Obsidian making Fallout: New Vegas

[Promethean]

"Right because the only good patches are official patches."

 

never said that. did observe that it is pretty tough to judge game base on fan content, no? am sure you will see the problems o' such a silly approach if you considers. maybe talks with the bg community o' modders and try to figure out what game they is actually talking 'bout when they says they likes bg. Ajantis is the Best npc evar... if you gots v.5 o' the super secret mod pack by the Narflings 6 Group. huh?

 

and yeah, the world o' arcanum were interesting... on paper. arcanum were far more interesting before you actually played the game. the world were relative unique and it were big. sadly, when actually played, all those little details didn't add up... game were less than the sum o' its parts 'cause it were put together so poorly. is no different than all the pointless and inane dialogue choices they tried to force into toee. sure, you gots a dozen different dialogue options that would change based on your character development choices, but all the choices led to same place: dullsville. offering choices just so that you can say you provided choices is bad design.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I dont see what was so bad about Arcanum's writing. The companion were dry sometimes but not offensively so like FO3. Comparing it to ToEE makes me question your mental facilities. Also you exaggerate the mod scene. Usually there is a big key mod or fixpack and then superfluous patches surrounding that.

 

And why are you adding o's and extras s's onto things. It makes you points more annoying to read.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Promethean

[Gromnir]

"I vaguely remember Virgil, but I don't recall the other NPCs very well."

 

is not a particularly positive observation when speaking of a crpg, no? story is told by, of and through character. if you can't recall the characters...

 

lots o' seemingly pointless choices in arcanum. Gromnir were genuine looking forward to the setting, but somehow troika managed to gets all the mistakes from the fallouts... and distill 'em. writing and dialogue in fallouts were often... lacking. such dialogue and writing were Horrible in arcanum. balance were laughable in fallout, but it were criminal in arcanum. etc. the developers came up with a kewl world and created lots o' character development options... then they stopped, or got distracted. there were lots to do in arcanum (good thing) but the stuff to do were almost universal uninspired and we never found a good reason to keeps trying to grind through such tedious material. too bad.

 

 

"And why are you adding o's and extras s's onto things. It makes you points more annoying to read. "

 

really?

 

 

"you are so from the internets it hurts."

 

am not certain what that means, but am pretty confident that it not lessen the validity o' our observation 'bout fo1 and fo2 humor. keeps trying though.

 

as for mods... is different from game to game, but clearly your experience is... limited.

 

http://www.pocketplane.net/mambo/

 

is hardly representative of all the mods available for the ie games neither.

 

arcanum, because it sucked, had understandably fewer technically sophisticated fans who were willing to try and fix a broken game-- fewer mods. regardless, comparing games based on their fan made improvements is folly. am willing to applaud a game for it capacity to be modded and the ease with which it can be modded, but to compare strength of writing or balance or options based on fan made content is so obviously flawed that it really ain't worth further argument. hell, that may be one o' the few points that josh and Gromnir has agreed 'pon in the past.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited May 6, 2009 by Gromnir

[Hurlshort]

I'm playing through Arcanum now. The storytelling is refreshing, and the variety of quests and ways to solve them is very nice. But the companions are pretty lifeless and their back stories don't compare to BG2. But no Fallout game has been remarkable when it came to companions.

 

Still, the complex quest lines set it apart from most games.

[Aristes]

Oh, I don't know. I thought Grampy Bone was interesting.

[Gromnir]

"The storytelling is refreshing,"

 

refreshing? what does that mean? like a fresca maybe?

 

for folks that has become tired with being railroaded down a single story path, am seeing how arcanum might be "refreshing"... maybe.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Promethean]

Well thats really what the games in that model are all about, that being the quests and the myriad of ways to solve them. And the fact that there many ways to play through the game. Its not about deep, philosophical characters or battles of wits with NPCs. Yes, the writing isnt great. But to call it horrible is either to not know what horrible game writing looks like or horribly pretentious. Not every game is trying to be an Avellonian deconstruction of ideas and cliches.

[Enoch]

arcanum were far more interesting before you actually played the game.

