Obsidian making Fallout: New Vegas

[Gizmo]

Nevertheless, if the team must err to one side or the other, FO3 is a better bet than Gothic or Arcanum. No offense to fans of those two games.

 

a better bet in what way, exactly?

Seconded! No offense taken, but I too am curious... Better in what way ~exactly?

 

 

Never played any Gothic, but I'd love to see a game as good as Arcanum again.

You might really like Gothic 2 ( unfortunately I have no experience with Gothic 1, and Gothic 3 was gawd-awful from the demo I played )

However (and ironically just too similar ), there is a new Gothic being made by a new company.

 

 

But its not like Arcanum as such... and visually G2 is a bit more like Morrowind

 

** HAha... Look at this, we are both in luck...

http://www.gog.com/en/search/sort/search/gothic

Edited April 26, 2009 by Gizmo

[mkreku]

But isn't what you are saying is: make a world just like FO3, but make it bigger by putting more empty space between the stuff. So all you are really adding is emptiness? Emtpiness that must be traversed to find the stuff?

 

If you are saying something other, I am mis-understanding it. WHich I very well migth be.

Not quite. I'm saying put more space between those places that were counted as locations on the map (the ones the arrows pointed to), but fill that extra space with other interesting stuff to find and see (the stuff that don't have arrows, like the examples I provided in an earlier post).

[Slowtrain]

But isn't what you are saying is: make a world just like FO3, but make it bigger by putting more empty space between the stuff. So all you are really adding is emptiness? Emtpiness that must be traversed to find the stuff?

 

If you are saying something other, I am mis-understanding it. WHich I very well migth be.

Not quite. I'm saying put more space between those places that were counted as locations on the map (the ones the arrows pointed to), but fill that extra space with other interesting stuff to find and see (the stuff that don't have arrows, like the examples I provided in an earlier post).

 

 

OK. I see now.

 

Fallout 3 had a lot of that all ready, of course. There were many things to find that were not flagged as formal "locations", and basically you would like to see more of that type of space between the formal locations.

 

SO basically enhancing the exploration factor beyond the named locations. I would be Ok with it personally, but I just wonder if the developers time could be spent more usefully elsewhere than adding more exploration to a game format that already has tons of it.

 

Adding totally empty "dead" space to a map world would not probably be that hard, but adding space that has stuff to find obviously takes time.

 

Certainly, the "realism" of Fallout 3 suffered from the compactness of the world a bit, but I'm not really sure "realism" is a major factor in a game like FO3.

 

Daggerfall had real contiguous landscape that you could cross on foot if you so chose, and there were dungeons you could stumble across if you were lucky, but I don't recall ever being of a mind to strike out across the world on a wagon o the random chance that I mgiht find something. I mean, I probably did it once or twice until I got bored. It was mostly fast travelling across huge expanses of world. Don't get me wrong, I love Daggerfall. But it ended up being mostly a world of fast travel.

 

FO3 was not a world of fast travel. I usually walked it because it felt worthwhile to do so. SOmehow I just feel that adding more space, even space with stuff on it, would increase the fast travel tendency somewhat. And again, if a world design encourages people to fast travel, isn't that just wasiting the developer time put into building it? If they never see it?

[bhlaab]

If the goal of the developer is to sell games

 

As someone who is actually spending money on the games, I don't really give a **** how much it sells I just want something that's good. If it's a success that's alright but I'd rather have a game that doesn't pander to demographics or use a reliable brand name as a crutch.

 

"Games are art" I hear. Well act like it then!

 

ps: The entire gothic series is unplayable garbage because of bad control and interface decisions

Edited April 26, 2009 by bhlaab

[Gizmo]

ps: The entire gothic series is unplayable garbage because of bad control and interface decisions

I never had a problem though... that doesn't mean its flawless or that others didn't, but I did like Gothic 2 better than Oblivion ~and I did like Oblivion (I played it to level 26).

 

*My favorite part of Oblivion was the Arena especially once I learned how to run up the chains on the columns.

 

** My least favorite part was the time I figured out how to climb over the Arena wall from outside, and saw that it was like a back-lot film setpiece at the old MGM Studios.

Edited April 26, 2009 by Gizmo

[Musopticon?]

ps: The entire gothic series is unplayable garbage

Imagine that, almost like your face!

 

Seriously, people and their opinions. Torment had an even worse control scheme and UI and it never gets this much bad rap.

[Tagaziel]

ps: The entire gothic series is unplayable garbage because of bad control and interface decisions

 

It's very playable. Consult your diagnostician and get treatment, if you can't wrap your head around it, some necks just ain't that flexible.

[player1]

I actually agree in case of G3. It's more likely to die from pack of wolves then horde of orcs.

