[Kieren Thomson]

Hey whats up with Vegas, any nerw info I haven't stopped by in months!

I haven't seen anything new recently, but I don't look that hard...I think Obsidian is focusing on getting Alpha Protocol out the door before they start revealing too much about FO: NV...check out the http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Portal:Fallout:_New_Vegas

[Maya Maya]

Well seeing as it is technically bethesdas game, and bethesda really likes to have alot to show when they show something, I would guess the flood of information will start around the holidays or sooner depending on when in 2010 they want to release.

[Daddy Cool!]

Well seeing as it is technically bethesdas game, and bethesda really likes to have alot to show when they show something, I would guess the flood of information will start around the holidays or sooner depending on when in 2010 they want to release.

They'll probably start selling NV after they're finished selling FO3, which still has a GotY version in the works. I'd expect news in the spring.

[Emma Copeland]

i hope new vegas is about 30gb and it has years of gameplay

[josh evans]

Erhm ..sure :unsure:

[Michael Korkia]

i hope new vegas is about 30gb and it has years of gameplay

It'd be interesting if it shipped as a Blue-Ray title :drool:
(and as a multi DVD set.)

[Stephanie Valentine]

Really, I don't give a crap about the where, what, and how of a new Fallout game, I just hope whoever was in charge of the physics and character animations gets fired and never works in the industry again.

For a game that's centered around single-player immersiveness, watching a character glide across the ground like they have no weight, or running sideways with the same animation they have as if running forward just completely kills the immersion.
While I would never willing touch a sports game in my life, at least the developers understand the importance of making characters more life-like. Hell, even the original Fallout 1&2 2D SPRITES look more life-like than the stilted stiff characters in 3.

I shouldn't even have to mention that every damn item in the world magically floats on a coaster of air just like in Oblivion, and by looking at an item from different angles, even though you never touch it, its position in the game world changes.

[Dustin Brown]

Is game going to be played in first person im guessing so since i read it using same engine from fallout 3

[Camden Unglesbee]

Is game going to be played in first person im guessing so since i read it using same engine from fallout 3

I would assume so... but the engine seems versatile enough to handle other view styles.

[Grace Francis]

Really, I don't give a crap about the where, what, and how of a new Fallout game, I just hope whoever was in charge of the physics and character animations gets fired and never works in the industry again.

For a game that's centered around single-player immersiveness, watching a character glide across the ground like they have no weight, or running sideways with the same animation they have as if running forward just completely kills the immersion.
While I would never willing touch a sports game in my life, at least the developers understand the importance of making characters more life-like. Hell, even the original Fallout 1&2 2D SPRITES look more life-like than the stilted stiff characters in 3.

I shouldn't even have to mention that every damn item in the world magically floats on a coaster of air just like in Oblivion, and by looking at an item from different angles, even though you never touch it, its position in the game world changes.

I don't see anything wrong with most of the animations in F3.

You've got some strange priorities if you'd rather play a well-animated, crappy game than a great game with (in your opinion) crappy character animations.

[Stephanie Nieves]

I
If NPCs are going to die, I'd like to at least know about it when it's going on. Especially if they're tied to a quest or something. Me going on a killing spree and getting locked out of some quests because of my own actions is one thing. But at the same time, I don't want the responsibility of baby-sitting every NPC in the game, making sure they're not killed by a random spawn. I think that's putting too much in the players' hands.

I suppose I understand that as a player, but it simply doesn't seem realistic in a role playing game. If the world is dangerous, then the would should be dangerous. If your questgiver dies, sorry for your luck. I don't think that the entire wor4ld should revolve around the player character. I like the idea that the world goes on without my direct control.

[Ladymorphine]

I suppose I understand that as a player, but it simply doesn't seem realistic in a role playing game. If the world is dangerous, then the would should be dangerous. If your questgiver dies, sorry for your luck. I don't think that the entire wor4ld should revolve around the player character. I like the idea that the world goes on without my direct control.

Realistic or not I'm certain it wouldn't be enjoyable. It would be a nice feature for a simcity kind of game but I doubt that people would enjoy such an entropic action RPG.
The forums would be flooded with threads asking where the 'x' character is and how to resurrect him if his dead etc.

That is unless they developed a world that could randomly generate NPCs, quests etc. - much like it was on Daggerfall.
But that would mean sacrificing any structure and continuity in the world and storyline - if anything could change at any time, without warning, and without chance to prevent it, the result would be a pure sandbox where you would have to keep doing menial quests over and over without ever having any long-term goal.

That could potentially make a good game... but don't get too excited about it - it will have crucial differences from FO3.
It would be a completely different kind of game (much different than FO3 is from FO1&2)
Even Daggerfall had a structured story and unkillable NPCs!

