FO:NV

[entrerix]

Questions for SAWYER:

 

Hi! here are questions for you! Please answer if you have time!

 

 

1. when playing an rpg generally what types of encounters do you find most fulfilling?

 

2. how do you feel about making games internally consistent? do you prefer fun over all else, or do you think its worth the time to show how the elements of the story and people work, ie: explaining water and food sources for towns etc

 

3. do you like combat to be fast and lethal, or more drawn out where a person can be shot dozens of times and keep living? why? any games you feel met your desires perfectly?

 

4. when you play fallout 3 do you spend more time exploring on your own, or doing quests? why?

 

5. last (for now) how do you feel generally about the current state of shooter/rpg hybrids (games like bioshock or fallout 3) compared to older games (like system shock 2 or deus ex)?

 

6. bonus question: what were some of your favorite games from the last couple years, and why?

[Slowtrain]

Wow, that looks meaner in the quote box.

 

Yeah, you were one of the folks I meant, but I didn't mean to look like I was jonesin' for a fight. It was meant to be somewhat funny, but it fell flat and a little mean.

 

Nevertheless, my point is genuine. Fallout 1 and 2 are great games. Yeah, even I prefer them to 3. The thing is, 3 is still good. You might not like it, but I did. Fallout 1 and 2 are not perfect. In fact, all three games have a point, and it's relatively early even in 1, where the player achieves critical mass. There is enough loot by mid game to retire and buy one of the cities. Fallout 2 is probably the worst by end game in terms of firepower. If it weren't for crits, I don't think I'd really give a damn about anyone else in the game.

 

 

Don't worry, Aristes. I didn't take what you said badly, I was just responding.

 

 

Just because I criticize Fallout 3 doesn't mean that I don't like it. As a matter of fact, I do like it to some degree. With some more work FO3 could have been a very similar game to STALKER:SOC which is one of my personal faves and that would have been awesome. More than anything else that is the game I'm disappointed that FO3 didn't come closer to.

[Gizmo]

G.O.A.T.(S.E.)

Simplified Edition.

I remember that one.

 

my favorite melee weapon was the sledgehammer. it felt solid as iraq... ahem... a rock.

Rumsfeld reference

 

 

I never liked eye shots in the original Fallouts. The problem was that often they would survive such a shot. Its already a stretch to take multiple head shots... but an eye shot would and should = instant death/no more trouble from him. Groin shots on the other hand = comic gold.

Just because you aim for the head and hit, does not necessarily imply a direct hit that goes in and out does it? Wouldn't a nicked ear count as a low damage hit to the head?

 

Yes?

 

Well, it's Obsidian on the job now, so we can expect alot better writing and game overall.

There is no technical reason that the engine need be primarily FPP... There are Gamebryo titles that aren't... Look at

~look at

modded.

 

!! Not only that, but Loki fades out occluding geometry ~sort of like Fallout fading the top tiles around the PC.

That means FO:NV could be made to do the same.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Gizmo

[J.E. Sawyer]

Questions for SAWYER:

 

Hi! here are questions for you! Please answer if you have time!

 

 

1. when playing an rpg generally what types of encounters do you find most fulfilling?

 

2. how do you feel about making games internally consistent? do you prefer fun over all else, or do you think its worth the time to show how the elements of the story and people work, ie: explaining water and food sources for towns etc

 

3. do you like combat to be fast and lethal, or more drawn out where a person can be shot dozens of times and keep living? why? any games you feel met your desires perfectly?

 

4. when you play fallout 3 do you spend more time exploring on your own, or doing quests? why?

 

5. last (for now) how do you feel generally about the current state of shooter/rpg hybrids (games like bioshock or fallout 3) compared to older games (like system shock 2 or deus ex)?

 

6. bonus question: what were some of your favorite games from the last couple years, and why?

1. Ones that force me to change how I was doing things or how I was thinking about things. If I were dealing with an enemy that behaved in a very specific way, I will eventually adopt a general tactic for dealing with them. If a new enemy type with dramatically different behavior were introduced into the mix, it would force me to reconsider how I'm deal with each enemy individually. Similarly, plotlines and story elements that turn over time (not with a violent twist, but ones that generally become more nuanced as they progress) are more appealing to me. When everything at the end of a plotline is as it seemed to be at the beginning, I am disappointed.

