Just because you can see New Vegas and beyond from Goodsprings, doesn't automatically mean you should be able to just traipse off towards it right from the start with no problems. Being able to see the bright lights of New Vegas from the beginning, but being forced to take a more circuitous route to eventually get there, was brilliant in my opinion. It gives you a goal, but doesn't make it a cakewalk to get there right off the bat. There are monsters in the way that are too tough? Bummer... guess I'll take the long way around then. Real life adventuring has always been full of places you could see from afar but not necessarily jog right up to without any worry or effort, for one reason or another. The game flows just fine, it simply sounds like you're full of sour graqes just because you can't do anything you want, anytime you want. Classic Skyrim Syndrome. Game's fine the way it is for most everyone else. Check poll results.

It appears that you're not looking for an actual open-world game, but more an actual sandbox game, where you can do absolutely everything from level 1, and ditch the very concept of level altogether. You can't progress because you don't have 50 lockpicking? You're doing it wrong, literally. Lockpicking only gives you alternatives in doing quests. If you can't lockpick, you can either ask for the key, kill for the key, look for the key, or forget the lock altogether and take the other paths. I don't have 50 lockpick and I never encounter an issue

I'm with Longknife here. The opening is fine, but mods like alternate start are fantastic. Its crazy how different the game feels when you have a new starting point with different stats and reputations already in place. Doing the same things you've done a hundred times before feels fresh simply because you're encountering things at a different time.
Is something only a story when you win? I'm not sure how coming up short on requisite skills equates to a lack of story or progression.

I'm two minds of the whole thing. It's something of a coin toss for me, character by character, how I feel about how certain sequences play out. One time I managed to flat-foot it all the way to New Vegas at level 1 without cheating though, and pretended that's where I was starting, doing odd jobs and svcking at a lot of things in the big city, slowly venturing into the wasteland little by little. It had a decidedly more organic feel to it than usual, having a "home town" to seek refuge in, dreaming of the days I'd get out of Freeside and into the Strip.

I do wish entering the Strip didn't immediately advance the main questline, though, that's for sure.

I have no problem with players being guided in a direction, but I would expect something a tad more clever than 'mob of monsters'.

As I said, the game has inherent problems and shortfalls, and the deathclaw mob is the prime example of it, right from the start (a point I made earlier, for those of you blinded by emotion that someone is desecrating the sacred cow).

@Slyme: the issue is that for those three quests, at that particular stage, there is only one way forward, and that is to have requisite skill.

Now, the situation is that there is a standard office building interior door - locked, and with a terminal available to unlock it. I have neither the lockpick or science skill to open it. However, I do have a high explosive skill, I do have a dozen sticks of dynamite, a number of grenades, and various other explosives...as well as a shotgun, capable of taking the door completely off its' hinges. However, the game designers decree that a glass and wood interior door will only be openable by lockpick or science, so no amount of explosives or thermonuclear bomblets will open that door. There is no other alternative to that door.

Is there something unbelievable about where the high level monsters are placed in New Vegas? Like, it would be okay if they were placed at the northern edge of the map, but not in the middle? Or is the existence of any high level monsters anywhere a problem? What would be a more clever solution, in your mind?
And? Like I asked before, is something only a story if you win? Does describing an entire game as story driven mean that every single quest must be completable by every character at all times?

The problems you are highlighting exist in every game. You can't use explosives on doors in Fallout 3, you can't bash open chests in Skyrim, plenty of shooters don't even let you shoot through doors. Is it a problem? Yeah, sure, in the sense that fewer limitations are always better. But New Vegas offers far more mission solutions than the vast majority of other games out there. Honestly, I'm wondering what games you play if this is enough to seriously bother you?

Are you talking about Repconn? I remember the first time I played that.mi didn't have either skill at 50 too, so I killed everyone, level up, used the here and now perk, and put all those points into lock pick. Silly me. Next time I actually talked to the robot with the unique name; found another way in.

