Also, did you actually read the link or watch the video?

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1098302-fallout-new-vegas-fan-interview/ (Last question)

http://gamevideos.1up.com/video/id/29981 (Starts to talk about it at around 3:15)

I'm wondering how long someone that has been knocked out actually stays unconscious. That will really be the keystone in all of this.

Long enough for you to leg it :bolt:

Sorry I couldn't resist

I have no problem with how you want to play your game. Im saying it's impossible because... TADA-- Fallout: New Vegas has a canon ending (see the dev diaries and the FNV wiki). It would be incredibly lame story if the bad guy didn't die at the end. And yes there will be a bad guy no matter what side you choose.

If the devs said that it was a "key part of the game" then they are lying. If the devs said that the sky was green would you believe that too?

In many ways Fallout is worse then COD. You can't kill someone, mutilate their corpse, and eat what's left of them for health in COD. In COD you aren't scrambling tooth and nail to survive in a post-apocalyptic nuclear wasteland filled with phychopaths, murderers, zealots, and neo-military facists. In a way, the devs saying you can beat fallout without killing someone is WORSE of a lie then saying you can beat COD without killing someone.

Yes that is very important. It's also important how that affects a quest. Will non-lethal attacks fulfill "kill" requirements? Probably not, but then again the developer stated that a non-violent playthrough ONLY applies to the main story.


LOL good one.

Wow... you really are just arguing for the sake of arguing now. I could present more evidence or counter your points, but I don't feel the need to prove anything anymore since nothing productive will come out of it.

Thank you for your interest in this discussion.

I'm really not trying to be confrontational.

I just don't see how you can beat a Fallout game without killing anybody. That presents such a huge problem in storytelling as you can't make any of the antagonists die. Which means you can't base future elements of the story on their deaths. Which means you have a very limited scope of what direction your story will take, and in an RPG thats really really really BAD. I don't think the devs would gimp the story like that just to cater to people who want to do a pacifist playthrough.

Two things.

Firstly, the "except perhaps in self defense" is still killing.

Second, the way the dev worded it was vague, I think you are taking him too literally. I think he meant that you will be able to play a speech/sneak non-lethal character and not have to kill very many people, but you will still have to kill some.

Thank you CCNA, that's a beautiful way to conclude the question.

I may just have to try this way after a few times through as a scoundrel!



@rpdraco, JES is not vague and the question was very specific - we can win the game without everyone AND that they designed the game specific to support this kind of play. Like it or not, this is an option for us. And besides, you really can't make these assumptions as you nor I nor anyone knows for sure until the game is out. Argue as you may, you still can't win the point until we know for sure.

Well to start, for every five violent themes in the game, there is one peaceful theme. That's the beauty of Fallout. The developers make a world so full of despair and disgust, but present you with rays of hope and good will. And developers aren't stupid enough to repeatedly tout features that aren't in the game. That's leads to bad publicity, something that publishers probably wouldn't allow.

Sure there are many RPGs where there is no peaceful option and killing is just what the game is about. But that doesn't mean that the developers have to stick to that formula. You really have to understand that Fallout, while seemingly dark and violent, is more about choices and play-style.

Lastly, they aren't "catering" to people who prefer pacifist playthroughs. In reality they are challenging players. The entire implementation of hardcoe mode was to give players more reason to play the game again under different circumstances. The pacifist route fits along those same lines.

PS: The developer also said that there isn't really a "main bad guy", rather there are merely warring factions. Of course that doesn't mean that there isn't an individual who will never be on your good side. But it's not like traditional RPG's where one guy is responsible for all of the evil and by killing him (and only him) you will save everybody. You have to think of Fallout as more than just an RPG with a run-of-the-mill beginning and an end.

I don't see how it's possible and will continue to be skeptical until I actually see it in-game. I presented my arguements and I believe they are quite logical, only to be countered by "because the devs said so". You can continue believing what you want, but if the game is released and you can't beat it without killing someone I'm going to lol hard. IIf indeed you can then I will be put in my place, and shame on me for doubting the devs, gods among men.

Sigh... you're still treating Fallout as a game where you're just playing to kill the main bad guy. What if the ending of the game is to just stop the launching of a bunch of nukes? Or uniting all of the factions? Or all of the above? Have you ever tried to think outside of the typical RPG guidelines?

