FO: NV

[jero cvmi]

C'mon Josh give us some news you know you want it! The threads are dying with information starvation...

[Slowtrain]

There's not much more to say without having at least some sense of what the game's scope and basic design will be.

[Morgoth]

Neither do I think Obsidian is allowed to give away any details without greenlight from Bethesda.

[entrerix]

hey josh, at least let us know if we can expect to learn anything more about the game at E3 or within the next few months regardless of E3.

 

Cause if we're not gonna hear anything until 2010 then i'd like to know that so i can plan my obsessions accordingly.

[Kjarista]

Neither do I think Obsidian is allowed to give away any details without greenlight from Bethesda.

 

The Beth devs made it sound like any news would be posted over there. Who knows, though.

[Slowtrain]

Well, if somebody goes over there feel free to bring back news, if you can.

 

thx.

[Kjarista]

Well, if somebody goes over there feel free to bring back news, if you can.

 

thx.

 

It's just as quiet over there, with the same sort of speculation.

 

This is the worst time in the development cycle for us....we know it's coming, but we don't know anything about it.

[Slowtrain]

Well, if somebody goes over there feel free to bring back news, if you can.

 

thx.

 

It's just as quiet over there, with the same sort of speculation.

 

This is the worst time in the development cycle for us....we know it's coming, but we don't know anything about it.

 

 

I hear you.

 

 

Personally, I think its kind of silly the way game development is treated like its about super-secret world changing stuff.

 

I always wonder if the devs have their meetings beneath a cone of silence, lest any important secrets escape to the internet.

[entrerix]

i've never seen much harm in transparent game making, I get it if they dont want to spoil surprises, but whats wrong with telling us stuff like:

 

we're working on some areas outside of vegas, one of them sounds like moover ram

 

or

 

we're thinking of making weapon damage a little higher so it takes fewer 44 magnum rounds in the head to kill a raider.

 

or whatever

[Slowtrain]

Maybe they are afraid some other developer will steal their recycled ideas?

 

 

"OMG. We we're going to put a shotgun in our game! I can't believe they stole our idea!"

[entrerix]

lulz

 

speaking of shotguns

 

can we see a combat shotgun that doesnt look retarded this time around?

 

I really liked the combat shotgun from the first 2 games

[Gromnir]

it ain't always up to developer. these sites is an advertising tool and the marketing o' game is typical the responsibility o' the publisher. those publishers can be pretty territorial.

 

as for potential harm in telling fans... dunno. am trying to think o' a recent obsidian or bio game (developers who is pretty open regarding development) that had surprises as far as mechanics and features were concerned. for kotor2 we knew that there were gonna be new prestige classes and we knew which prestige classes would be included. for soz the fans were informed o' the overland map and how player skills checks would occur as that map were traversed. heck, we even knew that once again obsidian would be using yuan-ti as a major antagonist race. maybe you not find out all the info exact when you want it, but chances are obsidian gives you most o' the information along the way.

 

 

Gromnir is all for honest and open, but is some valid reasons Not to do so. is a couple o' memorable examples o' obsidian/black isle folks saying the wrong thing and potential causing problems with publisher and or license holder. additional, is probable annoying to deal with fans who wants extreme range o' different stuff, but the developers can always simply ignore such stuff. am also thinking that by the time developers can solicit player feedback on a particular project it is often too late to make changes even if developer wished to... so what is point o' discussing? seems like most o' the time the board discussions ain't got no chance o' altering the present game so much as future games... which may be unsatisfying for some fans. furthermore, some developers suck at board communication. is more than a few game builders who manages to give fans wrong impressions... or maybe they is just tools. is a couple o' biowarian developers who general do not help the biowarian cause... should probable post less.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited May 20, 2009 by Gromnir

[Slowtrain]

lulz

 

speaking of shotguns

 

can we see a combat shotgun that doesnt look retarded this time around?

 

I really liked the combat shotgun from the first 2 games

 

 

They appaer to have based the shotgun design on the ppsh-41. Unless the similarity is just a massive coincidence.

