Obsidian making Fallout: New Vegas

[mkreku]

Van Buren would've managed that easily.

This is also one of the standard easy escapes a la Codex/NMA. Of course Van Buren would be perfect.. in your mind. It was never made. It might have been crappier than Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel or it might have been the greatest game ever made, we will never know. My guess would be the former, otherwise it might have actually gotten made.

 

But it's very convenient to take an unmade game as an example of the perfect game.

[cronicler]

Van Buren Design Documents are mostly here. Look at them for a bit then compare them to POS or POS 2 then talk please.

[Promethean]

Van Buren would've managed that easily.

This is also one of the standard easy escapes a la Codex/NMA. Of course Van Buren would be perfect.. in your mind. It was never made. It might have been crappier than Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel or it might have been the greatest game ever made, we will never know. My guess would be the former, otherwise it might have actually gotten made.

 

But it's very convenient to take an unmade game as an example of the perfect game.

 

Thats wonderful logic. Or a lack therefore of.

 

And I'm sure Interplay's legendary mismanagement had nothing to do with it.

 

And dont act like I'm saying Van Buren would have been hot ****. Its not like Dark Alliance and CoN turned out to be good. It plot and ideas were definitely more intriguing than FO3's retarded water plot though.

[TwinkieGorilla]

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.

 

oh, bullocks...not this wad of b.s. again.

 

*blows straw-pile off computer screen*

 

 

it's pretty simple, lad. you make a game with a working SPECIAL system, hire dialogue writers who aren't monkeys, and give us some actual consequences to our actions and we're off to a pretty amiable beginning of a relationship. not only did Bethesda fail in those key areas, they just kept failing all over the place. quite a mess we were left with in the end. most of the people who seem to really like FO3 like it for all the reasons most of the old-school fans hate it.

Edited May 7, 2009 by TwinkieGorilla

[Gorth]

most of the people who seem to really like FO3 like it for all the reasons most of the old-school fans hate it.

Generalising much?

 

As for Van Buren, it would indeed have been interesting to see how well Black Isle would have been able to translate the design docs into an actual game. Sometimes original design and released product ends up worlds apart.

 

Right now I could use a Fallout in the spirit of the originals. I haven't heard anything that convinces me that Fallout 3 is it so far. I think I'll give FO1&2 a go again when I am finished with Icewind Dale

[cronicler]

Try the restoration project btw for FO2. I cant believe they had to cut out so many things on top of all the stuff already in game. As Gromnir mentioned in the previous page, if they had used the time lost to create unused content to polish the game... Oh well spilled milk and bygones be bygones. Still it is astonishing to see so much in a 700meg package

[TwinkieGorilla]

Generalising much?

 

err, yes? should i be taking a poll of every living gamer? i didn't say "all" because that would be a faulty argument. maybe i should have said (though i thought it would be taken for granted) "since the release of Fallout 3, i've witnessed the thoughts day in and day out of people at the Bethesda board, NMA, D&C, The Codex and now here who obviously have very polarizing views on why the game has either failed or succeeded."

 

anyway, dammit man! that sentence wasn't the point of the post. i hate when people grab some random part of my post and seclude it. the point was "it's not impossible to make the old-school fans happy, as long as you stay true to the original games complexity."

Edited May 7, 2009 by TwinkieGorilla

[Gorth]

Try the restoration project btw for FO2. I cant believe they had to cut out so many things on top of all the stuff already in game. As Gromnir mentioned in the previous page, if they had used the time lost to create unused content to polish the game... Oh well spilled milk and bygones be bygones. Still it is astonishing to see so much in a 700meg package

"Support beams in the mines are now destructible." Hah! knew it!

 

I still wonder if it was ever intended to be possible to drown all the Wanamingos (sp?) by sabotaging the water pump?

 

Off to download (1.2 seems to be the latest released version), thanks

[Malcador]

Well I wager that most of the FO3 lovers aren't from the RPG bin, I know some that adore the, uh...violent parts, play it like an FPS with stats it seems, and others that think it's GTA in a nuked city. For others, well..a starving man will go for crusty bread.

[TwinkieGorilla]

a starving man will go for crusty bread.

 

admittedly, i think i belonged to that camp.

[Gromnir]

Van Buren would've managed that easily.