[Aristes]

If the goal of the developer is to sell games

 

As someone who is actually spending money on the games, I don't really give a **** how much it sells I just want something that's good. If it's a success that's alright but I'd rather have a game that doesn't pander to demographics or use a reliable brand name as a crutch.

 

Frankly, the industry doesn't give a crap whether you care or not. Unless the idea of a large, vast, and relatively empty world is a gamebreaker for you, sticking to the working formula makes sense from a game design point of view.

 

...And imagine that the majority of player wanted the same thing you want. Imagine that the minority clamored for something other than what you want. When does it stop being pandering and become a solid design decision.

 

For my part, I wouldn't mind a large rambling world, but I want the design team to pander enough to have good sales while keeping to those core attributes that I most appreciate. In that regard, changing the world to be less "busy" or some such is not nearly as important as improving the writing.

[J.E. Sawyer]

The density of "stuff" in Oblivion was a lot lower than in F3. Oblivion's world was (IIRC) about four miles by four miles. In comparison, F3's world was 2 miles by 2 miles (again, IIRC). So the Capital Wasteland is literally 1/4 the size of Cyrodiil, or pretty close. F3 typically has about three marked locations per 3x3 "map square" section. Half of those are more like scenic waypoints (e.g. Fordham Flash Memorial Field, Charnel House, Rockbreaker's Last Gas) and the other half have more meat to them (e.g. Red Racer Factory, vaults, Statesman Hotel, etc.). That said, Oblivion also had horses available and lots of herbs and stuff to pick up in any given tile section.

 

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that the density was different between the two and people seemed okay with both approaches.

[Aristes]

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.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Aristes

[Promethean]

What I'm more concerned with is have some variety in the interior areas. Every building either had lots of catwalk or lots of greenish grey hallways, regardless of what type of factory it was or if the building was a school. Even places that could have looking different like the Capitol Building or the National Archives didnt.

[Slowtrain]

Josh, are you guys open to making the map larger and adding more "elbow room" when it comes to exploration?

 

Or is this something you stil can't talk about?

[Wombat]

IIRC, a designer of Bethesda said that they initially aimed at "real scale" Washington and that they began to realize that it doesn't work well...probably...in terms of game-play. So, I take it Bethesda probably did a decent job in balancing "realism" and game-play.

 

ED:O.K. I found the interview.

Q: How close did you try and stick to the real-world map?

 

Howard: Not that close.

 

When it comes to really high-level geography, we did that, but the timeline in Fallout splits after World War 2. We did a lot of studying of D.C. and the history of D.C. and how it was built. We wanted to do the big things [like] the Mall and we did Dupont Circle and various other sections of the city in the flavor they are. Georgetown, the Key Bridge, the Pentagon -- but the Pentagon is now this big fortress that the Brotherhood of Steel lives in, they're kind of like the knights of this world.

 

The problem is, when you get into a game, when you're actually playing and walking around, the scale doesn't work. It doesn't feel right. So we would go down [to Washington] and walk around and see how it felt and translate that to an appropriate scale in the game. So it has a similar feeling but it's dramatically compressed in some places, and some places are opened up a bit.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Wombat

[J.E. Sawyer]

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.

Don't infer anything about real-world scale or overall map size in F:NV from my comments about F3 and Oblivion; they were merely intended to illustrate relative scale and density between the two games.

 

On a related note, F3's DC is nowhere near "real-world" scale. As Todd Howard said, they expand and contract things as required to feel right for walking around in the game. One of the other things that makes Oblivion and F3 overland worlds feel big is a combination of 75 degree FoV and a pretty slow walk/run speed. The relatively wide angle FoV makes things in the distance look very far away and the relatively slow walk/run speeds make the distances feel extra-long. Certain maps, like the top of the Washington Monument, use fa

[Nightshape]

Isn't 75 degree's the same as what Halo use's, or perhaps it's in or around that figure. I know that L4D uses an extremely large angle, 100 perhaps more... I've always found that anything below 80 means I begin to get confused and lost in tight spaces.

[Wombat]

Scale and distance have surprisingly little to do with reality and a lot more to do with presentation techniques and the feeling the player has while moving through the space.

Or, scientific reality does not necessarily suit "realism" or our feel of reality.

[Darth InSidious]

Scale and distance have surprisingly little to do with reality and a lot more to do with presentation techniques and the feeling the player has while moving through the space.

Or, scientific reality does not necessarily suit "realism" or our feel of reality.

Agreed.

 

But then, huge swathes of reality are, to be quite honest, rather dull.

 

I don't know about you, but Deluxe Ironing Challenge doesn't sound that great a game to me.

 

As another (more relevant) example, the size of, say, Neverwinter in NWN2 is cartoonishly disproportionate to the size of a real city like that; but do we really need to see five-million wharfs and eighty-thousand tons of cargo while retaining the same level of content? Cuz that just sounds like a waste of... well, everything to me. Crates, for starters, but also less important things like time, money, assets and energy.

