[Vicky Keeler]

I don't play Fallout games to wander around aimlessly. I have TES for that.

Another BETH game.

[Kitana Lucas]

Another BETH game.

I'm not seeing your point here, mine was that a Fallout and TES are two different series' and that Fallout shouldn't have to have the same system. Fallout 3's method of exploration was painfully unrealistic and tedious I thought, a ridiculous time scale, an extremely compressed landscape, and a bunch of pointless filler locations. This works for TES since it's a fantasy world, but Fallout 3 was set in a real world landscape like the first two. The first two games had a realistic distance between settlements and locations of interest, San Francisco wasn't five minutes away from New Reno, it took you a week or more to get there. In Fallout 3 you can go from Washington DC to Old Olney in four minutes and the sun went up and down within a single hour.

The wasteland is supposed to be a large, bleak, and empty place. Fallout 3's Capital Wasteland was anything but. You may get a kick out of applying stories to skeletons in bath tubs, but I prefer to actually be doing something. I only enjoy filler content if its well executed (Baldur's Gate 1), and between the compressed time scale and landscape I found Fallout 3 anything but in that department.

[lexy]

I'm not seeing your point here, mine was that a Fallout and TES are two different series' and that Fallout shouldn't have to have the same system. Fallout 3's method of exploration was painfully unrealistic and tedious I thought, a ridiculous time scale, an extremely compressed landscape, and a bunch of pointless filler locations. This works for TES since it's a fantasy world, but Fallout 3 was set in a real world landscape like the first two. The first two games had a realistic distance between settlements and locations of interest, San Francisco wasn't five minutes away from New Reno, it took you a week or more to get there. In Fallout 3 you can go from Washington DC to Old Olney in four minutes and the sun went up and down within a single hour.

The wasteland is supposed to be a large, bleak, and empty place. Fallout 3's Capital Wasteland was anything but. You may get a kick out of applying stories to skeletons in bath tubs, but I prefer to actually be doing something. I only enjoy filler content if its well executed (Baldur's Gate 1), and between the compressed time scale and landscape I found Fallout 3 anything but in that department.

This is Beth's STYLE of game design. It works to my liking, compared to the other types of RPGs out there, including the BIS RPGs.

[Eddie Howe]

This is Beth's STYLE of game design. It works to my liking, compared to the other types of RPGs out there, including the BIS RPGs.

And I don't agree with you, I guess we'll have to leave it at that.

Either way this is an Obsidian game, not a Bethesda game. We'll have to wait and see what Obsidian decides to go with.

[lauraa]

I think that the way they did mass effect would work great for city traveling. I'd prefer to have to pay to travel to the cities though. Kind of what it was like in morrowind (unless I'm remembering it wrong).


But to be realistic, that won't happen.

[Chantelle Walker]

Either way this is an Obsidian game, not a Bethesda game. We'll have to wait and see what Obsidian decides to go with.

Even if it is an Obsidian game, they are using the same tools. It will likely have a similar game system.

There could be a way to make it much bigger. DLC like Point Lookout, and The Pitt had transitions to them, instead of making 3 small DLC areas to travel too, make larger ones and put a map transition similar to 1 and 2 where you have a chance for random encounters or something.

I would also hope that Vegas does something with V.A.T.S. because it doesn't work in a live action game... Not because it pauses and auto aims, but mainly because you become invincible while you use it basically. Either a system like it, but you don't become a magical tank, or a Bullet Time style "Focus mode" or something like that. That way, you have to aim at the targets, but you still have a slight edge while doing it.

P.S. http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Solar_Scorcher would also be cool.

[Kill Bill]

Since exploration is what Bethesda does best, it's weird to see people saying the exploration in Fallout 3 was bad.

[Jason Wolf]

Either way this is an Obsidian game, not a Bethesda game. We'll have to wait and see what Obsidian decides to go with.

It's called New Reno, so it is reasonable to conclude that it will take place in the ruins of a single city, like Fallout 3, rather than cover a big chunk of territory. And in that context, the busier style is somewhat consistent with the wasteland depicted in the original games (with the notable exception of the vaults). For example, the Boneyard was a pretty densely packed place, and supposedly had a lot of inhabitants that you never saw.

Since exploration is what Bethesda does best, it's weird to see people saying the exploration in Fallout 3 was bad.

I don't think they are saying that the exploration was bad as much as they are saying that they aren't interested in a big exploration component.

Fallout's exploration basically consisted of watching a little red dot move across a map while chanting "Big money! No Whammies!" It wasn't good, but it wasn't a big part of the game, and the detailed locations that you could find were more interesting than the average location in Fallout 3.

Anyway, I hope Obsidian doesn't rely on their traditional system of hubs and uninteresting travel. I'd like to see what they can do with Bethesda's style.