This is also one of the standard easy escapes a la Codex/NMA. Of course Van Buren would be perfect.. in your mind. It was never made. It might have been crappier than Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel or it might have been the greatest game ever made, we will never know. My guess would be the former, otherwise it might have actually gotten made.

 

But it's very convenient to take an unmade game as an example of the perfect game.

 

Thats wonderful logic. Or a lack therefore of.

 

And I'm sure Interplay's legendary mismanagement had nothing to do with it.

 

And dont act like I'm saying Van Buren would have been hot ****. Its not like Dark Alliance and CoN turned out to be good. It plot and ideas were definitely more intriguing than FO3's retarded water plot though.

 

you gots very convenient discrimination... story and combat weren't the important aspects o' arcanum, but plot woulda' made a real difference with fo3? btw, sci-fi/fantasy plots is almost always hokum... and it not matter one bit. the plot o' the original fo games were pretty ridiculous if you is being honest.

 

also, please review bri's nma post above. in spite o' betehesda's criminal mishandling o' the franchise (*chuckle*), they sold a whole bunch o' units. those folks that want a return of faithfulness to the original franchise is ignoring the fact that bethesda's approach, while sacrilegious and profane, were more commercial viable than the original fo games. what is motivation for obsidian to return to 'ye goode olde days o' fallout? love o' the game? temporary insanity? in spite o' the criticisms o' fo3, it were a very successful game. from a practical pov what argument would you give, in light of bri's post 'bout fo commercial success linked above, to reject bethesda approach and instead embrace the goode olde days o' the fallout franchise?

 

btw, you ain't genuine arguing comparisons of an unmade game to a completed one, is you? as noted earlier, pretty much every troika game sounded great... right up until you actually loaded on hard drive. big ideas count for squat if they ain't implemented well. actually, the grand ideas is often tougher to implement than more conservative goals-- the more grandiose the ideas, the less likely you is gonna successful implement. am not thinking that you understand what is logic if you is arguing the superiority o' an unmade game... can you maybe put into a formal syllogism, 'cause we don't see the logic you is using. "assume that all of the announced features announced by black isle regarding van buren were completely and successfully implemented." is part o' your logic? okie dokie.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Wrath of Dagon]

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.

PC gamers tend to be a lot more anal-retentive. Thus any game that's less anal-retentive is automatically guilty of consolitis and being dumbed down.

[TwinkieGorilla]

PC gamers tend to be a lot more anal-retentive. Thus any game that's less anal-retentive is automatically guilty of consolitis and being dumbed down.

 

this works both ways, you know. i could say "well, console gamers tend to be easily amused. thus any game that looks shiny is automatically awesome!"

 

 

(point being, this is strawmanning. nothing more.)

Edited May 7, 2009 by TwinkieGorilla

[jero cvmi]

WTF is bri?

 

what is motivation for obsidian to return to 'ye goode olde days o' fallout? love o' the game? temporary insanity?

Literacy.

 

as noted earlier, pretty much every troika game sounded great... right up until you actually loaded on hard drive. big ideas count for squat if they ain't implemented well.

 

I spent 20 times more, and uncountable times happier time with Bloodlines than i did with Fallout 3.

[Promethean]

I enjoyed all three troika games. And regardless of whether the plot was hokum or not, it was still far more interesting than FO3 plot. And it had many ideas I would have liked to see attempted. Yes, I had more fun reading the design docs for Van Buren than actually experiencing FO3 main quest line outside of Tranquility Lane, one of the few well designed quests in the game. It, at least, was different and somewhat creative.

 

I also wonder why you are bring that sales post up again when I wasnt talking about sales. Or why you are bring Arcanum up again when I told you the first time I didnt play that game for the plot. I said it wasnt bad, but thats not why I played it. Unlike you, I did enjoy its C&C and complex quest chains, as well as the character building. Unlike Fallout 3 were I disliked all major aspects of it.

 

I feel you are half arguing with my post and half arguing someone else in the thread, as if I'm some avatar or symbol of old Fallout love.

[Gromnir]

WTF is bri?

 

what is motivation for obsidian to return to 'ye goode olde days o' fallout? love o' the game? temporary insanity?

Literacy.

 

as noted earlier, pretty much every troika game sounded great... right up until you actually loaded on hard drive. big ideas count for squat if they ain't implemented well.

 

I spent 20 times more, and uncountable times happier time with Bloodlines than i did with Fallout 3.

