Fallout: New Vegas

[funcroc]

Audio files on Obsidian's Comin-Con 2010 Panel (Thanks to the courtesy of Dave Oshry at Ripten) Edited August 23, 2010 by funcroc

[WorstUsernameEver]

Obsidian will screw up New Vegas, GameZone tells us.

[sorophx]

oh man, this Stuart Young character is talking out of his ass. I mean wtf is this:

Starting with Knights of the Old Republic II, the sequel to Bioware

[Oner]

I liked the "gathering together all the evidence" part, which he obviously didn't do.

Edited August 23, 2010 by Oner

[GreasyDogMeat]

oh man, this Stuart Young character is talking out of his ass. I mean wtf is this:

Starting with Knights of the Old Republic II, the sequel to Bioware

[WorstUsernameEver]

Personally I find the concerns about polish legitimate, but I find dismissing the game before it's even out without any real evidence (they don't really even talk about having tried the game!) an incredibly bad practice from a 'journalist'.

[Starwars]

The article is meh because it ignores all the flaws of F3 as well, silently resigning to just calling it a modern classic. I don't have a problem with people liking Fallout 3 at all, but there is a lot to criticize in that game, even buggyness (which was worse than Alpha Protocol in my personal experience). And it's basically ignoring everything good that OEI has shown off, things that are without a question *improvements*.

 

So in what ways do New Vegas look worse F3, this "modern classic"? The entire point of the article seems to be that the engine is getting a bit old and that Obsidian has released buggy games in the past (which Bethesda certainly has as well). It doesn't analyze anything past that.

[GreasyDogMeat]

Personally I find the concerns about polish legitimate, but I find dismissing the game before it's even out without any real evidence (they don't really even talk about having tried the game!) an incredibly bad practice from a 'journalist'.

I didn't take it so much as dismissing the game as worrying about the finished product.

 

The article is meh because it ignores all the flaws of F3 as well, silently resigning to just calling it a modern classic. I don't have a problem with people liking Fallout 3 at all, but there is a lot to criticize in that game, even buggyness (which was worse than Alpha Protocol in my personal experience). And it's basically ignoring everything good that OEI has shown off, things that are without a question *improvements*.

 

So in what ways do New Vegas look worse F3, this "modern classic"? The entire point of the article seems to be that the engine is getting a bit old and that Obsidian has released buggy games in the past (which Bethesda certainly has as well). It doesn't analyze anything past that.

The writer hardly ignored everything good about OEI. Calling a game a 'rough hewn gem' is hardly massive criticism and I would actually agree with that description of Obsidian games. Rough hewn gems. As for ignoring the flaws of F3, it would hardly be the first article that did that. As much as I love Fallout 3, I do find it amazing how the critics don't point out the most glaring of flaws with F3 and Bethesda's games in general. Its like they've bribed every game critic in the world or they enter this alternate dimension where gameplay mechanics/story elements that would be unacceptable in any other game are not an issue in a Bethesda game. Oblivion and Fallout 3 are both considered god's gift to gaming in pretty much every major gaming review mag/site. While I just don't get it with Oblivion (the flash and beauty wore of quick to dull quests and an uninteresting world) I actually felt it with Fallout 3.

Edited August 23, 2010 by GreasyDogMeat

[Pop]

It certainly has gained them no small amount of attention. I'd never even heard of Gamezone before but the article's being reposted on aggregate blogs like crazy. Call it the Fox News approach - Float a little bit of fear out there and people will flock to it. The answer to their question for people who know anything about anything is "no", but there are more people out there who know nothing.

[sorophx]

How was KotOR a bad game? Don't get me wrong, I liked KotOR 2 more, but I don't see how that makes the original any less 'brilliant'

well, I don't see how the word 'brilliant' applies here. X-Com was brilliant. KOTOR sure wasn't.

even I can see the flaws in their releases so far.

but that's not the point. it's like F3 or Oblivion didn't have any. Bethesda is just as notorious as obsidian when it comes to bugs. Bioware seem to be paying more attention to polishing their games. which still doesn't give Stuart Young the right to claim Obsidian games are just this one big disaster. he's obviously biased and frankly the whole article is just bs. it had been pointed out before, when the game was announced. why bring it all up now? I agree with the above: he's an attention-whore

[Gorgon]

All things being equal, Bethesda has the luxury of postponing their releases until they feel ready. It's not so much a matter of good project management as having those extra resources or not. A flagship title is not the same as an outsourced sequel.

[Syraxis]

Obsidian will screw up New Vegas, GameZone tells us.

 

Professional journalism blogging here.

[Nepenthe]

Fallout 3 is a very tough act to follow[...]it

[GreasyDogMeat]

even I can see the flaws in their releases so far.

but that's not the point. it's like F3 or Oblivion didn't have any. Bethesda is just as notorious as obsidian when it comes to bugs. Bioware seem to be paying more attention to polishing their games. which still doesn't give Stuart Young the right to claim Obsidian games are just this one big disaster. he's obviously biased and frankly the whole article is just bs. it had been pointed out before, when the game was announced. why bring it all up now? I agree with the above: he's an attention-whore

He didn't claim that Obsidian games are just one big disaster. He did sort of make that claim for Alpha Protocol and based on the reviews and (not totally sure about this part) sales of the game he is pretty much right. Hey, don't get me wrong, I really enjoy AP (I'm having a blast replaying it right now), but its more of a cult game and not the AAA release that people were expecting/hoping for.

