Obsidian making Fallout: New Vegas

[Tigranes]

But then, 'training' systems where you have to find specific NPCs or whatnot and fulfill such in-world requirements to obtain the more powerful or wacky abilities has always been a very successful trope in RPGs, no? From the 'Jump through hoops then locate the geographical anomaly' and 'do the right thing at the right time' of Final Fantasies to strategically placed 'experts' in the Elder Scrolls.

 

I don't know. Perhaps only I enjoyed those. Certainly made the world a more interesting place for me, and would fit in well in Fallout - lost, isolated and/or esoteric knowledge/ability, that is.

[cronicler]

The original system used in Fallout was as basic as you could get tbh. Sure d100 and multi-layered bonuses/penalties suck on tabletop but as you mentioned computers could do it relatively quick (in theory some complex shots could take up to a minute on P133 but that was also about the messy game code too ). Anyway I still don't see the need for so many filler perks but Obsidian will chose what it wants to use in the end.

 

Tig: I really can't comprehend your post, Is it sarcastic or giving me a thumbs up or what.

 

Dammit need sleep and can't

Edited May 7, 2009 by cronicler

[Maria Caliban]

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

 

I disagree. It's much hard to write an okay 70k story than a good 10k one. I'd bet that it takes more effort and resources to create 7 unique but only decent animations than 2 unique and very good animations. I

Edited May 7, 2009 by Maria Caliban

[Aristes]

I actually like your idea cronicler, but I see the perks imparted in such a way as limited and used to augment the basic system. In other words, the perks could still use a rehaul, but your idea could supplement the system and reward certain gameplay types. That's my take at least.

 

This all assumes that Obsidian can make substantial changes of this nature. I mean, I do recognize some issues with the perks, but it's not like I didn't really dig the game.

 

I like talking theory, but it's out of my league, I'm afraid. I know what I want when I play it, but I'm not really sure what those things are. Sometimes things sound really great in theory but don't play all that well on the screen. Gromnir has said before, and I sadly agree, that sometimes players need to be saved from themselves.

 

EDIT: Aw, what the hell. Overcame my laziness and cleaned up a redundancy.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Aristes

[cronicler]

Erm MC; Fallout 1 had compact and quality game. Fallout 2 suffered from the too much stuff too little planning part too.

The reason we get those 15 hour games is the current marketing values. A game should be long enough to occupy you a week and a weekend. No more so other games can be sold to you. Bite sized if you want to call it that way. Tasty enough to make you forget you are paying inflated price for it. (Not my own thoughts btw. These were the guidelines given to a dev. group I translated for)

 

This is one approach to games. Other approach which B. uses involves putting a certain percentage of your team into a constant brainstorming session, creating loads of stuff. I personally prefer this approach better. What B. did wrong (according to me that is) was putting everyone into the brainstorming group and leaving no group to make the created stuff fit with each other. When you are 100% inside the creation process it gets really hard to see the problems from inside. Also as a matter of taste I think they used too much "cool" and "trendy" and "big". The whole thing become a precious metal coated desert eagle show instead of a pistol showcase if you will.

 

*And as a guy who works as a translator believe me, the quantity (and copy pasting) is also reaching extreme levels in some areas. Just look in a major library/bookseller about the current fad of Vampire in modern times romances. When people find a way to get a cool and unique idea into their work, they will do it in an eyeblink. Just look at the resurrected fad of orbital weapons in games and books.

 

Aristes: If i had the power, I would scrap even some of the fallout 1 and 2 perks let alone 3. I like perks that add new gimmicks to your arsenal (Black Widow could have been one for example if the writing and uses were not so... weird...) or modifies your character's untouchable otherwise stats in some ways. the filler perks just make me yawn.

 

Example: In FO1 the stats were important as they governed availability of some of the actions in the game and there were checks tied to them. So the question of taking a +1 sstat to open up a new perk or taking a direct combat perk was not clear cut. In FO3, I took +stat perks in some levels because I couldn't find anything to take.

 

I really hope Obsidian can tweak the perk list to give the player interesting choices at perk times instead of filler a b c...

Edited May 7, 2009 by cronicler

[Gromnir]

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

 

I disagree. It's much hard to write an okay 70k story than a good 10k one. I'd bet that it takes more effort and resources to create 7 unique but only decent animations than 2 unique and very good animations. I

[Oerwinde]

One thing that really got me with Fallout 3 was that this was what? 2-300 years after the bombs? Why is there not a single piece of actual construction that wasn't just a bunch of scrap thrown together? I mean Shady Sands had some half decent clay brick abodes. Also why was the largest city composed of like 15 people. I mean Rivet City had the whole flight deck of that aircraft carrier to build on, but it wasn't touched. I hope in New Vegas we see some actual civilization starting.