 

so, obsidian ain't in this biz to make money, but instead is attempting to educate a new generation o' gamers... or somesuch nonsense.

 

and am glad that you enjoyed bloodlines. am always a little amazed that the troika fans who is so demanding o' bethesda are so forgiving o' troika... but if you enjoyed, then more power to you.

 

as for prome's response... ignoring sales not make those sales numbers disappear. obsidian is in the Business of making games. or is you like ziggy-- hopeful that fo becomes incorporated into rif: http://www.rif.org/

 

and again, say you like espoused black isle ideas for vb completely ignores that those ideas were never implemented.

 

oh, and don't be such a narcissist... am getting to the other fallout zealots in due course.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps 'cause ziggy asked... http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic...ighlight=#23414

Edited May 7, 2009 by Gromnir

[Tigranes]

Dammit, I missed the mud-wrestling. I always miss the fun stuff.

 

I wrote a short paper on NMA, so I read a huge amount of those forums. I also love the original Fallouts and think Beth's FO3 predictably failed to provide a proper Fallout (whether it was a good game or not being entirely a different matter). That said, I am pretty sure I don't really understand 'what constitutes Fallout' or 'what a proper Falout should be' that is advocated by many of the regulars and/or prominent members there. (Since, y'know, NMA ain't one hivemind - another common logical failure.)

 

I'd still say that it's bollocks to argue that the 'hardcore fans can never be pleased'. It's way too late so I won't elaborate (even though making unsupported general sweepings when Gromnir is around is like shooting myself in the kneecaps), but primarily, these 'hardcore fans' or 'Beth bashers' or whatever category people like to invent is not primarily based around opposing everything new, everything Bethesda, or whatever. It's not really an identity based around an opposition. There is a clear kernel in the centre and I think it's very possible for Obsidian or whoever to make a new Fallout, at this point in time, even with all the convoluted history of that franchise, that satisfies that primary sentiment of what Fallout is.

 

Obviously you can't make a game that satisfies that completely, but uh, that's redundant. That's like saying you can't make a perfect (or perfectly archetypical) RPG. Without breaking it down to pointless unanswerable nitpicking (like what is Fallout exactly, what exact threshold and border do you have to reach and hoops you have to jump to be a 'true' Fallout, what exactly is the general consensus of FO fans or NMA or whoever).... yes you can make another 'true' Fallout, it's not a forlorn or pointless hope. No, Beth's FO3 wasn't one - not because of some baseless hatred and denial of everything new/Beth that people are afflicted with. Geez, I mean, really?

 

I hope I'm not blamed for beginning an amazing flame war.

[TwinkieGorilla]

am always a little amazed that the troika fans who is so demanding o' bethesda are so forgiving o' troika...

 

not sure i follow you...which is to say i'm not sure you're amazed for the right reason. i think maybe you're amazed because you lack an understanding of where peoples' complaints are coming from. just out of curiousity, what games do you prefer? as one who deems himself a connoisseur of the written word (though, ironically, your posting style couldn't be more contrived) you can't tell me you think the writing and dialogue of Fallout 3 is on par with anything Troika has done. i mean, you can...but i'd just have to giggle.

[Gorth]

I hope I'm not blamed for beginning an amazing flame war.

Maybe a religious schism? Welcome to The Reformed Church of Fallout

 

I think I fall in that category. I love the originals dearly, but I don't think it is impossible to catch that undefinable magic feeling in a new game. Fallout 3 just didn't look like it was doing it.

[Enoch]

you can't tell me you think the writing and dialogue of Fallout 3 is on par with anything Troika has done. i mean, you can...but i'd just have to giggle.

I haven't played Bloodlines, and I don't remember Arcanum's writing well enough to compare (although it not being particularly memorable isn't a positive indicator). But at the very least, FO3's writing is a ****ton better than the alleged writing that went into ToEE. That game's dialogue and storytelling was memorable for all the wrong reasons.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Enoch

[Promethean]

The fact the ideas were never implemented doesnt make FO3's good. Also keep the narcissism comments to yourself when you put up an air of superiority. I'm amazed you cant grasp the idea of liking things in one unpolished product (Bloodlines) while disliking things in another unpolished product (FO3). I can be demanding of Bethesda since I'm a consumer and because they spout enough PR bullcrap they dont deliver on that it would foolish not to be critical of them. I dislike what they pander. I did like the things Troika did. The fact that one has commercial success and the other didnt has little bearing on me except I'll keep getting the thing I dislike until something changes. Though I do have interest in AoD, since it seems to have a similar design as Fallout.