[bhlaab]

The reflective pool in Fallout 3's DC was like 10 feet long

[Promethean]

Scale and distance have surprisingly little to do with reality and a lot more to do with presentation techniques and the feeling the player has while moving through the space.

Or, scientific reality does not necessarily suit "realism" or our feel of reality.

Agreed.

 

But then, huge swathes of reality are, to be quite honest, rather dull.

 

I don't know about you, but Deluxe Ironing Challenge doesn't sound that great a game to me.

 

As another (more relevant) example, the size of, say, Neverwinter in NWN2 is cartoonishly disproportionate to the size of a real city like that; but do we really need to see five-million wharfs and eighty-thousand tons of cargo while retaining the same level of content? Cuz that just sounds like a waste of... well, everything to me. Crates, for starters, but also less important things like time, money, assets and energy.

 

Maybe but that makes me want to see a to scale gameworld actually made

 

Maybe some day someone will do it as a gimmick

[Darth InSidious]

Scale and distance have surprisingly little to do with reality and a lot more to do with presentation techniques and the feeling the player has while moving through the space.

Or, scientific reality does not necessarily suit "realism" or our feel of reality.

Agreed.

 

But then, huge swathes of reality are, to be quite honest, rather dull.

 

I don't know about you, but Deluxe Ironing Challenge doesn't sound that great a game to me.

 

As another (more relevant) example, the size of, say, Neverwinter in NWN2 is cartoonishly disproportionate to the size of a real city like that; but do we really need to see five-million wharfs and eighty-thousand tons of cargo while retaining the same level of content? Cuz that just sounds like a waste of... well, everything to me. Crates, for starters, but also less important things like time, money, assets and energy.

 

Maybe but that makes me want to see a to scale gameworld actually made

 

Maybe some day someone will do it as a gimmick

Certainly it'd be a going-out-of-business trick. Reduce your customer-base by 40% with just ONE PRODUCT!

Edited April 27, 2009 by Darth InSidious

[Hurlshort]

For some reason, this thread is just making me want to replay Arcanum.

 

Anyone know of any decent mods for it?

Edited April 27, 2009 by Hurlshot

[Gizmo]

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that the density was different between the two and people seemed okay with both approaches.

Oblivion was a lush vista of trees, hills, small plants, and animals; The fantasy setting is believable even with twice the flora & fauna that would realistically be in a RL woods..... Fallout is [was] sparse pockets of humanity (or close enough) spread far and wide, and those locations were days or weeks apart, separated by wasted [blasted] land for miles and miles.

 

I understand the need for compressing the areas, but at some point doesn't it begin to look like a city dump instead of a dumped city?

 

A re-done Map travel could see the PC take off in a direction, and return with the PC's arrival at the destination; during which time a day counter could tick off the travel time.

 

Fallout 1 was fortunate that it's format was well suited to imply the vast wastes without having to actually depict them, Fallout 3 is not so lucky.... but depicting them as a brisk 5 minute walk is somehow shortchanging no?

 

What I've played of Fallout 3 seems to be missing the major special encounters (not copies of old ones of course). I can see that a large part of the original charm was to stumble across something totally bizarre out in the wastes somewhere, and never really be able to find it again.... Going back to the Godzilla Foot, would have been anticlimactic.

So what about re-designing the fast travel to behave similarly to the original game? (IE. Pull you out if you stumbled upon something weird and then after a timer [or after combat] ends, resume towards the destination ~the special encounter taking place way out in an inaccessible area made to look like endless wasteland ~and only used for depicting unexpected stops on the trip.)

Edited April 27, 2009 by Gizmo

[Aram]

What about the guns

[Kefeinzel]

I'd like to throw my vote in for several changes to the weapons..

 

First off, get rid of all the silly ramshackle weapons like the choo choo gun.

Next, eliminate or massively scale back weapon and armor degradation.

 

To replace the schematic weapons, I would suggest using scrap metal, duct tape, hacksaws, and similar items to be able to make addons and modifications to your weapons like they had in jagged alliance 1&2.

Scopes, flash hiders, additional grips, sawed off barrels, extended magazines, and all sorts of fun stuff could be added in this way and it's more realistic for the wasteland than a vacuum powered teddy bear cannon.

 

IMO, it would also be fun to have more realistic effects occurring between the weapon you are using and the level of small arms skill.

Low skill should mean heavy muzzle climb, decreased accuracy with continued shooting, jamming, and things like dropped weapons / magazines, slower reloading and any other good effects people can think of in addition to the standard accuracy effects.

I would not recommend tying weapon skill extensively to damage, because a gun will do the same damage no matter how poorly you know how to use it.

 

Anyway, that's just my two cents on the subject.