[mike]

At a London press event today, Bethesda announced http://www.obsidianent.com/ is developing a new Fallout game, titled Fallout: New Vegas. To learn more about the title, check out press coverage at the following links:

http://www.vg247.com/2009/04/20/rumour-fallout-new-vegas-announced-in-london/
http://kotaku.com/5219584/new-fallout-announced
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=23276
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/04/20/fallout-new-vegas-coming-to-consoles-next-year/
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6208186.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=topstory&tag=topstory;title
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/fallout-new-vegas-unveiled
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/58229
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3173826

When we have more details on the game, we’ll let you know.

Update: Shacknews has a http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=1113 where he discusses, among other things, Fallout: New Vegas.

For the moment we'll be keeping all discussion of Fallout: New Vegas in this thread. You can use this to discuss what we know and what you'd like to see, as well as any new information when it becomes available. Ausir has put up a http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout:_New_Vegas_FAQ on the Vault and will try and keep an up-to-date run down of what's been released, although please remember that this is not an official FAQ.


Previous Threads

http://www.gamesas.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=980972
http://www.gamesas.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=981122
http://www.gamesas.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=981370
http://www.gamesas.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=982132
http://www.gamesas.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=984328
http://www.gamesas.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=987204
http://www.gamesas.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=995124
http://www.gamesas.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=1006730

[R.I.P]

Just because the Mojave desert is littered with debug objects, doesn't necessarily mean it will all be one seamless world like in FO3 instead of separate, world-map connected nodes like in FO1+2. Well, the FO3 model is more likely, but the FO1+2 is not at all impossible with the FO3 engine, and it's the one I'd prefer.

[Georgine Lee]

Too true considering the Mojave spans across: California, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona.

[Justin]

Just because the Mojave desert is littered with debug objects, doesn't necessarily mean it will all be one seamless world like in FO3 instead of separate, world-map connected nodes like in FO1+2. Well, the FO3 model is more likely, but the FO1+2 is not at all impossible with the FO3 engine, and it's the one I'd prefer.

True, but I'm getting the implication that it will be like Fallout 3 rather than Fallout 1/2. Call it a hunch, I guess, a very cynical hunch. The last thing I want to see is another condensed game world, I'd prefer the more realistic (and larger) scale of Fallout 1/2 as well.

[Alexander Horton]

True, but I'm getting the implication that it will be like Fallout 3 rather than Fallout 1/2. Call it a hunch, I guess, a very cynical hunch. The last thing I want to see is another condensed game world, I'd prefer the more realistic (and larger) scale of Fallout 1/2 as well.

Not even if you were out on the world map and got caught in an encounter and the terrain was generated for a small area battle ala Storm of Zehir?

[Sammykins]

Not even if you were out on the world map and got caught in an encounter and the terrain was generated for a small area battle ala Storm of Zehir?

I actually liked the overland map function of Storm of Zehir, but that was condensed in a manner similar to Fallout 3 in that the distance between locations was very small.

I don't think the load time for an encounter in the GameBryo engine would be as bad as the load times in SoZ, though. The NWN 2 engine is poorly optimized, Bethesda's tweaking to the GameBryo engine has come far since Morrowind.

[Lloyd Muldowney]

I actually liked the overland map function of Storm of Zehir, but that was condensed in a manner similar to Fallout 3 in that the distance between locations was very small.

Overland map was probably the saving grace of SoZ.

I don't think the load time for an encounter in the GameBryo engine would be as bad as the load times in SoZ, though. The NWN 2 engine is poorly optimized, Bethesda's tweaking to the GameBryo engine has come far since Morrowind.

A lot is wrong with the NWN2 engine, though for gamebryo it would be nice if the lighting/shadowing was tweaked to actually utilize environmental lighting.

[Roanne Bardsley]

Just because the Mojave desert is littered with debug objects, doesn't necessarily mean it will all be one seamless world like in FO3 instead of separate, world-map connected nodes like in FO1+2. Well, the FO3 model is more likely, but the FO1+2 is not at all impossible with the FO3 engine, and it's the one I'd prefer.

Not only that, but they could have actually done it with Exit grids :rofl:

[Steph]

Just because the Mojave desert is littered with debug objects, doesn't necessarily mean it will all be one seamless world like in FO3 instead of separate, world-map connected nodes like in FO1+2. Well, the FO3 model is more likely, but the FO1+2 is not at all impossible with the FO3 engine, and it's the one I'd prefer.

I don't think anyone would argue it isn't possible... the DLC in FO3 proves it is, if common sense doesn't... I think we would argue it is unlikely, which is something else entirely.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see Obsidian change things up and make the game more like the originals in some or even a lot of ways, I just don't think it is going to play out like that. I think the best we can hope for is some better dialogue writing and maybe more mature and advlt themes in places... that's about it. The technical aspects of the game and overall gameplay style are almost surely locked in a Bethesda mold.

I would love to be proven wrong though, don't get me wrong.

[Baylea Isaacs]

Do you think there will be any vaults in the game?

[Nick Pryce]

Do you think there will be any vaults in the game?

I would assume so, and they will likely use the same exact assets, for continuity and money saving purposes.

That said, I hope they don't use them as random dungeons and such like FO3 kind of did, and if New Vegas follows the FO2 timeline for the area, most Vaults should be well past the point of being used.