 

Also, while Bethesda might be as notorious for bugs as Obsidian, their games for better (Fallout 3) or worse (Oblivion) are adored by the press and gaming majority while bugs are amplified in games from Obs because they aren't as well received by either the gaming press or players.

 

Could the article have been written better? Sure, but I don't think it was written by some jerk trying to get attention as I worry about the game myself for similar reasons. Do I worry that New Vegas will have a worse story or dialogue than F3? Absolutely not. For me, this is going to be enough, but I do worry about bugs and another incomplete story. Every Obs game so far (with the exception of the NwN 2 expansion packs) could have turned out much better with more polish/more dev time. The article seems to be trying to get at that.

[Bendu]

There will definitely be DLC for New Vegas.

I hope FONV DLC will have the size of Point Lookout. I think it was the best DLC of FO3. I also like the graphical diversity of FO3 DLC. That being said it would be really nice to visit old places like Vault 13, 15 and Shady Sands, Junktown, Necropolis or New Arroyo in FONV DLC.

[WorstUsernameEver]

Well, IIRC, Josh Sawyer said that we'll definitely know about Klamath and Gecko in New Vegas.. setting the canon for the next DLCs?

 

Though I'd honestly prefer new places. With a bit of variety, not just 'desert-y wasteland with new ruined buildings to explore'. I like factions and plotlines as much as anyone else but new assets are nice to see too.

 

Of course, the best option would be scrapping the DLC plans and just doing a full-fledged expansion, but we know they won't..

[Bendu]

Though I'd honestly prefer new places. With a bit of variety, not just 'desert-y wasteland with new ruined buildings to explore'. I like factions and plotlines as much as anyone else but new assets are nice to see too.

A good mix between new and old places would be nice. And I don't see why they could not use new assets for old places as well. They have surely changed over time.

[sorophx]

I thought FNV already is an expansion to F3

Every Obs game so far (with the exception of the NwN 2 expansion packs) could have turned out much better with more polish/more dev time. The article seems to be trying to get at that.

oh, oddly enough I didn't see it that way. to me it looked like a preview to a hatchet-job

 

and bugs-shmugs, there's nothing a few patches can't fix. I'm more concerned about bad game design.

[Undecaf]

Of course, the best option would be scrapping the DLC plans and just doing a full-fledged expansion, but we know they won't..

 

Have to agree with this. Shame, really, if DLC for what ever reasoning (be it Beths "people have to wait too long for an expansion" - with which I totally disagree - or whatnot) are now becoming the golden standard of expanding a game. It, kinda, feels like wiping the whippedcream leftovers from the edges of a caketray.

[Undecaf]

Ausir's F:NV preview part 2

 

Haven't read it all just yet, but this caught my eye:

 

Josh explained that me seeing Damage Threshold only on the leather armor, but Damage Resistance on the Vault 21 jumpsuit was a bug

[Starwars]

Good preview. I wonder what made them remove DR from the equation entirely?

 

The bit Ausir mentions about parts of the setting being to over-the-top might be my main worry. I obviously like the retro 50s schtick, and the whole irony of the setting in general a lot but I think it can be taken too far to the point where it's hard to take some things seriously. I think it occasionally feels like it's poking fun at itself almost, whereas Fallout 1 felt like it took itself fairly seriously. Some people don't care for that but I felt that the setting there was way more believable. Sorta like the 50s vibe was just a fairly small part of the setting (mostly in some of the visuals) that added a unique touch, whereas it sorta took over the series later on. Perhaps Fallout 1 would've been different if it had been in first-person 3d as well if it had been made today though, who knows. But I never felt the 50s thing really jumped out at you constantly in that.

 

I'm also not thrilled to hear that he heard repeating voice actors in the demo. I really hope they do a better job of changing up their acting when doing several characters, and that there still is more voiceactors overall for the smaller roles.

 

I think the stuff I look forward to the most in terms of the setting is how the various factions interact with each other. Like the preview says, some of that stuff in Fallout 2 is really great and it's still ahead of its time there I feel.

Edited August 23, 2010 by Starwars

[J.E. Sawyer]

Fewer variables are easier to tune than more variables. I tried to do everything through DT and I think the results are pretty good. I left in DR in case my math on paper didn't translate to fun in the game. It also allows PC modders to run buck wild with it if they want to. The GECK/engine/display still support both.

[Oner]

Wasn't DR part of the whole low damage DPS vs high damage "nuking" thing? Did you work around it's axing with DT?

[Undecaf]

About DT, since there probably are no different DMG types (like plasma, laser, normal etc) with separate DTs for each (or is there?), do the different armors affect the player in any other way that the DT? For one example: armor affecting moving speed to make light armors have at least some benefit over heavy armors, and to make the choice armor a bit more tactical?

Edited August 23, 2010 by Undecaf

[J.E. Sawyer]

Wasn't DR part of the whole low damage DPS vs high damage "nuking" thing? Did you work around it's axing with DT?

Can you explain this in more detail?