Fallout: New Vegas

[Slowtrain]

Fallout 3's inventory was fine, except for the fact you could bring it up in combat and it would pause the game, meaning you could load up on health and change armor and the like.

 

*shrugs*

 

For me, the Fallout 3 inventory system had too many tabs and filters and required way too much reptitive clicking to do things. It was also difficult to tell what was equipped since you had to scroll through a logn list of items to find the one item that was highlighted.

 

Plenty of other crpgs have shown that there are easier wyas to do inventory.

 

 

Honestly, at this point it's just nitpicking.

 

 

It's not a game killer, but it's a valid issue.

[Tigranes]

So you found yet another arbitrary little feature that was so much much better in the original Fallouts than it was in the evil horrible Fallout 3?

 

Get over it, Twinkie didn't even compare it to the originals to start with.

 

Interface-wise the inventory was pretty crap in all three Fallouts... in fact, FO1/2 interface was pretty terrible in all aspects, even considering their age. I doubt NV will change much in this aspect, but a little more streamlined and efficient version of FO3 should do fine. If they've changed repair to not need to carry 50 extra guns you shouldn't have as much clutter, either.

[Slowtrain]

If they've changed repair to not need to carry 50 extra guns you shouldn't have as much clutter, either.

 

 

That would definitely help. Having to carry all that spare "for-repair-only" gear definitely made the inventory more annoying to use.

 

Anything that woudl cut down on the scrolling would be great.

[jero cvmi]

I found Fallout 3's inventory to be way more ergonomic than the originals'. But ergonomy isn't really relevant in a gameworld where everything is so trivialised that you find so much stuff all around the *wasteland* and you have to carry it all the time because *everything happens all the time in the wasteland*: Armor and guns break down all the time and you have to fix them; Enemies with ridiculus HP charge you all the time and you run out of ammo, you get damaged, poisoned, radiated and crippled all the time so you need a huge amount of meds etc.

 

If my gun broke down, or i got radiated, crippled etc. few times in a playthrough and i had to search for needed items and they were scarce, i would consider it an important thing, an entertaining challenge, not the boring, repetitive chore it was.

[Nemo0071]

I found Fallout 3's inventory to be way more ergonomic than the originals'. But ergonomy isn't really relevant in a gameworld where everything is so trivialised that you find so much stuff all around the *wasteland* and you have to carry it all the time because *everything happens all the time in the wasteland*: Armor and guns break down all the time and you have to fix them; Enemies with ridiculus HP charge you all the time and you run out of ammo, you get damaged, poisoned, radiated and crippled all the time so you need a huge amount of meds etc.

 

If my gun broke down, or i got radiated, crippled etc. few times in a playthrough and i had to search for needed items and they were scarce, i would consider it an important thing, an entertaining challenge, not the boring, repetitive chore it was.

I agree. To address Slowtrain's point of "balancing" as well as what you just said, I would definitely consider:

 

- Higher radiation resistance from anti-rad suits & power armor - Less dependence on radaway & rad-x. Your eyes should pop out when you find this kind of stuff in a highly irradiated post-apocalyptic wasteland, dammit.

- Random encounters to be more trivial AND more scarce (instead of sentry bots, albino radscorpions and deathclaws all over the place above level 22 or so; makes you wanna abuse fast travel even if you like manual exploring/trekking) - Less dependence on any other drug, including stimpaks, so they can have weight.

- One gun/armor of the same type to be more than enough for "spare parts" as the game suggests - No need to carry that extra armor(s) around.

OR,

- Repair with scrap metal which is plentiful. Now that would make my day. It would also make sense with repair skill: Being able to choose the necessary components from a pile of junk. Now that's skill.

[cronicler]

A spare parts system would be nice. I know it is a bit unrealistic but if the random encounters only yielded scraps (pieces of armor or leather, a barrel and a few bolts in a dcent shape and so on) it would reduce the "too much items" feeling.

[WorstUsernameEver]

A spare parts system would be nice. I know it is a bit unrealistic but if the random encounters only yielded scraps (pieces of armor or leather, a barrel and a few bolts in a dcent shape and so on) it would reduce the "too much items" feeling.

 

I point to FWE again. With a sufficient Repair skill you can build repair parts (usable for almost every weapon/armor) from scrap metal. Alternatively you could simply buy them.

