[Red Sauce]

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.

I would like to honestly agree, but I suspect that its 15+ years of past experience that have already set the boundries they wish to adhere to (or fund).


**Secondly... What is it that we are actually discussing (when we say, "different games") ~Is it just ISO [& point-n-Click] vs FPP? Is it simpler, easily translated dialog? Simple 1 dimensional quest/goals? (Not a slight, just descriptive. IE. help Burke, or Help Sims)

It would not be hard at all to incorporate ISO into FO3 (its already a feature, ~Just look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WJelzrGObM&feature=related, it uses Gambryo.) ~I doubt it would be that hard to implement TB into it as well; They already have VATS, and could have expanded upon it to allow more than just shooting.

*edit : updated link

[Marie Maillos]

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?

Sure, can you think of a better place to put first aid items? What is the one thing in the Wasteland you're going to want to make sure you don't forget where you stored it?

Considering how often I misplace my keys or my wallet on any given day - yeah, I'm storing my healing supplies where I know I can find them when I need them. I don't want to be going "hmm... which generic metal box did I put those stimpaks in..." when I'm bleeding out.

~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.

Oh, no. That wasn't my point.

This is probably more apropos to the Fallout 4 thread, but that's another interesting question: given the state of the Wasteland (which is basically the same in Fallout 1 and 3, despite the time difference,) what is the most appropriate timescale? Too close to the War and there's not enough time for any real... "culture" to have come together in the Wastes. Too far ahead and it stops making sense. Too bad we don't have any Sociologists or something around here - how long would it take for a bombed-out civilization to start pulling itself back up?

[George PUluse]

Sure, can you think of a better place to put first aid items? What is the one thing in the Wasteland you're going to want to make sure you don't forget where you stored it?

~But that's the first place a thief would look ~That's the first place the player always looks.

My point was that all of those boxes would be empty ~especially every single one marked First Aid (unless it was in an inaccessible area, or hidden well ~or hidden in plain site, like the boats in DC's canol. )

[Jessie]

*looks at title of thread*
*reads last several posts*

Can some of you please not further derail the discussion/speculation of Obsidian's Fallout: New Vegas back to the tired "FO3 is not a true sequel" debate please? Thanks.

[Yama Pi]

*looks at title of thread*
*reads last several posts*

Can some of you please not further derail the discussion/speculation of Obsidian's Fallout: New Vegas back to the tired "FO3 is not a true sequel" debate please? Thanks.

Ok... Done,
~But are we to merely post unanswerable questions ~to purely speculate? with zero chance that Mr. Sawyer will come here and talk straight (when we all know and understand that he cannot... and probably doesn't want to anyway)?

My comments are intended both as replies and hopefully points to at least speculate on, should he or any other Dev
happen to read them. :shrug:

[Maria Leon]

Yeah, talking about the ways New Vegas could be more like the old Fallout games, while still in the same gameplay style as Fallout 3, is pretty on-topic I would think. Let's just all make sure our comments are read and written in that vein.

Somewhat to that end, but also as a comparison to other Bethesda titles, I would like to see a return to death of "important characters" being possible. Personally I think everyone being killable, but a warning popping up for important characters, to be the best solution, which is what Morrowind did.

Of course, on the PC you can ressurrect an NPC if they die in a glitch, and on console you can't.

[Amelia Pritchard]

Somewhat to that end, but also as a comparison to other Bethesda titles, I would like to see a return to death of "important characters" being possible. Personally I think everyone being killable, but a warning popping up for important characters, to be the best solution, which is what Morrowind did.

I can't think its that difficult to plan for... Baldur's Gate did it with "Bif the Understudy", (Any time an NPC could not appear to give it's dialog, Bif would spawn and do it) ~I'm not recommending that as an option though :hehe:

Still... Why couldn't a shopkeep die and be replaced by a spouse or relative, and plausibly pay debts and or continue to offer services.
*every day have the secondary NPC check to see if the primary is alive, and if not... assume their role after a brief introduction.

