Fallout: New Vegas

[HoonDing]

I don't give a heck about Tim Cain or his opinions, but I loved how copies of Runaway 2, The longest journey, Still Life & Mysterious Island were on Matt Burton's shelf.

[kirottu]

Fallout had 3 and half year long developement cycle? Interplay was really a different beast back then.

[Wombat]

But really, Oblivion doesn't have that much dialogue as far as I remember.

Yeah, the world is big, I mean, REALLY big, but the npcs always say the same things (Fallout 3 was a huge step forward from that pov imho).

If FO3 had many more dialogues, that's all right for me and probably Obsidian, too. For reduced dialogue would definitely damage the forte of Obsidian.

 

Fallout had 3 and half year long developement cycle? Interplay was really a different beast back then.

Tim Cain is one of the designers who found their places in a small studio of good old times but I'd like Obsidian to stay.

 

Here is the latest of the series of the interviews to Deus Ex designers, where Colantonio and Smith talk about Immersive Sim. There are some interesting discussions. (BTW, quite many designers and some reviewers who catch my interest unanimously mention that Ultima Underground could have changed the history of the video game).

 

Related with keeping old fans and cultivating new players(, which Troika was not so good at, unfortunately...)

It

[Jackalmonkey]

Perlman is just a nod to the first two, he's unnecessary.

I think you're right - by now, Perlman and the opening line, "War never changes" aren't at all integral to the series. I can certainly see the marketing justification for using Perlman in FO3: Bethesda wanted to legitimize their stake in the series, and the opening narration was an easy way to brand the game as "authentically" Fallout. I fail to see the point in continuing the tradition in FO:NV.

 

And the blithe little maxim about how "war never changes" always seemed prima facie silly, especially at the tail end of the 20th century. I'd be happy to lose that.

[Wombat]

And the blithe little maxim about how "war never changes" always seemed prima facie silly, especially at the tail end of the 20th century. I'd be happy to lose that.

However, war has come back again, as the core theme in FO:NV, where the Civil War is going to be repeated in a style Einstein mentioned (if bit parodically... ). Edited July 12, 2010 by Wombat

[J.E. Sawyer]

And the blithe little maxim about how "war never changes" always seemed prima facie silly, especially at the tail end of the 20th century. I'd be happy to lose that.

"War never changes," isn't about the face of war, organization of war, or its various mechanisms. It's about humanity's ceaseless love affair with war and its most basic motivations. "In the 21st century, war was still waged over the resources that could be acquired." Despite the obvious ideological differences between NCR and Caesar's Legion, the conflict in F:NV is fundamentally about basic resources: water and electricity.

[Wombat]

"War never changes," isn't about the face of war, organization of war, or its various mechanisms. It's about humanity's ceaseless love affair with war and its most basic motivations. "In the 21st century, war was still waged over the resources that could be acquired." Despite the obvious ideological differences between NCR and Caesar's Legion, the conflict in F:NV is fundamentally about basic resources: water and electricity.

And that's where the reputation system and hard core mode play together with the theme...I guess... Inviting the players to the designer's "home ground" seems to be paralleled with Bioshock.

[Jackalmonkey]

"War never changes," isn't about the face of war, organization of war, or its various mechanisms. It's about humanity's ceaseless love affair with war and its most basic motivations. "In the 21st century, war was still waged over the resources that could be acquired." Despite the obvious ideological differences between NCR and Caesar's Legion, the conflict in F:NV is fundamentally about basic resources: water and electricity.

I do understand (though don't necessarily agree with) the cynical observation that warfare is intrinsic to human nature. If this is the case, however, "war never changes" seems less apt than "humanity never changes." Granted, statements about humanity tend to seem sort of inflated, so I can understand choosing the former over the latter.

 

Moreover, I do see how in FO:NV, the conflict is on a large enough scale that it would be hard not to use an old standby like "War never changes."

