Obsidian making Fallout: New Vegas

[Gizmo]

Bethesda wanted to make THEIR interpritation of the Fallout universe, you don't have to like it, but it's only natural that a company would use the same format for their interpritation of a game.

~Its natural to assume that a professional can change styles to suit the project, while the amateur is stuck doing what they are accustomed to, and feels "out of their element" when asked to change.

 

If Bethesda had made Fallout 3 in the manner which the Codexian and NMA folk desired it would have SUCKED even more, not because isometric and turn based are bad, but merely because Bethesda have 0 experience doing such things.

Hire a pro then (if even just as a consultant).

 

idiotic, childish, and aimed at 'sploshun-happy kids at best. 200 years after "the bomb" and people are shooting mini-nukes at each other? great. good one Todd. "violence is ****in' funny!" yeah. good one, Todd.

da fug? It's just a bigger rocket launcher.

Had it been, then that would have been fine.

 

Also the weapon was based on an actual real world weapon that was developed back in the 1950s. I just like how people make idiotic criticisms without actually doing any research on the subject matter first.

It never saw service as its range was not past the effects of the payload.

 

(besides being stupid beyond belief. They actually mounted a few on Jeeps ~the better to steal them with )

 

No one individual should ever be given access to a point & shoot nuclear weapon. People are unpredictable and emotional ~and have tempers. ~A ticked off GI, might just drive a few miles out from the base and nuke his drill sargent from a safe distance.

 

Sure, i'm not saying it's not plausible to have existed in an alternate sci-fi universe. I'm saying that it negates the whole "Nuclear weapons are a horrible devastating force" context of the setting, by making nukes feel trivial. If Bethesda had to have a BFG9000 in their game, they could just make it run on "plasma", and even if that would be even less plausible by scientific terms, at least it wouldn't show how much they just don't get it. It's just a failed attempt in creativity IMO.

That's the gist of it right there!

[TwinkieGorilla]

you seem to hate every... little... tiny... particle of the game. That comes off as someone who was planning on hating the game from the start.

 

you must suffer from selective reading then. i often say that i liked the game aside from: "insert here" and i bet most of the Obsidian members unfamiliar with my posts elsewhere are aware of this if they've been reading anything i've written (not that i care, just don't accuse me of something which isn't true). it's just that the things i hate...i really, really, really hate. and when somebody (like you!) defends the things i really, really, really hate in ways which are grasping at straws and really stretching the topic i have to laugh it off. i've done this too many times, sorry. as for hating the game from the start? ha. you're right about that. i certainly didn't want to see my least favorite company develop my favorite game. i was ready to smash the DVD i just had to buy for some sort of masochistic curiousity after about 10 minutes of gaming. but i didn't. i actually liked the game enough to get through the whole thing (albeit with semi-perpetual groaning) which is more than i can say for many games.

 

da fug? It's just a bigger rocket launcher.

 

dude. no. nukes != missiles.

 

Like generic, forced, and uninspired dialogue hasn't been found in other CRPGs from other companies such as Obsidian, Troika, and Bioware.

 

yeah, uhhhhh...have i argued that? we're talking about the Fallout series unless i wandered into the wrong thread.

 

 

Also the weapon was based on an actual real world weapon that was developed back in the 1950s. I just like how people make idiotic criticisms without actually doing any research on the subject matter first.

 

it's called the Davy Crockett and i'm well aware of it. i just like how FO3'pologists ignore the actual points in an argument. the Fatman being casually used 200 years after nuclear wars wiped most of the country clean is, as i said, idiotic and trivializes the feeling of severity and weight that such a concept should now hold. it is in the game for one reason and one reason only: Todd Howard is a giant ****ing child who thinks "violence is ****in' funny" is the key to Fallout.

 

 

I do disagree. I think the game keeps the whole "nukes are bad" theme in many respects. The Megaton incident for example.

 

oh sure, yeah. the Megaton incident. which had...um, absolutely no consequences or ramifications on the surrounding area or any single person you meet. even your Dad barely scolds you. yeah. that Megaton incident sure carries some weight, boy.