This reflects my feelings about the game perfectly. Interesting world on paper, which had me enthusiastic going into the experience. Getting into it, the writing turned out to be mediocre, which was a disappointment, but not a killer. Later, once I figured out that the game had the most horrendously and obviously broken character system I'd yet seen, it quickly went on the shelf.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Enoch

[Aristes]

EDIT: The thing is, why are comparing Arcanum to Fallout 3? I had fun with Arcanum, but I enjoyed Fallout 3 more. Arcanum is like one of the inhabitants of the Isle of Lost toys in Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer. Yeah, you feel sorry for it, but not enough people wanted it. There are tons of games that I like that I wish had warranted a sequel, starting with Planescape: Torment. ...Or, if not a sequel, then a successor. It sucks to be me sometimes. We can argue for elements we've seen in different games, but making the argument on a developer's page that Fallout 3 got it all wrong while Arcanum had it all right doesn't make sense. (Oh, yeah, I know. No one said Arcanum was perfect and no one said Fallout 3 was entirely bad. Whatever.) For all that I liked it, Arcanum was a failure. For all that I liked it, PS:T was a failure. I want to find ways that the design team can include features I liked most by convincing them that they can make a commercial success out of it. That it can work in *this* game if we did it *this* way. Troika was a failure. They had great ideas and made games that I, personally, enjoyed, sure. At the end of the day, though, they had to close their doors.

[mkreku]

Yeah, speaking of Fallout: New Vegas. Like the rest of you.. ANYHOW, this is what I would like to see in the desert:

 

 

Ominous skies, a distant mountain range in the distance, the urge to pass the next dune to see what lies ahead.

 

Curiously, it's also a suitable comment on my social life right now.

[Gromnir]

Not every game is trying to be an Avellonian deconstruction of ideas and cliches.

 

for you kids who want strawman defined...

 

*shrug*

 

is understandable that you would be unaware that Gromnir has criticized chrisA as much as we has complimented. lugubrious navel gazing worked in ps:t, but is a young writer's fetish that he ain't seemed to grow out of as yet. however, you get +15 points for the "horribly pretentious" observation. oh sure, it not diminish the validity o' our point, but in truth we is a bit o' a snob on such matters as writing.

 

"Yes, the writing isnt great"

 

understatement for effect? no? arcanum writing were worse than horrible... it were forgettable.

 

"The thing is, why are comparing Arcanum to Fallout 3? I had fun with Arcanum, but I enjoyed Fallout 3 more. Arcanum is like one of the inhabitants of the Isle of Lost toys in Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer. Yeah, you feel sorry for it, but not enough people wanted it. "

 

"name another game that..." arcanum as an example o' anything other than unfulfilled promise? ask why we is comparing? 'cause some folks can't let arcanum or troika rest in peace. got folks re imagining the exploits o' troika and the good ship arcanum as some bold and romantic attempt to sail beyond the edge o' the map. tim cain saw the "here there be dragons" warning and laughed... sailed forward to challenge all those crpg conventions and preconceptions with nothing but courage (and buckets full of sierra's money). what a crock. arcanum were grand and memorable in nothing save for the chasm between its lofty goals and the banal reality.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited May 6, 2009 by Gromnir

[Tagaziel]

Arcanum, while a buggy, low-res mess, was amazing. The world was living, breathing and responding to your actions and the characters... after Virigil bailed on me, I spent four real life hours looking for him under every rock in Arcanum. Few games enthrall me so much.

[Fionavar]

Thread Pruned: I will say this once -> Any more baiting and everyone involved will get a fun, fully covered time-out from the fora ... choice is always a fun thing to have.

[Gromnir]

"Both were profitable."

 

*sigh*

 

honestly, does we gotta go down this road again? truth to tell, Gromnir never cared 'nuff to see how well arcanum did, but while ps:t eventually made a profit, it were a business failure.

 

repost... again.

 

http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic...ighlight=#23414

 

is amusing that briareus' observations kill the ps:t business success myth equal well as the fo myth. ps:t didn't get into black until considerable time following initial release... was selling as a dual release with soul calibur at the time? place money in a savings account will result in a profit too, no? why not put your investment dollars in a nice solid mutual fund, eh?