 

Why would one base a shotgun design on a submachine gun? Very odd.

[Aristes]

I always see our chance to have any real input into the game as limited in the first place. I really just enjoy talking about the game and trying to plug the things I find personally important. Large numbers of fans swarming the boards with a unified gripe or suggestion has a good chance of instituting a change. I've seen that a lot, even though the developer or publisher might not always own up to it. The big thing seems to me that the numbers be high, that they be fairly unified in the specific feature or gripe, and that they have some longevity. Otherwise, we're just discussing the issue.

 

For my purposes, since I find this board so entertaining in and of itself, I don't mind arguing with folks here and listening to what they have to say. Some of the devs, in particular Sawyer and Matthew, are quite active on these boards in a number of threads. Might not mean anything, but at least someone is responding to, making fun of, and possibly even listening to what we've got to say.

[Niten_Ryu]

I don't see any reason why developers should listen our chitchat before more info is released. We all have our own bias what we'd like to see and unless developers are really desperate, they shouldn't look these threads for "fresh" ideas. Even after we have more info, singal to noise ratio will reach such heights that developers have real hard time finding out who is worth listening. For singleplayer games it might be less of a problem but in MMOG biz you can see it in every alpha / beta. It's always "fun" to see complite lists what should be fixed or changed in early alpha only to get lost in the sea of useless posts. Then 6 months after the release (sometimes 2 years later in total) to see developers to make the changes and say that they didn't know that certain problem existed

[GreasyDogMeat]

lulz

 

speaking of shotguns

 

can we see a combat shotgun that doesnt look retarded this time around?

 

I really liked the combat shotgun from the first 2 games

 

 

They appaer to have based the shotgun design on the ppsh-41. Unless the similarity is just a massive coincidence.

 

Why would one base a shotgun design on a submachine gun? Very odd.

 

It annoyed me at first.

 

Then I reminded myself Fallout is alternate history. Its not a stretch to imagine a gun manufacturer might have liked a design of a weapon after WWII and designed a different type of firearm in it's image. I know some modern semi-auto/full-auto shotguns look like assault rifles.

 

Either way, I would have much preferred the original combat shotgun model to the current F3 version.

 

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/City-Killer_Combat_Shotgun

Now that is a cool looking shotgun! No idea why they changed it when, for the most part, they stayed very close to the original weapon designs.

[Wombat]

btw, 'cause some folks seems confused, is not as if Gromnir is suggesting that there is some kinda continuum with freedom at one end and cohesive/compelling story at the other end. what Gromnir is recognizing is simple that those features and approaches that helps to create the illusion o' freedom has a tendency to makes the creation o' a comprehensive story more difficult. now, if resources is not a factor, and you got a huge budget, then you can does like bio did with bg2 and create loads o' side quest stuff while still having 'nuff resources to put together a rather complex critical path story. whether you personally liked bg2 or not, the basic approach clearly would be useful in creating a "balanced" game. much o' bg2 were pure tangential and optional side quest, but clearly there were more than enough material for the core story... even if you thinks bio flubbed the core story. and of course, the more you demand meaningful choice (such as weren't really a focus in bg2) the more complex you is making the process, no?

I guess I found the problem. If you can really think Baldur's Gate II's design is non-linear, which simply consists of the linear main plot and some mostly unrelated sub-quests, then, Ockham's razor tells me that you cannot have understood the points I and, probably, Aristes have discussed in these threads, especially related with design philosophy of Jefferson. This also explains why you are happy with rather simplistic a conclusion that nonlinearity is "illusion." I thought you were simplifying my point only for winning the debates but it turns out that you haven't understood the design philosophy behind Jefferson and probably even Fallout, which is intrinsically different from that of Baldur's Gate II. IIRC, J.E. Sawyer wondered how many of Black Isle designers understood the true meaning of the reputation system of Jefferson, so, this is not unnatural, I think. However, we all agree that system is very complex and it is hard to be realized at least in its original shape. I'm simply interested in what conclusion J.E. Sawyer has reached after these years.

