Agree, more so as even an bad hardcoe mod will generate an good framework to work on.

First a couple things before I shoot my mouth off:

1) I liked hard core mode.

2) Fallout has never really been a survival game, most of the mechanics except for FONV, have been extremely abstracted and hard core mode really only resembled a survival mode is the loosest definition of the genre.

With that said, according to Steam. Only 4.5% people completed hard core mode. I am not sure if that qualifies as "well received".

Actually i got the hardcoe mode achievement the first time i used Project Nevada and i didn't even have it activated, not quite sure how that happened. I have played with it later ofc. I truly do want something like it in FO4, but if Bethesda doesn't include it, a mod maker will make a mod for it. Look at RND and iNeed for Skyrim. We will get something like that.

I think the best way to incorporate needs isn't to focus on realism, but on just getting the player to behave realistically. My suggestion has been to make Stimpaks less common and change their focus to emergency healing and crippled limb management, and then make food items enable temporary slow health regen. As for sleep, I'd tie it in with AP regen, in addition to the XP buffs it already provides. Would it be too annoying if after 24 hours without sleeping, your AP stopped regenerating? Assuming you only needed to sleep for one hour to get rid of the debuff, and Nuka Cola restored a little AP. Or drinking a Quantum could substitute sleeping for a full day.

Internet high-five.

Ok. I'll say this one more time.

Many people who liked hardcoe mode turned it off occassionally.

Your statistic is meaningless because the methodology is flawed. People not getting the hardcoe mode achievement =/= people not liking it. I "cheated" and turned off hardcoe mode once or twice when things got too hard. So I didn't get that achievement. Based on your logic, does that mean I don't like hardcoe mode or want to see it returned?

I never said that. I never commented on the methodology I just posted that the statistics, as we have them, in their flawed form, indicate that hard core was not an "extremely" well-received addition to the game. It was certainly well received by me, and well received by you (apparently more by me since I didn't turn it off).

How many people do you think played like you? I know we don't have any specific numbers for sales and such, but a very general gauge might be 2.2 mil FONV players (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/steam-gauge-addressing-your-questions-and-concerns/2/), so, if this is even close, how many people do you think we would need to make an appreciable difference in the 4.8%? What if we got tens of thousands of people to admit the played like you, would that move the percentage up? Would 15% even be enough to say it was generally well received by players?

I honestly don't know, which is why I'm not making an assumption either way based off of that. I'm simply saying that your methodology is flawed, and the people who got that achievement should not be used as an indicator of how many people enjoyed that system. It shouldn't even be part of the discussion.

Sorry, I'm just a stickler for statistics and I hate seeing them used incorrectly.

You recall wrongly, then. FONV had far worse shooting mechanics than FO3, mainly because the stupid iron sights blocked the target with many weapons. It sure makes sense that raising my laser pistol to fire down the barrel winds up having me stare at the butt of the gun barrel. (sigh)

I have no trouble shooting in FO3. Then again, I had no trouble shooting in Half-Life, either.

Anyway, FONV hardcoe mode really wasn't hardcoe at all, so a lot of improvement is needed.

It's fair to say that Primary Needs is the standard survival mod for FO3 either stand alone or as part of FWE. However, FWE doesn't have other necessary mods such as decent increased radiation (FWE's option is very poor compared to another mod I use that adjusts individual areas), changing the Infirmary so that it is much more difficult to abuse it to stay in perfect shape, etc.

Based on your information, I stand corrected. Even if one tripled it, it's still low. All that I can say then is that I'd like to see it in the game. I do recall however, that Bethesda is about options, options, and more options. So if it's not too difficult to include, then perhaps they'll do so for those seeking the additional difficulty.