[oliver klosoff]

I don't think they are saying that the exploration was bad as much as they are saying that they aren't interested in a big exploration component.

I'm pretty sure some of them said plainly the exploration in FO3 was bad.

Bethesda focuses on exploration... I have little doubt the reason Bethesda bought Fallout to begin with was that its world and lore fit well with a game focused on exploration, while also being much different from The Elder Scrolls. I wouldn't expect their focus on it to change much if at all in the future...

As for New Vegas, we know it is mostly going to be the same as Fallout 3, so I would expect a similar focus. What we can hope for though is small changes that appease people on both sides.

[OTTO]

I'm pretty sure some of them said plainly the exploration in FO3 was bad.

I'm just not very fond of Bethesda-style exploration being the focus of the game in general.

[Jessie Butterfield]

Most of the locations in FO3 are not loot dungeons, but rather little snippets of the stories of struggle to come to grips with the wasteland. There are a lot of suicides and a lot of what I would call crime scenes. A skeleton and a blood stain on the wall. What happened here? A Skeleton in a bathtub with a toaster, or a gun and booze bottles. Skeletons all over the place, bloodstains everywhere. Skells in "crow cage...

That's not really much. Every Bethesda game already has hints like this in the world.

Exploration is more than finding the next quest hub or loot dungeon as you call it. Exploring is more than finding a location.

Did i ever implied it was?

When one explores, one is not only looking for location, but also for lore. As you explore, you build up a history of how the world works...how different types of people learned to cope with the reality of the world...or chose not to cope.

Didn't realized it was any different with other TES games or the older Fallouts.

The strength of FO3 is the storytelling, in that it's done in a way that benefits explorers.

What i'm saying is that this can be done much better. Why should you restrict yourself to having tiny loot dungeons with small lore hints, when the effort could have been much better having less but more developed locations where you can do more than go in, kill stuff and enjoy the view? Instead of 40 loot dungeons with visual clues you get 10 average size locations with characters and more things to do in them and more lore to find.

We are always talking about the demise of the classic RPG. What we don't much talk about is the demise of good literature...of SUBTILE storytelling. This world of mass media and instant gratification has darn near destroyed the art of the developing story. Everyone wants everything instantly now, with no reflection required, and if they don't get it, they aren't interested in it.

I really don't see what does that have to do with what 'm saying.

Sure, there are several things that don't make sense: One accepts these things or not, as they see fit. Opinions on which aspects are important for suspension of disbelief deffer. To me, I'd rather find these little human dramas than have huge numbers of quests, or perfect economies, or precise physics.

You insist in misreading what i say. Never said anything about physics or having a huge number of quests. I prefer less quests but more developed ones, with more interactive storytelling and more "human drama" as you put it.

I don't see how you defend good storytelling and human drama and complain that i don't so much small locations with little development and repetitive wilderness encounters with npcs that have the behavior of a doom bot.

There is an awful lot to find in the Wastes, and there is an awful lot of human interest storytelling going on.

I'm only talking about exploration, not main quests or side quests. I still maintain that the exploration side of Fallout 3 is weak and inferior to old Bethesda games like Morrowind for example or the older Fallouts. If you use a world map or a sandbox is irrelevant. Good exploration is not about location count.

[Justin Hankins]

It's called New Reno, so it is reasonable to conclude that it will take place in the ruins of a single city, like Fallout 3, rather than cover a big chunk of territory. And in that context, the busier style is somewhat consistent with the wasteland depicted in the original games (with the notable exception of the vaults). For example, the Boneyard was a pretty densely packed place, and supposedly had a lot of inhabitants that you never saw.

Fallout 3 covered a huge area, though... the problem is that it was compressed. You don't think that the Germantown station and Olney are that close to Washington D.C. in reality, do you? This is a far cry from Fallout 1/2 which didn't have that problem since the world map system simulated realistic distances. It could take your character weeks to walk from one place to another, months even. What would take days or weeks in Fallout 1/2 takes only minutes in Fallout 3.

[sharon]

Fallout 3 covered a huge area, though... the problem is that it was compressed. You don't think that the Germantown station and Olney are that close to Washington D.C. in reality, do you? This is a far cry from Fallout 1/2 which didn't have that problem since the world map system simulated realistic distances. It could take your character weeks to walk from one place to another, months even. What would take days or weeks in Fallout 1/2 takes only minutes in Fallout 3.

Bethesda has done that since their first game, and few seem to care... days usually last longer than 24 minutes in real life as well.

I agree it can feel "off" on occassion, especially in Oblivion, but it's not really a massive flaw, as most people overlook it with ease.

[Kirsty Wood]

Bethesda has done that since their first game, and few seem to care... days usually last longer than 24 minutes in real life as well.

I agree it can feel "off" on occassion, especially in Oblivion, but it's not really a massive flaw, as most people overlook it with ease.

