Fallout: New Vegas

[Killian Kalthorne]

Detroit, for Fallout LARPing.

[Slowtrain]

so...like...where did everybody go?

 

You would think that a developer would actually talk about a game they are making on their own boards. But no, not this one.

[Pop]

What is there to talk about, exactly?

[Oner]

Is there Blind Grenade Throw in NV?

[Pop]

New stuff maybe!

 

Some are suggesting that this site might be a viral marketing ploy for New Vegas. Sure is spooky.

 

This site is tallying the evidence. Looks like it's either from Bethsoft or Activision. I'm leaning towards Activision.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Pop

[Slowtrain]

What is there to talk about, exactly?

 

 

Obviously nothing, since pretty much every question goes unanswered.

 

I recognize that Obs is most likely under strict orders from Beth to stfu and since Beth is paying the bills, Obs doesn't have much of a choice.

 

*shrugs*

 

It would be nice though.

[kirottu]

You

[TwinkieGorilla]

This site is tallying the evidence. Looks like it's either from Bethsoft or Activision. I'm leaning towards Activision.

 

Yeah. Doesn't really sound like Bethesda's M.O. either. They're like the KGB of gaming...I'd think it would take a massive slip-up or leak for anything to come out this early.

[WorstUsernameEver]

On the Beth's forums the community manager (uhm, I think he's the community manager) said it has nothing to do with their games. So yeah.

[TwinkieGorilla]

I'm actually pretty glad that it's not FO:NV-related because I really didn't like the art direction of that site/graphic/clip/thingy.

[Slowtrain]

Don't we all ready know that FO:NV is going to be just like FO3, except with hardcore mode and maybe some two and three syllable words.

 

It's not a big secret. The hush-hush is ridiculous.

[Slowtrain]

Interesting point on hardcore mode

 

I would agree that hardcore should only be selectable on starting a new game. ALso, like Fallout Tactics it might be interesting if playing that way awarded an additional XP percentage. Of course, if skill points are still way to plentiful, then additonal XP is pretty much irrelevant anyway.

 

And yes, its true, I've been reduced to visiting the Bethsoft forums to get any news and thoughts on FO:NV

 

 

Sad, innit?

[WorstUsernameEver]

Interesting point on hardcore mode

 

I would agree that hardcore should only be selectable on starting a new game. ALso, like Fallout Tactics it might be interesting if playing that way awarded an additional XP percentage. Of course, if skill points are still way to plentiful, then additonal XP is pretty much irrelevant anyway.

 

And yes, its true, I've been reduced to visiting the Bethsoft forums to get any news and thoughts on FO:NV

 

 

Sad, innit?

 

I don't know.. it's true that it can be exploited, but what's the point? It's not like playing in Hardcore mode gives you any benefit, and switching it during your playthrough gives you the possibility of testing it and deciding if you like it or not without having to replay from the beginning if you find the game too easy/too hard.

[Slowtrain]

Interesting point on hardcore mode

 

I would agree that hardcore should only be selectable on starting a new game. ALso, like Fallout Tactics it might be interesting if playing that way awarded an additional XP percentage. Of course, if skill points are still way to plentiful, then additonal XP is pretty much irrelevant anyway.

 

And yes, its true, I've been reduced to visiting the Bethsoft forums to get any news and thoughts on FO:NV

 

 

Sad, innit?

 

I don't know.. it's true that it can be exploited, but what's the point? It's not like playing in Hardcore mode gives you any benefit, and switching it during your playthrough gives you the possibility of testing it and deciding if you like it or not without having to replay from the beginning if you find the game too easy/too hard.

 

 

Well, I think the point made in the Bethsoft thread is a good one: by looking at it that way, you end up playing against yourself rather than the game.

 

If hardcore more is switchable at any time then the point and purpose of a hardcore mode is completely defeated: what could be less hardcore than turning hardcore mode off when it got umm hard?

[Nemo0071]

I don't know.. it's true that it can be exploited, but what's the point? It's not like playing in Hardcore mode gives you any benefit, and switching it during your playthrough gives you the possibility of testing it and deciding if you like it or not without having to replay from the beginning if you find the game too easy/too hard.

 

 

Well, I think the point made in the Bethsoft thread is a good one: by looking at it that way, you end up playing against yourself rather than the game.

 

If hardcore more is switchable at any time then the point and purpose of a hardcore mode is completely defeated: what could be less hardcore than turning hardcore mode off when it got umm hard?

 

I must disagree. Here's why:

 

I see the "hardcore" mode as an option for having a more realistic game, rather than a challenge that must be overcome. Of course, those who want to take that challenge (myself included) are welcome to it. As for others, well, I think they should be free to have their own tastes, right?