I don't really understand... Deathclaws natural habitats are quarrys, cazadores natural habitat are canyons. You don't see them outside of these kind of habitats, or if you do not far.

I don't see how a better alternative would be the Skyrim model of *level up: lions have now replaced wolves*. No internal logic.

What's the point in a game with no challenge?

It would be nice if that statement had any basis in fact.

Firstly, Skyrim does not get rid of low level monsters once you hit a certain level, even at level 81, you will still encounter level 1 dragur, bandits, falmer, and every other monster type in the game.

Secondly, the level scaling system Skyrim uses actually has a challenge because not only does it throw monsters at, and below, your level, but regularly places enemies above your level for you to fight, so that way you

1. Get the feeling of progression as you are now plowing past all the lower level enemies that use to be difficult

2. You get the same challenge you get before with the older monsters with the newer ones that are at your level, thus keeping the game as hard as it was before.

3. You regularly have to fight monsters that are harder then the ones yo currently fight, so that way you get an occasional "harder" enemy so that not evertyhing stays as easy, or easier, then the game was before.

Thirdly, do you not understand how, while a quarry and a canyon are the natural places that those creatures inhabit, to place those geographical land features in the way they they did, and thus make a monster wall, comes off as 100% artificial and gamey? and an obvious developer attempt to NOT make a natural world, but instead make a controlled one that forces you down the path they the devs chose for you?

But to answer the OP's question, yes the game felt very linear at the beginning, the constant monster walls, and invisible walls, made the game reek of everything that was wrong about 90's RPG game design in games like NWN where you started off in a hub area and chose one of 4 linear paths in each of the 4 directions from that hub. It ruined nearly any sense of a natural world, and made me feel like the devs where constantly watching me play the game over my shoulder and trying to hold my hand saying " NO! NO! DON'T GO OVER THERE YET, YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW OUR STORY!".

The Mojave wasteland felt pretty much as fake and "gamey" as you can get, with the only worse game world designs being MMO worlds where literally everything is a box canyon, and CoD style "you cant jump over a waist high fence because LEVEL DESIGN!", and New Vegas bordered on the latter in many instances. It was hand holding galore.

Do you understand what the words artificial and gamey mean? Do you want to explain why a quarry in the center of the map doesn't make sense? Would it make sense if it were at the edges? Or far from the starting point? If so, why does shifting the map to place those dangerous edge zones near the center suddenly render them artificial? You realize the New Vegas map is based on real locations and real geography, right?

Give it up. They only whine because such things keep them from being able to do anything they want, anytime they want, anywhere they want, without having to think of and seek out alternative options. Intelligent games with real challenges like NV are not for them.

wow... so basically all in Fallout? All I'm saying is it's more realistic that your character would face harder enemies, and a good strategy is literally just to run away. The progression is still there cause later you feel great when you go back and beat the [censored] outve them. But I guess for those who like their hand held throughout their game.. not so great ;/;/

also, it's funny you mention a 'level scaling system' that 'actually has a challenge' when in skyrim you can level by grinding. so no not really.

-Do you?

-I never said the quarry being there was artificial, I never said any one specific geographical feature, or placement of enemies, was. I said that it was the combination of a series of highly unlikely geographical features, invisible walls, and monster placements, that led to the artificial feel of the game world because of how obvious the intended "monster wall" design was.

-Being "based" on something means very little, all one has to do is look at movies that are "based" on a true story to see that being based on something, means very little in the long run. Furthermore, geography has no impact on Obsidian's frequent use of invisible walls throughout New Vegas's landscape to prevent player's from being able to climb things they normally should, and the placement of monsters, that didn't need to be there, in that landscape to block players from reaching Vegas too early.

It was actually the near complete lack of options in New Vegas' start that was the problem, which is why i dislike it.

And I have nothing against areas full of monsters that you cant kill until you reach a higher level, I have a problem with them being so obviously set up in a line to block player's progress, because the devs were too incompetent to build a story that worked without it, that it destroys any semblance of a natural world.