 

hopeful we don't have to go down this road... again. can't we all just accept that ps:t were an unfortunate business failure and move on to other issues that actually has valid points o' opposition?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Aristes]

I get it, Promethean. I had written a longer response, but I guess I'll leave it at I understand that you don't really want to leave everything up to commercial success because you probably hope that there is still some market for the game you'd really like to see. Yes, Grim Fandango is more entertaining for me personally than any Wii game I've played.

 

I read cronicler's post on stats and skills. I didn't completely agree with everything, but I hope that some of those changes make it into the NV title. If they do, it will be a bit more like the previous two Fallouts.

[Promethean]

There will always be a market for games I want to see. Its just tool and asset cost need to go down first for a medium level indie scene like in cinema starts up.

[Gromnir]

... choice is always a fun thing to have.

 

is that true? game development is, in theory, a zero sum endeavor. got limited number o' man hours to use in development, and the man hours ain't interchangeable neither. create 20 extra dialogue options in a game so that folks that took the Ceramics skill feel better 'bout the choice... makes an ashtray for father's day and gets the "ulterior motive" feat perhaps.

 

always gotta ask: what else coulda' you done with that time and those man hour resources?

 

choice, like everything else in game development, has got costs. some o' those costs is obvious, but others is less so.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

Well, choice is as fun as it is deep. That applies both to game mechanics and story.

 

If you have 10 dialogue options that are purely flavor with no effect on the immediate conversation or the world, then perhaps the time would be better spent on other things. Likewise, if you have a whole bunch of perks that simply increase skill points, it doesn't contribute much to the game beyond what the skill point system already had to offer.

[Promethean]

Well, choice is as fun as it is deep. That applies both to game mechanics and story.

 

If you have 10 dialogue options that are purely flavor with no effect on the immediate conversation or the world, then perhaps the time would be better spent on other things. Likewise, if you have a whole bunch of perks that simply increase skill points, it doesn't contribute much to the game beyond what the skill point system already had to offer.

 

A direct stab at Fallout 3 (and KotOR)

[Slowtrain]

The good perks are those that offer character enhancements that cannot be obtained through any other way. FO3 had a few of those, most of which were lifted from the original Fallouts, but far too many stat/skill/attribute increases.

 

Bethesda probably would have been better served by sticking to the original 1 perk/3 levels ratio which would allow to spend more time coming up with more interesting perks since they wouldn't need so many.

 

But really, it is pretty predictable for Bethesda at this point to do it the way they did, since they definitely value more over better.

 

Quantity appears to be the measuring stick for Bethesda, whether it is beards or perks.

 

 

I would argue that quantity is much easier to achieve than quality.

[Promethean]

But that wouldnt allow for the instant gratification the masses want.

[Aristes]

I don't know. Hoi Polloi have enjoyed games with slower PC prowess accumulation. They've also enjoyed games with a faster power progression.

 

I didn't have a problem with it per se, but I think it would be much better to have three levels per perk and have the perks more substantial. If Obsidian can't do that, maybe they can scale down some of the current stat bump perks and allow them every level. For me, I like having perks with more impact, not necessarily entirely centered on combat, at greater intervals would be a plus.

 

So more substantial perks every three levels and scaled back perks each level. In fact, reduce the skill bonus for each level and you've basically got the same thing, only in disguise.

[Gromnir]

I don't know. Hoi Polloi have enjoyed games with slower PC prowess accumulation. They've also enjoyed games with a faster power progression.

 

I didn't have a problem with it per se, but I think it would be much better to have three levels per perk and have the perks more substantial. If Obsidian can't do that, maybe they can scale down some of the current stat bump perks and allow them every level. For me, I like having perks with more impact, not necessarily entirely centered on combat, at greater intervals would be a plus.

 

So more substantial perks every three levels and scaled back perks each level. In fact, reduce the skill bonus for each level and you've basically got the same thing, only in disguise.