 

With that said, the declaration that "war never changes" in FO1 is part and partial to the argument that war has always been economically motivated. The only difference in the 21st century, explains the narrator, is that the spoils of war are also its weapons. You're more qualified to comment on the history of warfare than I am, but to me this perspective seems wildly reductive and even historicist, which is why I take issue with it.

[WorstUsernameEver]

MCA answers some, admittedly, not-so-interesting questions on Bethsoft's boards.

[Oner]

MCA answers some, admittedly, not-so-interesting questions on Bethsoft's boards.

Eh, no "Chris Avellone loves you!"?

[Jackalmonkey]

part and partial

*parcel. On the train home, while I was asleep, I realized I'd made this typo, and snapped awake in a cold sweat. I'll leave it to later to figure whether this makes me a good copy editor or a terrible one.

[heathen]

"War never changes," isn't about the face of war, organization of war, or its various mechanisms. It's about humanity's ceaseless love affair with war and its most basic motivations. "In the 21st century, war was still waged over the resources that could be acquired." Despite the obvious ideological differences between NCR and Caesar's Legion, the conflict in F:NV is fundamentally about basic resources: water and electricity.

I do understand (though don't necessarily agree with) the cynical observation that warfare is intrinsic to human nature. If this is the case, however, "war never changes" seems less apt than "humanity never changes." Granted, statements about humanity tend to seem sort of inflated, so I can understand choosing the former over the latter.

 

Moreover, I do see how in FO:NV, the conflict is on a large enough scale that it would be hard not to use an old standby like "War never changes."

 

With that said, the declaration that "war never changes" in FO1 is part and partial to the argument that war has always been economically motivated. The only difference in the 21st century, explains the narrator, is that the spoils of war are also its weapons. You're more qualified to comment on the history of warfare than I am, but to me this perspective seems wildly reductive and even historicist, which is why I take issue with it.

 

It just sounds cool, yo.

[Wombat]

Since, despite the multiple paths, the main game-play of FO series are, like other many games, still combat. So, probably, "War never changes" sounded just catchy but I felt Sawyer seems to go further in FO:NV.

 

I know discussions over themes are by far more unpopular compared with those of game-plays but, without a certain themes, choices and consequences end up with just causes and results which lack any humanity behind them. For interactive story-weaving, I'd like to see some solid themes, too. A theme like good and evil is way overdone and I'd like to seem more various themes which we can relate with ourselves, to explore possible simulation/story/character developments in role-playing games. After all, quite many people agree that there should be "meaningful" choices rather than just Pepsi or Cola ones.

 

PS Related with this, if karma works to realize the "you can intend to do good or evil but you cannot change the humanity" feel in FO, it would be quite faithful to the spirit.

Edited July 13, 2010 by Wombat

[funcroc]

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthrea...p;pagenumber=55

So assuming there's the shotguns fallout 3 would that make a total of 6 different shotguns in New Vegas, plus weapon modifications? Can you give us a rough idea of how many new weapons there are, Rope Kid?

 

Twice as many as F3.

 

Speaking of the iron sights, when you bring them up are you still going to aim with the reticle (like in the E3 presentations where the reticle is always there) or is it going to be more like Stalker/Every other shooter ironsight?

 

In the Gameplay section of the Options menu is a checkbox for "True Iron Sights". Enabling this will always pull the weapon (assuming it's not a minigun or other inappropriate weapon) to the center of the screen when zooming/aiming, looking down the sights and disabling the HUD reticle.

 

Every time I remember that New Vegas will end, I want to boycott it. I have to constantly remind myself of how many excellent new features will be added, and then I consider renting it. I'm extremely angry about this decision - did Obsidian completely fail to notice the enormous pile of complaints? Are they that dense? Do they have no understanding of what fans might want? Did they see the complaints, but bitterly think that anyone who enjoyed Fallout 3 has no role critiquing their masterpiece?[/rant] Please tell me, I'd like to know.

