Fallout: New Vegas

[TwinkieGorilla]

Chris doesn't of course, and approaches the super mutant camp, taking a route that seems to have been carved into the ground just for stealthy players to enjoy. "We tried to make sure with our level design that we included stealth paths that go into all locations so sneaky characters feel special and can take advantage of the lack of security in some areas," he says.

 

From the VideoGamer.com preview.

It's nice to see that the stealth path has been given attention, hopefully working on Alpha Protocol has given Obsidian some experience in this regard.

 

ah, that is hopeful, thanks for pointing it out; i've skimmed about as much regurgitation as i can stomach for today. i've said it since last april, but i really hope this game gives the science, stealth, diplomat characters a more meaningful set of choices.

 

oh man. this just made me think...are we done with magic armor (+5 science lab coat!!!)? i thought that was a little much.

[Slowtrain]

Has threr been any mention of how weapon/armor repair will be handled in NV in any of these previews?

 

I haven't seen it mentioned, but there're been so many previews recently that I may have missed it.

 

There is no "chance" of failure; they're all straight threshold checks..

 

 

Excellent. I prefer this approach.

 

[intelligence] So you say skills were meaningful in Fallout 3?

 

 

I take it you never played Oblivion.

 

So here's a stupid question: How does the leveling and skillpoint distribution work in relation to the dialog thresholds (and in general too)? Do we max out and become the "be all know all" - grinding our time and eventually passing every single check there is, or does it work the (imo) more interesting way where a path must be chosen and "all" is not achievable in one playthrough?

 

 

I'm curious about this as well. I'm hoping Obs will avoid the munchkin approach to character development that Bethesda has grown to favor over the last few crpgs.

Edited May 5, 2010 by Slowtrain

[Slowtrain]

a weakness o' fo were its poorly developed jnpcs... am not gonna try an re-imagine as a strength.

 

 

I don't know if calling it a weakness is fair though. IIRC, Tim Cain was very clear that Fallout was considered a solo PC game with joinable characters who would tag along for a short time. The design goal was to have the pc start the game alone and finish the game alone.

 

It's probably more a credit to the designers that the jnpcs turned out to be so popular rather than a mark of weakness.

[Pop]

 

`_`

[Gromnir]

a weakness o' fo were its poorly developed jnpcs... am not gonna try an re-imagine as a strength.

 

 

I don't know if calling it a weakness is fair though. IIRC, Tim Cain was very clear that Fallout was considered a solo PC game with joinable characters who would tag along for a short time. The design goal was to have the pc start the game alone and finish the game alone.

 

It's probably more a credit to the designers that the jnpcs turned out to be so popular rather than a mark of weakness.

 

you are joking, no? trying to re-imagine fo jnpcs as a strength or deserving of applause is going a bit far. also, the fact that you start and finish alone is somehow necessitating that the characters be underdeveloped? why? the "best" fo jnpc were a friggin' dog. a Dog? spin however you may wish and you still end up with relative poorly written and under developed characters that added little more to the game than what were evident from their stats page... and maybe (frequently) they tried to shoot you during combat.

 

writing as a whole were not the strength o' fo... which is fine. a sandbox game not necessarily need engaging characters and well-developed plot to be fun. is arguable that the more you develop a coherent critical path plot, the less freedom you is allowing the player, but that still ain't an excuse for failing to develop characters. there has got to be a reason to wanna continue playing in the sandbox, and the presence o' intriguing characters can only bolster overall game enjoyment. don't need 'em? fine, don't add... but if you is gonna introduce such characters and give 'em stories, there ain't no excuse for leaving 'em... lame.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Oner]

Typical of NCR, the person in charge of Helios One isn't the best fellow for the job

What.

[Mikhailian]

Hello Obsidian forums, I have a question I'm directing towards the great and formless ether of the tubes...

 

When it's said that New Vegas has twice the number of weapons as fo3, is this stock fo3, or post dlc fo3?

And more importantly, is "twice as many" meant in the way the layman would mean it,

Or is it meant in the way as "fo3 has 500+ unique endings", which is to say, a b.s. number created by

counting up every single possible incremental difference in a weapon, as an invidual weapon?

