[Baylea Isaacs]

they are basically using the GECK themselves so Expect to be able to mod it With perhaps a patched GECK. Atleast thats what it looks like so far to me. Think "total conversion mod" with hopefully added goodies.

[Ricky Meehan]

Miax, those mods you mentioned before are exactly what I'm talking about (I WANNA KILL SOME NIGHT GHOULS :banghead: )

Hopefully my comp will be ready to handle NV when it comes out

[Chrissie Pillinger]

I'm pretty sure bethesda was being cautious with fallout3, Not making an entire game, rather experimenting with this new genre, I'm hoping fallout: NV and fallout 4 will kinda fill in the gap that fallout 3 left open

[Monique Cameron]

I wonder if all of the assets from the FO3 DLC's are available for use in FO:New Vegas?

[Becky Cox]

I wonder if all of the assets from the FO3 DLC's are available for use in FO:New Vegas?

Like available to modders to be used in New vegas?

[celebrity]

Bethesda have never allowed the assets of one game to be used in another, and that includes between their own games so I can't see that changing.

[Madeleine Rose Walsh]

Bethesda have never allowed the assets of one game to be used in another, and that includes between their own games so I can't see that changing.

Actually, I meant 'Made available to Obsidian, for use in FO: New Vegas'.

*Really nice Avatar Rohugh :tops:

[mollypop]

I love the mods and I don't think the Beth games would be anywhere near as good without them - but that's really the problem. Consider a game that you loved without any modifications vs. vanilla tes or fo. I worry that there are ideas and issues that come up with the dev teams that are left out because "we'll let the modders deal with them." There are tons of threads on 'essential mods' and most of those are small yet crucial game changes - harvest flora for tes, changes to the interface for pc users and the like.
I love the mods, but I worry that it makes the developers lazy.

[Julie Serebrekoff]

I love the mods and I don't think the Beth games would be anywhere near as good without them - but that's really the problem. Consider a game that you loved without any modifications vs. vanilla tes or fo. I worry that there are ideas and issues that come up with the dev teams that are left out because "we'll let the modders deal with them." There are tons of threads on 'essential mods' and most of those are small yet crucial game changes - harvest flora for tes, changes to the interface for pc users and the like.
I love the mods, but I worry that it makes the developers lazy.

Personally, I highly doubt that.

Even with those who buy their games for the PC, I do wonder just what percentage of PC users really makes much use of mods. And Fallout 3, Oblivion, and Morrowind - at least - have all been available for console, as well.

Quite simply, why ever would you purposefully short-change a title that would only end up getting "fixed" for a minor portion of your user base? I just don't see the modding capability being all that much of a factor for any company, during development. Hindsight's 20/20, after all. Maybe to some people there some "must-have" mods that would seem to them like no-brainers; but that's after the fact. And besides - all of that's pretty highly subjective, anyway. What's absolutely essential to one person might not be to someone else.

EDIT: Look at lazer asian's position, playing on a console and not having access to mods. For a large portion of the user base, mods are irrelevant. Why would the Devs get lazy about a feature that's only going to potentially "fix" anything for a small percentage of those buying their games?

[JUan Martinez]

For the sole reason that it's less work for them? they could cut corners all they wanted and the vast majority of folks won't have a clue "what could have been".

[Tiffany Holmes]

Personally, I highly doubt that.

Quite simply, why ever would you purposefully short-change a title that would only end up getting "fixed" for a minor portion of your user base? I just don't see the modding capability being all that much of a factor for any company, during development. Hindsight's 20/20, after all. Maybe to some people there some "must-have" mods that would seem to them like no-brainers; but that's after the fact. And besides - all of that's pretty highly subjective, anyway. What's absolutely essential to one person might not be to someone else.

EDIT: Look at lazer asian's position, playing on a console and not having access to mods. For a large portion of the user base, mods are irrelevant. Why would the Devs get lazy about a feature that's only going to potentially "fix" anything for a small percentage of those buying their games?

First off, I may represent the typical geek player here, in that I will play the game without mods first. While playing that first time around, I will notice things ti don't like, and what can be changed to suit my playstyle, and i'll go look for mods, or try my ahd at it myself, to "fix" some of those issues I have. Note that these issues are a function of my personal likes and dislikes, and I don't expect anyone else to conform to them (Unlike others who post here). The beauty of mods in general is that players can tailor the generic game experience (and games need to attract as many folks as possible, within design parameters) to be more inline with each player's needs.