 

fast progression ain't a bad thing... but frequently it leads to a differnt sorta tyranny o' choice. you know, is loads o' folks that loathe d&d 3e rules, but it were an okie dokie system... at least initially. sure, harm were busted, and the ranger were comic front-loaded, but many o' 3e's most glaring flaws were fixable... right up til you hits 'bout level 12. problem became more pronounced with the addition o' new prestige classes and feats, but the problem were inherent in system from day 1. get past level 12 and a well-prepared party can make a mockery o' crs. past level 12, the dice pretty much become superfluous as outcomes is largely predetermined. why is there a level 12 problem with 3e d&d? is partly a problem o' choice. hit a critical mass o' mathematics and choices resulting in a game impossible to balance-- add more options and you create more opportunities to break the rules. create a system with lots o' levels and loads o' choices and you is pretty much accepting from start that balance will not be achievable. with every splat book released, d&d 3e became more broken... simply 'cause o' more choices. loads o' levels and options invariably makes a game tougher to balance.

 

as for appropriate perks n' such...

 

is not fo tradition, but why not give value to perks? you gets perks pretty quick in fo3, so why not give perks values/costs? is there anyone willing to argue that all perks is created equal? no? so has perks cost between 1 and 3 points. 3-point perks shouldn't be near 3x as good as 1-point perks, but for folks that wanna gets the best perks, let 'em pay for 'em. get 1 perk point per level and a bonus perk point every third level. whatever. details is up to the developers, but m thinking that adding another level o' sophistication to the character development system wouldn't scare folks away... 'specially if such a system were able to more adequate address the unbalanced perk problems.

 

is tough for developers to come up with kewl perks that ain't broken. hypothetical: put an "insta-kill" perk in game... perk allows character to insta-kill any enemy he/she hits in combat. am betting that more than 80% o' people playing game would try to attain the uber perk, even though such a perk would obvious ruin the game. the "kewlest" perks is often the most unbalanced... we don't envy the developers who tries to make a balanced game and satisfy the folks who want kewl/powerful stuff.

 

in any event, am thinking that fo would benefit from a modification o' the perk system... a modification that embraces the reality that not all perks is created equal.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited May 7, 2009 by Gromnir

[cronicler]

Actually there is a way to rein in the Uber perks a bit. If the game's progression brings you to the uberperks in say, last and probably in a hostile territory encounter, then giving the player these perks, weapons, abilities there to let it rip can be enjoyable without making it a yawn fest for the rest of the game.

 

Heh if you look at what perks are closely, I would argue that player should only be able to choose trivial to medicore perks on his own. finding some bat crazy survivalist guy to teach you the real tricks of sniper rifles or other similar methods of obtaining these perks (and telling the player that he has a limited number of specialisations that he can take) might have been better.

 

Then again its mostly a matter of taste. There are always guys who just cant play a game without a trainer. I guess somehow those guys are increasing in numbers considering what the main stream gaming is becoming.

[Aristes]

A more complex idea, but I would be happy with it. I mean, I'm happy with FO3, but the perks could be improved for sure. One of the reasons I think VATS is simply here to stay is because of the number of VATS perks included in the game. Having more substantial perks that centered on something other than VATS would be great also.

 

I don't want to get as much into the nitty gritty, but I like the idea of a point buy system. Of course, I'm pretty happy with clever systems as long as they don't become too unwieldly.

[Gromnir]

A more complex idea, but I would be happy with it. I mean, I'm happy with FO3, but the perks could be improved for sure. One of the reasons I think VATS is simply here to stay is because of the number of VATS perks included in the game. Having more substantial perks that centered on something other than VATS would be great also.

 

I don't want to get as much into the nitty gritty, but I like the idea of a point buy system. Of course, I'm pretty happy with clever systems as long as they don't become too unwieldly.

 

is always a problem with unwieldy. our very limited experience with design o' pnp rules taught us real quick that is almost always better to ere on side o' simplicity: the more complex a system, the more things can go wrong.

 

'course, the one advantage a crpg gots over a pnp rule system is the near instantaneous number crunching... is a level o' complexity in a crpg that just ain't possible in a pnp game... can has all kinds o' variables being accounted for in a crpg that simply wouldn't be possible in a pnp rule system...

 

*shrug*

 

when in doubt... simple.

 

HA! Good Fun!