[TwinkieGorilla]

a Dog?

 

yes.

[Slowtrain]

I disagree, Grommy.

 

A design choice to develop one thing heavily and leave another thing lightly developed is just that, a choice. It's not a weakness or a failure or incompetence. And, to me, its remarkable thaat despite the almost "sketchy" aspect of the jnpc system in FO3, the jnpcs are a strength to the game. If they weren't a strength, everybody wouldn't have cared enough to want them alive and with the PC the whole game.

 

Sure, if someone loves party-based crpgs, then Fallout might leave them unsatisfied, but that's not because of weakness. It's because of design choice. Big difference.

 

I don't get what you're issue with Dogmeat is. People like dogs, the devs made Dogmeat cool, gamers enjoyed having him around. If he's their favorite NPC, then that's great. The fact he's a dog isn't even remotely relevant as the quality of the npc character.

[Enoch]

A design choice to develop one thing heavily and leave another thing lightly developed is just that, a choice. It's not a weakness or a failure or incompetence.

So I suppose you would also agree that Bethesda's decision to develop the "explosions" aspect of FO3 fully and develop the "reactivity to player choice" element lightly is just a choice, not a weakness in the game?

[WorstUsernameEver]

Another New Vegas preview.

Another video interview to our favourite cancelled projects director Josh Sawer.

And a couple of questions, dubbed in a rather generous way 'interview', to Chris Avellone.

 

Cute how in the first preview they always refer to Fallout 3 as 'the original', almost as if it didn't have a 3 in its name.

[Slowtrain]

A design choice to develop one thing heavily and leave another thing lightly developed is just that, a choice. It's not a weakness or a failure or incompetence.

So I suppose you would also agree that Bethesda's decision to develop the "explosions" aspect of FO3 fully and develop the "reactivity to player choice" element lightly is just a choice, not a weakness in the game?

 

 

Does it add value to the gameplay? Then yes.

 

 

Fallout's JNPC system added value to the game.

[Syraxis]

Does anyone know if floating combat text has been confirmed/denied?

Edited May 5, 2010 by Syraxis

[Enoch]

A design choice to develop one thing heavily and leave another thing lightly developed is just that, a choice. It's not a weakness or a failure or incompetence.

So I suppose you would also agree that Bethesda's decision to develop the "explosions" aspect of FO3 fully and develop the "reactivity to player choice" element lightly is just a choice, not a weakness in the game?

 

Does it add value to the gameplay? Then yes.

 

Fallout's JNPC system added value to the game.

That's... a shockingly optimistic outlook. Rather than criticize how an element of a game was poorly-implemented, we're supposed to just say "well, they clearly didn't try very hard at this part, but it's better than nothing"?

 

 

"The NPCs in Oblivion were all bland cardboard-cutouts with ugly faces, but I shouldn't criticize that aspect of the game because design of the game wasn't really focused on simulating realistic conversations and interpersonal relations, and because having half-assed NPCs is better than having all the towns be empty of people to talk to!"

Edited May 5, 2010 by Enoch

[WorstUsernameEver]

That's... a shockingly optimistic outlook. Rather than criticize how an element of a game was poorly-implemented, we're supposed to just say "well, they clearly didn't try very hard at this part, but it's better than nothing"?

 

 

"The NPCs in Oblivion were all bland cardboard-cutouts with ugly faces, but I shouldn't criticize that aspect of the game because design of the game wasn't really focused on simulating realistic conversations and interpersonal relations, and because having half-assed NPCs is better than having all the towns be empty of people to talk to!"

 

I think that there's a thin line that separates half-assed implemented elements and element that are sub-par but fine in the context of certain games.

Though I agree that JNPCS in Fallout sucked (not because they were underdeveloped though, but because they were a pain to use, simply).

[HoonDing]

"The NPCs in Oblivion were all bland cardboard-cutouts with ugly faces, but I shouldn't criticize that aspect of the game because design of the game wasn't really focused on simulating realistic conversations and interpersonal relations, and because having half-assed NPCs is better than having all the towns be empty of people to talk to!"

That's different. Oblivion was made by Bethesda. Bethesda must be hated on.