[Tamara Primo]

Realistic or not I'm certain it wouldn't be enjoyable. It would be a nice feature for a simcity kind of game but I doubt that people would enjoy such an entropic action RPG.
The forums would be flooded with threads asking where the 'x' character is and how to resurrect him if his dead etc.

That is unless they developed a world that could randomly generate NPCs, quests etc. - much like it was on Daggerfall.
But that would mean sacrificing any structure and continuity in the world and storyline - if anything could change at any time, without warning, and without chance to prevent it, the result would be a pure sandbox where you would have to keep doing menial quests over and over without ever having any long-term goal.

That could potentially make a good game... but don't get too excited about it - it will have crucial differences from FO3.
It would be a completely different kind of game (much different than FO3 is from FO1&2)
Even Daggerfall had a structured story and unkillable NPCs!

Good! I'd like to see Fallout with a different spin. I reckon it'll be vastly different from any of the current FOs.

[:)Colleenn]

Why?
If you like a different kind of game then why not find it and play that, instead of requesting turning Fallout into it?

[kirsty williams]

I thought of a potential New Vegas DLC idea.

You know how Salt Lake City is somewhat close to Vegas? Well, I was thinking you could travel to Vault 70, or maybe New Jerusalem.

[scorpion972]

Why?
If you like a different kind of game then why not find it and play that, instead of requesting turning Fallout into it?

Because they've changed it vastly already. Besides, I see NV as more of a test than an actual game; a chance to try out different things without tarnishing the true Fallout. That's how I see it at least.

[Chris BEvan]

That is unless they developed a world that could randomly generate NPCs, quests etc. - much like it was on Daggerfall.
But that would mean sacrificing any structure and continuity in the world and storyline - if anything could change at any time, without warning, and without chance to prevent it, the result would be a pure sandbox where you would have to keep doing menial quests over and over without ever having any long-term goal.

That's a bit reactionary. A good story need not rely on npcs to live. Quests don't either.

[April]

That's a bit reactionary. A good story need not rely on npcs to live. Quests don't either.

How would you suggest the story should progress then?
Considering that there will be some 'plot' that will keep evolving in the course of the game, with the player having the ability to influence it (and not merely follow it as an observer - by reading a number of documents for instance)

[Jessica Lloyd]

I suppose I understand that as a player, but it simply doesn't seem realistic in a role playing game. If the world is dangerous, then the would should be dangerous. If your questgiver dies, sorry for your luck. I don't think that the entire wor4ld should revolve around the player character. I like the idea that the world goes on without my direct control.

I like having the world existing outside of my direct control, as well. I just think there should be limits. Someone dying way on the other side of the world map because I wasn't there to do anything about it - I don't see that as adding anything to the game. It's punishing me for not babysitting all the important NPCs. I'm not against time-based stuff going on, (didn't bug me in the old Quest for Glory games, for example.) But a quest-giver getting killed by a random spawn without my knowledge, or even giving me a head's-up to let me know that something's going on; I don't see as adding anything to the game. I'm of the philosophy that gameplay should come before realism - I think that falls into that category. (Though at the same time, admitting that's a subjective view - just my own preferences...)

I'd probably be okay if there was at least a message telling me something was going on outside of my current location - or better yet if I was given a chance to decide whether I wanted to intervene or not. As an example - Mad Max: Road Warrior. Max comes across the oil refinery refugees besieged by raiders. Were that a videogame, the PC would come across the situation there. The stage has been set. If he goes off and leaves the place alone, I wouldn't have a problem with coming back later to find that the raiders have wiped out the settlers and taken the refinery over - slaughtering all of the potential quest-givers in the area. Because I could reasonably assume that events would progress with or without my intervention.

What I would have a problem with would be not coming across that encounter until 3/4 of the way through the game; only to find out that everyone is already dead. To have completely missed any opportunity to do anything meaningful there through no fault of my own; or having never even known that anything interesting was going on there. To have not even recieved so much as a distress call alerting me that there might be something interesting there worth checking out. It would make for a better simulation - but (I don't think,) not a very good game element. Not to mention it would have made for a very short movie.

Sure, the game developers could work in some contingency plans for picking up a plot after the fact - finding a survivor and getting revenge or something. But that's more work for the developers - and by now we've all agreed, I think, that they're working with limited resources.

...
A good story need not rely on npcs to live. Quests don't either.

Concievably, you could have a story or a quest without NPCs - but without people, that's kind of hard to do I think. I guess you can always pick up a story from a holodisk or terminal, but I think it's (generally,) more compelling when you're reacting to human beings. Going out and completing a task because a computer led you to it works, but I generally think it's better if you're reacting to an NPC that you have some sort of emotional connection to.