There will always be stuff left out: Time and talent is money.

As far as the console folks being left out: You might want to take it up with the console manufacturers, who feel the need to regulate all content available to their boxes. This isn't a developer problem as much as a console manufacturer problem. Sorry, but as good as consoles are, if you want to mod your games, you probably need to invenst in a PC. I doubt that will be changing anytime soon.

[Ownie Zuliana]

Personally, I highly doubt that.

Even with those who buy their games for the PC, I do wonder just what percentage of PC users really makes much use of mods. And Fallout 3, Oblivion, and Morrowind - at least - have all been available for console, as well.

Quite simply, why ever would you purposefully short-change a title that would only end up getting "fixed" for a minor portion of your user base? I just don't see the modding capability being all that much of a factor for any company, during development. Hindsight's 20/20, after all. Maybe to some people there some "must-have" mods that would seem to them like no-brainers; but that's after the fact. And besides - all of that's pretty highly subjective, anyway. What's absolutely essential to one person might not be to someone else.

EDIT: Look at lazer asian's position, playing on a console and not having access to mods. For a large portion of the user base, mods are irrelevant. Why would the Devs get lazy about a feature that's only going to potentially "fix" anything for a small percentage of those buying their games?

Without the numbers of users that use mods versus those that Don't (but still can), you really can't make this argument with any backing.

The fact of the matter is that Bethesda as a company must Like and/or Love the modding community quite alot to put the kind of effort they do into supporting us. The GECK is extremely powerful as a mod/area creation tool, and the "Company" (Bethesda) made a deliberate choice to Spend Money (via Time, testing, patching, maintenance) to support the modding community by releasing the GECK (which had to be stripped-down of some features such as change management before we could have it). And I know for a Fact that the Bethesda developers listen to the modding community, and we have helped find Many bugs for them over the course of this year. At least half a dozen major bugs we found, tested, reproduced and had sent up to the developers - many of which ultimately ended up in patches that Benefited ALL console users in the GOTY edition.

Todd Howard himself has gone on record Many times touting how much he likes the mods, how many of them have inspired him and his team in times past and even goes on to talk about his favorite mods.

The main point here is that Bethesda is a Business that doesn't Spend Money on things without thinking the matter through, without a solid business justification for doing so, and just as with Oblivion they chose to support and inspire the modding community with our own Forums, the GECK, the ear of the Devs, and Thousands of modders that have improved more aspects of the game than most people realize unless you take the time to brows the mods on Nexus and play them.

So while I do feel for console users that can't mod or use mods, it would be False to suggest that modders do not benefit the Console users and all users of this game and the previous game. We do, we have, its documented and we're Damn Proud of it too. I myself helped with a Navmesh bug, and worked with Elminster in a minor way on the MasterUpdate bug, and in both cases Bethesda took the feedback and worked on fixes.

So the argument that modders are a small subset of the community is irrelevant, as no one actually knows the numbers. What we do know is that Bethesda supports us modders, and we support them - and thus far it has been a Very beneficial relationship all around.

I don't know if Obsidian will be as open as Bethesda has been in supporting the modding community for New Vegas, but I suspect that they will. We as a modding community have not Harmed the Fallout3 franchise in any way, only benefitted it just as Ameteur Astronomers benefit the astronomical community with their observations. Its much the same logic here, and I put my vote in that the keep the lines open and allow us to support them as we have supported Bethesda.

Miax

[Claire Lynham]

See thats kinda my point I made earlier, bethesda was being cautious with fallout 3, releasing the geck is more evidence. Beth wanted to see what us, the consumer, would change about the game.

[Emma louise Wendelk]

Don't get me wrong - I've got nothing against mods. I've probably spent more time mucking around with the GECK at this point than I have actually playing the game. I rather agree with Kjarista, I think - the majority of the mods are best as tweaks to the existing game for fitting each person's personal preferences. I have played through the first time on a totally vanilla build of the game, and have since played around with a wide variety of various mods. Some of them I enjoy very much - but I can't think of any single mod out there that unanimously "fixes" the game, or adds anything that I absolutely could not play the game without. It's cool stuff, but it's just "extra."

I might not have any numbers on the proportional size of the modding community, but seriously - some things can be inferred. There are three ways that you can play Fallout 3, and mods are only available on one - it's probably not an even 3-way split between XBox, PS3, and PC; but that's got to seriously cut down on the percentage of users playing with mods. As well, not everyone playing on PC is going to be playing with mods.

