Microsoft has bought Zenimax/Bethesda

[TheGM]

Surely you realize the difference between "I'm upset that the real life Mojave being flat" and "I'm upset that Obsidian decided to set New Vegas in such a flat place"?

Oh no a game set in place looking like said place! THINK OF THE CHILDREN! and no I didn't read the rest of your post after that doozy.

 

[KingArthur]

HOW DARE NEVADA BE FLAT, I WANT HILLS. WITHOUT HILLS THERES NO POINT IN HAVING OPEN WORLD

 

[Lucas9]

Oh no a game set in place looking like said place! THINK OF THE CHILDREN! and no I didn't read the rest of your post after that doozy.

The actual question is whether you didn't read it because you didn't feel like it, or you didn't read it because it went above your head. I'm guessing the latter, considering I'm addressing your "point" and why it's retarded.

 

[eissa]

CHA in Fallout 2 dictates the amount of companions you can take in your party, which I think is, honestly, all that matters in the end for a cavalier oblique, turn-based role-playing game. Unfortunately the fundamental combat mechanics is flawed, and companions there don't get involved much with PC's decision making across the walkthrough.
And while it's a shame that New Vegas didn't allow you to take more than 1 human and 1 non-human companion, CHA being a modifier to your companions combat stats actually works well in the favor of this implement, IMHO, because of how each companions in New Vegas has their own personal questline.

There is an idea about charisma rework from reddit, like being factored for speech check to requirement to being allowed to interact a faction npcs. It goes like this

• All major (and some minor) NPCs have an affinity system like companions in Fallout 4. Affinity is tracked separately for each NPC and its value goes between -100 and +100, with four levels for both the positive and negative scale.
  
  
• Having low affinity with an NPC locks up dialogue options and quests with that NPC. Gaining affinity opens these dialogue options (like learning more about the NPC and asking their opinion on stuff) and quests. It also influences quest rewards and vendor prices. The difference can be vast, for example an NPC at lower affinity will reward you with a handful of caps, but at high affinity they will give you a powerful weapon and other goodies too.
  
  
• Just like with companions in Fallout 4 you can increase affinity by saying and doing things the NPC likes and decreasing it by saying and doing things they don't like. If you are caught with your pants down and at a low negative affinity level with limited dialogue choices and no quests then it might be impossible to ever "unlock" that NPC.
  
  
• The starting affinity for NPCs is -80, but each point of Charisma increases it by 15, so it goes between -65 and +70. Various NPCs have further modifiers for starting affinity, but a higher Charisma always means more everything from an NPC due to the higher starting affinity it generates. A low Charisma can be quite crippling as you can end up with some perma-locked NPCs right at the start.
  
  
• So if you go Charisma 1 and Speech 100 you will be disliked by everyone so much those Speech dialogue options likely won't even come up, but you can nail it all when they do. The typical silver-tongued asshole.

One of my additions would be the reintroduction of the Empathy Perk that shows you the NPC's current affinity level and affinity changes from dialogue to help with navigating the system. And of course there would be also the Cult of Personality Perk, requiring a whooping Charisma 10 to unlock but setting the minimal affinity with each NPC to -20 so you can never piss off anyone too much.

 

[TheGM]

The actual question is whether you didn't read it because you didn't feel like it

This one. But fine, I'll read your post.

This would be like Bethesda brushing off Oblivion complaints with "Cyrodiil is meant to be generic fantasy, you retards". I mean sure, maybe in the lore it is not meant to be a particularly interesting place, so why in God's name would you make a game there over, let's say, Black Marsh or Valenwood?

what in tardation is this stupid shit? Cryodil? Valleywood? What the fuck are you talking about, you brain addled sponge? Those ain't real places so why the hell are you bringing them up? They had more of Muh Dungies when compared to New Vegas? Trees? what the hell does that have to do with anything. Sped detection levels are off the charts on this one. We're talking about a lvl.5 full formed roaming butthead here, folks.

It's pretty clear classic Fallout philosophy was "don't waste the players time", and this includes "don't make them walk for minutes over empty desert", which is why we have the hub world map design and the fast travel system.