[Emmi Coolahan]

A good story need not rely on npcs to live.

Maybe not entirely, but having a cast of well written characters with individual personalities help progress a story more-so than just having a quest description with a one-liner title that's automatically added to a quest journal. Hell, the characters is where Fallout gets a lot of its charm and what made it great in the first place.

Quests don't either.

Depends on how they're structured. If done correctly quests can be really useful for sub-plots that may or may not be directly tied to the main story.

[CArla HOlbert]

Realistic or not I'm certain it wouldn't be enjoyable. It would be a nice feature for a simcity kind of game but I doubt that people would enjoy such an entropic action RPG.

Agreed ~up to a point...
Personally I'd have liked it if they had flagged NPC's [internally] as active or static, and have active NPC's 'actively' adventuring,looting, protecting, brawling, and scavenging the land ~While the statics stay in the bar swallowing beer, or remain (mostly) at their post (much like the mayor of Canterbury commons)... and though not immortal, are not a danger to themselves nor an active target to other NPC's and animals.

If you like a different kind of game then why not find it and play that, instead of requesting turning Fallout into it?

This advice is five years late. (though admittedly its taken out of context)

I like having the world existing outside of my direct control, as well. I just think there should be limits. Someone dying way on the other side of the world map because I wasn't there to do anything about it - I don't see that as adding anything to the game. It's punishing me for not babysitting all the important NPCs. I'm not against time-based stuff going on, (didn't bug me in the old Quest for Glory games, for example.) But a quest-giver getting killed by a random spawn without my knowledge, or even giving me a head's-up to let me know that something's going on; I don't see as adding anything to the game. I'm of the philosophy that gameplay should come before realism - I think that falls into that category. (Though at the same time, admitting that's a subjective view - just my own preferences...)

I absolutely Agree. :thumbsup:

[Irmacuba]

Agreed ~up to a point...
Personally I'd have liked it if they had flagged NPC's [internally] as active or static, and have active NPC's 'actively' adventuring,looting, protecting, brawling, and scavenging the land ~While the statics stay in the bar swallowing beer, or remain (mostly) at their post (much like the mayor of Canterbury commons)... and though not immortal, are not a danger to themselves nor an active target to other NPC's and animals.

Doesn't that happen already in some way? I don't recall any NPCs dying in FO3 but there were those imperial guards in Oblivion getting killed by random monsters in front of my eyes all the time. (or merchants & bandits/slavers & slaves from FO2 etc)
I agree that would be all right though (and in a larger scale)- as long as these unfortunate NPCs would be replaced in some way - I'd hate for the world to just keep emptying just like that.
But even so, that would merely be a purely aesthetic change.
What I'm more concerned about is the suggestion that (semi-)essential NPCs could die 'randomly' leading to the possibility of quests failing and storylines staying half-finished due to simple rotten luck- which would be a huge gameplay alteration.

This advice is five years late. (though admittedly its taken out of context)

Actually forget about that - I have a better idea now: since everyone is so keen on change, let's change it! let's make FO:NV a turn-based, isometric game with 2D graphics! That would be quite a change from FO3 wouldn't it?

[Sammi Jones]

Doesn't that happen already in some way? I don't recall any NPCs dying in FO3 but there were those imperial guards in Oblivion getting killed by random monsters in front of my eyes all the time. (or merchants & bandits/slavers & slaves from FO2 etc)
I agree that would be all right though (and in a larger scale)- as long as these unfortunate NPCs would be replaced in some way - I'd hate for the world to just keep emptying just like that.
But even so, that would merely be a purely aesthetic change.
What I'm more concerned about is the suggestion that (semi-)essential NPCs could die 'randomly' leading to the possibility of quests failing and storylines staying half-finished due to simple rotten luck- which would be a huge gameplay alteration.

This was what I was addressing... that principal NPC's generally stay put, and don't draw random deaths from wild animals and/ or Raiders; And don't walk off cliffs and balconies. ~Yet they should not be essential. (IE On death >> Spawn a relative, or a friend, or enable some new chain of events ~locking out the old path for the new).

[sara OMAR]

I think at least some should be killable only by the player.

[kristy dunn]

Actually forget about that - I have a better idea now: since everyone is so keen on change, let's change it! let's make FO:NV a turn-based, isometric game with 2D graphics!
That would be quite a change from FO3 wouldn't it?

It would... but why? I doubt anyone on these (or the Obsidian) forums would want 2d graphics... These days the benefit is negligible.