FO:NV

[Slowtrain]

april, may, june, july, august, september.

 

 

awesome.

 

 

As Josh said before though, it was Bethesda who released the initial info about the game not Obsidian.

[Tigranes]

Not to mention that it is extremely normal, and sensible, to wait until you are ready before releasing info.

 

It only seems bad to us because we check so often.

[TwinkieGorilla]

first off, i don't care WHO blew their load too soon. it happened and it's ridiculous.

 

because we check so often.

 

April, May, June, July, August, September.

 

"so often"???

[bhlaab]

Yeah, the fact that you're desperate and excited for news about their project just proves that it was a bad marketing decision

[Hurlshort]

Will it make you feel better if I tell you there won't be any new information until April of 2010, and the game won't be released until January of 2011?

 

Good, we will see you in about 9 months then. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[Slowtrain]

It would be great if Josh and the other devs would speak more about what they are doing and thinking about doing with the game, but after what happened with the alien crpg, I don't really blame for keeping their mouths shut during the first part of the development phase.

 

 

Josh has said he reads the threads, so there's no reason not to throw out suggestions or ideas on our own. They're getting read, even if not commented on or about directly.

[Aristes]

Ah, where's the gorilla love? No need to harsh his buzz.

 

Anyhow, I see Sawyer ghosting these forms quite a bit actually. I would think that he reads a lot of your stuff. From my perspective, it doesn't really matter. I mean, yeah, if you want the devs to come and comment all the time, it sucks. I like the discuss things with the fellow forum chimps just as well. If us hoi polloi around here are beneath you, then don't let the door hit you on your ass, and --watch out-- I'll be swingin' it shut behind you. Aw, just joshin'. Hurlie, maybe, but not me. hehehe

[TwinkieGorilla]

Yeah, the fact that you're desperate and excited for news about their project just proves that it was a bad marketing decision

 

hmmmm. i think you've got "desperate and excited" confused with "annoyed and losing interest".

[Kjarista]

2 responses come to mind here.

 

1) Hopefully, Fallout:NV will be aimed more at people who want to interact with a gameworld in ways other than killing everything. However, given that it is ultimately a Bethesda IP, I'm not anticipating that such will be the case. SO I wouldn't worry if I were you. The bulk of the game wil most likely be running around and killing stuff. But I'll still lobby for something more in the meantime.

 

2) Given the successful gameplay of other action/rpg games like System Shock 2, Deus Ex, and Bloodlines, which all had opportunity for all the killing and destruction a player could possibly hope for, yet did not directly award XP for the actual killing, your statement seems flawed. Character adavncement in no way has to be tied to killing while still presenting plenty of opportunity for killing if that is what the player wishes.

 

This shouldn't be framed as an "either/or" situation. It is possible to have both, as FO1/2 had both substantial stories/quests and grinding opportunities. Removing either is a bad move, IMO. Frankly, I don't get EXCLUSION arguments like yours. I'd rather have the opportunity to approach a game in as many different ways as possible, and not be forced to approach it in one way. I don't see any problem with being able to grind mobs in any game, as part of the whole feature package.

[Slowtrain]

2 responses come to mind here.

 

1) Hopefully, Fallout:NV will be aimed more at people who want to interact with a gameworld in ways other than killing everything. However, given that it is ultimately a Bethesda IP, I'm not anticipating that such will be the case. SO I wouldn't worry if I were you. The bulk of the game wil most likely be running around and killing stuff. But I'll still lobby for something more in the meantime.

 

2) Given the successful gameplay of other action/rpg games like System Shock 2, Deus Ex, and Bloodlines, which all had opportunity for all the killing and destruction a player could possibly hope for, yet did not directly award XP for the actual killing, your statement seems flawed. Character adavncement in no way has to be tied to killing while still presenting plenty of opportunity for killing if that is what the player wishes.

 

This shouldn't be framed as an "either/or" situation. It is possible to have both, as FO1/2 had both substantial stories/quests and grinding opportunities. Removing either is a bad move, IMO. Frankly, I don't get EXCLUSION arguments like yours. I'd rather have the opportunity to approach a game in as many different ways as possible, and not be forced to approach it in one way. I don't see any problem with being able to grind mobs in any game, as part of the whole feature package.

