Fallout: New Vegas QuakeCon previews, #2

Discussion in 'NMA News and Information' started by Brother None, Aug 13, 2010.

  1. Brother None

    Brother None This ghoul has seen it all
    Admin Orderite Board Cop oTO

    Apr 3, 2003
    Joystiq.<blockquote>I couldn't tell you specifically why, but VATS feels better -- it feels smoother and easier to use. In the first title, I often found myself just playing in real-time, but in New Vegas, I much more instinctively pulled up the VATS system, both for the great camera views and to help me set up my shots. I used the new VATS against a faction called the "Powder Gangers," chucking dynamite and decapitating them with laser pistols in slow motion.
    </blockquote>G4.<blockquote>Gameplay wise, New Vegas is like slipping on your favorite pair of Post-Nuclear slippers. It plays like Fallout 3, right down to the V.A.T.S system that I relied on way too much. But it feels smoother. The color pallette and scenery, however, is subtely different from Fallout 3's as well. It's obvious a lot of time and effort went into the look of the game, so it feels familliar, but different enough to not seem like an add-on or some DLC. The Western states haven't been as obliterated as DC in Fallout 3. They largely avoided full nuclear strikes, so there's less rubble and more people, but that brings the problems that come with society -- specifically, lots of different factions.
    Another change in the New Vegas universe is the addition of Faction alliances. While the familliar Karma system is still in effect, it seems like the faction system is the more important mechanism -- in other words, it's easy to overlook the fact that someone is evil, if they're good to you. It's hard to tell from such an early look at the game, but it seems strange that Karma is in the game at all, given the moral relativity of a faction alliance system.
    Anyway, I'm sent from the saftey of GoodSprings out into the world to the Nevada city</blockquote>Eurogamer.<blockquote>At this point we can choose to point out that he has just "killed" four guys with three bullets, which is a mite suspicious, but we reason that we could just let him go and then report him to King later, so we don't. Unfortunately the game isn't quite set up for this kind of thinking, and upon returning to King we're only given the option to say Orris "seems legit" - something the King, like us, very much doubts. He insists we repeat the exercise and look closer.

    Cursing this apparent and very un-Fallout gap in game logic, we go back to Orris and pay another 200 caps to set off again. As we near the point where we ducked into the alley, however, he changes tack. "You didn't think you'd get away with that twice, did you?" he chides. "My guys saw you coming out of the Kings." It's a shame they didn't see our Anti-Materiel Rifle too, because it splatters Orris and his guys within a few well-placed rounds.</blockquote>Kotaku.<blockquote>Before leaving the house we may also choose our first Trait, an extra character-defining quality not offered in 2008's Fallout 3. Some of these have pros and cons. For example, "Four Eyes" would give us plus-one to our perception if we wear glasses, minus-one if we don't. An odder one, Weird Wasteland, would turn a lot of the game's cheekier jokes on or off. For example, you can play New Vegas with a willingness to come across a refrigerator that contains a bullwhip and hat — or you can play without worrying about seeing them. The jokes are an homage to Fallout 2, which was also full of pop-culture references to the delight of some fans and the consternation of others.</blockquote>
  2. jero cvmi

    jero cvmi Look, Ma! Two Heads!

    Oct 8, 2008
    Tragic mk.II ?
  3. FolcoTook

    FolcoTook First time out of the vault

    Jun 5, 2007
    Anyone up for a game of Pazaak? :|
  4. TwinkieGorilla

    TwinkieGorilla This ghoul has seen it all

    Oct 19, 2007
    i loved pazaak. :/
  5. alec

    alec White heterosexual male Orderite

    May 21, 2003
    Oh look: they thought about us, the old fans. :D

    Nah, some good stuff in there. Seriously. The Orris quest seems quite subtle and complex, but then again: there might be a reason why it's included in the 1 hour playthrough, much like the famous Megaton exploshion was for FO3 reviewers.

