[Mario Alcantar]

If they do use Area 51 I just hope they won't fall into the "omg aliens and experiments!" schtick, that would be disappointing. I wouldn't mind if it is an important location for the government but I think it'd actually be fresher if it was a bit more... low-magic so to speak then what we normally see in fiction that involves Area 51.

[carla]

I think Far Cry 2 was the best example of a large sandbox FPS in terms of vehicles. They made traveling enormous distances through desert and jungles fun, and made it so without negatively effecting gameplay. However, I think it only worked so well because vehicles were widespread and easy to acquire, so I'm not so sure how it would play out in a Fallout game. Would there be one at every raider\enemy camp? Would you be able to steal them from towns, and if so, what would be the repercussions? Would you be able to buy them, and if so, how expensive would they be? It wouldn't work if your vehicle were unique, because then it would have to be indestructible, which would kill realism with a cannon shot.

IMO, the technical considerations alone make me think it's just more trouble than it's worth. Not to mention there's no way Obsidian (or anybody else, for that matter) could make a properly working vehicle system (with all the engine tweakings and gameplay balance it would entail) from the ground up in the timeframe given.

[D LOpez]

I think Far Cry 2 was the best example of a large sandbox FPS in terms of vehicles. They made traveling enormous distances through desert and jungles fun, and made it so without negatively effecting gameplay. However, I think it only worked so well because vehicles were widespread and easy to acquire, so I'm not so sure how it would play out in a Fallout game. Would there be one at every raider\enemy camp? Would you be able to steal them from towns, and if so, what would be the repercussions? Would you be able to buy them, and if so, how expensive would they be? It wouldn't work if your vehicle were unique, because then it would have to be indestructible, which would kill realism with a cannon shot.

IMO, the technical considerations alone make me think it's just more trouble than it's worth. Not to mention there's no way Obsidian (or anybody else, for that matter) could make a properly working vehicle system (with all the engine tweakings and gameplay balance it would entail) from the ground up in the timeframe given.

Your post makes me think of a conversation I had with a friend of mine who worked for the Peace Corps. According to her, there were plenty of places in Africa where there were no working vehicles...not because of lack of roads...although that's a major problem as well, but basically because of lack of repair facilities, parts, and money to fund repairs. Even simple things like bolts were difficult to come by. And all of this discounts the expense of fuel to start with.

Seems to me that it wouldn't take long after a holocaust for even the most basic of parts to be impossible to find. I've been told that nuts and bolts can be made by hand with simple tools, but what about transmission gears or pistons? If used off road the potential damage would be much greater, i suppose, and with folks tending to shoot at you, even more so.

I know this doesn't mean much in terms of why there should, or shouldn't be vehicles in games, any vehicle seems unlikely in terms of realism.

[Talitha Kukk]

Et tu?

Come on now, but this argument really strikes me as petty. I'm a lot more interested in what the article might say than a slip up as meaningless as that.

It's not a slip up. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to say about the game, just as it's perfectly reasonable to say that Metroid Prime was Nintendo's game, or that Avatar is Fox's movie. Some people just don't realize that Bethesda is a publisher.

I think Far Cry 2 was the best example of a large sandbox FPS in terms of vehicles. They made traveling enormous distances through desert and jungles fun, and made it so without negatively effecting gameplay. However, I think it only worked so well because vehicles were widespread and easy to acquire, so I'm not so sure how it would play out in a Fallout game. Would there be one at every raider\enemy camp? Would you be able to steal them from towns, and if so, what would be the repercussions? Would you be able to buy them, and if so, how expensive would they be? It wouldn't work if your vehicle were unique, because then it would have to be indestructible, which would kill realism with a cannon shot.

IMO, the technical considerations alone make me think it's just more trouble than it's worth. Not to mention there's no way Obsidian (or anybody else, for that matter) could make a properly working vehicle system (with all the engine tweakings and gameplay balance it would entail) from the ground up in the timeframe given.

