FO: NV

[Fionavar]

To our community at OBS, it is clear that there is a definite passion for this new title and we respect that. We also need to balance our relationship with Bethesda as significantly important. We have, therefore, taken some time and looked through the large 500+ collection of posts thus far and have found the three following categories that will hopefully allow us a larger breadth of discussion:

 

• Gameplay Mechanics
  
• Story & Plot
  
• Setting & Canon
  

 

This is an opportunity to have more thorough discussions. Each of these conversation must adhere to the Forum Guidelines. If any of the Guidelines are broached, especially in respect to disrespectful critique of Bethesda, a member will be placed immediately in Mod Status for no less than two weeks and will be issued a Formal Warning.

 

We do not wish to police or be authoritarian. We simply wish to find a balance to offer ways for our community to interact about FO: NV, while also respecting the reciprocal relations with Bethesda.

 

with respect,

 

The Mod Squad

 

Note: Previous FO: NV Discussions

• In the Waste
  
• Where did I put that part?
  
• The Waterchip
  

[Slowtrain]

My biggest hope: a large and complex linear story at the expense of a plethora of sidequests. Lots of memorable characters with interesting things to say. Choices in your actions that have serious, far-reaching, and unrecoverable consequences in the gameworld.

 

If I could have one thing in FO:NV, it would be this. Or is that three things?

[Promethean]

More like an impossible dream

[Hurlshort]

I like the idea of long lasting consequences. Very few games have pulled that off.

 

I'm hoping they move out of Vegas a bit and cover areas like the Hoover Dam and the Red Rock areas.

 

I think we need a separate thread just for whining, by the way.

[Jaesun]

I like the idea of long lasting consequences. Very few games have pulled that off.

 

I'm hoping they move out of Vegas a bit and cover areas like the Hoover Dam and the Red Rock areas.

 

Agreed, I'd like that as well. Also Area 51 would be very cool to visit.

[Slowtrain]

I like the idea of long lasting consequences. Very few games have pulled that off.

 

I'm hoping they move out of Vegas a bit and cover areas like the Hoover Dam and the Red Rock areas.

 

I think we need a separate thread just for whining, by the way.

 

 

I thought the Witcher's way of doing it, not seeing the consequences of your actions until much later, was kind of cool.

 

On the down side though, I didn't think many of the consequences were all that significant.

 

But I really love the idea that the player character is forced to make a choice but won't know the consequences of that choice until it is far far far too late to reload. It is a cool way of forcing the player to live with their actions. Especially if those consequences are significant.

[TwinkieGorilla]

I thought the Witcher's way of doing it, not seeing the consequences of your actions until much later, was kind of cool.

 

absolutely! oh man, long before FO3 came out we were all having these types of hopeful (and mostly unfulfilled) dream-conversations and one of the threads was about C&C (something i'm really hung up on, if you haven't noticed). i mentioned what you just mentioned, CG, and somebody said "well give an example of what you mean" and i forget exactly what i said, but it was something simple but effective like this:

 

you enter a small and humble farming community. they need you to either settle a debt with or clear out a nearby settlement who are harassing them. you go to the nearby settlement and learn that this farming community has been stealing from them. they make a similar proposition to you (notice how thus far neither settlement is inherently "good guy" or "bad guy"). now, depending on what choice you make...a certain path is going to be closed to you. and later on in the game something will happen be it a sought after item, a guard with connections who otherwise would have let you in to an area is now either hostile or unwilling to corporate, and maybe even some sort of item from one or the other settlement is needed in a later quest which now has to be solved in a different way since that item is no longer obtainable.

 

 

just shooting off the hip here, but more elaboration on this theme would be the kind of C&C i'd love to see. because i tell ya, when i talked smack to Thomas Moore and delivered that briefcase to Bishop i slapped my head, wished i could take it back, cursed myself, and then bowed to the creators of the game for making me pay for my actions! brilliant stuff, there.