You might not realize this but New Vegas is set in a centralized location and it's adjacent surroundings, while Fallout 1+2 are set in the entire south west of United States of America so there will likely be a topical differences of size and scope. For future reference when you consider posting again, instead go play minecraft and dig straight down.

 

[Lucas9]

what in tardation is this stupid shit? Cryodil? Valleywood? What the fuck are you talking about, you brain addled sponge? Those ain't real places so why the hell are you bringing them up?

Because it's the exact same thing.

It doesn't matter if the place is real or not: you decide where to set your videogame, and it's your job to make it fun or at the very least not a chore.

while Fallout 1+2 are set in the entire south west of United States of America so there will likely be a topical differences of size and scope.

You are implying the fault here lies in the world design of the games, when actually the fault lies in that New Vegas uses a movement system that forces the player to walk even through the most mundane of deserts, as opposed to Fallout and Fallout 2's hub-based system which spares the player the boring bits.

In other words, the three games are set in desert areas. Guess which one makes it a chore to actually move around, and exposes the fact its devs had no fucking idea that an empty desert doesn't translate nicely from a simple world map to a fully navigable 3D worldspace.

 

[TheGM]

Because it's the exact same thing.

Nevada is just like a made up fantasy land of elves, gnomes, pixie farts and grumblins.

You are implying the fault here lies in the world design of the games

No I am implying you ate paint chips as a child.

when actually the fault lies in that New Vegas uses a movement system that forces the player to walk even through the most mundane of deserts, as opposed to Fallout and Fallout 2's hub-based system which spares the player the boring bits.

In other words, the three games are set in desert areas. Guess which one makes it a chore to actually move around

That is subjective, I found it a rather enjoyable experience. Honestly at this rate you should consider exiting the simulation.

 

[Atomic Postman]

Whilst I think the argument that Vegas was a poorly chose setting is bad (It was the perfect location, narrative wise), as is the argument that they should have made a fantasy version of the Mojave's landscape, I still stand by the point that because Fallout's Pre-War America was a retrofuture, you could invent plenty of cool human infrastructure that isn't there in reality. Like I said with the previous example of 76 and its big gaudy sci-fi monorail running through West Virginia.

Even if you don't like that idea, taking the Vegas map as is there are so many potemkin locations scattered around that exist to clutter the landscape and act as map markers, but are literally inaccessible. The NV Interiors Project Mod proves/shows off exactly that, though the mod does a fairly mediocre job at opening those places up (though I'd still argue it makes the map feel better to traverse).

 

[Iprovidelittlepianos]

Surely you realize the difference between "I'm upset that the real life Mojave being flat" and "I'm upset that Obsidian decided to set New Vegas in such a flat place"?

This would be like Bethesda brushing off Oblivion complaints with "Cyrodiil is meant to be generic fantasy, you retards". I mean sure, maybe in the lore it is not meant to be a particularly interesting place, so why in God's name would you make a game there over, let's say, Black Marsh or Valenwood?

It's pretty clear classic Fallout philosophy was "don't waste the players time", and this includes "don't make them walk for minutes over empty desert", which is why we have the hub world map design and the fast travel system.

Actually in the lore Cyrodiil was supposed to be a jungle, but they retconned that because they’d rather make Gondor or something.

 

[Lucas9]

Actually in the lore Cyrodiil was supposed to be a jungle, but they retconned that because they’d rather make Gondor or something.

Yup. I heard something about this and that it was possibly changed for performance reasons or something, but ultimately my point stands: if you are going to place your game in a mundane location, real or fictional, make sure the player at least enjoys their time navigating through it.

Just like no one forces you to write a mundane location, no one forces you to place your game in a mundane location and make the experience a miserable slog.

 

[TorontoReign]

Nevada is just like a made up fantasy land of elves, gnomes, pixie farts and grumblins.


No I am implying you ate paint chips as a child.

That is subjective, I found it a rather enjoyable experience. Honestly at this rate you should consider exiting the simulation.

A much nicer way of saying kill yourself. Also more accurate.

 

[Hardboiled Android]

Yup. I heard something about this and that it was possibly changed for performance reasons or something, but ultimately my point stands: if you are going to place your game in a mundane location, real or fictional, make sure the player at least enjoys their time navigating through it.