Yeah, in order for contemporary vehicles to work in an open-world game, the world really needs to be designed with the assumption that they will be used by everyone. And they don't have nearly enough time to do anything other than include vehicles as a fast-travel replacement, which would only work well if the player has access to the vehicle almost immediately.

[abi]

It's not a slip up. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to say about the game, just as it's perfectly reasonable to say that Metroid Prime was Nintendo's game, or that Avatar is Fox's movie. Some people just don't realize that Bethesda is a publisher.

Right, but that would be saying that for avatar, they used Fox's CG effects to make the world as it was, and that they owned the rights to it...

its not just being published by gamesas. its using their engine, their special system and so on.


II get where youre coming from.. but theres a whole lotta grey area.. too much to get upset about it, IMO

[elliot mudd]

Bethesda did not create the SPECIAL system, the developers of Fallout 1 did.

[Auguste Bartholdi]

Right, but that would be saying that for avatar, they used Fox's CG effects to make the world as it was, and that they owned the rights to it...

its not just being published by gamesas. its using their engine, their special system and so on.


II get where youre coming from.. but theres a whole lotta grey area.. too much to get upset about it, IMO

Absolutely no grey area.
When you talk about a book you might praise (or blame) the publisher, the guy who did the spelling and grammar checking, the poor soul who pulled all-nighters to put it all together on Quark xpress, the printer, the designer who made the typeface, the people who made the paper, Johannes Gutenberg and our smart ancestors who invented writting.
But before everyone else you paise (or blame) the author.
Same goes for games, films, paintings, buildings, spaghetti sauces, armchairs etc. etc.

[Sabrina Schwarz]

Right, but that would be saying that for avatar, they used Fox's CG effects to make the world as it was, and that they owned the rights to it...

its not just being published by gamesas. its using their engine, their special system and so on.

Well, that stuff doesn't really matter. It's still Fox's movie, and this is still Bethesda's game. Saying that it isn't Bethesda's game only suggests that the speaker doesn't understand how things work. It's Bethesda's game. It's Obsidian's game. It's Sawyer's game.

If OXM said that BGS developed the game, then that would be a slip up. But what they wrote is absolutely correct, and I suspect that they will name Obsidian as the dev in the article.

[Petr Jordy Zugar]

Yeah, in order for contemporary vehicles to work in an open-world game, the world really needs to be designed with the assumption that they will be used by everyone. And they don't have nearly enough time to do anything other than include vehicles as a fast-travel replacement, which would only work well if the player has access to the vehicle almost immediately.

I'm certainly not in favor of the drivable vehicles in F:NV or F4. I think it'd be too luxurious to have a vehicle in the wasteland, not to mention the break of realism. But as far as realism goes, and if they must include vehicles, I suppose bicycles (because they don't run on fuel!) or some kind of mount could be possible. Funny thing is that the vehicle or the bicycle or whatever, would have to be outfitted for extreme off road conditions because the wasteland has possibly all kinds o [censored] in it that could burst the tires and the mounts would have to run on food of some sort. Just brainstorming.

[teeny]

I'm certainly not in favor of the drivable vehicles in F:NV or F4. I think it'd be too luxurious to have a vehicle in the wasteland, not to mention the break of realism. But as far as realism goes, and if they must include vehicles, I suppose bicycles (because they don't run on fuel!) or some kind of mount could be possible. Funny thing is that the vehicle or the bicycle or whatever, would have to be outfitted for extreme off road conditions because the wasteland has possibly all kinds o [censored] in it that could burst the tires and the mounts would have to run on food of some sort. Just brainstorming.

How are vehicles not realistic? You'd think after 200 years somebody could scrap something together. Fallout Tactics had vehicles (cars, airships, etc). I don't know what your average person thinks about vehicles in Tactics, but they were there. I don't know what your average person thinks about Tactics either, so... If F:NV and F4 have terrains ANYTHING like F3, then no. Vehicles wouldn't work.

[Kelly Tomlinson]

You can have a car in Fallout 2 too.