[Aristes]

Or give you information later that you could not have known then or information you could have known but didn't find out. Oops. Made a mistake. That's how life is.

 

I mean, Witcher has its own problems in the story department. On the other hand, I've been enjoying it. Sure,

the Scoi'atel or whatever win the battle in the swamp, but some knight in Act II talks about how the knights won.

 

 

Still, great game with some good ideas.

[Tagaziel]

Since this is the Setting and Canon section...

 

I hope for New Vegas to incorporate or at least confirm the plotline and/or canon elements of Van Buren. It'd be a shame to see that much work go to waste just because someone thought a shooter is more worthy of being a sequel.

 

That said, I'd love to see the game expanding on what was provided in Fo1/Fo2, preferably integrating some of the more obscure lore or even previously unknown one straight from the Fo1/Fo2 design docs. Also, the Jackals and the Vipers need to make a formal debut, the Union of Atomic Workers (or their remnants too).

 

On the more obvious side, Scorpitron. No post-nuclear Vegas is complete without a Scorpitron.

[Aram]

Where's my guns thread?

[TwinkieGorilla]

I hope for New Vegas to incorporate or at least confirm the plotline and/or canon elements of Van Buren. It'd be a shame to see that much work go to waste just because someone thought a shooter is more worthy of being a sequel.

 

i've said it before and i'll say it again:

 

Sawyer and MCA having a free "Reload, 1-Up, Do-Over, etc" and not taking advantage of it would be a travesty of truly epic proportions.

[entrerix]

i'd suggest keeping expectations in check, there is just one year of dev time on this bad boy, so be prepared for fallout 3.5 Now with more C&C and C&D(characters and dialogue)

[Tagaziel]

For Matra's sake, Obsidian pulled off KOTOR2 and succeeded (for the most part). There's no reason to doubt that they will prevail this time.

[CoM_Solaufein]

Of course they will prevail. They have had a number of winning games since the BIS days.

[Kjarista]

My biggest hope: a large and complex linear story at the expense of a plethora of sidequests. Lots of memorable characters with interesting things to say. Choices in your actions that have serious, far-reaching, and unrecoverable consequences in the gameworld.

 

If I could have one thing in FO:NV, it would be this. Or is that three things?

 

I disagree completely: Main story should not be linear, and should be OPTIONAL. There should be numerous sidequests, both in quest hubs and "hidden" away in the wasteland. I'm all for memorable characters and choices with consequences.

[Gromnir]

My biggest hope: a large and complex linear story at the expense of a plethora of sidequests. Lots of memorable characters with interesting things to say. Choices in your actions that have serious, far-reaching, and unrecoverable consequences in the gameworld.

 

If I could have one thing in FO:NV, it would be this. Or is that three things?

 

I disagree completely: Main story should not be linear, and should be OPTIONAL. There should be numerous sidequests, both in quest hubs and "hidden" away in the wasteland. I'm all for memorable characters and choices with consequences.

 

is this the right thread?

 

in any event, we is faced with the BIG question facing developers... choice ends up resulting in two veruy different games.

 

focus on making a strong critical path.

 

or

 

has loads o' well-developed side quests.

 

choices in the side quest approach is easier to be making meaningful... but those choices will ultimately seem less... meaningful. quest that is tangential is gonna have consequences that developers can make as insular and discreet as they wish and so such stuff will be easier to implement without running into the endlessly bifurcating branches nightmare... can't genuine allow every player action to open up new opportunities... no mater how many times those old choose-your-adventure books gets linked as examples.

 

linear v. non-linear is a terrible distinction, 'cause is all gonna be ultimate linear, but is easier to create the illusion of freedom with inclusion of greater numbers o' optional side quests. is axiomatic that with limited resources the more time spent on the optional stuff means less time spent on critical path. a game like kotor2 were leaning heavily towards critical path development. how much more resources and time woulda' been needed to makes a kotor2 with the strong critical path (save for the end) and allow for fo3 type illusion o' freedom via the availability o' optional and tangential material?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Slowtrain]

Well, I'm not militantly opposed to a lot of sidequests and less importance on the critical path. I've just begun to feel over the years that sidequests rarely ever leave me feeling satisfied with a gaming experience, mostrly because they just feel too inconsequential and pointless. IF really good sidequests could be done, that somehow tied into the gameworld very strongly, I would be OK with that as well.

