[Big mike]

i think you should be able to repair guns with, hammers, wrenches and anyother tools you can find in the wasteland. but instead of making it automatic you make a little mini game outta it like hacking computers or picking locks.

[victoria gillis]

it would be ridiculous i whoud think to not make is scaled down..

unelss you want to have a sandbox that only encomapsses a city

[Bird]

Which isn't accurate at all, because the original Fallout games had a much larger scope and scale than F3. Plus there were the original random encounters on the world map to flesh out the "empty space" between major locations. F3's wasteland is dramatically scaled down compared to reality, too. It would be absurd to put half the state of california into a "world" the size of the capital wasteland and expect players to be able to suspend their disbelief when it's possible to walk from LA to San Francisco in 7 minutes in real time and a couple of hours in game time.

Scope and scale? I would compare play area, not how big the map is drawn. All that space on the fO1/2 map isn't there...it's empty, except for a few different types of little chunks of land for random encounters. The play areas of the game were very small, with nearly no exploration. That half the state of California you talk about simply isn't there in terms of game play. You get a picture of it, and you can click on parts of it and go to little gree triangles, and that's it.

So when i think of scale, i think of PLAY area.

[Project]

Scope and scale? I would compare play area, not how big the map is drawn. All that space on the fO1/2 map isn't there...it's empty, except for a few different types of little chunks of land for random encounters. The play areas of the game were very small, with nearly no exploration. That half the state of California you talk about simply isn't there in terms of game play. You get a picture of it, and you can click on parts of it and go to little gree triangles, and that's it.

So when i think of scale, i think of PLAY area.

Except.... that unlike FO3.... Time is not meaningless in those games, and they also were designed with almost no focus on the barren wastes, and were more concerned with the few die-hards that could eek out a living in the few settlements left, and the cultures that evolved around them... The Hub, the Den, Junktown, NCR... While I would not have minded a navigable waste (personally)... such would add nothing to the game-play but delays. The wastelands [rightly] had almost nothing in it of moderate concern, and those "randoms" were isolated events that might be WEEKS apart.

The fact that the game ignored the long trudge through the wastes ~yet allowed fate and the PC's stats to influence what was found (or not) was a godsend brilliant idea IMO. I really ~really hope that Obsidian implements something closer to that in there design of New Vegas.

While doubtful... I see no technical reason at all that Fallout3:New Vegas could not play out much as the Witcher or Kotor ~using the same FO3 engine and prop assets. Could they get a closer match for the series then that?

And the irony would not be lost on many, that it differed so greatly from the previous game

**Reading the OP verbatim, does seem to imply this is the place to comment and speculate on what you'd like in NV and what is known about it; and not just what's popular to want. We can both freely speculate, but ultimately its up to Todd and what he allows to be changed. With that in mind I expect Fallout 3.1 (which is admittedly not what I'd like to see), but I maintain high hopes for it either way (and the hope for an official GECK update that supports it).

[Chloe Botham]

Has anybody purchased New Vegas yet? I feel like im the only one. I went to gamestop and reserved and purchased it. Now I realize there is no content whatsoever regarding it.

[Rob]

i think you should be able to repair guns with, hammers, wrenches and anyother tools you can find in the wasteland. but instead of making it automatic you make a little mini game outta it like hacking computers or picking locks.

dude I totally agree! something like the alchemy system in oblivion but with a mini-game!

[Stace]

I have been a fan of the series since I owned my first computer, and when Bethesda bought the rights to the Fallout franchise, I nearly [censored] myself, thinking they couldn't do the series justice. Many people hate Fallout 3 with a passion, but I adore it. In it's own way, it captured the essence of the Fallout series, yet did it's own thing. Fallout 3 is immersive, the main story line is compelling, and the side missions keep you coming back for more.

Many forums have probably been posted on this topic, but I'd like to bring it to light once again. After spending nearly a year playing nothing but Fallout 3 for the 360, I finally returned to the Fallout roots and started playing Fallout, Fallout 2, and Fallout Tactics again.

IF New Vegas is really being made, (tired of all these bogus release dates, and supposed "screen shots" and concept art for the game, when really they're the concept art for 3, and Van Buren) then I would like to see the new style fused with the old.