 

Plus its not like I can criticize Troika anymore as they are gone. It wouldnt do any good. So all I can do it enjoy the stuff they did do. Beth is still around. They made Daggerfall and Morrowind, games I liked. So I'll criticize until they start moving back towards stuff that doesnt reek of a dumping pile of ideas that were poorly implemented. With Troika, I knew I was getting at least one really well done and enjoyable aspect (Arcanum with C&C and character building, ToEE with combat, and Bloodlines with a bunch of things). With Bethesda lately it just seems to be lets throw **** at a wall and hope something sticks. Its Deus Ex done completely wrong.

[Gromnir]

am always a little amazed that the troika fans who is so demanding o' bethesda are so forgiving o' troika...

 

not sure i follow you...which is to say i'm not sure you're amazed for the right reason. i think maybe you're amazed because you lack an understanding of where peoples' complaints are coming from. just out of curiousity, what games do you prefer? as one who deems himself a connoisseur of the written word (though, ironically, your posting style couldn't be more contrived) you can't tell me you think the writing and dialogue of Fallout 3 is on par with anything Troika has done. i mean, you can...but i'd just have to giggle.

 

so you honest suggest that toee writing were better than fo3? is an opinion and you are entitled to yours, but am gonna be more than a little surprised to see you support and identify examples o' superior writing in toee. heck, am not able to honest think of writing in arcanum that were worthy o' note. the vampire game had a few bright spots as far as writing were concerned, but that were the only troika game that had any positive writing. troika has terrible writing and poor balance and stoopid, pointless features and they gets a pass... but betheda? look to prome' post above... writing and combat weren't important to arcanum... how can Gromnir judge arcanum's merits based on writing and combat mechanics/balance? but fo3... sheesh.

 

btw, is hardly clever that you caught the intended irony.

 

"The fact the ideas were never implemented doesnt make FO3's good."

 

...

 

you should be prevented from ever using the word "logic" in a post... evar.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited May 7, 2009 by Gromnir

[TwinkieGorilla]

But at the very least, FO3's writing is a ****ton better than the alleged writing that went into ToEE. That game's dialogue and storytelling was memorable for all the wrong reasons.

 

lulz. ok, yeah. i always forget about that abortion of a game.

 

 

@grominir: see above sentence. also, please answer my question...and don't do so by asking a question yourself. also, i'm not trying be clever and the intended irony isn't what i'm commenting on. rather that your posts read like the attempts of a third-rate Joyce fan at best.

Edited May 7, 2009 by TwinkieGorilla

[Promethean]

you can't tell me you think the writing and dialogue of Fallout 3 is on par with anything Troika has done. i mean, you can...but i'd just have to giggle.

I haven't played Bloodlines, and I don't remember Arcanum's writing well enough to compare (although it not being particularly memorable isn't a positive indicator). But at the very least, FO3's writing is a ****ton better than the alleged writing that went into ToEE. That game's dialogue and storytelling was memorable for all the wrong reasons.

 

ToEE was bad. I dont know what they were thinking. Arcanum is good as far as it wouldnt cause you to groan like, say, the intelligence skill checks in FO3. Bloodlines as wonderful dialogue and characters. Its also comes with the best facial animation I've seen in an RPG thus far, at least for expressiveness. Plus playing Malkavian gives you completely different dialogue and a fair bit of different responses from the vanilla text. Nosferatu also have a bunch of different dialogue choices and responses. The other clans get some here and there but Mitsoda mostly concentrated on Malks and Nosferatu, since they had obvious reasons to get different choices and response. So it makes replaying highly rewarding.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Promethean

[Kelverin]

But at the very least, FO3's writing is a ****ton better than the alleged writing that went into ToEE. That game's dialogue and storytelling was memorable for all the wrong reasons.

 

lulz. ok, yeah. i always forget about that abortion of a game.

 

In it's defense, they copied almost word for word the original written PnP game, so the blame for quality writing/story telling goes elsewhere. They could be held accountable for not changing, or improving it. But then it would not remain true to the source. It was hard for them to win.