[Marlo Stanfield]

Absolutely no grey area.
When you talk about a book you might praise (or blame) the publisher, the guy who did the spelling and grammar checking, the poor soul who pulled all-nighters to put it all together on Quark xpress, the printer, the designer who made the typeface, the people who made the paper, Johannes Gutenberg and our smart ancestors who invented writting.
But before everyone else you paise (or blame) the author.
Same goes for games, films, paintings, buildings, spaghetti sauces, armchairs etc. etc.

guttenburng and all..
i see wheat yore saying, but its not the same as a book..
a lot of the stuff theyre going to use is already there and was done by gamesas.. sore they have to make some new textures and models, but its all based on something that gamesas gave them. not quite the same as your writing or printing referneces IMO

[[Bounty][Ben]]

How are vehicles not realistic? You'd think after 200 years somebody could scrap something together. Fallout Tactics had vehicles (cars, airships, etc). I don't know what your average person thinks about vehicles in Tactics, but they were there. I don't know what your average person thinks about Tactics either, so... If F:NV and F4 have terrains ANYTHING like F3, then no. Vehicles wouldn't work.

You know I actually enjoyed tactics from a gameplay perspective, but the way vehicles were handled is just one of many examples of how Micro Fort? chose to disregard Fallout's internal consistency and lore. Either that or they just really didn't understand the game's setting.

[OJY]

guttenburng and all..
i see wheat yore saying, but its not the same as a book..
a lot of the stuff theyre going to use is already there and was done by gamesas.. sore they have to make some new textures and models, but its all based on something that gamesas gave them. not quite the same as your writing or printing referneces IMO

And the author of a book only has to put some pre-existing words next to each other - he doesn't even need to create any new ones at all!
It's not about who makes the 'raw material' it's about who puts it together - if Bethesda made a game that used exclusively commercial stock textures would you say that it's not their game?

I suppose NV should be referred as Bethesda's game for legal reasons... I wouldn't know (or care) about that.
The only other reason I can think for calling it so is because Bethesda is the 'super star' and not Obsidian. Good for business.

[Louise Dennis]

Bethesda did not create the SPECIAL system, the developers of Fallout 1 did.

Your point is ? Also, sure most likely since it's going to be in Nevada I hope we are able to go through most of Las Vegas and I sure hope it's big though comparing how 50's styled the towns and cities are I hope there's enough buildings to suffice .

[Silvia Gil]

Your post makes me think of a conversation I had with a friend of mine who worked for the Peace Corps. According to her, there were plenty of places in Africa where there were no working vehicles...not because of lack of roads...although that's a major problem as well, but basically because of lack of repair facilities, parts, and money to fund repairs. Even simple things like bolts were difficult to come by. And all of this discounts the expense of fuel to start with.

Seems to me that it wouldn't take long after a holocaust for even the most basic of parts to be impossible to find. I've been told that nuts and bolts can be made by hand with simple tools, but what about transmission gears or pistons? If used off road the potential damage would be much greater, i suppose, and with folks tending to shoot at you, even more so.

I know this doesn't mean much in terms of why there should, or shouldn't be vehicles in games, any vehicle seems unlikely in terms of realism.

Yeah, and if you add the fact that in the Fallout world vehicles were supposed to be nuclear powered, the probability that anybody other than top-tier, high-tech factions like the BoS or the Enclave would actually be able to maintain working vehicles sinks even deeper.

How are vehicles not realistic? You'd think after 200 years somebody could scrap something together. Fallout Tactics had vehicles (cars, airships, etc). I don't know what your average person thinks about vehicles in Tactics, but they were there. I don't know what your average person thinks about Tactics either, so... If F:NV and F4 have terrains ANYTHING like F3, then no. Vehicles wouldn't work.