I've never been a fan of this is the character you get, play him. I like creating my own character, and "Tag!"-ing the stats I want. But, rather than playing another vault dweller, what about playing someone or something else? I loved Tactics for this reason. You don't play as a vault dweller, but rather an initiate of the Brotherhood of Steel.

So already we have two classes we can start from: Vault Dweller and Brotherhood of Steel.

What about your followers? You can recruit different "races" to join you in your quest, why not be able to BE a different race? Ghoul or Super Mutant would be fantastic! In a world littered with radiation, it would only make sense to choose to be one of these characters.

Now we have four choices in basic character design. Vault Dweller, Brother Hood of Steel, Ghoul, and Super Mutant.

To separate the characters further, other then looks, give them different abilities not accessible to the other characters. Ghouls and Super Mutants are basically formed from humans exposed to large amounts of radiation, why not make them resistant or be healed by it. Glowing ones heal other ghouls by letting off a radiation blast. Also, in 3, wearing the ghoul mask makes ghouls not attack you, why not give that skill to a ghoul-playing character. Super Mutants, the same way. Now, being a human can give you an advantage as well. Being in the Brotherhood should give you the skill to use the Power Armor, the Brotherhood's signature armor. To top off the list, I can't think of any special perk that the vault dweller could start off with, they've pretty much not been exposed to the world.

Fallout 2, and Tactics brought an awesome idea to the table; vehicles. A quicker way around the wasteland and extra storage for extra weapons, ammo, gear, and tons of meds, though 2 did this concept justice with needing a fuel source. Player owned vehicles would bring another aspect to the game, vehicular combat. Would it be fending off attackers in the Brotherhood Humvee? Or a few Super Mutants on motorcycles chasing you down into another abandoned building?

Last thing I'd like to add is MMO. Not having co-op or multiplayer greatly demotes a game nowadays. People don't just want to play by themselves anymore, and the wasteland is/was/will be too big of an area to not have a buddy tag along. While some players don't have access to online gaming, allow the game to be played solo as well. Comparing with other games, Borderlands did a great job at accomplishing this. You could play the game alone, and when a buddy logged on, you could join their game, or they could join yours. Another post-apoc. game, Fallen Earth, gives the massive world feeling, but able to hold a multitude of players on one server, so you're never alone in your travels.

To sum this up, I want a "WoW style" community in game, create a class other then vault dweller with big guns, vault dweller with lock pick... etc., and vehicles to tote you and your friends around in.

Other small [censored] I thought I'd throw in:

Using caps as currency is still the way to go
Fallout 2's "waning influence" of the Brotherhood is just sad, keep the game close to when the bombs fell
Death Claws should not be easy to kill. Even on the hardest setting on 3, they go down with ease. It's only when you're surrounded by 4-5 of them do you see they're strength. They're the most feared thing in the wasteland, stay true to that.


In all, this is just what I'd like to see in the next Fallout game, though most of this may not come to fruition. Comments?

[+++CAZZY]

Most of what you say, lines up with many of the previous posts in this thread -playing as other races, bringing some elements more in line with the earlier games etc- but the following two have issues.

Fallout 2, and Tactics brought an awesome idea to the table; vehicles. A quicker way around the wasteland and extra storage for extra weapons, ammo, gear, and tons of meds, though 2 did this concept justice with needing a fuel source. Player owned vehicles would bring another aspect to the game, vehicular combat. Would it be fending off attackers in the Brotherhood Humvee? Or a few Super Mutants on motorcycles chasing you down into another abandoned building?

While there has been a lot of interest in vehicles, as it stands the engine (Obsidian are using the same engine as Beth used for Fallout 3) isn't capable of doing vehicles. Obvsidian would have to recode the engine from the ground up to incorporate vehicles correctly and it's unlikely they have had the time nor the inclination.

Last thing I'd like to add is MMO. Not having co-op or multiplayer greatly demotes a game nowadays. People don't just want to play by themselves anymore, and the wasteland is/was/will be too big of an area to not have a buddy tag along. While some players don't have access to online gaming, allow the game to be played solo as well. Comparing with other games, Borderlands did a great job at accomplishing this. You could play the game alone, and when a buddy logged on, you could join their game, or they could join yours. Another post-apoc. game, Fallen Earth, gives the massive world feeling, but able to hold a multitude of players on one server, so you're never alone in your travels.