[Niten_Ryu]

While I didn't like most of the guns in Fallout 3, the Fat Man was great. It fit perfectly on 50's nuclear theme. Critical mass needed for fission reaction is not much, if you have pure sample. Something like californium-251 would only need 6kg of material. In Fallout world there's also some type of cold fusion or antimatter devices (to power all energy and plasma weapons) so in theory there's no limit how small nuclear blast is possible.

[Tagaziel]

But it didn't fit in with Fallout.

 

Here, let me quote the nuke guards from Fo1:

 

{202}{}{This is our Master's weapon of last resort. If we find

an enemy we cannot defeat in battle, then we will destroy them

with this. But I doubt this will ever happen. Even our Master

does not want to unleash the dreaded power of the atom again!}

 

So yeah, chucking mini-nukes left and right and nuking towns is not Fallouty.

[Gizmo]

While I didn't like most of the guns in Fallout 3, the Fat Man was great. It fit perfectly on 50's nuclear theme. Critical mass needed for fission reaction is not much, if you have pure sample. Something like californium-251 would only need 6kg of material. In Fallout world there's also some type of cold fusion or antimatter devices (to power all energy and plasma weapons) so in theory there's no limit how small nuclear blast is possible.

Where were they in F1 & F2 (and why were the nukes so huge)?

 

This means that they appeared in thirty years time after F2.

 

~Its moot anyway, as one could easily say, "but they were all in DC, and there weren't any in the Fallout 1 & 2 locations"... That wouldn't be true given the military bases and the Glow, but its beside the point. Even if it is accepted by all that its possible, it should not have been included except as a one shot easter egg weapon.

 

(and never as a close range hand held gun ~Its round should rightly obliterate a few city blocks from a mile or two away).

Edited May 12, 2009 by Gizmo

[crakkie]

I wouldn't mind if they made the fatman morepowerful, so that it would take out anything within a line of sight (like the nuke in Shadow Warrior, or like a Davy Crockett would). It should leave behind a permanent radioactive zone that stays there for the rest of the game, as well as creating a cloud that rises and drifts for a while before raining down some actual fallout.

 

And firing it at all drops your karma, it being such a reckless and destructive act.

[Gizmo]

I wouldn't mind if they made the fatman morepowerful, so that it would take out anything within a line of sight (like the nuke in Shadow Warrior, or like a Davy Crockett would). It should leave behind a permanent radioactive zone that stays there for the rest of the game, as well as creating a cloud that rises and drifts for a while before raining down some actual fallout.

 

And firing it at all drops your karma, it being such a reckless and destructive act.

That'd be good... And IIRC, if the player was line of sight, then it killed him too.

[TwinkieGorilla]

I wouldn't mind if they made the fatman morepowerful, so that it would take out anything within a line of sight (like the nuke in Shadow Warrior, or like a Davy Crockett would). It should leave behind a permanent radioactive zone that stays there for the rest of the game, as well as creating a cloud that rises and drifts for a while before raining down some actual fallout.

 

And firing it at all drops your karma, it being such a reckless and destructive act.

 

 

hell. why stop there? why not just load up the game, leave the vault, fire a hundred-megaton bomb into the air, watch it come down, game over.

[crakkie]

I think it's a ridiculous and setting-breaking weapon as well, but it's pretty futile to argue it at this point. It's in Fallout 3 and it's a (new) fan favorite. I doubt they will remove it (though they might remake/rename/tweak it while using the same weapon script).

 

Maybe they can at least add some consequences for using it. One shot takes out almost the entire raider camp, but the fallout rains over a nearby peaceful town, killing many people, dropping your karma dramatically, and giving you a special tag ("Destroyer of Worlds: You apparently have no qualms about using nuclear weapons to solve your problems. Nobody likes this about you.").

[SteveThaiBinh]

I've deleted a couple of posts. Please post in a respectful and constructive manner.

[TwinkieGorilla]

mikael and i are actually friends, dude. that was jokes.

[Promethean]

I just hope for voice talent that Obsidian doesn't blow their entire allocated budget on a few high priced 'Hollywood' stars and leave us with the same four actors/actresses for all the other NPCs. Like Bethesda.

