[WTW]

Dibs on making the next thread.

Edit: If I'm around when it needs to be

Thak you.

[sexy zara]

Too early to ask about weapon repair and hardcoe mode?

[BaNK.RoLL]

Too early to ask about weapon repair and hardcoe mode?

How do you mean early? I know I and a few others have been advocating a total revamp of the repair system, and they've already let us know about the hardcoe mode.

Oh, you mean to ask if there's any real, concrete info on that stuff... Yeah there's nothing yet, other than the basic outline of the hardcoe mode. But I'll use this space to plead again:

If there's still time, PLEASE do something unique and workable with the repair system. Go dig up that old thread from a couple day ago. Plenty of ideas in there...

[Dewayne Quattlebaum]

when is the fall ???

[Shaylee Shaw]

when is the fall ???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autumn

[Bitter End]

There seems to be a lot of details so yeah I was wondering what they did with weapon repairs if anything. As for hardcoe mode I was wondering if it applies to NPCs in the player's group. Drinking water, carry weight, etc... hardcoe mode sounds interesting but I don't want to have to micro manage the group's ammo and water. I want to either give them a ton of it or have them scavenge or buy their own. I wouldn't mind if the companion asked for caps to buy their own stims, meds, water, and ammo.

[Johnny]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autumn

October seems more likely. Sequels (yes I know its not a sequel) sometimes come out about the same time its predecessors did ( Halo 3 - Halo ODST, Assassins Creed - Assassins Creed 2, etc)

[Kirsty Wood]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autumn

thank you people in the uk dont say the fall

[louise fortin]

Some people are incredible. JE Sawyer already said this resembles somehow the system in F3. Meaning, if you fail some of them the respective NPC might, let's say, attack because of the situation. So it's not completely devoid on consequence. Actually, it looks pretty much as the system in F3. Charge more caps, fail, no consequence. Beg not to be attacked, fail, be attacked. Get it?

Some people are incredible, they think that asking for the rationale behind having no negative consequences to failed actions is ridiculous because the game being modified had it and thus it couldn't possibly have been a bad design decision or had bad rationale for the decision. Bethesda have stated that they don't believe in punishing the player (which is crap game design) while Obsidian's developers have a history of appreciating meaningful C&C. Therefore, I don't see anything unreasonable about asking for the rationale behind a decision dealing with the consequences of all choices having to do with skill checks, especially when a different developer is making said decision. The rationale for such a decision is usually something of an indication of a design philosophy for the whole game. The point is that the more you understand the rationale for individual design decisions (especially broader ones), the better you can shape your expectations and predictions. To be explicit, the rationale of "Punishing players is bad," is entirely different from "Wasting players time is bad," and reflect different design philosophies which will result in different decisions based on the questions, though they aren't mutually exclusive. I'm curious what their rationale is and I'm not suggesting that it has to be one or the other, I was simply trying to make it more clear what my question was by providing an example explanation.

[naana]

With all the hype, I hope people don't overrate/underrate the game.

Of course they will... and there will be the masses who hate the game before they even open it. No matter what Obsidian does, there will be a crowd of complainers that whine about this or that - its inevitable.

Thats one thing I gotta give the companies credit for - having very thick skin.

[Chrissie Pillinger]

Probably, because they want to please Gears of war [censored].

I'm a PS3 owner so i pretty much don't care for GoW

Yes, I think we can all assume so. Hopefully they will make it better over the shoulder like in Resident Evil 5 but not tank controls.

Fallout 3's 3rd person was better than Oblivion's so hopefully there will be some improvement.

What i liked about it is that i could set it to my personal preference. But i'm sure it can/will be tweaked for NV

guess someone should add to the original post that 3rd person view is in....

Ok, thanks, glad to hear it's retained B)

[Jack]

Of course they will... and there will be the masses who hate the game before they even open it. No matter what Obsidian does, there will be a crowd of complainers that whine about this or that - its inevitable.

Thats one thing I gotta give the companies credit for - having very thick skin.