    We'll see.
  6. Lexx

    Lexx Testament to the ghoul lifespan
    Moderator Modder

    Apr 24, 2005
    Yeh, but here is also some difference: For Morrowind, Oblivion and Fallout 3, they always only talked about one single quest all the time, on which they showed how cool 'n complex the game is.
    But when it comes to New Vegas, we've heard about a lot quests and other details already. It's somewhat strange. Either Bethesda changed their pr or it's because of Obsidian.
  7. mobucks

    mobucks jetski Orderite

    May 22, 2010
    pazaak was cool.

    mini games, when they are just...a game, is fun.

    IE in age of pirates you can blow off steam in a tavern "rolling the bones" or playing blackjack and build your luck skill at the same time. Probably could grow a pirate beard if you wanted to max that skill only by gambling, but a nice touch nonetheless.
  8. zkylon

    zkylon It Wandered In From the Wastes

    Mar 1, 2010
    Pazaak was pretty great as far as i can remember. Thing all cool minigames have in common is that they're optional. Too bad few devs ever pick that up.

    Anyways, "very un-Fallout gap in game logic"? Oh, i'm sure these fervient Fallout-loving reviewers sure found Fallout 3 to be very ilogical.

    I'm liking how many gangs and bands and factions are in this game. Makes me think the world's gonna be actually populated this time around.
  9. sea

    sea Vault Senior Citizen

    Oct 5, 2009
    Probably because Bethesda put all their work into making those shiny nuke graphics and then didn't have anything else cool to show the reviewers. "Oh, uh... we have trees?" Yeah, right. Obsidian are focusing far more on dialogue and interesting choices, they haven't been trying to blind people with "oh we have this badass nuke launcher". My guess is it has to do a lot with the fact that everyone knows what to expect of a 3D Fallout now. It's less about showing off the shiny graphics and more about telling people what's different the second time around.

    Pazaak was kinda ruined in the first game by cheating AI and its slow pace. The sequel really improved on it, so thanks for that one, Obsidian, even if it is a small thing.

    Fallout 3 had a shitton of people, it's just that they were all homicidal raiders out to kill you because you're the player character.
  10. tunih

    tunih First time out of the vault

    Apr 1, 2009
    exactly in fallout 3 the raiders and super mutants outnumber the normal citizens 10:1 i could never figure how not every community out there beside megaton with its walls and the carrier city hasnt been wiped out a long time ago.
    Heck with the 500+ raiders i killed in that game, megaton itself shouldt had a chance, if they decided they wanted the place
  11. mor

    mor Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?

    Jun 18, 2010
    ^ yep, that was never an issue in FO1/2 :lol:

    and pazaak was cool!
  12. Brother None

    Brother None This ghoul has seen it all
    Admin Orderite Board Cop oTO

    Apr 3, 2003
    Fallout 1/2 didn't contain a continuous gameworld. Why is this always so complex to people?
  13. mor

    mor Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?

    Jun 18, 2010
    and NCR or vault city :lol: why its so complex to understand that its a balance issue between realism and fun
    dropping another 200 npc's with no dialogue or the same one will not make it more realistic just annoying
    same goes for the 1000km2 waste is just not realistic, some things just need to be compacted and left for the imagination.
  14. Brother None

    Brother None This ghoul has seen it all
    Admin Orderite Board Cop oTO

    Apr 3, 2003
    Depends on if you're making an action-RPG or an RPG. Guess what games belong to what genre?
  15. mor

    mor Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?

    Jun 18, 2010
    so FO1/2 was an action rpg :roll: because i specifically recall the same unrealistic approach described above taken there, you know the 10:1 police to anyone else ratio in NCR for example and its like :lol:
  16. sea

    sea Vault Senior Citizen

    Oct 5, 2009
    Actually I'd say it has more to do with a genre switch as well as the price of producing content (though that's not to say that the open world doesn't contribute as well).