[cronicler]

To be hoınest, I don't really care about FO3 mods because I don't care about the game. It is a very nice toolbox but thats all it is (and using the Fallout name without any decent content is a negative point for me. The only "decent" content it has is Pitt and Lookout storylines, which are both dlc packs / mods themselves).

 

Since we have 0 feedback except the fact that devs "do" read our comments, all I / we all forumites can do is to list the things (within reason and time budget) we would like to see in the game and hope that my suggestions, everyone's suggestions for that matter, affects the development just a tiny bit to make the game better.

[WorstUsernameEver]

To be hoınest, I don't really care about FO3 mods because I don't care about the game. It is a very nice toolbox but thats all it is (and using the Fallout name without any decent content is a negative point for me. The only "decent" content it has is Pitt and Lookout storylines, which are both dlc packs / mods themselves).

 

Since we have 0 feedback except the fact that devs "do" read our comments, all I / we all forumites can do is to list the things (within reason and time budget) we would like to see in the game and hope that my suggestions, everyone's suggestions for that matter, affects the development just a tiny bit to make the game better.

 

I'm not saying you should care about the mods, I'm just saying that since this systems have been already quite succesfully implemented by the community so FNV devs shouldn't have any problem implementing it and maybe they've already (after all that's what they did with the weapon mods).

As for the content I found some quests rewarding and decently-designed (even if most were silly story-wise) but most of them were just... disheartening.

I trust J.E. and his minions will do a better job.

[Nemo0071]

Since we have 0 feedback except the fact that devs "do" read our comments, all I / we all forumites can do is to list the things (within reason and time budget) we would like to see in the game and hope that my suggestions, everyone's suggestions for that matter, affects the development just a tiny bit to make the game better.

I don't know, just the fact they're following the topic is enough for me. After all, they're the ones who know in great detail which mechanic could/should be included in the game in the time they got, and how.

 

But if they're reading it, it's gonna more or less affect their perspective, and so, the game; one way or another. Trust me.

[Wombat]

I guess WorstUsernameEver nailed it. The below is from the description of FWE

Fallout 3 Wanderers Edition (FWE) is a major overhaul mod for Fallout 3 that changes underlying game mechanics and adds new features to the game. The aim of the mod is to improving the challenge, sense of immersion, depth of gameplay, and range of options compared the vanilla game. Generally, you'll find the wasteland to be a more dynamic but far less forgiving place.

If you are not convinced yet, please read on. Judging from the numerous items in the lists, pretty many things seem to have already been covered. As long as it is a game-play issue, mods can adjust quite a lot of things for the taste of each gamer. Even if I didn't buy FO3, I could have checked out what mods had been doing, at least when Obsidian designers mentioned that they were studying mods.

 

As for the content I found some quests rewarding and decently-designed (even if most were silly story-wise) but most of them were just... disheartening.

Well, this brought back my memory when I played Oblivion. I didn't try even a mod since what I felt lacking wouldn't be "fixed" by any of them. The "trauma" prevented me from even touching FO3. However, I guess I have to thank Bethesda since if FO3 had not been this successful, there couldn't have been the supportive mod community or New Vegas.

[Amentep]

The inventory system in Fallout 1 was horribly clunky. Fallout 2 made a few improvements that made manuipulating inventory a bit easier.

 

I can't really say that Fallout 3 had an interesting inventory system, but at least it was less painful than than Fallout 1/2.

 

I think it would have been nice if there had been more of a rpg-standard paper doll plus inventory slots where you could place your equipped gear and instantly get an oveview of your character setup just by looking at your paper doll.

 

I hated the Fallout 1/2 inventory, although as you say FO2 was slightly less hair-pulling.

 

I don't mind limitations on where you can place stuff with a paper-doll system. I mean if the repair system doesn't require me to carry around 5 missile launchers than certainly having to have the missile launcher in the over-the-shoulder back location would make sense.

 

One inventory thing I found odd was that there doesn't actually appear to be an upper limit to how much you can carry. At one point I had around 50 pistols and about 60 rifles in my inventory. My carry weight was around 530 lbs, but I was over-encumbered at 200. There's no way I should have been legitimately walking around with 530 lbs, much less shooting enemies in the face while slow-walking. So has there been anything said about a max carry weight for FO:NV?