 

Yeah, but that's a Fallout Standard. There is no way, even a short amount of time after the war, that folks would not have built better dwellings. The human race would have **** or gotten off the pot by then. Either humans would be in more or less thriving communities a few decades after the bombs fell, they'd be extinct, or they'd be worshipping at the feet of their glowing green ape overlords.

 

Fallout is the wasteland. It doesn't matter if they set the damned thing a thousand years after the fact. ...And, frankly, by the time a thousand years have come and gone, they might as well call it the second post apocalypse.

 

This has always been an area where folks were forced to accept the idea and play with it.

 

I don't have a problem with the civilization level being realistic, I have a problem with it not being in line with the previous games. Shady Sands had nice whitewashed clay brick dwellings, and this was a little pissant town. Vault City you can't really compare because they had a Geck, but NCR was getting up there. I'm not asking for everyone to be in rebuilt utopias, but you would think that there would be some pockets of civilization that got past the "slap together a makeshift shelter" survival phase.

[Aristes]

I don't disagree with all your points, cronicler, but I completely disagree with your basic premise.

 

Look, I understand that you have your problems with Fallout 3, but I don't see Fallout 3 as a terrible game. In fact, I had a lot of fun playing it. In further fact, I think it's a kick ass game. If all Obsidian does is put out a complete expansion pack with a solid story and good NPCs, I'll be happy. In most cases, I agree with you about the problems, but the severity of these problem is where we diverge. I think stats should have a more direct impact on gameplay, but that brings it's own issues. Not only that, but some perks don't become available until later levels or with certain stats. Yes, I think perks should be modified, but it's not like they were such a complete loss that I didn't enjoy the gameplay.

 

Here's the thing, for someone who had so much fun playing Fallout 3, I'm leery of advice coming from folks who thought the game was a complete loss. However, your ideas sound clever and so I'm not against them in principle.

 

The upshot is that I like the idea of using special circumstances for some of the more powerful perks, but I don't want to completely gut the perks "just 'cause." Some of the remedies, especially coming from folks who dislike Fallout 3 in the first place, might not be an improvement.

 

Oerwinde: Cool. You want it to be in line with previous games.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Aristes

[Promethean]

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

 

I disagree. It's much hard to write an okay 70k story than a good 10k one. I'd bet that it takes more effort and resources to create 7 unique but only decent animations than 2 unique and very good animations. I'd guess that Fallout 3's spread out world took more time, money, manpower, and other resources than Fallout 2's more compact but better quality world.

 

If quantity is so easy, why do we get 15 hour games? Anyone could merely hack out an extra 30 hours of content, after all.

 

Because plenty of people like shorter games especially since a lot of gamers are getting older and dont have as much time to get through games. Dev costs and asset creation time keeps rising, and there is a trend in the industry towards putting MP and coop in every game. That development is no longer on the single players game. Just take a look at RE5 vs RE4. RE4 was a massive action game, 20 hours a playthrough is no joke. RE5 is less then half that, but it has coop and MP. Plus there is increased pressure to churn out games on a yearly or biyearly basis. Not a condusive environment towards longer games.

[jero cvmi]

If all Obsidian does is put out a complete expansion pack with a solid story and good NPCs, I'll be happy.

I'll aggree; personally my motivation to care about the game and follow these threads in the first place is that i've put my bet on Obsidian's ability to write a solid story and design interesting characters. Mind you, i'm one of those people that were absolutely disappointed by fallout 3, but the main reason was the writing. Writing can't be fixed by modding. If Fallout 3 had a solid story, I'd be OK with some of the most "fallout-y" mods out there that fix a lot of my gameplay/graphic gripes. I'd even be motivated to make my own mods.

Well, maybe i would not be OK with the 3rd person perspective and VATS; I understand these are difficult to tamper with the available tools.

 

I think after my initial unexcusable excitement followed by unconceivable disappointment with fallout 3, i'm not hard to please at this point; I think Fallout:New Vegas will be better even if it's post-apocalytptic GTA.

 

Some of the remedies, especially coming from folks who dislike Fallout 3 in the first place, might not be an improvement.

 

Personally, the only "remedies" i'm hoping for, are that on top of the writing literacy, which i take for granted compared to Bethesda, Fallout:New Vegas's version of VATS will be more interesting, and most importantly, that the game will be actually playable in 3rd person. And for some metaphysical reason, i don't think i'm putting high hopes.

 

Oh those and a modding kit.

[cronicler]

Aristes: My problems with 3rd game don't really comes from the game itself. It's about the progression of the series in general. Morrowind was a detailed, big sandbox game. I love sandbox games. Then comes Oblivion which was basically a pruned down Morrowind optimized, streamlined and dumbed down for consoles. Every bit that was not usual for console gamers like detailed books, weird and changing envirolments, lots of different races' NPCs were pruned.