    Shooters tend to be faster than RPGs, which means that in order to fill more gameplay time, this means you need to have more enemies, since each individual one is disposable. Just think - in Fallout 1 and 2, the majority of fights against humans are difficult, even in the mid and late game, and it's only once you've got super-powerful prototype plasma weapons that you can start to mow them down without much thought. In Fallout 3, the switch to real-time first-person combat means that tactics go out the window in favour of accuracy and firepower, even at lower levels. I think they could have had far more non-human enemies than they did, but I guess Bethesda figured humans were more interesting to fight (plus teh lootz!).

    Additionally, while the game world is huge, cities and towns are expensive to make because you need dialogue trees, NPCs with voice acting, probably interiors for houses, and so forth. Usually players expect quests on top of all these as well, so that's yet more design, voice, scripting that needs to be done. It's much easier to make a cool location, drop in a few levelled enemies and a holotape to add some backstory, which is precisely what most of Fallout 3 is.

    To be honest, it would have helped out a lot if there were just more random communities with generic NPCs, like the Megaton Settlers, maybe one of them with a dialogue tree. Not that much more work than dropping enemies in, but it goes a long way to making the world feel more natural when the homicidal maniacs don't outnumber the regular people 100 to 1.

    Even Fallout 2 runs into this problem during the late game, where you routinely run into packs of 10 deathclaws, or Enclave patrols, or mobs of gangsters, sometimes a dozen times when travelling from one city to another. Combat is a really easy way to pad out a few hours of gameplay, even if it's senseless and unnecessary.
  17. Brother None

    Brother None This ghoul has seen it all
    Admin Orderite Board Cop oTO

    Apr 3, 2003
    That'd be in reference to the amount of hostile to non-hostile NPCs, which is what we were actually talking about. Now you crawl back to 10:1 police ratio, which is again NCR not being represented as a continuous gameworld, but instead analogously as a police state.

    You are really stretching my patience with every post, mor.
  18. mor

    mor Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?

    Jun 18, 2010
    ^ and here i tough we talked about realism but if you wish to simplify it to NPC vs none hostile NPC's, to win an argument or join the FO3 bashing (which is always fan, only preferably for the right reasons)

    like i said just like in FO1/2 they had to trade realism for fun and technical constrains.

    i agree, only i think that its not about how expensive its to make cities but how expensive its to make the surroundings.

    they already had to scaled down every city (the city on the world map is few times smaller than it is on the inside) because its just becomes to crowded in the waste with cities on every corner and making the map larger its a huge problem because either they need to make tons of new content or fill it up oblivion style with generic crap.

    other than that i too felt like the towns was way to empty and without much content (like river city what a disappointment)
  19. Brother None

    Brother None This ghoul has seen it all
    Admin Orderite Board Cop oTO

    Apr 3, 2003
    Do you understand the difference of realism in a continuous or non-continuous gameworld? You have shown no signs of understanding the concept so far so I'm not sure if there's any point to this.
  20. sea

    sea Vault Senior Citizen

    Oct 5, 2009
    Fallout 1 and 2 are far more technically limited than Fallout 3 is, yet few of Fallout 1 and 2's design decisions came down solely to a lack of technology; the trimetric visuals and turn-based combat are there because they're RPGs based on tabletop systems, not because they couldn't pull off 3D graphics at the time. Arguably, a lot of the technical limitations of the engine ended up enhancing the game in certain ways (like limited visual detail allowing for greater imagination/abstraction).

    I'm not sure why you think Fallout 3 needed to suffer from the same or even similar limitations to what Fallout 1 and 2 did, nor am I sure where Fallout 1 and 2 made compromises for "fun", especially since "fun" is an extremely subjective term. The first two games are totally different from the third in terms of gameplay, and Bethesda could have easily improved many of Fallout 3's issues by simply approaching it more thoughtfully - they could have even kept a lot of the "cool shit" if they had justified it well in the plot or universe. Even something as simple as adding a few more neutral/non-hostile NPCs or letting you talk to some raider tribes would have gone a very long way; such things weren't limited by "fun factor" or by technology in the case of Fallout 3.