It doesn't even have to be about numbers - as a company, you have to want to sell as many copies as you possibly can. Why would you purposefully short-change your potential customers by expecting them to "finish" making the game - in a way that's guaranteed by it's very nature to only effect some (unknown) portion of them?

Again - I enjoy mods. I'm certain Bethesda has an interest in supporting it's modding community. I'm sure that they get some decent ideas from seeing what others have done with the game. I wouldn't be suprised if some of the people now working for Bethesda got their start making mods for one of their games, even.

But I still haven't seen any useful evidence to support the notion that it would in any way be in their best interest to get lazy with production and put out a product that they purposefully meant for their own customers to "finish."

[Josh Lozier]

Ya, I agree with ya nu clear.

Look at Oblivion, thats beth at its finest (imho), huge world, tons of quests, alot of customization, addictively fun.

Now look at fallout 3, small-medium game world, about 10-12 side quests (unmarked doesnt count), little customization (compared to oblivion) etc

I think fallout 4 is gonna blow people away if beth brings its A-game.


I'm still gonna play it every day straight for 2 weeks when it comes out either way

[Marquis T]

Look at Oblivion, thats beth at its finest (imho), huge world, tons of quests, alot of customization, addictively fun.

Now look at fallout 3, small-medium game world, about 10-12 side quests (unmarked doesnt count), little customization (compared to oblivion) etc

I think fallout 4 is gonna blow people away if beth brings its A-game.

No, I think that they want to make the Fallout series something other than TES with guns. The point of buying a new franchise is to do something different and bring in a somewhat new audience. Obviously, they want to have some overlap with the TES crowd, especially in the beginning, but it would make more sense for Fallout to have its own identity that goes beyond the setting. Otherwise, they could have just continued to make TES games. If you think that Oblivion is the pinnacle of game design, then you really shouldn't like Fallout as much because Fallout ought to be different. Other people might prefer the Fallout style because they like more well-developed quests with multiple solutions, for example.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what Obsidian does with the world design. They don't really have much experience in creating a big continuous world with lots of things to do (SoZ is probably the closest thing). My guess is that you'll see even fewer robust NPCs, quests, and settlements, but with more dialog and more detailed quests.

[Rachell Katherine]

No, I think that they want to make the Fallout series something other than TES with guns. The point of buying a new franchise is to do something different and bring in a somewhat new audience.

I suppose Fallout 3 was a spectacular failure then

[Chloe Mayo]

Ya, I agree with ya nu clear.

Look at Oblivion, thats beth at its finest (imho), huge world, tons of quests, alot of customization, addictively fun.

Now look at fallout 3, small-medium game world, about 10-12 side quests (unmarked doesnt count), little customization (compared to oblivion) etc

I think fallout 4 is gonna blow people away if beth brings its A-game.


I'm still gonna play it every day straight for 2 weeks when it comes out either way

There's definitely more than 10-12 marked side quests in FO 3.

This is quality over quantity. I'd argue that Fallout 3 is Bethesda's A game; sure it has less content than Oblivion, but it's also more detailed and diverse. Oblivion essentially came down to going to random out of the way dungeons to kill or find something at the end; it was a very repetitive experience. Fallout 3 is a little more like its predecessors in this regard as the first two games didn't consist entirely of dungeon crawling side quests either, and I definitely prefer diverse and more detailed side quests myself.

[Cassie Boyle]

There's definitely more than 10-12 marked side quests in FO 3.

This is quality over quantity. I'd argue that Fallout 3 is Bethesda's A game; sure it has less content than Oblivion, but it's also more detailed and diverse. Oblivion essentially came down to going to random out of the way dungeons to kill or find something at the end; it was a very repetitive experience. Fallout 3 is a little more like its predecessors in this regard as the first two games didn't consist entirely of dungeon crawling side quests either, and I definitely prefer diverse and more detailed side quests myself.

Huh? How many quests in F3 consist in more than dungeon crawling and random exploration? I'm not being rhetorical here, I really can't think of that many. It seems to me that about 70-80% of the game is just running around exploring random places and looting containers.

[Red Bevinz]

Huh? How many quests in F3 consist in more than dungeon crawling and random exploration? I'm not being rhetorical here, I really can't think of that many. It seems to me that about 70-80% of the game is just running around exploring random places and looting containers.

Quite a few; there is more senseless dungeon crawling than I would have liked, but definitely not as much as Oblivion had.

[HARDHEAD]

There's a lot of quests that aren't just 'go in dungeon, do something, come back'. Hell, those are the exception really, rather than the rule.