Then we came to the 3rd game. the same thing happened again.

Take the meelee/unarmed for example. It would be (probably) extremely hard to balance these combat types with the firearms combat. So they were taken out of the game nearly totally. Sure the skills are there but everything in the game just points you, or more precisely pushes you to ranged combat.

As another example, lets talk about the primitive weapons. like the bow and crossbow and the slingshot. The base engine already had the codes to include bows and coding in the other 2 would not be so hard or different from other fire arms. Yes I am biased but my guess is; they were not put into the game as they were not cool enough. (and before you ask, a modern pulley shortbow can 2 shot a man sized target into shock and a modern crossbow can 1 shot a man sized target into shock. Surgical rubber slings coupled with lead bullets/balls can give your target concussion easily.)

 

I love the basic mechanics in the game. I love the basis of the game. It just drives me nuts to see such a potential not being worked. I tried to voice these in the official forums and I got booted several times. You are right that our basis for suggestions are from extremely opposite edge of the scales but at least we both want to make this game better.

 

 

Ziggy: Actually Writing can be modded to be better. just like my last Oblivion game! I just used kwatch rebuild and Main Quest Stopper/Disabler to play the scenarios crafted by the

modders.

 

Also call me weird but I am actually fine with VATS as it is. Sure it needs a good maintenance and fine tuning but it is a very elegant way to put called/aimed shots into an fps game without to much mouse spamming.

What this game needs (Imo) is another system to accompany VATS. Something in the lines of Brothers in Arms or Mass Effect; "Pause to get a detailed view of your immediate area and give orders to your squad/follower/followers" system.

Edited May 7, 2009 by cronicler

[Aristes]

I don't know about the modding kit, but VATS has taken a lot of complaints, even from folks who like the game. I don't think at least a little tinkering is out of the question. Plus, what the hell, your job as a consumer is to grief the developer for stuff you want to see. I mean, go gonzo and they'll probably just ban you, but keep a few low level flames on their feet and you never know what will happen.

 

I don't think any of the ol' skool hard core Fallout fans will be satisfied. I don't think it's possible. I mean, Fallout 2 took a lot of grief when it shipped from a lot of hardcore fans. That eased over time, probably because it became clear it wasn't a matter of moving back towards what they perceived as the original Fallout design. It was more a matter of, "hey, dude, I don't think we're ever getting a sequel."

 

Still, folks go after Fallout 2 often enough in these threads. It's kind of sad, because Fallout 2 is actually my favorite from the entire series. I just happen to prefer the top down view with turn based combat. I also prefer the chat boxes from the original Fallouts. *shrug*

 

EDIT: I said something and thought better of it... and then read cronicler's post. Yeah, I tend to look for areas of agreement within conflict also. For what it's worth, I think your points are well made. I don't know what they'll do with FO:NV, but I'm actually pretty optimistic since I think Fallout and Fallout 3 describe the boundaries and I'm happy with anything in between. Well, that and I think some of you guys sound like you know a lot more about game design than I do.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Aristes

[Tagaziel]

I don't think any of the ol' skool hard core Fallout fans will be satisfied. I don't think it's possible. I mean, Fallout 2 took a lot of grief when it shipped from a lot of hardcore fans. That eased over time, probably because it became clear it wasn't a matter of moving back towards what they perceived as the original Fallout design. It was more a matter of, "hey, dude, I don't think we're ever getting a sequel."

 

I will start bashing people with various shovels eventually, if the "hardcore fans cannot be pleased" argument keeps surfacing.

 

All we want is a game faithful to the originals. Is it that hard to understand?

[jero cvmi]

Ziggy: Actually Writing can be modded to be better. just like my last Oblivion game! I just used kwatch rebuild and Main Quest Stopper/Disabler to play the scenarios crafted by the

modders.

 

Also call me weird but I am actually fine with VATS as it is. Sure it needs a good maintenance and fine tuning but it is a very elegant way to put called/aimed shots into an fps game without to much mouse spamming.

What this game needs (Imo) is another system to accompany VATS. Something in the lines of Brothers in Arms or Mass Effect; "Pause to get a detailed view of your immediate area and give orders to your squad/follower/followers" system.

 

well, I don't know about oblivion, and there might be real talents out there in the modding community, but as far as fallout 3 is concerned, i'd rather play a game with an interesting plot to begin with, than a game that had a retarded and then forcefully un-retarded plot. That would feel like pasting funny home videos over a bad comedy, when i can watch a good comedy instead.

 

as for VATS, i like its principle too; it's the execution that made it boring, repetitive, and less challenging than breething. especially when playing melee/ unarmed.

 

Oh, and as an Ol' Skool Hard Core Fallout Fan

[Niten_Ryu]

All we want is a game faithful to the originals. Is it that hard to understand?