 

Reactivity to the choices the player makes is one of the most important things we focus on at our studio. A choice without consequence is an insult to the player and a waste of their time. Frankly, changing the entire world to reflect the choices of the player after the conclusion of the game requires a huge amount of work. Obsidian has a reputation for producing games that are not polished and that is something we most certainly have heard loud and clear. We got to the point where we realized that trying to update the entire world state to reflect how you conclude the game would either be an incomplete mess or incredibly buggy. Given the option to instead have a strong, solid game with a thorough ending -- well, it was still a difficult decision to make, but I think it was the right one.

 

I've written/said this before, but we make it very clear when the end is nigh and give the player plenty of opportunity to head off and do other things if they don't want to wrap things up.

[WorstUsernameEver]

Wait, so there's a choice between the true iron sights and still keeping the crosshair? Cool.

[TheAssassin]

Yeah for true ironsights!!!

[TheAssassin]

Srry. Double post

Edited July 14, 2010 by TheAssassin

[Slowtrain]

I've never really understood the appeal of wandering aimlessly around a gameworld after the primary narrative arc has concluded.

 

Do your wandering as part of and in response to the primary narrative arc, which is, after all, the reason for the entire game.

 

I can only assume its part of the LARP culture. Or something.

[WorstUsernameEver]

I've never really understood the appeal of wandering aimlessly around a gameworld after the primary narrative arc has concluded.

 

In the case of Fallout 3, I found side quest consistently more rewarding than the main narrative, so I can understand people being pissed off, especially since the ending was really really unsatisfying.

But I'm fine with Fallout having an ending, even after the Bethesda change, it still is a different franchise from the Elder Scrolls, and one of the appeal for me has always been seeing the ending slides... I can understand why Sawyer doesn't want to jeopardize them.

[vault_overseer]

I've never really understood the appeal of wandering aimlessly around a gameworld after the primary narrative arc has concluded.

 

Do your wandering as part of and in response to the primary narrative arc, which is, after all, the reason for the entire game.

 

I can only assume its part of the LARP culture. Or something.

 

 

It really only works for games like F3, where there's a lot of tiny hidden stuff all over

[pmp10]

I've never really understood the appeal of wandering aimlessly around a gameworld after the primary narrative arc has concluded.

 

Do your wandering as part of and in response to the primary narrative arc, which is, after all, the reason for the entire game.

 

I can only assume its part of the LARP culture. Or something.

Some people expect separation between storytelling and gameplay.

The result is that all plot related developments to their character are poor received (power armor training anyone?).

[WorstUsernameEver]

Fallout : New Vegas Pre-Orders, Collector's Edition FAQ.

[Slowtrain]

I've never really understood the appeal of wandering aimlessly around a gameworld after the primary narrative arc has concluded.

 

In the case of Fallout 3, I found side quest consistently more rewarding than the main narrative, so I can understand people being pissed off, especially since the ending was really really unsatisfying.

But I'm fine with Fallout having an ending, even after the Bethesda change, it still is a different franchise from the Elder Scrolls, and one of the appeal for me has always been seeing the ending slides... I can understand why Sawyer doesn't want to jeopardize them.

 

 

But one can do all the wandering and exploring that one could ever possibly want prior to the endgame.

 

Nothing wrong with exploring and side-questing and piddling about with assorted diversions, but why wait until the game is esentially over. Do it all as part of the game.

 

I have nothing against peopel who want to piddle about after the end, but if the devs feel that such compromises their product and don't want to provide post-game freeplay, that seems quite a reasonable position for them to take.

 

Note that I am ressponding to the complaint in the posted article, not the complaints of anybody here.

[GreasyDogMeat]

New Vegas tops IGN's list of most wanted game of 2010.

 

"Fallout New Vegas is more Fallout. That's awesome and all you really need to know."

I agree.

[funcroc]

http://www.brokenfrontier.com/headlines/p/...igning-schedule

SATURDAY, JULY 24:

5:00