To sum this up, I want a "WoW style" community in game, create a class other then vault dweller with big guns, vault dweller with lock pick... etc., and vehicles to tote you and your friends around in.

No, just no.

Adding multiplayer detracts heavily from the single player experience. Look at both Modern Warfare games -excellent single and multiplayer but the campaigns are far to short, especially compared to the previous Call of Duty games-, or GTA4 -multiplayer added and as a result the game didn't feel as good as the others-.

Again, the engine was coded and designed for single player and incorporating multiplayer code will take far too long. Obsidian hasn't been working on NV long enough to have even begun that, not if the release is still this year.

In any case, any multiplayer Fallout would be done by Beth's sister company Zenimax Online. There are/were threads here in community discussion regarding multiplayer, but the fact they've sunk in the the dark corners of the forum should tell you how popular the subject is.

[Luna Lovegood]

We can both freely speculate, but ultimately its up to Todd and what he allows to be changed. With that in mind I expect Fallout 3.1 (which is admittedly not what I'd like to see), but I maintain high hopes for it either way (and the hope for an official GECK update that supports it).

?

Then why bother letting Obsidian developing it? I refer to Mr Hines' statements in an interview with http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=1113

Shack: What has Bethesda's attitude been in terms of allowing Obsidian freedom to create their own Fallout game?

Pete Hines: I think we tried very hard not to put much in the way of parameters on them. To let them kind of come up with the idea. So we didn't go to them and say, we want a game that is set here, and--we didn't do that. We said, "What would you do with it? If we were going to do this, what would you guys like to do?"

Shack: So you asked them for a pitch, as opposed to pitching them a project.

Pete Hines: Correct, correct. And honestly, generally speaking, that's how it works best, which is: you've gotta have people who are really vested in the idea that it's their creation. "This is what makes us excited. If we could do this, this is what we would want to do."

You may help them mold or frame that, but if that's what they're excited about, then that's what you should do. As opposed to, I come up with something that would be cool, and you go to them and they go, "Oh, okay. Well, sure." You're just not necessarily going to get the same passion or excitement from the team. And those are the guys who need to be the most excited about it, because that's what they're going to go into the office and be creative on and make for the foreseeable future.

But it was good. I think we were all on the same page in terms of the kinds of things that we wanted to do, and what it could be. And yeah, so now I want to play it.

[Chloe Mayo]

While doubtful... I see no technical reason at all that Fallout3:New Vegas could not play out much as the Witcher or Kotor ~using the same FO3 engine and prop assets. Could they get a closer match for the series then that?

Well, the Witcher doesn't even have world-map travel. You are just railroaded through a bunch of set pieces. And while world exploration was pretty minimal in Fallout, KotOR didn't have any semblance of that sort of thing.

Personally, I see the set-piece style with no world exploration as the generic default in contemporary single-player RPG design. It's so unambitious, that it's hard for me to see why anyone would pine for it. With the exception of one of their NWN2 expansions, that's all Obsidian has done. I'd like to see them try an open world game. And I'd rather see the Fallout/SoZ style than KotOR or even worse, the Witcher.

[Tyrone Haywood]

Then why bother letting Obsidian developing it? I refer to Mr Hines' statements in an interview with Shacknews

Wait a second, http://www.gamesas.com/bgsforums/index.php?showuser=589080interviewed Pete?

[Nicholas C]

We can both freely speculate, but ultimately its up to Todd and what he allows to be changed.

It is? Huh, that's news to me.

[Matthew Warren]

No, just no.

Adding multiplayer detracts heavily from the single player experience. Look at both Modern Warfare games -excellent single and multiplayer but the campaigns are far to short, especially compared to the previous Call of Duty games-, or GTA4 -multiplayer added and as a result the game didn't feel as good as the others-.

Again, the engine was coded and designed for single player and incorporating multiplayer code will take far too long. Obsidian hasn't been working on NV long enough to have even begun that, not if the release is still this year.