 

 

When I play a crpg, I just really like to feel that the actions of my player character are having a real impact on the gameworld. Sidquests, I 've found over the years, tend to be pretty disposable.

 

"Go save my farm from raiders"

 

"why?"

 

"I'll give you my custom .223 pistol!"

 

 

meh.

[J.E. Sawyer]

is axiomatic that with limited resources the more time spent on the optional stuff means less time spent on critical path.

Everything you wrote is true, but I would like to add that trade-offs in quest design (whether it's in Fallout, IWD, or another game) aren't always 1:1. I think where a lot of developers get in trouble is in x-treeeeeeme reactivity, where interconnectivity between quests and visible results becomes so entangled that two quests of N complexity require 4 times as much time as four quests with half-N complexity.

[Malcador]

I found the previous games had it alright, the sidequests as they were and a non-urgent main quest ( I think on my first playthrough of FO2, I took 12 in-game years to finish it) . The MQ can't be optional, I guess that was just the wrong term used, without it there's not really a plot or a focus to the game. As Crashgirl said, too many sidequests and everything feels disjointed (especially if those quests are really isolated from the rest of the game world).

[Gromnir]

is axiomatic that with limited resources the more time spent on the optional stuff means less time spent on critical path.

Everything you wrote is true, but I would like to add that trade-offs in quest design (whether it's in Fallout, IWD, or another game) aren't always 1:1. I think where a lot of developers get in trouble is in x-treeeeeeme reactivity, where interconnectivity between quests and visible results becomes so entangled that two quests of N complexity require 4 times as much time as four quests with half-N complexity.

 

it would seem that few things in game development is 1:1 proportional. that being said, how does a Lead establish clear and practical guidelines for interconnectivity? rely on commonsense o' individual developers seems like a risky bet.

 

regardless, has obsidan decided on an approach vis-a-vis interconectivity and the critical path v. side-quest issues? seems like key elements and we haven't really heard much from developers re. such issues.

 

am actually a little surprised to see the numbers o' people that seem to favor the kotor2 kinda approach. given the history o' the franchise we were thinking that the fanbase (the Faithful in particular) would be advocating the "non-linear" approach. one would expect that josh (personal as 'posed to profeshnul) would favor the de-emphasis o' the critical path, but that is simple conjecture on our part.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited May 15, 2009 by Gromnir

[Pop]

am actually a little surprised to see the numbers o' people that seem to favor the kotor2 kinda approach. given the history o' the franchise we were thinking that the fanbase (the Faithful in particular) would be advocating the "non-linear" approach. one would expect that josh (personal as 'posed to profeshnul) would favor the de-emphasis o' the critical path, but that is simple conjecture on our part.

I noticed that too. I chalked it up to a desire on the part of supafans to be against whatever it is that Bethsoft was doing. Perhaps the old Fallouts are too similar to the new ones in their structure. With KOTOR and NWN and other games of their type, when you're on the main quest you're on the main quest, whereas in the Fallouts, you're going to Navarro to pick up the key fob but there are 6 or 7 other different things you can do while you're there, and the steps you have to take to advance the main storyline aren't portrayed as being particularly important. I liked that about Fallouts 1 and 2 (it was more the case in 2 but whatever)

[bhlaab]

Yeah, I DEFINIATELY want a main quest that has to be uncovered like in the original games. I want to be able to skip 90% of it if I know where I'm going and I'm good enough to get there.

 

None of this nancy hold your hand "Go where we tell you and the plot will be revealed when we feel like it" business. I want to miss important stuff the first time I play through, and then in my second playthrough miss stuff that I found in the first one.