I tried to give you a second chance but you're still being really immature and stubborn. Did you even carefully read the post above (or any of them for that matter)?

lol. I would say that if the people developing the game say something was built for X, than it will be X, not Y because you think it makes sense. You have presented your arguments, but also attacked all of the opposing arguments without any evidence to back it up. When CCNA reports that JES, the Project Director, has said that this will be so - thats good enough for me and most people.

Your calling the game devs Gods above men? Sarcasm does not win arguments.

I dont' think there is any other way to interpret this statement other than exactly as it is written.

JS: Yes. There are ways to win the main plot by killing no one

I'm done arguing. We will just have to wait and see. I attacked other people's arguements because "because the devs said so" isn't a valid rebuttal. Again I could say the sky was green and It doesn't make it true. Videogame developers break their promises all the time, look at activision-blizzard, and lionhead studios (Fable games) just to name a few.

Yes I read your post above, and while yes the Fallout franchise is a looser RPG then most, it still has a coherent and canon mainquest just like any other RPG, fitting the mainquest around a pacifist approach would gimp the story, and fitting pacifism around an already established mainquest would be ridiculously difficult if not impossible due to storyline limitations... IE this character must be killed by the PC because the next plot twist depends on the character dying by the PC's hand.

Edit: FNV has multiple mainquests, depending on what faction you pick. And there is always a bad guy, name 1 RPG where there wasn't. (Didn't play Fallout 1) In Fallout 2 it was the Master. In Fallout 3 it was Eden, then the rebellious officer guy (his name escapes me at the moment, embarassing actually as I'm a huge fan of the series). In oblivion it was Merhunes Dagon... I could go on, but essentially without a bad guy, there is no story.

The thing is that the devs said you establish the main story yourself. yes there is basic guideline to what you are doing but you ultimately make the story unfold how you wish it. There is no defined enemies or allies, you create all of these and make your own established Main quest. If that involves being a pacifist and choosing not to kill people that seems to be a completely viable option because the story unfolds based on what you do, rather than following sequenced events to the outcome.

You're talking as if the game is all about black and white, good and evil, when it has been stated that this game is all about gray. It's all about Making your own choices to be whatever you want to be in this game. With how much freedom and choice there is supposedly in this game, not being able to be a pacifist would be the real gimp to the game.

Also you're talking like they said this as an afterthought. Josh sawyer said they specifically designed the game from the beginning to be able to do a pacifist playthrough. That was something on the plate from day one. Not just something they thought of six months into the development.

also bad guys don't always have to die for the game to be over. Yggdrassil in Tales of Symphonia didn't die. In dragon age origins Loghain was one of the main bad guys and you could choose to make him part of your team instead of killing him. In fallout 3 you could convince Eden and Colonel Autumn stop. there are games where can you tap into the bad guys humanity and make them change their ways (fallout series is the prime example here all the main bad guys could be talked out of what they were doing).

Point conceded, if they managed to do this without making the story lame I will be very impressed.

The crux of your rebuttal is still "because the devs said so".

And you overestimate the freedom you will be given. It goes like this

Quest->Quest->Quest->Plot Twist->Quest->Ending

Or should I say in FNV it will be like this... NCR= New California Republic CL= Ceasar's Legion

NCRQuest->NCRQuest->NCRQuest->Plot Twist->NCRQuest->Ending

CLQuest->CLQuest->CLQuest->Plot Twist->CLQuest->Ending

Its grossly oversimplified but it will have to do. You may have leeway and freedom to decide HOW you do things, but not WHAT you do. And you will most likely HAVE to KILL some things, because the next step in the storyline depends on you killing it.

Loghain was a bad guy but he wasn't the MAIN antagonist. Eden blows himself up after you stop him, for all intensive purposes you led to his death, and IRRC you have to kill colonel autumn to get to the GECK in the last scene. Unless I am sorely mistaken there is no dialoge he is hostile on sight.

you are able to talk to autumn out of it at the very end. I did that on my very first play through..

you don't just pick you faction and that's that. it's also been stated you can play every faction against one another. It's not just a "pick my faction and run with it" type thing. you can also make every faction your enemy if you so choose. they did say you have choice in WHAT you do, that is the main thing in the are they are trying do with this game. Let you create the story.