FO 1/2 have their share of 'dungeon crawls' as well.

[JERMAINE VIDAURRI]

Quite a few; there is more senseless dungeon crawling than I would have liked, but definitely not as much as Oblivion had.

For instance? Unless you're talking about micro quests like repairing Megaton's water pipes, or the parts of the main quest.

There's a lot of quests that aren't just 'go in dungeon, do something, come back'. Hell, those are the exception really, rather than the rule.

FO 1/2 have their share of 'dungeon crawls' as well.

Not really. There was always an option of finishing a quest without going into "DC mode". EG in the Military Base, you could DC it or allow yourself to be captured and sent straight to Lou. In the radscorpion cave you could simply crumble the entrance shut with explosives. So goes for every other quest.

[Batricia Alele]

Temple of Trials, Vault 15, getting the water chip, the Glow for the BOS, clearing out the tanker could even count, etc. Just off the top of my head in 3 seconds. Tons of times that you had to 'dungeon crawl'. Skipping content doesn't really count.. and you can do that in FO3 to some degree as well.

As far stuff in FO3.. maybe the whole android quest? Stuff in Tenpenny tower? Lots of unmarked quests in towns as well (stuff that would have shown up in the pipboy in FO 1/2).

So, while there are plenty of ways the games differ.. making this one some stickler isn't the best avenue to take imo.

[Phoenix Draven]

dungeon crawling isnt that bad if you think about it

as long as the dungeons are exciting and have more them meets the eye

(take dunwich for example)

[Izzy Coleman]

Temple of Trials, Vault 15, getting the water chip, the Glow for the BOS, clearing out the tanker could even count, etc. Just off the top of my head in 3 seconds. Tons of times that you had to 'dungeon crawl'. Skipping content doesn't really count.. and you can do that in FO3 to some degree as well.

I was really only talking about F1... F2 was heavily criticized exactly for that. They added too much content without giving it as much depth as in the first game.
-Vault 15: Not really a quest, more like a red herring for the real quest (find the water chip), but okay, I'll abide that one.
-getting the water chip: How? I suppose Necropolis' tunnels were dungeon-ish, but that's not enough to make it a DC (you don't have to fight there, just pass through). To get the chip all you have to do is convince Harry to let you pass, repair the pump, and get the chip in the vault. It could turn into a DC if you try to steal the chip, but again, that's optional.
- the Glow: How's that a DC? You climb down the crater, go to the BS corpse, take the disk, and get out. It's pretty straight forward, really. All in the first level (almost at the entrance), no enemies, just a couple of traps.

IMO, you seem to be misunderstanding what a dungeon crawl really is. The 'crawl' implies you're struggling with enemies at every corner, so you finally reach your objective at the far end of the dungeon. Simply there being a dungeon, or doing something in a dungeon, is not DC if you don *have* to fight enemies a good deal of the time. If there's nothing to molest you, then there's no crawling, so to speak.

As for skipping content not counting, I don't agree with it.Mostly because I don't think it is skipping, really. You're just taking a different route, which happens to be shorter. EG if you are a char\speech based character, then you use your abilities to take the diplomatic path, and fool your enemies into taking you where you want to be. But even if I accept your view, for the sake of argument, you still don't have to skip. You can eg disguise yourself as a COC member an simply walk all the way through the base or the LA vault, and during the way having a completely different experience compared to simply figthing (or crawling) your way through. Like talking to the enemy NPCs and even talking them into giving you things and helping you. In F3 you can't play that way, because it is completely combat-oriented. It basically puts a gun in your hand and tells you "go crawl that dungeon", "use it or don;t play". Or rather, "use it or play in completely ridiculous way, running around getting shot from all sides and spamming stimpacks".

As far stuff in FO3.. maybe the whole android quest? Stuff in Tenpenny tower? Lots of unmarked quests in towns as well (stuff that would have shown up in the pipboy in FO 1/2).

So, while there are plenty of ways the games differ.. making this one some stickler isn't the best avenue to take imo.

-the whole android quest: you have to crawl through the mirelurk-infested broken bowl
-Stuff in Tenpenny tower: you have to crawl through the metro tunnel to get to Roy

BTW, I wasn't trying to argue F3 was worse than F1 because of the DC, I asked because I was genuinely curious since I really could think of any non DC quest in F3. But now I do remember a couple, which incidentally (or not) also happens to be one of my favorite ones: The power of Atom, and the vault 112.