But instead of asking what exactly i do like, or how I think it could be made better, you resulted to a slew of ad-hominem, the most basic indication that you asked a question that you didn't want to hear any opinion but ones that agree with your own personal view. How typical.

And really, New Vegas isn't smart, nor does it require thought, or effort, to be put into it, at least no more then Fallout 3 did. It's an easy game, whose factions and characters are the same handful of stereotypes, relaying the same overused and cliche "life lessons" that every other piece of media that tries to act smart uses, in spite of the fact that the overuse of those cliches has ruined any real impact they could have had.

It's a fairly dumb game wearing the clothing of the much smarter, and better constructed, stories from various forms of media that came before it.

The logic of this argument literally equates to "Some things claim to based on something but aren't faithful to the original... therefore ALL THINGS that are based on something mustn't be faithful to the original!"

By the way, the map of NV to the real Vegas is pretty much spot-on.

Oh, and also... you can reach Vegas at Level 1. You probably don't know this because 'omg hard monsta can't face it!!' It's not even difficult as long as you strategise ............. but nevermind that, right?

Invisible walls was a completely separate comment, one that I wasn't responding to. You described the enemy placement as being artificial, specifically using the term "monster wall". So I'll ask again: Do you understand what artificial means? If you come across road construction that forces you to take a detour, that's not artificial. If you see a wet floor sign and walk around the puddle, that's not artificial. Obstacles are only artificial if they make no sense given their context.

If you want to instead talk about invisible walls, fine. Those are a problem. They were a problem in Fallout 3, too. Its hardly a major problem in New Vegas given how flat the world space tends to be. Invisible walls that matter from any practical perspective are few and far between---the one at the back of the quarry and behind Primm are about all that come to mind.

Actually, my argument is that, in stories based off of something, not every feature has to be, or will be, the same as the story it is based off of, thus, having descrepancies between the two means nothing.

I actually reached New Vegas at level 1, it isn't that hard, as Obsidian was quite bad at making sure their monster wall worked, as they normally are with most of their gameplay elements. It's bad enough they couldn't design a story without the wall, but the wall not working right just compounds the issue.

But that is totally irrelevant to the fact that the monster wall shouldn't be there to begin with, and attempting to change the subject to something unrelated is a rather pointless means to try to debate someone with.

I suggested you re-read what I posted

Invisible walls were part of the same comment, and if you wanted to remove invisible walls from the equation, and instead just talk about geography and monster placement alone, you should have said so, but you didn't.

And I will ask again, do you understand what artificial means?

There was literally no reason for the enemy placement in New Vegas, period, beyond Obsidian's poor writing, and inability to create a story that could adapt to the way you played it. The placement of enemies, as they were, was artificial, and totally unneeded, as Fallout 3 had shown already, it's 100% possible to create a story that allows you to skip entire part of it, Megaton, Three Dog, Rivet City, and go straight to the objective, your dad, and have the story work. similarly, they could have allowed you to go straight to New Vegas, and hear rumors that Benny was bragging about offing a guy near Goodsprings and put two and two together and have the story work that way.

The sole reason for the monster wall can be described as simply developer laziness, and game-play resulting from developer laziness is artificial. Well, at least more so then normal game-play, which, by its very nature of being a game, is artificial in its own right.

and Fallout 3 really had no invisible walls except on the edges of the map, nor did the VERY few it did have, such as in the downtown area of DC, prevent you from accessing areas early, so they really weren't a problem. Fallout 3's and New Vegas's invisible wall levels, and effects on gameplay, are in such different leagues they aren't even in the same court.

This is what you posted:
You criticized invisible walls when talking about linearity. You criticized monster walls when taking about artificiality. And you just did it again:
Seriously, do you understand what artificial means? It has nothing to do with freedom of movement within a videogame world.

The linearity is what was artificial.... really, did you even read the post at all?

And i ask again, do you?