The thing with games (especially sandbox games) using vehicles is that for it to work, the world has to be designed in a way that accommodates and warrants them. Most importantly, the world has to be very vast, with large distances between points of interest. But that also means traveling those distances on foot will be unpractical, or at least very boring. Which by it's turn means you should be able to easily find and acquire vehicles anywhere you are, and as Kjarista pointed out, having vehicles so widespread just doesn't fit the setting. In Far Cry 2, the couple of times when my car got busted in the middle of nowhere, the walk to the next camp to steal another was excruciating. One time I actually preferred reverting to a 10 mins earlier save just to avoid the hassle.

[Darrell Fawcett]

Yeah, and if you add the fact that in the Fallout world vehicles were supposed to be nuclear powered, the probability that anybody other than top-tier, high-tech factions like the BoS or the Enclave would actually be able to maintain working vehicles sinks even deeper.

So you're saying that working vehicles should be as uncommon as... power armor?


Frankly I don't see what is so 'unrealistic' about it. I don't imagine that when one mentions working vehicles in Fallout he refers to highways with traffic jams! If there are hundreds of working computers, robots, vertibirds (they are literally vehicles aren't they?) and at least one car (in FO2) why are a few more so out of place? Perhaps there will be 4 or five working cars or motorcycles and the player will have access to one of them. Maybe they could be even built out of parts of other kinds of working machines and powered by other means - maybe steam could work or coal or even solar energy or whatever...

Come on... even bicycles are vehicles and don't tell me it would be impossible to build one in a post apocalyptic world or build a motor of some kind and attach it on it!

[abi]

So you're saying that working vehicles should be as uncommon as... power armor?

Heh, actually, yes. You don't get to use one until late in the game, and they're only to be found with the Enclave and the BoS. Not so much in F3, but in the other games PA was somewhat a rarity -- even within those factions that did have it.

Frankly I don't see what is so 'unrealistic' about it. I don't imagine that when one mentions working vehicles in Fallout he refers to highways with traffic jams! If there are hundreds of working computers, robots, vertibirds (they are literally vehicles aren't they?) and at least one car (in FO2) why are a few more so out of place? Perhaps there will be 4 or five working cars or motorcycles and the player will have access to one of them. Maybe they could be even built out of parts of other kinds of working machines and powered by other means - maybe steam could work or coal or even solar energy or whatever...

Come on... even bicycles are vehicles and don't tell me it would be impossible to build one in a post apocalyptic world or build a motor of some kind and attach it on it!

That would work from a setting standpoint, but I'm not so sure from a gameplay one. Let's say your vehicle is unique, or at least one of a handful. Then it would have to be indestructible, which right offf the bat would bust gameplay and realism in too many ways to even list. An alternative could be to have only one or two towns selling them at a steep price, but lets say you car blows up and gets you stranded in the middle of nowhere. Then you would have to walk all the way back to that town, and, as I pointed out earlier, that would necessarily have to be a very large distance with very little in-between. Periodically imposing this sort of tedious chore on the player isn't good game design in my book.

[willow]

Not so much in F3, but in the other games PA was somewhat a rarity -- even within those factions that did have it.

So was the car in Fallout 2
One vehicle only is needed - maybe another one or two so that the player won't feel too much like receiving preferential treatment and that's it.

That would work from a setting standpoint, but I'm not so sure from a gameplay one. Let's say your vehicle is unique, or at least one of a handful. Then it would have to be indestructible, which right offf the bat would bust gameplay and realism in too many ways to even list. An alternative could be to have only one or two towns selling them at a steep price, but lets say you car blows up and gets you stranded in the middle of nowhere. Then you would have to walk all the way back to that town, and, as I pointed out earlier, that would necessarily have to be a very large distance with very little in-between. Periodically imposing this sort of tedious chore on the player isn't good game design in my book.

Again I think you make too big a deal of it. It doesn't need to be indestructible and I'm sure they won't make it blowing up randomly and without warning for no apparent reason, also even if it does you could still fast travel I bet - think horses in Oblivion.
It could take damage from enemy fire or from use (like the guns in FO3) and it could be repaired by use of the repair skill and spare parts that you find here and there (-almost- like the guns again). That seems realistic enough (ie at least as realistic as a deathclaw) to me without becoming a chore.