Again you are looking at it in black and white. Even in fallout 3 there were purely pacifist choices when the quest was "kill this person." The tenpenny tower quest could be accomplished without killing anybody even though both parties wanted the other dead.

And you say that "the devs said so" is not a good argument. That itself would be good enough to refute us if there were physical proof of what you are saying. It's the crux of our rebuttal because there is no way at this point in time to refute what the dev's have said about the game. they right now are the highest authority on what's doable in the game.

at this moment in time their idea of how the game is going to be is leagues above what your perception is.

That was FO3, and this is FNV. Since the developers of FNV began with the mindset of a non-violent playthrough, you can use non-violent methods. In FO3, the developers intended you to engage in hostile encounters with characters such as Colonel Autumn.

EDIT: And if you're worried about the story being lame in a non-violent playthrough, then.... SURPRISE! Don't do it! It's just one of the choices. (I still don't understand why people require killing to make a story "good")

It was also stated that if you try to play the factions against each other they will team up to kill you eventually. In which case everyone except you is the bad guy.

"That was FO3, and this is FNV. Since the developers of FNV began with the mindset of a non-violent playthrough, you can use non-violent methods. In FO3, the developers intended you to engage in hostile encounters with characters such as Colonel Autumn."

--filpmunkee


I feel like a broken record. I DON'T BELIEVE THEM. At least not entirely. I've never seen it done before because it would be extremly hard to implement even building it into the game from the ground up. I'll say it again, we will just have to wait and see. If they do manage to do it I will be very impressed, but as of right now it just sounds like hype and exaggeration to me.

Also, yes I won't play it, but you aren't getting what I'm saying. If they built a story with a pacifism playthrough in mind, then some of the bad guys must get away, because some parts of the plot have to be canon. See what I'm getting at? In the pacifist playthrough it manifests itself as you letting them go... but in the "deranged killer" playthrough it manifests itself as "they got away too bad". Thats why I'm saying its impossible to have a game where you can "beat it by killing everyone, and beat it by killing nobody". If they had a whole bunch of different endings like in Fallout 2 I could see it working, but they already stated FNV has a canon ending depending on which faction you pick... or don't pick.

I understand that you dont believe them. I get that.

I'm saying you are making assumptions based on your own perception of what the game is. Our assumptions are based on what the devs have told us. you are throwing in restrictions as if you have actually played the game.

you don't know that there is a quest to kill someone without a possible pacifist outcome. You are assuming that. Our belief in that there is a purely pacifist way is based on a (mostly) credible source. Your belief that it isn't is solely from the conclusions you've drawn from your own experiences and assumptions.

None of us know if there is a pacifist way, but right now the most reliable source is the devs, not the other games we've played and taken assumptions from.

My response had nothing to do with that.

All I said was:

(1) If you feel that playing non-violently would ruin the story, then don't do it. Kill people and make the story how you want to.

(2) The reason you couldn't avoid killing people in FO3 was because a completely non-violent playthrough was not part of the development process.

So much for reading carefully.

EDIT: And being pacifist doesn't always mean "letting bad guys go". You can convert them, change their minds, imprison them, thwart their plans and let them deal with the repercussions, etc. Again, you have to understand that there are alternative outcomes that don't end with the main bad guy (if there is one) ending up dead.

EDIT EDIT: They did not build the story with a pacifism playthrough in mind. They built it with multiple outcomes in mind. You can mold the story to your liking. They don't stress one method over another. In other words, there are just as many story options for violent and neutral playthroughs and the developers haven't made one more relevant than another.

If I recall correctly, you can complete Fallout 1 without killing anyone directly yourself (and by that I don't mean that followers killed for you instead). The Master (I'm not sure what version of Fallout 2 you played but the Master was not in that game) can be proven wrong by your research. He then chooses to commit suicide but it's not as if you're forcing him.

That said, I'm sure that the *results* of a playthrough where one plays a pacifist will still involve casualties as a consequence to your actions (in the ending slide for example). But I have no problem seeing a game where you can play it without killing anything with your own bare hands so to speak. A non-violent playthrough (where you don't engage in combat at all, not even non-lethal) will probably be tough but I still don't see why it's impossible. Especially given that you have the chance to run away.