In any case, any multiplayer Fallout would be done by Beth's sister company Zenimax Online. There are/were threads here in community discussion regarding multiplayer, but the fact they've sunk in the the dark corners of the forum should tell you how popular the subject is.

Still, I would like to see some form of multiplayer implemented. Single player games are becoming less popular, due to the need people have for interaction with others. Granted, yes Fallout is supposed to give you that "you're alone in the world, trust no one" feeling and it's YOUR experience that you get out of the game, but I personally would like to join up with a buddy in game. Maybe not 50,000 users at one time, but definitely a friend or two. As I stated earlier, the world is too large not to have a companion to bull$#!t with while you scour the wasteland.
You have a follower, your friend has a follower, a group of four set to tear some arms off and turn people into goo. Or hell, do like Fable did, since it's YOUR story, and not your friends, make them take control of one of your followers. Any XP gained in the team up will be added to their account.

As for vehicles, how about a brahmin that follows you around? You can park it in stables set inside each town, if you don't feel like taking it on a run into the Deathclaw caves. Everyone can have their own caravan, complete with a few armed guards and a brahmin. I only suggest this, because mid-to-late game you're carrying a lot of things you may need, but don't have the room for, or carry just because vendors don't have the chips or items to buy it from you for what it's worth. Yes, you use your followers as pack mules, but they in turn can only carry so much, and also may use that item that you wish to sell. In some cases you may only be able to have one follower. I find myself creating characters with high strength and the strong back perk just to haul [censored] around, and carry more things.

Having a house in 3 solved some of these problems, allowing you to store items in the lockers, desk, and fridge, and with the implemented fast travel (something I feel they could do away with) you really had no need for a pack mule.

[Sami Blackburn]

I don't think multiplayer's going to be terribly relevant in relation to New Vegas, to be honest. Regardless of the various pros and cons of adding a multiplayer component to a Fallout game, I think that if we're ever going to see that, it'd be in a Fallout 4. Doesn't seem to me that with New Vegas they're really going to have the time and resources to devote to something as design-intensive as adding any sort of multiplayer.

[Ron]

Game designers have nothing but time. I really don't see this game being released anytime before the fall of 2010. I've been proven wrong in the past though. Fallout 2 was released almost a year to the day of Fallout 1, wasn't it? So why would New Vegas be any different? I don't know if they're using the same engine that Oblivion and Fallout 3 run off of, but if they are, adding another length of code to activate a multiplayer setting would take some time and effort, on top of rebuilding another world, filling it with buildings, textures, people, creatures, and items.

I see both the pros and cons of multiplayer though. The game is supposed to be desolate, with a few cities sifting through the rubble to rebuild a new world. You're supposed to be alone in your quest to find a water chip/save your village/restore project purity, but I keep bringing it up, because it would add something new to the series, something more enjoyable. You find people that are willing to leave the safeties of their towns in search of adventure and wealth. Why not make that follower a real person? To me, adding multiplayer would not hurt the game in any sense. Your followers are there as additional fire power and pack mules. You really don't get any gratification with having them tag along with you, other then, "Hey, you can carry all my stuff now!" When a follower dies on me, I debate reloading the game, or seeing how much crap he was carrying, and if I can carry it all back.

On the other side, I see having a friend playing could be a liability. Who gets what from corpses and the game becoming far too easy when both of you are totting around gatling lasers and wearing power armor.

I'd just like a friend to join the adventure, that's just me though. So far from what I've seen people like the solo only style of the game. That, in a sense IS Fallout. You are alone. I don't know, I'm one of the few and far-between people that loved the old Fallouts, AND the newest addition to the Fallout family, so I have to find something to complain about.

[phil walsh]

Adding multiplayer to a game is a bit more extensive than just cramming in a few lines of code, however. We're talking about a feature that would fundamentally alter the scope and emphasis of the game. Especially in regards to F:NV, which I understand is going to be re-using assets from Fallout 3. (Saying they're just using the Dev version of the GECK to make what's essentially a full-scale Fallout 3 is probably highly understating the work they're doing on the game - but probably not entirely off-base, either.) This is going to let things come out a lot quicker than Fallout 3 originally did, for example. Instead of building a game from scratch from the ground up, they can work with altering existing assets and focus more on content, and not so much the ins and outs of getting everything up and running.