Fallout is set in "real world" locations, though... it's not set on a high fantasy world.

[Anna S]

Fallout is set in "real world" locations, though... it's not set on a high fantasy world.

It's a fantasy world, based on a real world.

[kennedy]

Fallout 3 covered a huge area, though... the problem is that it was compressed. You don't think that the Germantown station and Olney are that close to Washington D.C. in reality, do you? This is a far cry from Fallout 1/2 which didn't have that problem since the world map system simulated realistic distances. It could take your character weeks to walk from one place to another, months even. What would take days or weeks in Fallout 1/2 takes only minutes in Fallout 3.

Yet those distances are effectively nonexistant gameplay wise. It would be a different matter entirely if one actually could walk across the FO1/2 map and get more content than random encounters. if The FOs didn't ahve ovberland maps, how big would these games be? That is, the overland maps do nothing but simulate vast distances...those distances are not playable.

[Alkira rose Nankivell]

Yet those distances are effectively nonexistant gameplay wise. It would be a different matter entirely if one actually could walk across the FO1/2 map and get more content than random encounters. if The FOs didn't ahve ovberland maps, how big would these games be? That is, the overland maps do nothing but simulate vast distances...those distances are not playable.

Tell that to someone with two days to finish the Water Chip quest.
As for actually being able to walk across the FO1/2 map... I consider it moot and unnecessary. The Travel system as designed pulls you out of your week long trek to deal with the few (if any) notable events that transpire during it. ~Its a wasteland... There is supposed to be little if anything out there for miles and miles in any direction (certainly not mole rats and midget rad scorpions every thousand yards).

[Amy Siebenhaar]

Tell that to someone with two days to finish the Water Chip quest.
As for actually being able to walk across the FO1/2 map... I consider it moot and unnecessary. The Travel system as designed pulls you out of your week long trek to deal with the few (if any) notable events that transpire during it. ~Its a wasteland... There is supposed to be little if anything out there (certainly not mole rats and midget rad scorpions every thousand yards).

The original games were based on much different gameplay than Fallout 3... walking through endless terrain in the originals would indeed be silly. In Fallout 3 though, half the gameplay is based on searching through ruined houses and such, looking for things to salvage or quest for.

[Austin Suggs]

The original games were based on much different gameplay than Fallout 3... walking through endless terrain in the originals would indeed be silly. In Fallout 3 though, half the gameplay is based on searching through ruined houses and such, looking for things to salvage or quest for.

I consider that a design flaw, and a long stray from the series proper. In FO1 most every container in a ruined surface location was already salvaged (IE. empty), and if you just happed to look inside and find something it was awesome cool ~in FO3 you go into some random shed and find a Mini Nuke, and Stimpaks and bullets in every other couple of crates (How on earth can there be stims in a first aid kit anywhere on the surface in all of DC and the surrounding land!? ~Its been 200 years... That's like six generations of kids and young advlts foraging over the same ground for the same stuff).

*And also think it would have been trivial to incoporate the series gameplay into the new engine including the FO1 style travel (and would by virtue of it, retain the realistic distances between locations).
Simply have the endless wastes (algorithmically generated), and encourage the players to fast travel, unless they reellly reellly want to walk it (and those are the ones that find the special encounters :shrug:).

[R.I.P]

It's a fantasy world, based on a real world.

Well then look at it this way, Fallout 1/2 had realistic distances between real world locations... Fallout 3 did not. Fallout 1/2 had realistic time progression outside of world map travel, Fallout 3 did not. Sure Fallout is set on a fictional world, but prior to Fallout 3 it wasn't compressed in either geography nor timescale.

Yet those distances are effectively nonexistant gameplay wise. It would be a different matter entirely if one actually could walk across the FO1/2 map and get more content than random encounters. if The FOs didn't ahve ovberland maps, how big would these games be? That is, the overland maps do nothing but simulate vast distances...those distances are not playable.

... That's the point. There's nothing worth noting in the vast majority of the wasteland, that's why it's called "the wasteland". Regardless, the emptiness of the wasteland wasn't what I was talking about; it was realistic distance between real world locations. Fallout 1/2 did this well, Fallout 3 did not.

[Emma louise Wendelk]

I consider that a design flaw, and a long stray from the series proper.

Well, I don't think it's a flaw... quite a lot of people like it. It is indeed a departure from the originals of course, but as I have said in other threads, this doesn't make it bad. As a fan of the old games AND Bethesda games, I find it kind of awesome, actually.

[Gisela Amaya]

Well, I don't think it's a flaw... quite a lot of people like it. It is indeed a departure from the originals of course, but as I have said in other threads, this doesn't make it bad. As a fan of the old games AND Bethesda games, I find it kind of awesome, actually.