Just like no one forces you to write a mundane location, no one forces you to place your game in a mundane location and make the experience a miserable slog.

I think the Las Vegas location was worth sacrificing some slightly more boring walking on re-plays. Granted, I think the game could've done with a few more dungeons - heck, there were more "dungeons" in Fo2 then there were in New Vegas, and New Vegas is a far larger game. But ultimately writing and quests are the most important part, and if you have to sacrifice a few mindless locales to shoot up? Eh, it's a fair trade.

 

[Lucas9]

I think the Las Vegas location was worth sacrificing some slightly more boring walking on re-plays. Granted, I think the game could've done with a few more dungeons - heck, there were more "dungeons" in Fo2 then there were in New Vegas, and New Vegas is a far larger game. But ultimately writing and quests are the most important part, and if you have to sacrifice a few mindless locales to shoot up? Eh, it's a fair trade.

I think an isometric New Vegas would have been a much better game for a multitude of reasons. But even if we ignored the obvious improvements, the change in perspective and gameplay style alone would have made it so that Obsidian removes the pointless treks through empty roads. It could have been really special in a lot of other ways, but that is one of the biggest flaws I see in New Vegas: lots of empty space that HAD to be made because of the kind of game New Vegas was.

That is subjective, I found it a rather enjoyable experience.

That is subjective, I found it a rather dull experience.

In case you forgot, what we were arguing is whether "the desert being boring is fine" is a legitimate argument or not. The truth is, it isn't: no one put a gun against Obsidian's head and forced them to set their game in a desert. They choose to do that themselves. Therefore, "real life desert is boring" isn't an argument, because the actual criticism is "why, if you knew a desert is boring, would you decide your game to take place in one?".

To put it in terms your small brain may understand (but probably won't): what makes you think "real life is like that" is an argument that will make people suddenly enjoy an empty desert? The answer is, "it won't". People will understand why it is the why it is, but they will be wondering why the devs didn't go for something that was, you know, fun.

 

[TheGM]

That is subjective

No, what I said was correct. See am I right. you are not. that is the difference.

They choose to do that themselves. Therefore, "real life desert is boring" isn't an argument, because the actual criticism is "why, if you knew a desert is boring, would you decide your game to take place in one?".

Well they did set first 2 fallout games in the desert as well so add that penis the rest of the dicks in your mouth and get over it.

 

[Big No]

No, what I said was correct. See am I right. you are not. that is the difference.

Well they did set first 2 fallout games in the desert as well so add that penis the rest of the dicks in your mouth and get over it.

For devil's advocate, the first 2 Fallout's have you go from town to town with the dot that travels across the wasteland automatically, with some random encounters and smaller areas in between to break it up. All in an isometric format so stuff like seeing structures like Vegas or instance off in the distance can't really happen unless it's in a cutscene or something. Compared to New Vegas which is kinda like sandbox in a 3D space in a "do what you want, where you want, how you want" format, I could see how the same environment wouldn't work between the two.

That said, New Vegas did a wonderful job filling up the map with stuff so I dunno where the idea of the Mojave being "flat and empty" came from. Mister Caption showcased this in one of his reviews, the Fallout 4 critique I believe where after a few moments of walking he found about 3 things of interest immediately starting from the Trading Post. Seems like when people talk about map design in a game, anytime there's empty areas to help break up environments, people are like "dEad spac3! whY d1dNt thEy filL it uP?!"

 

[Mr Fish]

Fallout New Vegas' map to the south-west has a bunch of locations. From the little race-track to the ant mounts to the crescent canyon with all the gecko's to the crashed bomber plant to the little ambush site on the road. So it has 'stuff' in it. I guess the problem is that it isn't very interesting stuff and I'd blame the way ingame items and loot is handled in the game. Cause none of these locations are particularly interesting to come across. Especially after you've replayed the game 5 times or more. There's no random encounter system or variables that switches things up and makes it a bit less predictable. There's no fixed loot that is really worthwhile, like if Mentats had actually been rare then finding a briefcase in crescent canyon with a bunch of mentats and a few skill magazines would make the trek worthwhile in future playthroughs.