[jennie xhx]

I would assume so, and they will likely use the same exact assets, for continuity and money saving purposes.

That wouldn't be very good continuity seeing as how west coast vaults have a completely different different layout, plus elevators.

[Cheville Thompson]

Well, we don't really know if it's a clear East-West coast divide, or simply some vaults are like this, like others are like that.

[CRuzIta LUVz grlz]

I suppose you're right, but it'd be nicer to see a traditional vault layout with perhaps more levels so the player can explore areas that they didn't get to see in the first two.

[lucile davignon]

Well, we don't really know if it's a clear East-West coast divide, or simply some vaults are like this, like others are like that.

Or just a simple reinterpetation due to graphics advancement and 3D space versus 2D space...

Reminds me of Star Trek, when they did Klingons with better makeup and hardcoe Trek lore people wanted to know why the Klingons changed physically... it's called better makeup processes and bigger budgets.

That sounds more condescening than I meant it to, I'm not saying you're wrong... arg.

[Mario Alcantar]

True, but I'm getting the implication that it will be like Fallout 3 rather than Fallout 1/2. Call it a hunch, I guess, a very cynical hunch. The last thing I want to see is another condensed game world, I'd prefer the more realistic (and larger) scale of Fallout 1/2 as well.

I think this is correctly, mainly because the New Vegas team openly stated that they are using the GECK, and the open-world concept is very popular and powerful - going back to the linked-regions is old-school now. Being able to do what you want, go where you want and openly explore is one of the big draws to this game. While it's possible to do the linked-regions, each region would have to be a world-space of it's own and I just don't see them going through all that trouble when the open-world is good to go on this engine.

M

[Kat Stewart]

I don't see how covering a wider area with each location being a small node and world map travel between them is in any way inferior or more old school to having one, seamless world. Both approaches are equally valid, and have their advantages and disadvantages.

In Fallout 1 and 2 you can also do what you want, go where you want and openly explore. You just do it through the world map.

[Yonah]

Yes, but world maps are considered something we were forced to deal with because technology could not do open worlds... even Final Fantasy ditched world maps 8 years ago.

[Rinceoir]

Yes, but world maps are considered something we were forced to deal with because technology could not do open worlds... even Final Fantasy ditched world maps 8 years ago.

Call me old fashioned, but I prefer a Fallout 1/2 map with a realistic distance scale than a condensed world where you can travel through three states in fifteen minutes.

[glot]

Yes, but world maps are considered something we were forced to deal with because technology could not do open worlds... even Final Fantasy ditched world maps 8 years ago.

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.

[Jade Barnes-Mackey]

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.

I largely agree with you, I am just speaking to trends in video games and what is generally seen as "the new way to do things." I bet a return to a world map would be seen as "archaic" by the mainstream gaming press and thus the game would get some negative previews.

Me personally, I like having one large open world... when I travel to The Pitt and such it feels like an add-on, rather than a new part of Fallout 3, mostly because of traveling to another area. I guess if the game came like this at the start though, it would be different. Still, the open-world thing works for me... seeing the Imperial City from miles away and knowing you can walk there is a cool thing, and something we didn't see in games not too long ago.

I do hate scaling though, especially the way it is done to extremes at times like all of Cyrodiil being crammed into Oblivion... a happy compromise for me would be one open-world, smaller in scope. For instance New Reno would be, well, New Reno, with some limited area around it... the same size as Fallout 3, but representing a much smaller area.

[Jeremy Kenney]

Well, I'd prefer future Fallout games to be similar in scope to FO1/2/T/VB than Fallout 3 and (likely) New Vegas. You couldn't really cram the plots of FO1, FO2 and Van Buren into one seamless world.

[Kelly Osbourne Kelly]

Well, I'd prefer future Fallout games to be similar in scope to FO1/2/T/VB than Fallout 3 and (likely) New Vegas.

I would never have guessed

I think the best hope of that happening is in small ways over time, rather than the next game being a lot different. I look toward New Vegas with a lot of anticipation because I expect it to bring some classic RPG ideas to the table despite being largely a Bethesda product in spirit. As a fan of the better parts of Bethesda and the better parts of old RPGs like Fallout, I have this optimistic idea of the two merging into one awesome progeny.

It's more likely though that changes will be slight, yet satisfying.

[Claire Lynham]

It's more likely though that changes will be slight, yet satisfying.

I can believe the "slight" part.

[Elizabeth Lysons]

I could go either way as far as the level design goes. (ie, "everything on one map," or "Indiana Jones-style travelling,") personally. It doesn't really matter to me too much either way. I mean, you can have just as a good a story over a relatively small and confined area as you could in a large series of interconnected nodes.

Really, as far as I'm concerned, it's really going to come down to how large of an area they want to cover with this. If they just want to focus on Vegas and it's immediate surroundings, then I think Fallout 3-style level design will work well enough. If they want to go larger, and have some stuff outside of Vegas, then obviously I'd be just fine with an overmap.

I guess for me it just comes down to whether they want to center the game around Vegas, or Nevada as a whole. Personally, though, I don't really have any strong feelings either way as far as that goes. Regardless of how you lay it out - it's still basically the same amount of content. It's really just a matter of how much you want to spread it out.