My gut want is to say, "Who cares if they like it!? Its not the game, what they like is not the game."; But I understand the sick realities of commercial design. FO3 is the way it is, because that is what most folks know how to play, and most folks avoid the unfamiliar. Most folks don't want the "hassle" of multiple ammo types ~each with their own pros & cons; Most folks don't pay attention to the minutiae of the game world and expect better consistency; Most folks that play had never even heard of Fallout before this awesome shooter hit the shelves (and it even allows you to talk to people and do stuff for money and stuff :drool:)
~"No hard feelings, its just business..."

Now... For the record I find it kind of awesome too, but it's mere existence as THE #3, basically ruins the fun. Its a fine game on its own but its no substitute (and admittedly wasn't trying to be) ~and yet its called Fallout #3 but is marketed to a majority that places zero importance on the title, and for the most part, couldn't care less about the gameplay of 2/3 of the entire series.

I wanted the gameplay of Fallout [who would expect otherwise in a series continuation?]; I didn't want TES gameplay in the Fallout setting (which FO3 effectively is) ~I have TES3&4, and would play them as well, but this is a "You got anchovies on my strawberries ~You got strawberries on my anchovies" sort of deal ~and the mix is not satisfying... You generally want one or the other, not both at once.

[Justin]

I consider that a design flaw, and a long stray from the series proper. In FO1 most every container in a ruined surface location was already salvaged (IE. empty), and if you just happed to look inside and find something it was awesome cool ~in FO3 you go into some random shed and find a Mini Nuke, and Stimpaks and bullets in every other couple of crates (How on earth can there be stims in a first aid kit anywhere on the surface in all of DC and the surrounding land!? ~Its been 200 years... That's like six generations of kids and young advlts foraging over the same ground for the same stuff).

I wonder about this, though -

It's been two hundred years since the bombs. When you're looking through an old house, are the items you find there remnants from before the War, or stuff that was stashed there in the intervening two hundred years. (ie, was the last owner someone who took refuge there for a time and met an untimely fate, or did they die 200 years ago?)

[Adam Kriner]

I wonder about this, though -

It's been two hundred years since the bombs. When you're looking through an old house, are the items you find there remnants from before the War, or stuff that was stashed there in the intervening two hundred years. (ie, was the last owner someone who took refuge there for a time and met an untimely fate, or did they die 200 years ago?)

A valid point, but I'd ask you... If you were holed up in a bombed out cottage, would you store your medical supplies in a box marked
First Aid?

~And does it truly matter if it was six generations or two ~even one generation of scavengers is enough to scour such a small area.

[Sheila Esmailka]

My gut want is to say, "Who cares if they like it!? Its not the game, what they like is not the game."; But I understand the sick realities of commercial design. FO3 is the way it is, because that is what most folks know how to play, and most folks avoid the unfamiliar. Most folks don't want the "hassle" of multiple ammo types ~each with their own pros & cons; Most folks don't pay attention to the minutiae of the game world and expect better consistency; Most folks that play had never even heard of Fallout before this awesome shooter hit the shelves (and it even allows you to talk to people and do stuff for money and stuff :drool:)
~"No hard feelings, its just business..."

I think a lot of the "we must dumb it down to sell more" mentality is publisher idiocy, but that could be my optimism talking. They're testing boundries to see what makes a game sell more, and what makes it sell less... I bet over time we see a return to depth in many genres, but it might take a lot of experimentation.

Now... For the record I find it kind of awesome too, but it's mere existence as THE #3, basically ruins the fun. Its a fine game on its own but its no substitute (and admittedly wasn't trying to be) ~and yet its called Fallout #3 but is marketed to a majority that places zero importance on the title, and for the most part, couldn't care less about the gameplay of 2/3 of the entire series.

Oh I completely agree with this. I love the idea that Bethesda thought to put one of their games into the Fallout world... I think it fits well... but it is not really a continuation of the first 2 gameplay wise, and for that reason it would have made sense to name it Fallout: Subtitle instead. Considering they were selling the game mostly to people who never played the originals, one wonders why they didn't do so...

I wanted the gameplay of Fallout [who would expect otherwise in a series continuation?]; I didn't want TES gameplay in the Fallout setting (which FO3 effectively is) ~I have TES3&4, and would play them as well, but this is a "You got anchovies on my strawberries ~You got strawberries on my anchovies" sort of deal ~and the mix is not satisfying... You generally want one or the other, not both at once.

Well as I said, I like the combination. When Bethesda announced the game I knew the exploration and action/RPG elements of the TES series would fit well in the Fallout universe, and it does. It is also nice to play a Bethesda game with a different look, modern weapons, more mature lore, etc. etc.. I think if Bethesda tried to make a game like Fallout it would not have been as good, as they make much different games, and a lot of the market would hate it because they wanted a Bethesda game, and also because games like Fallout are somewhat niche.

The combination works, it makes sense, it just irritates people who really wanted a modern Fallout in the same style, and I understand that.