 

Actually I think there was a very similar discussion about the quicksave feature in the game (or rather, saving anytime, anywhere) and how it will function in hardcore mode. Any thoughts on that?..

 

 

 

EDIT: Also we should keep in mind that the ability to turn HM on/off anytime adds to the "playability" aspect of the game without bothering the true hardcore veterans (too much). I'd say it would be a solid design choice.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Nemo0071

[Slowtrain]

I see the "hardcore" mode as an option for having a more realistic game, rather than a challenge that must be overcome. Of course, those who want to take that challenge (myself included) are welcome to it. As for others, well, I think they should be free to have their own tastes, right?

 

 

That's cool. But if so then there's no need to turn it on in the first place.

 

Understand that I have no particular attachment to hardcore mode. I'll use it if it's there, but I didn't actively want it as an addition to the gameplay nor would it have entered my mind to even ask for it.

 

But since it is there, and it is expressly labeled "hardcore", it really seems to make no sense to have people able to flick it on and off on a whim. If you want to play a hardcore-type, just becuase you want to, then go ahead and play that way. addign a swithcable hardcore mode doesn't appear to be adding anything to the game. It ap[pears mostly a silyl PR thing that gets good press but little else.

 

Actually I think there was a very similar discussion about the quicksave feature in the game (or rather, saving anytime, anywhere) and how it will function in hardcore mode. Any thoughts on that?..

 

If quicksave was an option and you could flick it on and off as you saw fit, it would also make no sense.

 

 

It's not the option that I am objecting to, I just agree with the original thread at Bethsoft that it is a somewhat bizarre approach.

 

 

EDIT: Also we should keep in mind that the ability to turn HM on/off anytime adds to the "playability" aspect of the game without bothering the true hardcore veterans (too much). I'd say it would be a solid design choice.

 

 

To me, it just seems if playability is an issue, then the obvious choice is not to use HC mode in the first place. Save it for an additional challenge after you've done a couple playthroughs without it.

[Nemo0071]

Understand that I have no particular attachment to hardcore mode. (...) But since it is there, and it is expressly labeled "hardcore", it really seems to make no sense to have people able to flick it on and off on a whim. If you want to play a hardcore-type, just becuase you want to, then go ahead and play that way. addign a swithcable hardcore mode doesn't appear to be adding anything to the game. It appears mostly a silyl PR thing that gets good press but little else.

Ooh I see the problem now, and it's mostly my fault You see, I did want a realistic gameplay style/choice, badly. Especially after playing a first person pov Fallout game; it really helps with getting in character, you know. And I never thought of it as "hardcore mode" per se, just realistic mode.

 

EDIT: Also we should keep in mind that the ability to turn HM on/off anytime adds to the "playability" aspect of the game without bothering the true hardcore veterans (too much). I'd say it would be a solid design choice.

 

To me, it just seems if playability is an issue, then the obvious choice is not to use HC mode in the first place. Save it for an additional challenge after you've done a couple playthroughs without it.

Yes, that's exactly the thing I would do, if I was considering playing on normal mode at all. I'll probably play through such a promising title multiple times, two times being minimum. But the thing is some people (a considerable portion, imo) won't. That's why I specifically mentioned "playability" and "design choice" as in they can just add those little "helper" aspects with little to no effort and allow the "single playthrough" kind of people to enjoy & appriciate the game a bit more.

 

It feels like I've got into too much detail for such a trivial option of the game but... Just wanted to mention, I guess. "All the little things matters" and all...

[Tigranes]

This is pretty trivial, and getting way too complex. Simply put, the integrity of most of the features in hardcore mode would evaporate if you could flick it on and off, it makes zero sense.

 

What would make more sense is the option to choose which hardcore features to start the game with. e.g. I'd probably untick 'drink water'.

[jero cvmi]

How about being able to turn it off only once in a playthrough? that would compromise with everyone.

 

But really, i think options are always good, and restrictions are always bad. There are many exploits in games, but they ultimately ruin your own experience if you do them, so it's just a matter of personal discipline. I see no point in trying to make a game (or any kind of software) completely idiot-proof.

 

You can play Iron Man in any game that has saves, but i don't know of any game that has an "Iron Man" mode that you can't turn off. The option is always there for those that enjoy it. I see Hardcore Mode in that vein: It's there for those who enjoy it, and if you're enjoying it you're not going to turn it off.

[Nemo0071]

This is pretty trivial, and getting way too complex. Simply put, the integrity of most of the features in hardcore mode would evaporate if you could flick it on and off, it makes zero sense.

 

What would make more sense is the option to choose which hardcore features to start the game with. e.g. I'd probably untick 'drink water'.