 

2. I think games should be internally consistent in tone and "realism". That isn't to say that I think games should be realistic, but if they strive for a certain level of realism in one area, that should be consistent in other areas. I think water and food sources/sources of income/whatever are great not only for being "realistic" (which in itself is of arguable value) but they can provide a context for what characters do in a world. If people live in a town with a big lumber industry, lots of folks can go work at that during the day and can have plotlines that relate back to this very basic element of how the area works.

 

3. It depends on the game, but generally I fall somewhere in the middle. One or two-shot kills aren't necessarily satisfying for me unless it's some sort of specialized weapon like a sniper rifle from stealth, etc. I can enjoy games like the original Ghost Recon but I usually don't like games where you're just pounding away on enemies for a long time. So I guess I lean toward higher lethality/quicker battles.

 

4. More time exploring, but mostly because I approached the game as something I absolutely needed to understand in its entirety. Generally, I am not very quest-motivated in games. I usually just want to look around and do a variety of things.

 

5. Mechanically I think they are becoming more mainstream, which isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as the mechanics are solid. Atmospherically, I think they are doing well compared to their predecessors (especially the original Bioshock). I also think the newer games are a lot easier overall, but I think anyone who has played all of them would probably agree on that.

 

6. Devil May Cry 4: Very well-executed mechanics, polished gameplay and cinematics. Very repetitive, unfortunately. Witcher: Enhanced Edition: It had problems here and there, but there were a lot of interesting choices to be made throughout the game and you usually felt their impact somewhere down the road. Also I tend to really like lower-magic settings. Castle Crashers: Basic gameplay and a cool art style, well-executed. There are probably others but those are the ones that stick out.

[Humodour]

Remove mob-kill EXP and you shut down explore based gameplay.

What? No.

 

Remove mob-kill EXP and you shut down grinding. Exploring is about finding new places, not new mobs to kill (and benefit from the XP that nets you). You still get loot, too.

 

It's been explained before. Combat XP punishes players that do not wish to play combat-focused characters, in a genre that does not necessarily revolve around combat. It's unfair to non-grinders.

 

edit: posted before reading Spider's post. He beat me to the punch.

 

I can't stress enough how strongly I agree with this post. I really wish Obsidian would consider it but I don't think they give a damn considering how they've made XP work in Alpha Protocol.

[Syraxis]

I can't stress enough how strongly I agree with this post. I really wish Obsidian would consider it but I don't think they give a damn considering how they've made XP work in Alpha Protocol.

 

I haven't been keeping up with AP as of late, how does XP work?

[Oner]

I can't stress enough how strongly I agree with this post. I really wish Obsidian would consider it but I don't think they give a damn considering how they've made XP work in Alpha Protocol.

 

I haven't been keeping up with AP as of late, how does XP work?

You get xp for lethal and non-lethal takedowns, more for sneaking by unnoticed, when completing objectives, then level up and spend advancement points.

[Slowtrain]

Hi Josh,

 

A flashlight replacing the pipboy would be super keen. Or at least a pipboy that maybe has a somewhat more useful light.

 

A directional beam is usually more fun than an omnidirectional glow.

 

Or being able to attach a light to the assault rifle. Or night vision scopes/goggles.

 

 

I've mentioned all these before, but I'm not ashamed to pimp my desires as often as neccessary.

 

 

PS: Play Crysis and check out the attachment system for weapons! Wouldn't something similar be sweet in NV? Sure would.

 

 

edit: For my crappy spelling.

Edited September 20, 2009 by Slowtrain

[Syraxis]

An improved lighting/shadow system in NV would be nice. Fake lights and no object shadows, ew.

 

Question out of curiosity, would the 360/PS3 be able to handle all those shadow effects even if they were rendered only on objects that were close to the PC? Or would the system memory limit say it's out of the question?