[TwinkieGorilla]

The inventory system in Fallout 1 was horribly clunky. Fallout 2 made a few improvements that made manuipulating inventory a bit easier.

 

I can't really say that Fallout 3 had an interesting inventory system, but at least it was less painful than than Fallout 1/2.

 

Damn. This discussion went in a direction I certainly didn't intend it to. I wasn't talking about the interface or anything like that. I was simply talking about the weight of items and the carry weight of your character. That's it. Being forced to choose only what is really dear to you makes that which is in your inventory more special to you and your character. You kind of grow a bond with that .223 modified hand gun. This just isn't possible when your character is somehow able to carry every damn gun and piece of armor in the game without worry. It's not only a little immersion breaking in it's unreality, it just turns everything sort of...I don't know...un-special.

 

Basically, I don't think there should be any objects without weight. Like...nothing. And I think the carry weight of the PC should be brought back down to where it was in the originals with strength and perks (or traits, if they find their way in) affecting this.

[Nemo0071]

One inventory thing I found odd was that there doesn't actually appear to be an upper limit to how much you can carry. At one point I had around 50 pistols and about 60 rifles in my inventory. My carry weight was around 530 lbs, but I was over-encumbered at 200. There's no way I should have been legitimately walking around with 530 lbs, much less shooting enemies in the face while slow-walking. So has there been anything said about a max carry weight for FO:NV?

Hell, I carried THOUSANDS of pounds at some point while I was playing around with my stashed gear.

 

In Fallout Tactics (not sure about FO1/2) there was a 2-level max weight system. When you hit the first limit, you became encumbered and couldn't run, just like FO3. When you hit the second, you became "immobilized"; practically nailed to the ground. There was even a cute little icon for it with a completely dismembered Vault/Pip Boy. Fun times...

 

Maybe they can use a similar system.

 

I don't think there should be any objects without weight. Like...nothing.

The inventory system in FO3 supports objects with weight/value under 1 pound/cap (e.g. Grenades or Packs of Cigarettes: 0.5 lbs)

 

If it goes all the way down to 0.1 lbs (or lower), I don't think the devs will have a hard time giving everything some weight. Even a piece of paper. That would be interesting.....

 

Also note that (iirc) some objects didn't have weight in FO1&2 (like stimpaks). They just took up space in the already long list of items you had to scroll through. Like I said, all these systems worked in their own way. I'm all for improving them.

[Amentep]

I think if they can't go under a pound that certain items with a weight well under a pound should be weightless rather than a pound personally.

 

Picking up a 1lb pencil and having it make you encumbered is just weird.

[TwinkieGorilla]

Picking up a 1lb pencil and having it make you encumbered is just weird.

 

Really now. Weirder than carrying around multiple suits of armor along with 20 guns and a cornucopia of random "stuff"? Because...somehow a person could actually carry multiple suits of armor? I prefer the 1lb pencil over that, though I think there's got to be a better way for both sides of the argument.

[Oner]

BTW, wasn't there a game where you could die from overencumbrance?

[Amentep]

Picking up a 1lb pencil and having it make you encumbered is just weird.

 

Really now. Weirder than carrying around multiple suits of armor along with 20 guns and a cornucopia of random "stuff"? Because...somehow a person could actually carry multiple suits of armor? I prefer the 1lb pencil over that, though I think there's got to be a better way for both sides of the argument.

 

Actually no I don't think its weirder than that. Both are weird (and I say this as someone who recently carried about 4 outcast power armors some distance to store in my Megaton House).

 

As I mentioned above I think no upper level limit to encumbrance is also weird! I was carrying 530 lbs and still walking and shooting!

 

Still enjoy the game, but its got some weird elements in it.

 

Ideally I'd rather some negligible weight stuff (like pencils) and an uppercap on how much you can carry that you can't move with or pick up past. Ideally IMO no one should be regularly carrying around 220 lbs of gear anyhow particularly not for long distances...80 is probably going to be a problem for an average person I'd think.

[J.E. Sawyer]

I think if they can't go under a pound that certain items with a weight well under a pound should be weightless rather than a pound personally.

 

Picking up a 1lb pencil and having it make you encumbered is just weird.

