat, I think Bethesda did that to 'force' the player into VATS. In VATS you can easily blow off a raider's head from a fair distance even with low skill (I actually think VATS boosts your accuracy).

 

 

I didn't use VATS much, but when I did I didn't really notice any increased lethality or accuracy of my weapons. The only real thing that VATS did was freeze the enemy in their tracks so you could actually hit them. WHich was useful at point blank range when they were bouncing around like jumping beans.

 

Perhaps adding some of the VATS specific perks later in the game, makes VATS more deadly to the enemies? I never used VATS really, except as a brief "please hold still while I shoot you" thing so I never took any of the VATS perks.

[Aristes]

I don't think Obsidian wants to confine the sandbox with a "linear" story. I don't know what they think over there at Obsidian, but I'd like to be a fly on the wall. My guess is that there are a lot of folks jonsin' to do a real sandbox game, and they have a strong voice in the company. After all, doesn't SoZ have a sort of sandbox feel to it? It seems they wanted to have a strong story, but a lot of room for the player to explore and do their own thing.

 

That said, I just didn't want to buy another NWN game, so I passed on SoZ. I still have the feeling that, while I'm sure Bethesda sees writing as an Obsidian strong point, FO:NV is going to be a sandbox game just like the previous title. Really, just like the franchise altogether.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Make the Pip-Boy an actual flashlight ffs.

[Gizmo]

I'm now playing FO1 and I hate the scorpions even more than in FO3. One of the first quests I did was the radscorpion cave and it was not pretty for my character.

 

Every RPG seems to have this type of incredibly annoying enemies that just keep coming to get the blood from under your nails. In the Witcher there's the drowner, for instance.

The Radscorpion Quest *can* be one of the easiest quests in the game, if you think outside the box.