Still wish the possible HC mode would increase the initial penalties on skill perk checks and low skill perk induced control distortions:

- much slower movement without appropriate abilities (less possibilities to run away without appropriate PC),

- much less accurate guns and throwing without appropriate abilities,

- much slower attacks and less damaging melee without appropriate abilities,

- actual skillchecks for locks and terminals,

- much less effective stealth and stealing without appropriate abilities

- much less XP per quest/task

- higer gaps between levelups

- more expensive VATS

...and so on.

plus of course, weight on all items, non-spammable stims and other provisions, no simpaks healing cripples, and less immortality in general in the game (preferably all gone; if I [censored] up by letting someone important die, then so be it)

I can live without the basic needs; I just want core mechanics that feel as character driven as possible. As far as I'm concerned they could go full Deus Ex (the original, not HR nor the upcoming MD) with their perks and SPECIAL, but even more heavy handed due to controls these days being far less clunky. What's more "HC" in a supposed RPG than having the actual RPG parts of the game have the weight they deserve?

This, I only want ammo weight and slow stim regen. I would take companion death if the AI weren't so stupid. I usually keep some water and food items in my inventory to add weight and realism without having to check my pipboy to see if I am thirsty or hunger.

hardcoe mode was demanded in New Vegas and when it was finally in there oly half the people requesting it actually played it.

So?

>lets waste millions of dollars making something not even half the people who buy the game will use!

Said no dev ever.

I think Bethesda has noticed the popularity of "realism" mods, for Skyrim in particular, and has at least talked about how to add things like that to the game without making it feel tacked on, or shifting the focus of the gameplay. So we probably won't have to monitor our environmental exposure or how much we eat/drink/sleep, but I wouldn't be surprised if they gave us the ability to, and reasons to, set up camps and eat/drink/sleep regularly.

They definitely noticed the popularity of mods that add more reactivity to the environment like Wet & Cold; I wouldn't be surprised if we at least saw NPCs responding more appropriately to the weather.

Don't say "millions of dollars".

And yet they are making a game the size that not nearly everybody will ever see fully through.

Why don't you leave the finances to Beth.

More people habitually play Bethesda games for 400+ hours and see everything then people who play hardcoe modes.

Its a far more worthwhile investment.

Ok then. No HC mode. Far too expensive.

http://fcdn.mtbr.com/attachments/colorado-front-range/813943d1373150786-shame-you-lbs-walle.jpg

Poor buggers, wouldn't want to bankrupt them.

It's to much of an RPG element for Bethesda these days surely.

Also it wouldn't take "millions of dollars" for Christ sake, it's a mod people made for Fallout 3 and, therefore, costs nothing.

Faulty logic.

by that reasoning textures cost nothing to make, as people make mods for them all the time. In REALITY however, textures can cost thousands of dollars per texture, depending on how good the person making them is, and thus costs.

It's just dev time better spent fleshing out the world instead of creating an artificial mechanic, which punishes exploration (conflict of interest), that a very niche crowd will use to begin with.

HC isn't just some feature you add in, flip a switch, and wuala - "hard core." You're dedicated X amount of man-hours to just design it, then you have the spend X amount of man-hours QAing it just to make sure it plays well with the rest of the mechanic.

It's not very hardcoe when the 0.5% who do use hardcoe mode turn around and turn it off when it suits them :l

And, again, people on their PCs at home made the slight changes required to implement a hardcoe mode. It's not some great coding nightmare and certainly wouldn't cost "millions". That's insane.

Yes I know it takes work and time, and yes I know not everybody uses it. Every feature does. But I'm not going to argue about it further than what I think it should do (which is mostly numbers tweaks and their testing). None of us is in postition to state whether or not it is wasted money anymore than any other "optional" feature. And none of us should be sweating over Bethesda's (of all developers) finances.

If it is in and if it delivers something worhtwhile, splendid; if not, [censored] it.

I never said it was a coding nightmare, and it would likely cost millions simply because hats how much it costs to make video games.

Do you even know how much it costs to make a game nowadays? How terribly inflated video game budgets have gotten due to not being able to export coding to other places like we do most other products.

To give an example of a similar situation, the ipad would cast 10 times as much as it does now if it was made in America. Video game budgets are MASSIVE because of all of our pesky "fair wage" laws and stuff like that.

It can cost thousands to make even one single texture, and its why Bethesda has used the human shaped Khajiit in all TES games past Morrowind, its simply too costly to make race specific skeletons.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/09/economist-explains-15

That snide 'so' got shot down instantly. Love to see that.