Edited September 20, 2009 by Syraxis

[GreasyDogMeat]

I say bring back the flares from F1 & 2 with a larger light circumference than the pip boy light and the ability to throw them at enemies lighting them on fire.

[Slowtrain]

I say bring back the flares from F1 & 2 with a larger light circumference than the pip boy light and the ability to throw them at enemies lighting them on fire.

 

 

Throwable flares would be totally awesome.

 

edit: Flares probably make more logical sense given the setting than hi-tech NV stuff anyway.

Edited September 20, 2009 by Slowtrain

[Slowtrain]

Or even just chemical break lights like in Jagged Alliance 2.

 

Anything that makes night/darkness gameplay more atmospheric would be sweet.

[Morgoth]

I can't remember that there was a day/night cycle in Fallout 3 (or was there?). If not, I doubt it will be included in NV either.

 

Anyway, an attachable flashligt on your rifle (fixed with tape) can't hurt for some nasty dark dungeons.

[Oner]

Oh there is, I always wasted the whole day in some ruin, looking for stuff with the craplight, and had to explore at night. Every single time. Lucky I am.

[jero cvmi]

Yes there is, i wasted a lot of time in the tutorial and ended up getting out of the vault at night, thus losing the awsum "you see the light of day for the first time in your life" blinding effect.

Also i remember sometimes i fast travelled back to Megaton from the wasteland and arrived late at night, and i didn't have my own house yet, or money to pay for the room, so i wandered around aimlessly all night waiting for the shops to open so i can sell my loot.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Why didn't you just advance time?

[jero cvmi]

rented copy, no manual, in my short playthrough i didn't discover i could do that without resting

[Gorgon]

This is Vegas rigth, how about a gambling minigame. Also, a vintage motorcycle for a mount, or fast travel if the engine can't do it.

[Slowtrain]

Bring back the gambling skill! How can you not, in this setting.

 

Also, unarmed players should get a chance to get involved with boxing.

 

 

Also, plz plz plz, makes skills, stats, and perks matter enough so that no player can be both the master boxer and the greatest gambler.

 

Character development choices ftw!

[Syraxis]

Bring back the gambling skill! How can you not, in this setting.

 

Was gambling useful for anything other than maybe 2 or 3 areas that had slot machines?

[Slowtrain]

Bring back the gambling skill! How can you not, in this setting.

 

Was gambling useful for anything other than maybe 2 or 3 areas that had slot machines?

 

 

I don't know. I never used it much. Seemed like a waste of a tag skill frankly.

[entrerix]

just because it was underused in f2 doesnt mean it couldnt be used well in f3. I'd like, if there are to be any gambling minigames at all, a poker mini-game because A) poker is a great game for the setting, and B) it's easy to make fun and not take you out of the game.

 

plus you can have an option mid game to pull out your sawed off and blast someone if you think they're cheating.

 

i'm generally not a mini-game fan though, so i'm perfectly happy to have no minigame, but IF one is going in, then I'd like it to be a poker game. maybe let gambling skill affect the LIMIT on the game so that a person with crap gambling skill can only play for 10 caps at a time to prevent them from really making much money at it, while a pro can play for 1k caps or something like that.

 

would actually make it really worth raising. plus it could give bonuses to bluffing hands etc

 

i think that would be the way to go with gambling in new vegas.

Edited September 22, 2009 by entrerix

[Slowtrain]

Poker minigame would certianly make sense.

 

Remember that cool card-based minigame in Might and Magic 7 (I think. Maybe M&M 8 ). I had more fun with that mingame, then I did with the actual crpg. lol

Edited September 22, 2009 by Slowtrain

[Masterfade]

IMO player should on average lose money if they choose to gamble in a casino, just like in real life. Make the gambling skill give player various options to cheat in mini game(s).

[Pop]

Poker is probably too complex of a game to include in F:NV. A better game to include would be Blackjack. It's simple, quick and it's entirely chance-based. Pazaak and Quasar (from KOTORs and Mass Effect, respectively) are basically variations on Blackjack anyhow.

 

If there's actually a minigame you have to wonder how a gambling skill would affect the game. It's more trouble than it's worth, frankly.

Edited September 23, 2009 by Pop