Then there's the crow that buys the game expecting it to be like Halo and don't even a good hour into the game and hate it. Fallout isn't Halo! :banghead:

[Flutterby]

Some people are incredible, they think that asking for the rationale behind having no negative consequences to failed actions is ridiculous because the game being modified had it and thus it couldn't possibly have been a bad design decision or had bad rationale for the decision. Bethesda have stated that they don't believe in punishing the player (which is crap game design) while Obsidian's developers have a history of appreciating meaningful C&C. Therefore, I don't see anything unreasonable about asking for the rationale behind a decision dealing with the consequences of all choices having to do with skill checks, especially when a different developer is making said decision. The rationale for such a decision is usually something of an indication of a design philosophy for the whole game. The point is that the more you understand the rationale for individual design decisions (especially broader ones), the better you can shape your expectations and predictions. To be explicit, the rationale of "Punishing players is bad," is entirely different from "Wasting players time is bad," and reflect different design philosophies which will result in different decisions based on the questions, though they aren't mutually exclusive. I'm curious what their rationale is and I'm not suggesting that it has to be one or the other, I was simply trying to make it more clear what my question was by providing an example explanation.

I appreciate the explanation, but I wasn't saying people are incredible because they ask serious and rational question, but because we already knew that there will be some consequences to failling skill checks in dialogue. As I already said, from what JE explained, it will work pretty much as in F3. Minor situation, fail, no negative result. Major situation - like death - fail, be attacked, die etc.
As for your interest in design decisions, I respect, appreciate and sustain it - myself being interested in game design. So pardon if my response wasn't really clear about its motive.

[leigh stewart]

I appreciate the explanation, but I wasn't saying people are incredible because they ask serious and rational question, but because we already knew that there will be some consequences to failling skill checks in dialogue. As I already said, from what JE exaplained, it will work pretty much as in F3. Minor situation, fail, no negative result. Major situation - like death - fail, be attacked, die etc.
As for your interest design decisions, I respect, appreciate and sustain it - myself being interested in game design. So pardon if my response wasn't really clear about its motive.

When did JE confirm that there are consequences for failing skill checks in dialogue and where do we know that in major situations, failing skill checks will result in things like death or being attacked? JE said, "I also do want to clarify what is meant by "no penalty for failure". All it means is that you won't wind up in a worse position than you were before selecting it. If a dude bursts in and is intent on killing you, he's still going to want to kill you if you fail the Speech check to talk him out of it," which reads, to me, that failing skill checks will put you in no worse a situation than having not tried the skill check at all. That is the very definition of "no penalty for failure". What he may be getting at is that there may be other dialogue options that you result in greater benefits that you will loose out on which, if the case, the "penalty" is simply not getting the benefit.

I think of a negative penalty as something like you do a barter check to try to get a merchant to sell slaves from the slavers and giving you a cut for hooking him up but if you fail, the merchant will no longer sell to you and maybe even report you.

I think we're on the same page.

[Eve(G)]

I'm refering to this: "If a dude bursts in and is intent on killing you, he's still going to want to kill you if you fail the Speech check to talk him out of it". Yes, this could be regarded as a "no consequence" result taking into account the initial situation, but it still is an important consequence. Anyway, I think the problem was the initial way in which JE formulated the "no penalty for failure" part. Appart from that, everything looks fine enough.

[Motionsharp]

I'm refering to this: "If a dude bursts in and is intent on killing you, he's still going to want to kill you if you fail the Speech check to talk him out of it". Yes, this could be regarded as a "no consequence" result taking into account the initial situation, but it still is an important consequence. Anyway, I think the problem was the initial way in which JE formulated the "no penalty for failure" part. Appart from that, everything looks fine enough.

They're only there for comedic effect, would be annoying if there was a penatly.

[Kat Stewart]

thank you people in the uk dont say the fall

Strangly it's an old english term that's been phased out, and autum was the american term for autum


/random fact.

[Barbequtie]

They're only there for comedic effect, would be annoying if there was a penatly.

Would be annoying?... well, I think most of us here want an RPG with some C&C not Oblivion in Vegas...

[~Amy~]

Sorry if this info is already known.. http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Ausir/Rumor:_First_New_Vegas_news_from_magazines_emerge

[SaVino GοΜ]

Sorry if this info is already known.. http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Ausir/Rumor:_First_New_Vegas_news_from_magazines_emerge

Yup, all known. But it's great that we already have lists with what info stretch out.

[Jack Bryan]

I can almost guarantee it's probably going to come out in late October or early November so we have like 8-9 months until it comes out. It's going to be a long wait...

[Noely Ulloa]

Y' know, I'm surprised scans haven't hit fan sites and other forums yet.

[Killah Bee]

Yeah, it's already been many hours since the first post about the magazine. And it's good that we still have some months until release. Remember they delayed Alpha Protocol so I am also afraid for NV.

[Claire Vaux]

I wonder if Myron will be making an appearance?

[Sam Parker]

Y' know, I'm surprised scans haven't hit fan sites and other forums yet.

I KNOW, heard one was taken down on No Mutants Allowed