[Gromnir]

btw, 'cause some folks seems confused, is not as if Gromnir is suggesting that there is some kinda continuum with freedom at one end and cohesive/compelling story at the other end. what Gromnir is recognizing is simple that those features and approaches that helps to create the illusion o' freedom has a tendency to makes the creation o' a comprehensive story more difficult. now, if resources is not a factor, and you got a huge budget, then you can does like bio did with bg2 and create loads o' side quest stuff while still having 'nuff resources to put together a rather complex critical path story. whether you personally liked bg2 or not, the basic approach clearly would be useful in creating a "balanced" game. much o' bg2 were pure tangential and optional side quest, but clearly there were more than enough material for the core story... even if you thinks bio flubbed the core story. and of course, the more you demand meaningful choice (such as weren't really a focus in bg2) the more complex you is making the process, no?

I guess I found the problem. If you can really think Baldur's Gate II's design is non-linear, which simply consists of the linear main plot and some mostly unrelated sub-quests, then, Ockham's razor tells me that you cannot have understood the points I and, probably, Aristes have discussed in these threads, especially related with design philosophy of Jefferson. This also explains why you are happy with rather simplistic a conclusion that nonlinearity is "illusion." I thought you were simplifying my point only for winning the debates but it turns out that you haven't understood the design philosophy behind Jefferson and probably even Fallout, which is intrinsically different from that of Baldur's Gate II. IIRC, J.E. Sawyer wondered how many of Black Isle designers understood the true meaning of the reputation system of Jefferson, so, this is not unnatural, I think. However, we all agree that system is very complex and it is hard to be realized at least in its original shape. I'm simply interested in what conclusion J.E. Sawyer has reached after these years.

 

1) "If you can really think Baldur's Gate II's design is non-linear,"

 

keep telling you that non-linear is an illusion. nevertheless, yeah, the unrelated side-quests is probable the main method o' creating illusion o' freedom in a game that has a compelling critical path story... 'cause you ain't gonna get compelling critical path story w/o linearity. the writer needs to know where story is going. am thinking that you ain't quite grasped some o' the basic concepts at work here and that is limiting our discussion.

 

2) "you haven't understood the design philosophy behind Jefferson and probably even Fallout, which is intrinsically different from that of Baldur's Gate II."

 

you really ain't been paying attention, have you? Gromnir is the guy who keeps saying that balance is so difficult to achieve precisely 'cause o' the difference in approaches 'tween games such as kotor2 and fo. bg2 abandons player freedom once you make trek to spellhold, but previous to that it allows a great deal o' player choice. obviously you can add more player choice w/i each o' the bg2 side-quests to increase the illusion... give more ways to complete unseeing eye and druid grove and other such stuff, but the basic kinda approach is more than adequate... and if you seem some fundamental magic in the fo approach then you is deluding self. heck, fo's great innovation is simple to reduce major plot points... ooooooohhhhh.

 

2) you still ain't shown us the balance example

 

3) am not sure you is using occam's razor correct

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Slowtrain]

BG2 is a pretty linear game.

 

It's designed so in the very first part of the game, you can do a bunch of stuff unrelated to the main story in any particular order. Most of the content in the game is front-loaded to this area. Once you make that trip to Spellhold though, the game becomes so linear you can use it as a straight edge.

 

 

STALKER: SOC is a shooter designed along the same paradigm. A lot of front-loaded content unrelated to the main story that you can do in pretty much whatever order you want, but once you hit the Red Forest, it becomes a straight shot to the end. Even the critical path stuff located in the begining is totally sequential; it is just hidden by the "illusion" of freedom becuase you can do some things not main story related in whatever order you want.

 

 

Fallout's main story is pretty flaccid, but the game does have a lot of freedom in how you choose to do things. There's really only two critical plot points in the first part of the game: 1) leave the Vault 2) find the waterchip. There is really no plot critical story beyond that. There are a couple things you can do that affect the critical path, such as hire the Water Merchants to bring water to the vault, but those don't affect the main path in any sigificant way except for changing how much time is open to you.