You got me at "integrity"

For the other part, I agree wholeheartedly. More customization/options is always a plus for me. Kinda reminds me of the gameplay options menu in Civilization IV... And that reminds me of the whole game, but, that much detail would be just silly I guess

 

 

EDIT:

But really, i think options are always good, and restrictions are always bad. There are many exploits in games, but they ultimately ruin your own experience if you do them, so it's just a matter of personal discipline. I see no point in trying to make a game (or any kind of software) completely idiot-proof.

No argument there. However, Tigranes did have a point about integrity. I don't how exactly it affects the game (programming-wise), though.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Nemo0071

[Nepenthe]

so...like...where did everybody go?

 

You would think that a developer would actually talk about a game they are making on their own boards. But no, not this one.

 

You'd find it to be quite common these days. Not talking about games in development, that is. PR departments rule the world, NDAs tie everybody's hands and mouths.

[Slowtrain]

so...like...where did everybody go?

 

You would think that a developer would actually talk about a game they are making on their own boards. But no, not this one.

 

You'd find it to be quite common these days. Not talking about games in development, that is. PR departments rule the world, NDAs tie everybody's hands and mouths.

 

 

Quite.

 

You'd think games were actually important the way they are treated. I recall that old line from WW2: Loose lips sink ships. Of course, here were talking about a stupid video game not transporting soldiers through enemy territory during the midst of a global war.

 

To say our priorities are slightly out of whack is probably an understatement.

[Gorgon]

Edit :wrong thread

Edited April 7, 2010 by Gorgon

[Wombat]

I see the "hardcore" mode as an option for having a more realistic game, rather than a challenge that must be overcome. Of course, those who want to take that challenge (myself included) are welcome to it. As for others, well, I think they should be free to have their own tastes, right?

From my understanding, too, the hard mode is to produce the feeling of survival rather than making the existing game-play hard. Indeed, the added necessary resource management factors will certainly get in the way of the existing game-play but I think it is there for adding the "flavors/atmosphere" (Rather than realism, I tend to use these words when describing something in an imaginary world) for post apocalyptic world adventure rather than something like "Iron Man" mode. Of course, "flip-flopability" may diminish the sense of survival but, basically, it's more about personal taste. It's more like dealing with groups of slightly different tastes rather than groups of the same taste but of different adaptability levels to the game play mechanic. As someone has already said, if some people like the added game-play elements, they will keep the mode on. Quite many of modern games are trying to reduce the possible nuisances from the player side and I don't think it is totally wrong since the players have limited time. However, at the same time, there are some players who find these nuisances make the game more immersive and think these distractions give them something they cannot get from the games totally focused on their main game-plays.

 

That said, seeing J.E.Swayer hasn't seem to have played any of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. or Metro 2033 (Well, to be honest, I, myself, only played the original S.T.A.L.K.E.R. since it's quite a time-consuming game.) makes me feel that he hasn't done enough home work (I've gotten an impression that he hasn't played PC games recently.)...since, according to my game experience and the responses of other players, the series showed how it is tough to implement the feel of survival without diminishing the fun of other game-play elements. The designer can make the "flip-flopability" as excuse and claim that it's the player's choice but, if most of people ended up with turning off the hard mode since it is no fun at all, I think the implementation is not worth the costs/efforts.

 

Talking of S.T.A.L.K.E.R., I wonder if its horror theme is worth being implemented in F.O:Vegas. The series' latest game, Call of Pripyat, reminds me of Call of Cthulhu and, in fact, the main game-play seems to be wandering in a spooky environment. If one of the maps is themed with such element with the feel of Cthulhu and Shock series, it might be interesting. In fact, the ruins which remind the player of their good days worked well in Bioshock, for example. It managed to emphasize the fall of a civilization well. Some small devices such as ironically cheerful advertisements and trivial daily goods, which cannot but make the players think of the absence of those who used them, wouldn't ruin the feel, either. That said, I wonder if the cost of implementing environment effects would worth it especially, aged graphic may show its own age and adding too many factors can end up with a disaster.

 

Not talking about games in development, that is.

I'm wondering the importance of the boards since visiting a news site seems to be much more time-saving nowadays. I just drop by and leave what I thought and, there are even times when I cannot even come back to check if there are any replies to my posts.

[Slowtrain]

Not talking about games in development, that is.

I'm wondering the importance of the boards since visiting a news site seems to be much more time-saving nowadays. I just drop by and leave what I thought and, there are even times when I cannot even come back to check if there are any replies to my posts.

 

 

I enjoy it just to see what other gamers are saying about things.

 

 

The developers are pretty much a total non-entity.