Artificial has two main meanings, the first is in reference to an object that is replication of something natural, like an artificial limb, the second being something that lacks a natural quality, like a laugh from people who didn't think a joke was funny, but laughed anyways to be nice to the person who told it.

The monster wall in New Vegas is the latter, it lacks a NATURAL reason to be there, as the story could have worked without it. It exists solely to funnel players down into a pre-established story route that is un-needed for the game to work.

Yes, I did. Do you understand how sentences work? When you say, "Monster placement is artificial," that doesn't actually mean, "linearity is artificial." Those are two entirely separate thoughts. If you meant the later, you should say that rather than continuing to say the first.
Except it does have a natural reason to be there. Cazadores chill out in canyons and Deathclaws hang in quarries. When the miners abandoned the quarry, the deathclaws move in. They have a cave not too far away as well. Whether it also serves as way of directing players in a certain direction is immaterial when discussing whether its believable for the enemies to be where they are.

So basically, your 'argument' is that it's not right whether its similar to the real world or not, because either way it doesn't fit the bill NO MATTER WHAT (because hard monsters shouldn't be near the beginning of your game). Ok, now I'm on the same page.

You're completely missing the point. That's not a wall, otherwise you wouldn't get through. You're supposed to be able to get through, if you try. The game nudges you in one direction, and for your first playtrhough you're pretty keen to take it. If it was supposed to be a wall, you'd be bombarded with 20 cazadores, not 6.

It is a crucial story element that the I15 is closed, and is important in every caravan quest and legion questline. But you don't seem to care for story.

Also there was nothing irrelevant in what I said to what we were arguing about since I was responding to you saying "landscape to block players from reaching Vegas too early."

But since we're going to criticise each other's debating skills, perhaps you might consider not ignoring valid arguents against your position...... awk

It is very possible to get from Goodsprings to the Strip from the start of the game. People are just to lazy to actually try something that isn't just shooting their way through. The creatures are a wall if that is the only thing you are trying to do.

I have done it many times by simply sneaking my way past.

If that is to hard for you. Go south till you get around Primm and then just cut across and you will end up in the area of Helios/Novac.

Do you understand how sentences string together to form paragraphs, and how paragraphs are connected to each other via common ideas? I did say the latter, if you had read EVERYTHING, instead of cherry picking one sentence, you would know that.

Also, Deathclaws liking linestone, thus moving into the quarry, and Cazadors liking canyons, are VERY flimsy and hamfisted excuses the devs shoehorned into the game to try to explain the monster wall. Unfortunately, they didn't actually integrate those ideas into the game world in a way that actually made those excuses be believable.

Deathclaws liking limestone comes up exactly once in the game, and is never used to expand upon Deathclaws in any way, besides to serve as a poor excuse for why they are in the quarry. You can't use limestone to attract deathcalws in any part of the game, nor are there any other places in the game with huge limestone deposits that deathclaws have invaded. Deathclaw's liking limestone is, for all purposes, a mcguffin that exists solely to try to explain why the monster wall makes sense, which it does very poorly, when any real examination of it shows that its obviously BS. Had there been any real integration of this attribute of deathclaws in the game, there would be at least some justification and believability, but as it stands now, them liking limestone is about as believable as well written as someone explaining a magical artifacts power by saying "well, its magic, so it makes sense".

As for Cazadors, they inhabit everywhere, from near water, to canyons, to a fairly open plains, and at the same time, also don't inhabit other areas that met these same conditions, so, once again, why exactly do the Cazadors inhabit THAT canyon yet leave others alone? Why do they live THERE when they also live near water? The only answer to those questions is "because the game devs didn't want you going that way because the poor story design couldn't adapt to the possible choices", or in other words, poor game design with no real justification.

No one is questioning the ability to bypass the monsters, in fact, I even made mention of doing it myself before. The whole "People are just to lazy to actually try something that isn't just shooting their way through." is so unrelated to the topic at hand, "i.e. the topic that there is no reason for a monster wall to be there, period, the ability to get past it or not being 100% irrelevant, because if the story was actually designed well the game would be able to adapt to the player JUST going there, and thus there would be no need for the monster wall at all" that I actually question what point you were trying to make.