 

The first time I played through Fallout 1 I had no idea FEV even existed. If you wanted explainations you had to look for them, damn it.

 

Also: There should be a canned food item in New Vegas called "Chef Boyarsky"

[Aristes]

I can buy into the idea that New Vegas should not be linear. However, I would still hope that our actions have some sort of impact. If I nuke a town and murder everyone in the Republic of Dave and kick every stray dog I see, I should have a different experience than if I neutralize the bomb in Megaton, set up multiple trade routes, and feed every stray cat that crosses my path.

 

I prefer more impact on the world, but I'll settle for some reasonable feedback.

 

We talk about Jefferson and I think it's easy for folks to talk about 'what might have been' because it's 'not what is.' However, the reputation and faction system as I've heard that Sawyer described it back in the day sounds like a reasonable way to go more towards those meaningful choices and consequences. The only real problem is doing it without completely screwing up the dialogue trees for everything that follows in the game. That's the only real problem, but it's one big assed problem.

[bhlaab]

We talk about Jefferson and I think it's easy for folks to talk about 'what might have been' because it's 'not what is.' However, the reputation and faction system as I've heard that Sawyer described it back in the day sounds like a reasonable way to go more towards those meaningful choices and consequences. The only real problem is doing it without completely screwing up the dialogue trees for everything that follows in the game. That's the only real problem, but it's one big assed problem.

 

From what I've heard about Jefferson it was entirely unreasonable from a development perspective.

 

Choice and Consequence is best left as something that comes naturally from the gameplay. Like if you kill a brotherhood of steel member you're no longer allowed into their fortress. That's a simple "Flag ON" and "IF Flag ON..." It's unobtrusive, it makes perfect sense, and it sends the message that every small choice you make can dig you into a hole.

 

The problem is if your choice and consequence system is that low key, it's not something that can be put on the back of the box. So what we end up with is a binary choice where you walk into town and someone says "Disarm the bomb!" and someone else says "Detonate the bomb!" and you're picking between linear sequence A or linear sequence B. Or worse, a karma system where you can nuke a town but make up for it by giving one hobo 800 glasses of water.

 

I think that's what rope kid was saying earlier with developers tending towards "x-treeeeeme reactivity". You don't need huge pillars of flame to mark your evil deeds or people running after you to give you gifts if you're good. Just set up the parameters and let the player find his or her way around inside of them.

[Aristes]

I'm not talking about some sort of extreme reactivity. Did I put enough E's in there for you? The whole point about Jefferson's rep system is that it allows the computer to keep track of multiple factions and not present those values to the player. You not only don't have extreme reactivity, you sometimes have no activity at all. That is to say, you have had an influence on the world, but what that influence is and the consequence of it is not readily understood and, depending on your actions, you might never know or understand it.

 

For example, you save the town. Great, you saved the town. I didn't say you save the town and every day is now town saving day for the inhabitants. On the other hand, if you do something so absolutely remarkable as saving the town, a lot of folks might be happy to build you a monument. In fact, the "it's all in your head" arrangement (see, we can both be ridiculously simplistic in assessing each others points) fails when the PC does something truly outstanding. However, what if the PC does something truly outstanding and there's no one there to witness it? That's still part of the "different experience" that I cited. Notice, nowhere in my original post did I say, the townfolks should dance around you, offering their naken and nubile daughters for your pleasure.

 

So, somewhere, sometime, there must be a response to what the player does and that response will clearly be expressed at least partly in dialogue. This was my point in my post about story. It wasn't really to create the backstory the game, which I would rather not know before I play it. It was to express the sort of complex relationships between people. That response will often be nuanced. Some of the factions will be overt, either in acceptance or not. Some of the factions might have heard of my exploits, but refrain from letting me know. The factions should all have a relationship with one another and I will have some part to play in the events surrounding those relationships. By playing my part, I'm also forming relationships as well.

 

Finally, don't boil my arguments down to something ridiculously simplistic only to offer what is certainly no less simplistic on your own part.