Personally though I don't find most things worthwhile to find. Even in FNV it showers you in loot as you're 'constantly' being exposed to loot containers. In the older Fallouts there were the fixed locations which had a reasonable number of containers and most did not contain anything special. So IIRC the old bomber plane? It has a ammo box I think and that's it. There's no textbox where we can interact with the plane and get a detailed description that might help contextualize the location or event. Just an ammo box. Which has generated loot inside of it so it's usually just a pitiful amount of whatever RNG decided for.

I guess the reason for why Fallout New Vegas feels 'empty' is because of how few locations offer anything worthwhile. Now it's realistic that most locations would not and I do not want a dungeon themepark either. Nevada should be a desert after all. But again, due to the structure of the game in a first person open world sandbox the problem is that it's not fun to explore a desert. Because it's a desert. And whatever locations you do manage to find are underwhelming and unrewarding. I've been replaying it a bit on Xbox (so no mods) and the only reason I explore is to grind exp to level up so I can try to make my character actually fit the role I'm trying to roleplay in terms of skills and perks. And it's a slow process so the rest of the time is quite frankly just a bore. Yes, a random shack should just be a random shack. But it's still just a random shack that comes after a stretch of nothing that came after a canyon with some radiation and lizards that came after a crashed plane with nothing in it that came after a highway with bugger all but an ambush that was piss easy to survive and it starts to add up over time.

Technically FNV isn't empty. But it might as well be. Hell I'd argue that Red Dead Redemption 1 is better because it is 'emptier' because once you realize that there's fuck all to find and there's no exp system to grind and you only need to find one good spot to hunt things for stuff to sell then there's no need to explore and you can cut a lot of the bullshit out of the experience. Then there's also the gameplay itself which isn't exactly actionpacked. It's very stiff and clunky and gets repetitive pretty fast so while I love just zipping around and destroying shit in Prototype it isn't really that fun to hit the trigger on a weapon that sometimes doesn't fire because of how clunky the engine is. So once you stumble into some enemies and it breaks up the monotony I again find it underwhelming.

Fallout New Vegas isn't literally empty but what it does contain and how the game is structured and balanced around the idea of the player engaging with it makes the open world exploration a tedious chore that is unrewarding, uninteresting and makes me question what the purpose of it even is and what is gained by its change in continued alteration in perspective over its predecessors.

 

[Atomic Postman]

Fallout New Vegas' map to the south-west has a bunch of locations. From the little race-track to the ant mounts to the crescent canyon with all the gecko's to the crashed bomber plant to the little ambush site on the road. So it has 'stuff' in it. I guess the problem is that it isn't very interesting stuff and I'd blame the way ingame items and loot is handled in the game. Cause none of these locations are particularly interesting to come across. Especially after you've replayed the game 5 times or more. There's no random encounter system or variables that switches things up and makes it a bit less predictable. There's no fixed loot that is really worthwhile, like if Mentats had actually been rare then finding a briefcase in crescent canyon with a bunch of mentats and a few skill magazines would make the trek worthwhile in future playthroughs

Whilst I don't like them altering your Primary Stats, I actually think this is a major strength of the Bobbleheads or the implementation of ""Skill""" Magazines in Fallout 4's dungeon design. Much like the Dragon Shouts at the end of dungeons in Skyrim it provides a unique reward for the combat loop rather than just more junk.

You could have modifications for your Pip-Boy (Geiger Counter, motion sensor, Skill boost mods etc) or Bobbleheads that grant unique Perks, or permanent Skill Books, or magazines ala Fallout 4 that give you specific gameplay boosts. God forbid you had a game with a car, you could have car parts to collect.

As for the locations, well that was my argument. Whilst the landscape is constrained by reality and should remain a desert, the human infrastructure is in the purview of a sci-fi retrofuture, and you could invent whatever. Similarly as pointed out before and by yourself there's a lot of locations in Vegas that could be dungeons, but are nothing instead.

 

[Lucas9]

No, what I said was correct. See am I right. you are not. that is the difference.

Well they did set first 2 fallout games in the desert as well so add that penis the rest of the dicks in your mouth and get over it.

Seeing as this is the standard of NMA discussion I wonder why they even complain about Bethesda's writing. It's like it was made especifically for them.

"I'm right, you are wrong."