And that totally ignores the fact that the player being able to get past said monster wall only shows that Obsidian couldn't design their own barrier systems well enough to be real barriers. Essentially you are saying that it doesn't matter because it's designed badly, and fails to do what it was meant to do, or in better terms, you are saying that bad game design is OK if you can get around it.... instead of actually wanting to fix the bad game design.

Either

A. the monster wall should be totally impassible, but have several well explained reasons that are integrated into the gameplay as to why those monsters are there

or

B. There should be no monster wall, and the story should be able to adapt to you just going there.

Because having a monster wall with no real justification for why those monsters are there beyond "we said so" is poor game design, and reflects poorly on the writers, the world they made, and makes the game feel increasingly artificial, unrealistic, and obviously gamey.

Nope, your still an entirely different court then I am.

My argument is the above, or in bullet points to make it easier to read

1. A good story would be able to adapt to the player's actions, and their ability to go places before the dev's intended.

2. New Vegas's story doesn't do that, and largely acts as if you went the long way around, even if you took the shortcut.

3. The monster wall exists only to serve as a barrier to force the player down a specific path because the story that cant adapt, cant adapt to anything else.

4. The monster wall fails to do even that, showing a lack of planning/testing, and general poor game design.

5. That they didn't take the time to make the story adapt, and instead decided to place monster walls and invisibility walls around the game world shows an ungodly amount of laziness.

6. Game design that comes out of developer laziness is poor game design, is entirely artificial, and has no reason to exist, nor should it be tolerated.

7. The belief that you are "supposed" to be able to get past the monster wall is unsupported by the game itself, as evidenced by how the story doesn't adapt to it, and seems largely like some BS excuse people made up because Obsidian can do no wrong!

It isn't a "Monster Wall" if you can get passed it. People are just lazy and have a [censored] fit when they can't shoot their way through it.

If you can easily make it through it, then it isn't a wall. If the player can't get around it, they aren't trying. Which means they aren't interested in actually trying something besides shooting their way through. Which means they don't like a challenge. They just want to play a generic shooter game in which the player never actually dies or has any real difficulty.

People [censored]ing and moaning because there is something in the game they can't kill at level one with a varmint rifle. God forbid there are things in a game you can't kill right from the start.

There is also nothing making you go to the Strip right from the start.

Seriously, do YOU not realize how often you post and you're like the only person in the room with your opinion, and you still insist on this condescending attitude everywhere? Drop it and just talk respectfully.

And once again, yeah, your reasoning throughout your posts is a little odd.

First, you champion Skyrim's system saying it provides a sense of progress, when tbh, the majority of my memories within Skyrim involve being frustrated as I'm forced to spam potions for exceedingly powerful enemies when I reach new level thresholds (AKA I -just- hit level 10 so now enemies have refreshed, and for the moment the boss of the dungeon is level 18) while offering me no way to dodge on non-block characters (an issue for an RPG), only to eventually have combat be reduced to a trivial, time-consuming escapade, all because Bethesda's simplistic system of damage resistance eventually means that I'll reduce all incoming damage by 80%, at which point dying is literally challenging, and YET they insist on continuing to beef up enemy defenses (AKA, longer battles) while the damage continues to disappoint (AKA longer battles where you never feel remotely threatened AT ALL).

No, it DOESN'T feel natural that I never encounter a single bear until a certain level, then suddenly they're all I ever see. No, it doesn't make sense that I never see a bandit in anything other than fur, then suddenly every bandit chief ever is rocking ebony.