 

 

*shrugs*

 

It was just an idle thought, given how much combat dominates XP gain in FO3. I've played other action/rpgs where that isn't the case and it might be worth trying in FO:NV.

 

 

Doesn't matter anyway. We all know deep down that FO:NV is most likely going to be pretty much identical to FO3 in terms of gameplay style and structure. Any changes are most likely going to be minor.

[Aristes]

yeah, folks don't go and farm kills and then come on and bitch and moan about how 'easy' the mid to late games are. You have a spread of 20 levels and you can do the main path at whatever level you want? With that thinking, we end up with the wretched scaling system for Oblivion. ...And every game excludes something. If combat oriented folks get their way, then why not include an equivalent method for folks to get exp by stealth, intelligence, charm, or some other crazy way? Why not be all inclusive and try to find any way possible to reach an objective and include every one that comes to mind? Sure some games include exp farming. Cool, but why is it so important in any particular game?

 

I dunno. I'd imagine that New Vegas won't fall far from the Fallout 3 tree, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make the best arguments we can for what we'd like to see.

[bhlaab]

Deus Ex was actually pretty terrible with exp. Especially the exploration bonuses.

 

Meanwhile, System Shock 2 had almost the exact same system but made its Exp into a concrete item to be collected. That way when you get some for crawling through a vent into an obscure hidden area, it didn't come off as random. You could also be rewarded with a good amount of exp by using your Thief ("Tech") skills without the game having to say "Good job, you got 500 exp for unlocking this door instead of that door!" It was a very insteresting way to do things.

[steelfiredragon]

dual wielding pistols??

[J.E. Sawyer]

This shouldn't be framed as an "either/or" situation. It is possible to have both, as FO1/2 had both substantial stories/quests and grinding opportunities. Removing either is a bad move, IMO. Frankly, I don't get EXCLUSION arguments like yours. I'd rather have the opportunity to approach a game in as many different ways as possible, and not be forced to approach it in one way. I don't see any problem with being able to grind mobs in any game, as part of the whole feature package.

Players are incentivized to exploit every XP source to gain the most XP. Instead of performing actions because they are inherently enjoyable, they perform them to be as high level as they possibly can be. If the developers want to be "egalitarian", every source of XP has to be monitored, analyzed, charted, and continually balanced throughout the dev cycle. The only cases where I have seen this be successful are cases where "action" XP rewards are so infintessimal compared to quest XP that they are on the scale of a nickel vs. a $100 bill. I.e. the rewards are effectively "feel good" nods to sacred RPG conventions that are statistically irrelevant to advancement.

 

Player attachment to XP for kills is one of the most baffling phenomena of RPG traditions. It makes me wonder how people are able to play "non RPGs" where you don't get XP for killing things.

[Llyranor]

It's even starting to infest other genres. Some FPS nowadays even show off the XP numbers for every shot you get in.

[Kelverin]

Player attachment to XP for kills is one of the most baffling phenomena of RPG traditions. It makes me wonder how people are able to play "non RPGs" where you don't get XP for killing things.

Someone failed child physiology 101

[Gorgon]

I heard someone mention bloodlines. Well, in that game you needed 4 or more points in guns for it not to be completely useless. The same is true of many builds that only come together at level x, regardless of the system used.

 

The worst example I can think of off the top of my head is the witcher where the combat moves unlocked slowly and painfully, or not at all because there was no reason to advance both steel and silver styles. When I'm fiending for XP anywhere I can find them, it's usually because I'm trying to get to where my build starts to get fun.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Someone failed child physiology 101

RPGs: Rated E for Everyone.

[kirottu]

This shouldn't be framed as an "either/or" situation. It is possible to have both, as FO1/2 had both substantial stories/quests and grinding opportunities. Removing either is a bad move, IMO. Frankly, I don't get EXCLUSION arguments like yours. I'd rather have the opportunity to approach a game in as many different ways as possible, and not be forced to approach it in one way. I don't see any problem with being able to grind mobs in any game, as part of the whole feature package.