Fallout 3 had a very diverse voice cast: FO3 credits

 

Compare with Oblivion: Oblivion credits

 

Its too bad the headline role was such a dud, and the rest were reading poorly written lines. I really hope the next game doesnt have just one voice for the ghouls. It was so weird.

[TwinkieGorilla]

I think it's a ridiculous and setting-breaking weapon as well, but it's pretty futile to argue it at this point. It's in Fallout 3 and it's a (new) fan favorite. I doubt they will remove it (though they might remake/rename/tweak it while using the same weapon script).

 

Maybe they can at least add some consequences for using it. One shot takes out almost the entire raider camp, but the fallout rains over a nearby peaceful town, killing many people, dropping your karma dramatically, and giving you a special tag ("Destroyer of Worlds: You apparently have no qualms about using nuclear weapons to solve your problems. Nobody likes this about you.").

 

well, the reason it's not futile to talk about it NOW is in hopes that Obsidian doesn't make such a juvenile decision in their game.

[Promethean]

I think it's a ridiculous and setting-breaking weapon as well, but it's pretty futile to argue it at this point. It's in Fallout 3 and it's a (new) fan favorite. I doubt they will remove it (though they might remake/rename/tweak it while using the same weapon script).

 

Maybe they can at least add some consequences for using it. One shot takes out almost the entire raider camp, but the fallout rains over a nearby peaceful town, killing many people, dropping your karma dramatically, and giving you a special tag ("Destroyer of Worlds: You apparently have no qualms about using nuclear weapons to solve your problems. Nobody likes this about you.").

 

But would obsidian (not gonna even entertain the idea that beth would do it) do something like that? It sounds great, but also quite complicated for one weapon. And it wouldnt gel with the whole positive reinforcement Beth wants their games to have.

[Malcador]

I wouldn't mind if they made the fatman morepowerful, so that it would take out anything within a line of sight (like the nuke in Shadow Warrior, or like a Davy Crockett would). It should leave behind a permanent radioactive zone that stays there for the rest of the game, as well as creating a cloud that rises and drifts for a while before raining down some actual fallout.

 

And firing it at all drops your karma, it being such a reckless and destructive act.

 

Yeah, if the weapon was impractically powerful it'd make some sort of sense. Speaking of nukes and fallout, I still find it odd how...small the radiation zone from the Megaton nuke is (mind you, that nuke seemed just enough to take out the town).

[Syraxis]

The fatman would be more realistic if they had it mounted to the ground due to a supposed recoil on the user, even if the Fatman didnt launch the mini-nukes very far I can't see how it could be realistically fired while in a standing position like a grenade launcher attachment on a rifle.

 

In the very least they could of forced the user into a crouching pose.

 

Edit #?:

Here's what would be a real life scale:

Edited May 12, 2009 by Syraxis

[TwinkieGorilla]

ugh. seriously. i couldn't care less about the logistics or reality or how it's based off the Davy Crockett. it's just childish to think that people would be casually using nukes which just happen to be scattered all over the damn place 200 years after a nuclear war. 200 years and people are playing around, making hand-held guns to fire off miniature versions of that which destroyed the country you live in?? how does this not bother any of you more than logistical issues?

[Malcador]

ugh. seriously. i couldn't care less about the logistics or reality or how it's based off the Davy Crockett. it's just childish to think that people would be casually using nukes which just happen to be scattered all over the damn place 200 years after a nuclear war. 200 years and people are playing around, making hand-held guns to fire off miniature versions of that which destroyed the country you live in?? how does this not bother any of you more than logistical issues?

 

Well it bothered the hell out of me when I first heard of it and saw it. Doubt people are making it seeing how useless the DC area survivors are they're probably leftover military gear - which again makes no sense as the Army in Fallout has Power Armour, plasma and laser waeponry, so what do they need a nuke that seems barely able to take out a building ? It is a setting breaker for sure, I forget who pointed it out to me but it's a nice irony in Fallout that nukes are the tools that save the PA world, in the latest one - no such luck.

 

Pretty clear what crowd they were appealing to with it, after all.