In other instances... have more than one NPC with a motive for a given quest. It would allow the player to access a quest for one or the other (and both could be good guys or bad, so its not a forced karma hit).
~Or drop a given quest entirely... The Quest giver dies (for whatever reason), no more quest; Its the Main quest? that's what assistants are for. Crime boss gets "wacked", and his 2nd steps up.

:shrug:
*See, this is the problem several members kept pointing out two years ago, about the flaw in full voiced dialog for all NPC's. Solutions like the one above create a budget problem by requiring lots redundant dialog, that would have been nearly free of cost had the game supported text only (or partially) for secondary NPC's. (By this I mean have it be part of the initial design, and be common enough not to seem unusual or stand out as a last hour patch-up).

[and by virtue... real last hour patch-ups don't stick out like sore thumbs]

It depends on the game though... I'll admit that text only dialog in an FPP game with close conversation is awkward ~but then...
The Fallout series as a whole never was one prior to FO3.

[Brooke Turner]

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.

Judging by that god awful "blood, six, violence" trailer for Dragon Age, you're absolutely correct.

[Veronica Flores]

I can't think its that difficult to plan for... Baldur's Gate did it with "Bif the Understudy", (Any time an NPC could not appear to give it's dialog, Bif would spawn and do it) ~I'm not recommending that as an option though :hehe:

Still... Why couldn't a shopkeep die and be replaced by a spouse or relative, and plausibly pay debts and or continue to offer services.
*every day have the secondary NPC check to see if the primary is alive, and if not... assume their role after a brief introduction.

In other instances... have more than one NPC with a motive for a given quest. It would allow the player to access a quest for one or the other (and both could be good guys or bad, so its not a forced karma hit).
~Or drop a given quest entirely... The Quest giver dies (for whatever reason), no more quest; Its the Main quest? that's what assistants are for. Crime boss gets "wacked", and his 2nd steps up.

Oh, I'd support everyone in game being killable, and when killed, any quest or benefit is lost. That's closest to real life, and it adds real consequences to the player's actions.

[Carolyne Bolt]

I don't really see why. Technology can do open worlds, sure, but an open world the size of half a California wouldn't make much of a sense - it would either be too tedious to travel from location to location, or the size of the world would need to be ridiculously compressed. Washington, DC is already quite compressed in FO3, and it would be totally ridiculous to have half of California compressed to that size.

I don't see how you could make an open world with locations as spread as in FO1 and 2 without making it either too tedious to travel through or too compressed to be believable to any extent.

It's simply a design choice, just like turn-based combat and pseudo-isometric perspective, not a technological limitation.

Someone on the interwebs that is intelligent, interesting.

I completely agree, you can't have incredibly large areas that size and expect to keep good graphics and vice versa.

[Brad Johnson]

personally, i would want both forms of exploring the wasteland. i want to know 1 thing though. is this set before the fallout games? that would be cool to find tycho (fo1) when hes just a kid. i also wish that you could form alliances with factions, like the enclave or muties, or desert rangers (rangers have got to be in this game!) also do we have a launch date for new vegas?

[Your Mum]

It's unknown where it will be set and when it will be released.

[Kelly Tomlinson]

*See, this is the problem several members kept pointing out two years ago, about the flaw in full voiced dialog for all NPC's. Solutions like the one above create a budget problem by requiring lots redundant dialog, that would have been nearly free of cost had the game supported text only (or partially) for secondary NPC's. (By this I mean have it be part of the initial design, and be common enough not to seem unusual or stand out as a last hour patch-up).

I feel that this is an enormous negative for open-world RPGs such as the ones that Bethesda creates. It severely limits NPC interaction by eating up available disk space and preventing developers from creating dialog chains that branches off too much. Even if all NPCs of one race or group have the same voice actor, a huge amount of disk space is still taken up. I wish that they'd go back to text only. Relatively linear RPGs like Final Fantasy don't really have to deal with this problem.

Do we know if New Vegas would ever consider going the text only route, or is full voice over like a RPG game standard now?