[Claudia Cook]

That sounds reasonable enough to me - I doubt there'd ever be a time where your vehicle was utterly trashed. Even so, there would be a few ways getting round it. For example:

• If your car breaks down and, as suggested above, you can't repair it, the vehicle becomes a Fast Travel icon, allowing you to dash back to a settlement on foot, find some parts, scrap metal, et cetera, then come back at a moment's notice.
  
  
• More theoretically, the devs may just allow the vehicles to run crippled, minus armour, weapons and any other extras you may have on the vehicle, just so you can actually get back home without having to leave your ride behind.

But driving aside, anyone speculating on what sort of groups/gangs/settlements we may encounter? Given the style of the Fallout timeline, I wouldn't be surprised to see a Rat Pack-esque outfit operating in New Vegas, pinstripes and all, perhaps running one of the derelict casinos on the strip.

[Scotties Hottie]

So you're saying that working vehicles should be as uncommon as... power armor?


Frankly I don't see what is so 'unrealistic' about it. I don't imagine that when one mentions working vehicles in Fallout he refers to highways with traffic jams! If there are hundreds of working computers, robots, vertibirds (they are literally vehicles aren't they?) and at least one car (in FO2) why are a few more so out of place? Perhaps there will be 4 or five working cars or motorcycles and the player will have access to one of them. Maybe they could be even built out of parts of other kinds of working machines and powered by other means - maybe steam could work or coal or even solar energy or whatever...

Come on... even bicycles are vehicles and don't tell me it would be impossible to build one in a post apocalyptic world or build a motor of some kind and attach it on it!

Not impossible, improbable. Those vertibirds are military, operated by a military organization, with, one assumes, stockpiles of parts, or other vertibirsds to cannibalize for parts. That car in FO2 didn't act as a car, but rather as a mobile locker One didn't DRIVE it anywhere.

Again, as pointed out, the use of any kind of vehicle requires physical infastructure....roads, paths, tracks for trains... and the lowe3r the quality of this infrastructure, the less likely that the vehicle will be useful or durable. The road ssytem in FO3 strikes me a s a accurate representation of what roads would be like. No car could operate on them, and although brahman may traverse part of it, there are places where even they couldn't go. I was reading a history of cartage in England during the Victorian age (Yes, I'm a history geek) and even then there were many places where horse drawn wagons could not go because of lack of proper roads and trails. In the move West here in the US in the 1800s, there were only a few TRAILS one could use for wagon trains, due to natural and man made limitations.

So, horses or pack animals I might be able to see, if you can take enough food for them with you, but much of anything else seems nonviable in terms of setting. And, as pointed out above in an excellent post, in terms of game design, the faster the transportation, the larger the game world needs to be, and since we are talking about a Beth style fully rendered gameworld, that seems impossible. If we are talkinga bout a overland map, then no real transportation is required, but something like the car in fO2 would suffice as a prop.

[Shannon Marie Jones]

Let's say your vehicle is unique, or at least one of a handful. Then it would have to be indestructible, which right offf the bat would bust gameplay and realism in too many ways to even list.

An alternative to this would be a tough car that can disabled and/or crippled (as those above me suggested), but not destroyed.

[Beat freak]

Edit: Doublepost.

[kelly thomson]

[...]

I'm pretty sure I could come up with a counter argument for each of your points, such as "maybe we'll be driving cars especially made by BOS for such rough terrain" etc... but I won't elaborate since explanations or excuses like these make me lose interest when they're taken too far. I'd remember them if I ever played a post-apocalyptic driving simulation but even if such a game exists I'm sure it's not my kind of thing.

As it is I think a vehicle would be appropriate enough to the setting - I'm not saying realistic nor probable nor canon... just appropriate to the setting - appropriate like a very unrealistic, very improbable and most likely impossible and outright ludicrous two-headed cow - and I'll leave it at that.

[Noraima Vega]

I don't really want a vehicle as I would rather they use the time to make that work well making something else better. But if I did want one it would be an old Indian motorcycle.