The engine supports weights down to the ten thousandths place in data but it only displays weights to the tenths.

[Enoch]

I think if they can't go under a pound that certain items with a weight well under a pound should be weightless rather than a pound personally.

 

Picking up a 1lb pencil and having it make you encumbered is just weird.

The engine supports weights down to the ten thousandths place in data but it only displays weights to the tenths.

Odd. So, if I coud have a character holding 1000 paperclips, which are coded at 0.01 lbs. but display at 0.1 lbs., would his total encumberance be 10 or 100? The first result would be confusing to the player, but the latter result would be rather silly from a verisimilitude point of view. Making tinier items weightless might be the least-bad end result there.

 

 

Or, better yet, use a less granular unit of weight-- Go metric, put everything in Grams, and lose the decimal point altogether. The "can't display finer than a tenth" problem goes away if you use a smaller unit of measurment. We Americans may not like it, but we'd adjust.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Enoch

[Nemo0071]

Odd. So, if I coud have a character holding 1000 paperclips, which are coded at 0.01 lbs. but display at 0.1 lbs., would his total encumberance be 10 or 100? The first result would be confusing to the player, but the latter result would be rather silly from a verisimilitude point of view. Making tinier items weightless might be the least-bad end result there.

Hmm. Maybe, for displaying the weight of really light items, they could go with "0.0" as in trivial, instead of "--" as in weightless. This way they could give every item a logical/plausible weight parameter, and for display, simply insert a code to round down the ones with a weight < 0.1

 

I think it's easier in practice than it sounds.

 

EDIT: Before anyone asks, yes, for some players the "0.0" thing might be confusing at first, but I'd still go for it.

Edited April 10, 2010 by Nemo0071

[Wombat]

I just recently finished the prequel, Call of Pripyat. The weapons get insanely powerful and accurate once upgraded to tier 3. Unfortunately once it becomes available the game is pretty much over. I spent hours hamstering enough money to upgrade everything, go back to Pripyat and it's literally over in 15 mins. I don't think the developers really understood how people react and play the game when they finally get access to the final upgrades. Big disappointment.

I guess you edited your previous post. In any case, thanks for the info. Yes, I know quite many reviewers found the game gets boring after they reach Pripyat. The reason why I picked S.T.A.L.K.E.R. as an example there is that it also features the survival with combat core game-play in a sandbox world. I think one of the reasons why S.T.A.L.K.E.R. feels "weaker" in the end is that it is originally made as a sandbox game with weak story elements, so, when they try to "conclude" the experience, they need to put the players into a narrow corridor which leads to ending cut-scenes, which kills the attraction of sandbox game-play.

 

The engine supports weights down to the ten thousandths place in data but it only displays weights to the tenths.

Are there no differentiation in the weight of ammo? I'm not so knowledgeable about modern weapons but I once saw a TV documentary about assault rifles at Vietnam War. It's about American rifle called M-something (yes...it slipped out of my head...) and AK-47, that in/famous Kalashnikov. In that, while the American rifle is designed as right-weight and accurate with the latest technology available then, more crude Kalashnikov turned out to be competitive enough due to its durability, toughness and heavy ammo which are not easily deflected by some bushes/branches/small trees. The rather fragile American rifle was far from maintenance-free and can be smashed by AK-47 in close combat, which often happened in the war, it says. I don't know how much accurate the documentary is but, in the context of game-balancing, isn't there such characterization of weapons in FO3? The point is that, if your character carry heavy weapons/ammo, then, there should be some benefits to them such as firepower and/or maintenance-free durability/reliability. Form what I read so far, there doesn't seem to be the differentiation of characteristic in weapons in durability/maintenance-free-ness or easy maintenance.

 

PS That said, I began to think these things are more of the issues for console gamers since, as someone pointed out, their PC counterparts can get mods as long as the game manages to gather enough mod community.

[Calax]

the game informer preview was rather glowing about things. I was a little sad because neither of the two characters mentioned were tagged with my name but .

[WorstUsernameEver]

the game informer preview was rather glowing about things. I was a little sad because neither of the two characters mentioned were tagged with my name but .

 

A REAL GameInformer preview this time?

It will ruin FOREVER the memories of the fake.

[Oner]