Players are incentivized to exploit every XP source to gain the most XP. Instead of performing actions because they are inherently enjoyable, they perform them to be as high level as they possibly can be. If the developers want to be "egalitarian", every source of XP has to be monitored, analyzed, charted, and continually balanced throughout the dev cycle. The only cases where I have seen this be successful are cases where "action" XP rewards are so infintessimal compared to quest XP that they are on the scale of a nickel vs. a $100 bill. I.e. the rewards are effectively "feel good" nods to sacred RPG conventions that are statistically irrelevant to advancement.

 

I

[213374U]

Player attachment to XP for kills is one of the most baffling phenomena of RPG traditions. It makes me wonder how people are able to play "non RPGs" where you don't get XP for killing things.

 

Hmm, I don

[kirottu]

How many FO3 fans do you think would agree with these changes, though?

 

Ah, yes, well, I actually wasn

[Sannom]

The worst example I can think of off the top of my head is the witcher where the combat moves unlocked slowly and painfully, or not at all because there was no reason to advance both steel and silver styles.

 

If you focused on getting the new moves instead of getting the enhancements, you could have them quite quickly Speaking of The Witcher, that game didn't have much of XP-grinding, although grinding was still a good plan to get money (I have made many trips in the swamps to kill drowners for this) and alchemical ingredients (low-end undead and swamp creatures, especially).

[Slowtrain]

It seems to me that crpgs would be best served by giving XP for the ends rather than the means. The ends could be a wide variety of things: resoliving quests. gettign into a new location, whatever. But the XP reward should come for achieving the end; the means itself, killing, sneaking, talking, repairing, etc doesn'ttactually need to be rewarded individually, since all means are rewarded equally and regardless once the end is reached.

 

IN a game like FO3, there's not much you can do really though, since the game is about 98% combat, so rewarding combat is sorta the same thing as rewarding the ends, since there is really no other way to achieve the ends.

 

 

It would be great in NV took a slightly less combat-centric apporach to the Fallout world.

[Sannom]

But the XP reward should come for achieving the end; the means itself, killing, sneaking, talking, repairing, etc doesn'ttactually need to be rewarded individually, since all means are rewarded equally and regardless once the end is reached.

 

But some creatures are so impressive than gaining nothing from beating them would feel really disappointing! No XP for beating Firkraag or Gaax? You've got to be kidding! Perhaps I simply never played the games that I should have to understand why grinding is so annoying to some people, because no game I played enabled grinding. I grinded inadvertingly in Final Fantasy 7 because the devs were dumb enough to believe everyone will flee from every random encounter, but that's about the only game where I grinded. The Witcher, I did it for the money and alchemy, which stays in the credo of the character.

[Slowtrain]

But the XP reward should come for achieving the end; the means itself, killing, sneaking, talking, repairing, etc doesn'ttactually need to be rewarded individually, since all means are rewarded equally and regardless once the end is reached.

 

But some creatures are so impressive than gaining nothing from beating them would feel really disappointing! No XP for beating Firkraag or Gaax? You've got to be kidding! Perhaps I simply never played the games that I should have to understand why grinding is so annoying to some people, because no game I played enabled grinding. I grinded inadvertingly in Final Fantasy 7 because the devs were dumb enough to believe everyone will flee from every random encounter, but that's about the only game where I grinded. The Witcher, I did it for the money and alchemy, which stays in the credo of the character.

 

 

Sure, but killing a boss monster or a particular specific npc is really an ends rather than a means. SO yes, XP shoudl be rewarded but not specifically for the "combat". If your pc can talk the boss into giving up or killing themselves or you can drop the ceiling on them with planted explosives or whatever, the XP award would all be the same.

 

Again in FO3, there no other options other than killing, so its a matter of designing a game around interacting with the gameworld in a variety of ways other than killing.

 

 

WHich, not to beat dead horse, the original Fallouts did, but Fallout 3 does not.