[Amentep]

I thought the Fatman was silly, but its a game with an alien laser gun, so I can't say I found it to be too silly to be in the game.

[TwinkieGorilla]

I thought the Fatman was silly, but its a game with an alien laser gun, so I can't say I found it to be too silly to be in the game.

 

except in FO1 the alien gun was just a part of the Special Encounters, most of which were supposed to be silly bonuses...like the hidden track on a CD.

Edited May 12, 2009 by TwinkieGorilla

[Hurlshort]

Please stop arguing about realism in video games. It IS childish. It's a video game.

[Amentep]

I thought the Fatman was silly, but its a game with an alien laser gun, so I can't say I found it to be too silly to be in the game.

 

except in FO1 the alien gun was just a part of the Special Encounters, most of which were supposed to be silly bonuses...like the hidden track on a CD.

 

Well that's a fair point; if there was one fatman in the game and when it was busted it was done (like the two alien blasters in FO3) I suppose it could be seen as more of an "easter egg" weapon. I think I had like 2 or 3 Fatmans (fatmen?) at one point (and had probably used another 1 or 2 for repairs) in FO3 which may be a bit extreme.

 

But what can I say, I loved the alien gun in FO1... Well except that after awhile the disintegration animation in long fights got annoying.

 

I suppose it could be argued less powerful uber weapons would be needed though if the regular weapons actually did anything (sometimes I thought I'd kept the BB Gun for all the good my weapons were doing).

[Starwars]

I think it's a fair point to argue realism or plausability within the context of the gameworld itself.

 

I always disliked the idea of a Fat Man, but was slightly encouraged when Beth said in some interview that ammo would be scarce for it. But that wasn't really true as I found like 9 mini-nukes on my first playthrough, scattered in the wasteland/DC. And then I found out that a guy in Rivet City also sells them. So much for that.

 

It's also interesting to me how I feel that the actual gameworld is both Bethesdas strength and weakness. On one hand, you have a gameworld which often looks very nice and is impressive to walk around in. On the other hand, there seems to be no internal logic or consistancy to it whatsoever. It truly feels like "hey, we thought up some cool stuff, let's throw it into the game". It's kind jarring as you can run into a quest like the one about the android, which seems to me fit pretty well into the Fallout world, despite that it's also a new theme (at least from what I can remember) and have a nice quest path to it (where you feel rewarded if you choose to really pursue it until the end). And then on the next step, you run into something so incredibly stupid like the comic book hero/villain settlement.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Please stop arguing about realism in video games. It IS childish. It's a video game.

 

Agreed. Seriously, I just like to know why Twink and the others are getting so worked up about a game. Don't like it, don't play it. Obsidian will do what Obsidian will do, as long as it stays within the confines of the contract they signed with Bethesda. As J.E. Sawyer, I think it was him and I am paraphrasing, Obsidian isn't making this game for twelve angry pygmies and you, Twink.

 

There is a lot of silliness in the Fallout series, from the first to the most recent. A lot of people are just taking the game way too seriously.

[Amentep]

Please stop arguing about realism in video games. It IS childish. It's a video game.

 

I like to think that Games aren't that different from other media. Typically, in most storytelling, the idea is that an audience will always be able to swallow a singular fantastic element (and anything that derives naturally from that element) but not two.

 

So I think the question really isn't realism per se, but if we buy the singular fantastic element of the Fallout Universe (an alternate "sci-fi" future based on 50s pop culture where people fled to giant vaults to survive a nuclear holocost) is the fatman something that naturally derives from that fantastic element?

 

Due to the Alien Scares of the 50s, the Alien Blaster seems to fit naturally. The Fatman has a real world historical precedent like the Alien Scares, but given the nature of the universe and its relation with nuclear weapons, the introduction of it as a weapon (and a not rare one) seems to some people to be a second fantastic element and thus setting breaking; others however think that the fatman is in keeping with a logical progression in the settings technological base.

 

So to me the debate is more "does the fatman's existence require us to suspend disbelief a second time or not" as opposed to realism, since, as you point out, its a game.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Amentep