To add multiplayer to that would be kind of a big deal. Most games that feature multiplayer elements generally have an extra team just to work on that element alone. Especially when we're talking a game that's based on what was originally a single-player-only game - multiplayer is opening up a whole can of worms that have to be dealt with. How does VATS work? How do you deal with NPC conversations - is the "secondary" player just stuck listening to what's going on? Does the addition of another player register with NPCs, do they notice their actions as well? How does the karma system work?

In short - multiplayer options aren't something you can just nail-gun onto a game. It's generally something you have to plan on doing from the ground up, and build the rest of the game around that premise. Really the only way around that is to make them completely separate elements (a la most of your shooters these days, with their single-player campaigns; or Splinter Cell, etc - where it's almost like you have two games on one disk.) And while I could certainly see a Fallout game toying around with this idea - I don't see F:NV, specifically, as being the game to pin any of those hopes on.

(Anyway, I'll end this before it starts to go off-topic. I don't really care one way or another about the multiplayer subject - but I just don't see that happening with this game, in particular.)

[Killah Bee]

I would not want NV to be multi-player, I think the single-player nature of the games is part of the charm. I know alot of folks might not like that idea, but as nu-clear-day put it, adding multi-player code is not trivial or simple. The game does need to be designed from the ground-up as a multi-player game to really make a success story of it.

The comment:

Game designers have nothing but time.

This one made me chuckle a little, as game designers never have enough time to do all of the things they want to do. It is not a situation where the designers sit around adding anything cool to the game, and much more a situation where the major elements are planned in a project schedule. In most companies there is huge time-pressure to get the product out, even when the release date is still fuzzy because there is money to be made! Game development costs money, and every day a game is Built and not Sold costs the owners money to pay the staff, keep the lights going, travel, etc, etc. Not until the game is sold and only if it's good will the owners recoup that investment. So I assure you, no one sits around with time on their hands.

Realistically I am hoping for a game about the same size as the DC wasteland (though obviously less detailed as it's a desert) with vehicles. Mmmmmmmm

[Lance Vannortwick]

So is anyone in the UK picking up OXM when it comes out on February 11th? I just emailed some people at OXM US and the New Vegas article wont be in the US edition until April, so we'll have to rely on someone in the UK to summarize it.

[Jose ordaz]

So is anyone in the UK picking up OXM when it comes out on February 11th? I just emailed some people at OXM US and the New Vegas article wont be in the US edition until April, so we'll have to rely on someone in the UK to summarize it.

Hopefully there will be no mention of The Enclave or the B.O.S.; but perhaps the Outcasts should make an apperance seeing as how Las Vegas is all about gambling people who are losing big would trade anything to the Place that they are gambling at so inside the Casinos vault would be cars money probably even weapons.

Getting to the point if someone happens upon a copy of UK OXM then please just copy and paste the article don't say what you think something might mean.

[steve brewin]

Hopefully there will be no mention of The Enclave or the B.O.S.; but perhaps the Outcasts should make an apperance seeing as how Las Vegas is all about gambling people who are losing big would trade anything to the Place that they are gambling at so inside the Casinos vault would be cars money probably even weapons.

Getting to the point if someone happens upon a copy of UK OXM then please just copy and paste the article don't say what you think something might mean.

It's against the forum rules to post scans of a magazine or to transcribe the article, or to link to scans or transcriptions. The most someone can do is summarize it.

See http://www.gamesas.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=707790.

[jodie]

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Ausir/Rumor:_Mark_Morgan_back_for_Fallout:_New_Vegas :ahhh:

I truly hope this actually happens.

[Emma Parkinson]

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Ausir/Rumor:_Mark_Morgan_back_for_Fallout:_New_Vegas :ahhh:

I truly hope this actually happens.

Well it would be a step up from Inon Zur.

[mishionary]

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Ausir/Rumor:_Mark_Morgan_back_for_Fallout:_New_Vegas :ahhh:

I truly hope this actually happens.

[RObert loVes MOmmy]

indeed, there will be much rejoicing!

[JERMAINE VIDAURRI]

I still want the pipboy radio =|