 

 

The second half of Fallout's story, stopping the mutant invasion, only has two plot critical points as well. A) Destroy the source of the mutants B) Destroy the mutant leader, and iirc A) is even optional if you do B) first. ANything else you do has no effect on the critical path except in a really tangential way, like getting a couple Paladins to help you assault the military base.

 

 

Fallout does a lot of things well. Creating a dramatic and engrossing story is not one of those things however.

 

 

Personally, Fallout IS my fave crpg ever, but I'm not going to claim it does stuff well that it doesn't do well.

[Wombat]

Fallout does a lot of things well. Creating a dramatic and engrossing story is not one of those things however.

 

 

Personally, Fallout IS my fave crpg ever, but I'm not going to claim it does stuff well that it doesn't do well.

I believe nobody in these threads claimed such a thing. Fallout is designed in a different way than some narrative focused games.

[Tagaziel]

Given that it aims to emulate the P&P RPG feeling, it's the player that creates the "dramatic and engrossing" story, not the other way around.

[Slowtrain]

Hey, I love FO. But it ain't exactly bursting with riveting narrative. It's characters aren't bad: Killian, Gizmo, Aradesh, Butch, Harold etc. They have some personality, but they don't really contribute much drama to the game.

[Gromnir]

Given that it aims to emulate the P&P RPG feeling, it's the player that creates the "dramatic and engrossing" story, not the other way around.

 

has always bothered Gromnir that developers keeps saying such stuff as does grizz. a sp cprg will always does a pi55-poor job of emulating pnp rpgs. no matter how much you thinks character and story is the player's, it ain't. you only got options made available by designer/developer and story unfolds as the writer chooses. even if the player has multiple choices, you still end up following paths created by the writers. in pnp rpgs you not need some fantabulous story, 'cause majority o' story is being created by yourself and fellow players... is a cooperative and fluid approach to storytelling that is not possible to emulate via a single-person crpg. it is ironic that crpgs is best at emulating non-role playing elements o' the rpg genre... is why developers spend so much time on combat and rules mechanics.

 

there is a game that emulates pnp rpg feeling: nwn played mp with a dm.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Wombat]

Hey, I love FO. But it ain't exactly bursting with riveting narrative. It's characters aren't bad: Killian, Gizmo, Aradesh, Butch, Harold etc. They have some personality, but they don't really contribute much drama to the game.

Here, while I agree with you, I cannot but think overly emotional/close relationship would have ruined the feel of FO. FO puts more focus on the world rather than drama between individuals, which makes it feel dry for better or worse. NPCs are relatively convincing and they have their own lives in the setting but they don't have too much emotional bond with PC.

 

On the other hand, role-playing games such as Planescpape:Torment focus on drama between characters. In such games, however, settings on the player character tends to be more detailed and fixated to enhance the emotional experience.

 

Either type of "story-telling" is established in its own way. That said, in FO:NV, I wonder how Obsidian designers to keep the balance between drama and the dry feel, especially if Chris Avellone is working on the dialogue. IMO, I think he improved some parts of FO2 but diminished the feel of FO, to some extent.

[Tagaziel]

Hey, I love FO. But it ain't exactly bursting with riveting narrative. It's characters aren't bad: Killian, Gizmo, Aradesh, Butch, Harold etc. They have some personality, but they don't really contribute much drama to the game.

 

I've never felt there was any kind of narrative in either of the Fallout games, just a world out there and me to mess it up as I please. That was the greatest strength of Fallout, the ability to do as you please, something quite similiar to the feeling of a PnP session (not identical of course, as the number of possibilities is always limited in a computer game). It's an RPG benchmark to me and I always found the lack of such freedom in cRPGs... frustrating.

 

Gothic, Wizardry 8, Baldur's Gates... KOTOR2 rectified it with the ability to freely choose the order of the planets and a lot of freedom in interacting with characters, especially Handmaiden's mom. But none ever reached the level of Fo1, where I was truly writing my own story. With blood most often.