[Thorton_AP]

I disagree, Grommy.

 

A design choice to develop one thing heavily and leave another thing lightly developed is just that, a choice. It's not a weakness or a failure or incompetence. And, to me, its remarkable thaat despite the almost "sketchy" aspect of the jnpc system in FO3, the jnpcs are a strength to the game. If they weren't a strength, everybody wouldn't have cared enough to want them alive and with the PC the whole game.

 

Wouldn't that mostly just mean that as designers, they are willing to accept any criticism towards the JNPCs because they made that choice. I don't think it invalidates someone's opinion that various aspects of the game are considered weaknesses.

 

How many things do people not like about Fallout 3 that they consider weakenesses, that are because of active design choices? Are they no longer weaknesses then?

 

Sure, if someone loves party-based crpgs, then Fallout might leave them unsatisfied, but that's not because of weakness. It's because of design choice. Big difference.

 

I don't get what you're issue with Dogmeat is. People like dogs, the devs made Dogmeat cool, gamers enjoyed having him around. If he's their favorite NPC, then that's great. The fact he's a dog isn't even remotely relevant as the quality of the npc character.

 

How did the devs really make Dogmeat cool though? Wasn't he just a dog that you could get with some food or by wearing a leather jacket? I don't remember him doing anything "cool." Unless the "haha dogmeat is running up to the supermutant and he just got gibbed by a rocket" is cool or something?

[Enoch]

How did the devs really make Dogmeat cool though? Wasn't he just a dog that you could get with some food or by wearing a leather jacket? I don't remember him doing anything "cool." Unless the "haha dogmeat is running up to the supermutant and he just got gibbed by a rocket" is cool or something?

1) He was a murderously effective melee combatant.

2) People like dogs.

3) He was sufficiently vague that people were able to mentally ascribe to him characteristics of actual dogs they knew and loved.

[Amentep]

I never saw the appeal for Dogmeat.

 

I suppose he was less inclined to shoot me in the back with a minigun like a certain FO2 companion I could name...

 

But then I don't think there was any of the companions I really wanted to take along (although there's a certain perverse appeal trying to see if you can keep your S.O. in FO2 alive).

[Darque]

Dogmeat was just awesome.

 

Search your feelings, you know this to be true.

[Amentep]

*searches*

 

Nope.

[CoM_Solaufein]

Dogmeat usually died, by my own hands at that. Cross my line of fire and well, guess you'll die.

 

Speaking of stupid AI, how about making it smarter? Lets see, I'm dressed in power armor and I have a plasma rifle and I have a raider coming at me with a pipe. If I was that raider I would be heading in the opposite direction.

[Enoch]

Speaking of stupid AI, how about making it smarter? Lets see, I'm dressed in power armor and I have a plasma rifle and I have a raider coming at me with a pipe. If I was that raider I would be heading in the opposite direction.

Whenever I catch myself thinking like this, I try to remember of all the "fun" I've had chasing down fleeing enemies in past games that included AI morale checks.

 

Although, if you're talking about the raiders not picking a fight with clearly well armed and dangerous Player Characters in the first place, I'm with you 100%.

[Tigranes]

Fallout 2 DID have morale checks. Drugged skinheads would usually start flailing adn running after a shot or two. Now that was "fun", mainly because they still had to take their turns and then they'd usually run out of the camera range and you couldn't target them or quit battle.

[TwinkieGorilla]

So I suppose you would also agree that Bethesda's decision to develop the "explosions" aspect of FO3 fully and develop the "reactivity to player choice" element lightly is just a choice, not a weakness in the game?

 

i tend to think it's both and that this is too subjective an argument. it's a bad choice which led to a perceived weakness as an RPG game, though many (if the Bethesda forum is any indication) would call it a good choice which led to a strong game (or at least the one they wanted to play). explosions in a next-gen, open-world, sandbox, larpy/simulator-type game in 2008 was obviously an incredibly smart choice...if selling copies was your goal, and an incredibly bad choice...if making a meaningful, character-driven RPG was your choice.

 

Dogmeat was just awesome.

 

i always protected Dogmeat above all else.

Edited May 5, 2010 by TwinkieGorilla