"It's too complicated, you wouldn't understand."

These blend in seamlessly.

 

[Lucas9]

Now for some worthwile comments by intelligent life.

For devil's advocate, the first 2 Fallout's have you go from town to town with the dot that travels across the wasteland automatically, with some random encounters and smaller areas in between to break it up. All in an isometric format so stuff like seeing structures like Vegas or instance off in the distance can't really happen unless it's in a cutscene or something. Compared to New Vegas which is kinda like sandbox in a 3D space in a "do what you want, where you want, how you want" format, I could see how the same environment wouldn't work between the two.

Exactly. Fallout and Fallout 2 work exactly the same whether set in an empty desert or a busy metropolis, because there's a hub world that quickly takes you from point A to point B without wasting the player's time walking around nothingness. And unlike New Vegas' "Fast Travel", which one would think accomplishes the same thing, you don't sacrifice combat and random encounters.

If I want to skip the boring parts in New Vegas, I will effectively be avoiding a lot of combat. My latest playthrough ended prematurely before saving President Kimball, but I must have fought hundreds of battles that I would have missed entirely if I simply fast traveled. Couple that with New Vegas' messed up Hardcore Mode, where fast travelling doesn't reflect real travel times (for instance, running from New Vegas to Goodsprings may take you 8 in-game hours, while fast travelling takes a much shorter amount of time).

Fallout New Vegas' map to the south-west has a bunch of locations. From the little race-track to the ant mounts to the crescent canyon with all the gecko's to the crashed bomber plant to the little ambush site on the road. So it has 'stuff' in it. I guess the problem is that it isn't very interesting stuff and I'd blame the way ingame items and loot is handled in the game. Cause none of these locations are particularly interesting to come across.

This is the problem. The locations are just "names", so to speak. There's a little racetrack... with nothing. There's a crescent canyon... with gecko's and that's it. There's the crashed bomber... with nothing. It's nothing but visual dressing, hardly something to call content. In a turn-based tactical game, maybe these different locations could provide very interesting combat opportunities. In New Vegas, they barely make a difference.

Even in FNV it showers you in loot as you're 'constantly' being exposed to loot containers.

As well as this. In my last playthrough, the only time I felt like I found something "cool" was when I unlocked a box at Vault 34 which contained anti-radiation supplies. That was it. There was nothing along the lines of finding the Leather Jacket or the rifle at Vault 15, or exploring The Glow and finding a bunch of incredible equipment and loot.

New Vegas' map design is at odds with being a desert and being a fun place to explore. Thing is, placing a building in the middle of a road immediately draws attention to it and makes the desert feel less like a desert, because everything is cramped together. In the old world map of classic Fallout, you could easily do that without sacrificing believability. Whenever I encounter a random shack in New Vegas, my first thought is "in classic Fallout, devs wouldn't have wasted their time on this shit". And it's the truth. In New Vegas, Obsidian must have felt they had to fill in a quota.

These are basically the truest quotes about New Vegas:

Technically FNV isn't empty. But it might as well be.

As for the locations, well that was my argument. Whilst the landscape is constrained by reality and should remain a desert, the human infrastructure is in the purview of a sci-fi retrofuture, and you could invent whatever. Similarly as pointed out before and by yourself there's a lot of locations in Vegas that could be dungeons, but are nothing instead.

When you break down every single location in New Vegas and see what it has to offer, many of them could be cut from the game and nothing would really change. Once I've been to Crescent Canyon, there's hardly any reason for me to return there in subsequent playthroughs. I can't say I would miss most of the tiny locations, and if Obsidian had spent their time doing other, better stuff, New Vegas would have been much better.

Anyhow, these are self-evident truths which is why there's little point in continuing discussing them.

 

[TheGM]

Now for some worthwile comments by intelligent life.

tries to play the smartie card but can't even edit posts to prevent double posting. what a maroon.

blend in seamlessly.

much like you do with the wailing wall of the pls no bully Fallout 3 brigade.

fucking goofs thinking cyolodill or whatever the fucks is a real place or some shit, and New Vegas would be a better game if their was a wrecked mono rail running through the map. fucking idiots share shit opinions and wonder why they get mocked for them, stupid buttheads all of them.