As for the consequences of killing or doing things to NPCs, I was surprised when I stole merchandise from the Tenpenny Shop and the next day the owner announced that she was going to close up because the security guards couldn't do their job.

[SEXY QUEEN]

Do we know if New Vegas would ever consider going the text only route, or is full voice over like a RPG game standard now?

I doubt it... The new audience expects FO3+ (and would likely consider that a FO3-).

*My hope is that Mr. Sawyer and co. revisit the originals and add as many familiar touches as they can get away with. Like a greater variety of weapons, HtH moves, and the FO text box (optional). Also I'd hope to see a more developed non-VATS based gun/melee & unarmed combat system improvement ~It would still be FO3's system I think, but with additions and VATS not being a free insta-kill option. What VATS [sort of] is in FO3, is derived from FO's option for an aimed shot. ~But with VATS, Aiming is all you get to do.

** It goes without saying, that I'd like for at least an optional TB combat system (which is so much more than a mere pause, of course).

***It would also be cool if the new assets (interior room mesh objects) accommodated a high[er] TPP overlook akin to NWN2.

[Channing]

** It goes without saying, that I'd like for at least an optional TB combat system (which is so much more than a mere pause, of course).

While I too would like that, you know it's not going to happen right?

[Je suis]

While I too would like that, you know it's not going to happen right?

No I don't...

[natalie mccormick]

Oh, I'd support everyone in game being killable, and when killed, any quest or benefit is lost. That's closest to real life, and it adds real consequences to the player's actions.

Problem is it adds a huge luck factor as well. I really don't want to find out 100 hours in that the body I found along the side of the road at level 5 was essential to completing a major quest. Even in Oblivion where I know a truly essential character can't be killed, I worry about what I've missed.

[Karine laverre]

Problem is it adds a huge luck factor as well. I really don't want to find out 100 hours in that the body I found along the side of the road at level 5 was essential to completing a major quest. Even in Oblivion where I know a truly essential character can't be killed, I worry about what I've missed.

Then you have a good reason to play through again, and the next game you play will feel like a totally new experience.

[Samantha Pattison]

Problem is it adds a huge luck factor as well. I really don't want to find out 100 hours in that the body I found along the side of the road at level 5 was essential to completing a major quest. Even in Oblivion where I know a truly essential character can't be killed, I worry about what I've missed.

You might want to be careful about who you murder.

[James Shaw]

You might want to be careful about who you murder.

I think the fear was of accidental death breaking the MQ (like if the father in FO3 fell off a cliff and you could not complete the game without him).

A solution might be that the NPC is invulnerable when out of proximity of the PC; and perhaps even unkillable except by the PC.

[Tanya]

A solution might be that the NPC is invulnerable when out of proximity of the PC; and perhaps even unkillable except by the PC.

Or just an alternate route that is, for example, found in the NPCs inventory?

[CYCO JO-NATE]

Or just an alternate route that is, for example, found in the NPCs inventory?

If all quests were doable this way regardless of whom you kill this would give your choices less consequences. You should be careful whom you kill and know that it might screw up something for you.

[josie treuberg]

There's always a way to make quests that don't involve keeping an npc alive. It's called creativity and it always works.

[OTTO]

If all quests were doable this way regardless of whom you kill this would give your choices less consequences. You should be careful whom you kill and know that it might screw up something for you.

Thats true.

I was thinking only about the mainquest but for some unknown reason, I didn't mention it.

[My blood]

There's always a way to make quests that don't involve keeping an npc alive. It's called creativity and it always works.

What do you mean, like make a quest that wouldn't involve NPCs at all, or a quest that allows for the related NPCs to die? The first option is fine, but you can only do that so many times before you get a lack of variety. The only problem I have with the second option is consequence; there should always be a way to fail a quest. If there are too many contingencies involved with dead NPCs, the quest just doesn't feel right.

It's almost like "railroading," when you play D&D or something and the dungeon master comes up with all these convenient events to force the players to continue a quest if they screwed it up.