Second, both "excuses" for deathclaws and cazadors being there are given meaning and remain consistent within the game. Deathclaws can sure enough be found at two different quarries, cazadors are consistently found at locations with rotting corpses. Both exist between Goodsprings and Vegas, and alongside that, the very map of New Vegas is based on a real-world map (AKA that quarry actually exists) and that very area with the rotting corpses the cazadors are swarming to also has a backstory in the form of that All Roads comic they released before the game. Literally the only explanation lacking is why Deathclaws are drawn to quarries, and given how Obsidian does a great job keeping their writing consistent and explaining everything, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a full explanation in future titles. Why you need an explanation for why a Tarantula hawk that lays eggs in the corpses of tarantulas it's killed is drawn to dead bodies? That's beyond me. And I mean ffs, if they left out the deathclaws, you KNOW Sloan would've had a lot of NCR and powder ganger corpses from when the powder gangers rebelled, and bam more cazadors.

Third, I'm pretty damn sure the devs have stated themselves that they WANTED there to be a way to slip by for experienced players while discouraging newer players from going that route. There's no "poor game design" there.

Overall, you've offered absolutely zero reason as to why the Quarry is "poor game design." Your basis of your argument is basically "I don't like it, therefore it's poor game design." Yeah, and I don't like the constantly leveling enemies in Skyrim, and I DEFINITELY don't like how their defense and HP increases feel more significant with their damage ones. Would I call leveling enemies poor game design? Absolutely not. Their bullet sponge tendencies? Yes, possibly, simply because you'll struggle to find anyone who says they LOVE bullet sponges, and anyone should be able to figure out that simply increasing enemy offense more while leaving enemy defense somewhat neglected and increased to a lesser extent? That would prevent bullet sponges. But here I have an easy-to-understand reason for why Beth should've been able to recognize the problem and handle it differently in a way 99% of the public would appreciate.

You're just labeling "poor game design" while failing to explain what about it is "poor." It's completely subjective and bias, not remotely applicable in a mostly subjective argument. You wanna see a REAL argument for why something is poor game design?

Points one and two literally contradict each other, as many people who play Skyrim can tell you. In Skyrim, you don't level up to unlock new features, abilities and playstyles; no, you level up to unlock the right to continue playing the game the way you were already playing. Perks don't feel like perks, because while I unlock Paralyzing Palm in New Vegas and feel accomplished because my Unarmed character is now even stronger in an entirely new way, my one-handed character is unlocking 20% more damage not to gain a 20% edge over enemies, but to keep up with the enemy's extra 20% damage he got from the leveling system. The result is combat feels monotonous because as you yourself state, "you get the same challenge you got before." Play four hours of Skyrim and you've already seen all there is to see from Skyrim's combat system. The player feels no progression if the challenge and system feel exactly the same at level 3 and level 30.

And point 3 is also highly irrelevant because again, there's an OBVIOUS system they adopted. Tons of lemming bandits at the start of the cave, stronger ones in the back. You wanna talk unbelievable? There's nothing unbelievable about deathclaws being drawn to quarries. Perhaps it seems odd and random, sure, but it could have meaning. For example, you'll find the mother deathclaw lays in eggs in a sort of man-made cavern, and likewise you ONLY find deathclaws eggs within caves. Perhaps they're drawn to caves and little holes in the earth as a place to lay their eggs. Bam: explanation. But please, PLEASE try explaining why EVERY SINGLE DUNGEON IN SKYRIM, without fail, all has bandits that organize their troop with the exact same system, and why EVERY troop is able to magically know who their best and worst men are and assign them positions appropriately. (Mind you though, I don't think this second point denotes poor game design, I'm simply mimicking the exact style of argument you're applying to deathclaws in NV)

Your claim that it's "poor game design" is nothing more than an excuse for you to sit here lording your opinion over other users as if it were fact and nothing anyone else can say can prove your opinion wrong because your opinion is "fact" because "poor game design." No, no it's not. Now back up and support your argument yourself, because "it svcks because poor game design" is NOT an argument.

Pretty much. Indeed, if it actually was poor game design, then the outcome of this poll would have looked a lot different. Ultimately, the measure of good or bad game design is whether most players like it, or find it lacking. This poll pretty much rests that case.