 

Yes.

 

There's absolutely no way to create game that would make oldskool fans happy. Fans who bothered to waste 12+ years on various boards discussing what kind of game would be faithful to original Fallout.

[mkreku]

All we want is a game faithful to the originals. Is it that hard to understand?

No, you don't. And everyone except you understands this. What you want is the same experience the first game/games gave you, which is, of course, not possible. So you will never be happy. You'll always be as bitter and negative as you are now. It's not the games that must change, it's something in your head.

[Tagaziel]

All we want is a game faithful to the originals. Is it that hard to understand?

 

Yes.

 

There's absolutely no way to create game that would make oldskool fans happy. Fans who bothered to waste 12+ years on various boards discussing what kind of game would be faithful to original Fallout.

 

Van Buren would've managed that easily.

[jero cvmi]

Oh come on you guys. SRSLY.

 

If you take a look at those "various fallout fan boards" you'll see that there are other, unrelated to fallout, RPGs that are being praised by many for being, well, good games. Bloodlines for example, or the Witcher.

 

Add to that a post apocalyptic setting that's not being ridiculed with portable nukes and transformers, and there you have it: An Ol' Skool Hard Core Fallout Fan

Edited May 7, 2009 by Ziggy the Atomic Granpa

[Tagaziel]

Indeed.

[cronicler]

/Sigh Nice try flamebait (NR). You might check the Vault to actually learn what we are talking about. And FYI J.E.S. was among the people that shaped those stories.

You might also look for a place called Bear's Pit to learn about another 10+ year old game that still kicks ass and takes names from its competitors of our modern age.

Some planned coherent story, some oiled game mechanics, some wasteland and some hope. Is wanting to feel these that much Anethama? We don't want a FO1, We want a game that surpasses it.

Edited May 7, 2009 by cronicler

[Enoch]

Why does everyone keep saying that Oblivion was Morrowind "dumbed down for consoles"? Does nobody else remember that Morrowind was released on the original XBox as well as on PC? Shockingly, every change in game development that you don't personally like can't always be blamed on console gaming.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Enoch

[Tagaziel]

Why does everyone keep saying that Oblivion was Morrowind "dumbed down for consoles"? Does nobody else remember that Morrowind was released on the original XBox as well as on PC? Shockingly, every change in game development that you don't personally like can't always be blamed on console gaming.

 

Uh. that's because Morrowind wasn't dumbed down? Oblivion is a dumbed down version of Morrowind, less skills, less possibilites, much less attention to lore or story, less weapons, less spells, Xbrick as the primary development platform.

[cronicler]

As I tried to point out in some of my posts (where I remember to explain in detail) saying that it was consolidied is not exactly right. Somehow the console gamers are being fed more and more cool stuff and less and less detailed stuff. Everything nowadays have to be visual and in bloom and all that crap.

 

Sure there are still games like Valkyra Cronicles but the average console gamer is seen as a kiddie, as in counter strike kiddies of pc.

[Wombat]

All we want is a game faithful to the originals. Is it that hard to understand?

 

Yes.

 

There's absolutely no way to create game that would make oldskool fans happy. Fans who bothered to waste 12+ years on various boards discussing what kind of game would be faithful to original Fallout.

This depends on which factor these "oldskool fans" expect. Actually, some designers including the lead one are most likely to be fans of the original. Indeed, there is probably no way for Obsidian to make a Fallout game which is totally faithful to the original in every single aspect. And yet, this doesn't necessarily mean that all the essences of the original cannot be realized. In fact, even some designers at Bethesda are fans of Fallout and developed their own version of it, combining their trademark game-play with some factors from the original. Unfortunately for me, their version lacked what I think essential to the original:a decent main story, consistent story-telling and plausible and interesting NPCs (Bethesda seems to have done better in their new DLC, Broken Steel, though). Considering the history of Obsidian, I'd be rather surprised if I cannot see any of them in their version of new generation Fallout. Considering the development period, I don't think that I can expect much but I don't think it's totally illogical to expect these factors in FO:NV.

[Enoch]

Why does everyone keep saying that Oblivion was Morrowind "dumbed down for consoles"? Does nobody else remember that Morrowind was released on the original XBox as well as on PC? Shockingly, every change in game development that you don't personally like can't always be blamed on console gaming.

 

Uh. that's because Morrowind wasn't dumbed down? Oblivion is a dumbed down version of Morrowind, less skills, less possibilites, much less attention to lore or story, less weapons, less spells, Xbrick as the primary development platform.

 

Even if one accepts the premise that O was "dumbed down" and M wasn't, I don't see how one can logically blame "consoles" when both games were console releases. O was "dumbed down" because 1) many of the changes were flat-out improvements, and 2) more user-friendly games tend to sell more copies, regardless of platform. The console/PC factor is irrelevant.