Wouldn't it still show you the progress that the foes you were previously unable to defeat are now defeatable and on the other end, the enemies that previously only gave you moderate challenge are now easy to defeat; the previously too hard locks now openable, the previously unpersuadable (word?) now in the reach of your grown verbal talents... etc, etc?

I can't talk for Gabriel, but I think the "constant" challenge would be there to keep things interesting even for a lategame character. And it wouldn't nullify the leveling, on the contrary, depending of course on how the game is structured (as in the "oblivion way" being the way that leveling isn't necesserely needed since everything scales to the player - and the "Fallout way" being that you need to level up to ever match certain challenges --- for example).

...and that's also a good point. It's not easy to maintain a challenge throughout the game without linear level scaling, which is something most people hate. It's why I stopped playing Oblivion until mods came out to re-work the scaling. The game should allow a high-level character to feel powerful while offering some very difficult areas that can still present a challenge to them. Fallout 3 was a huge improvement over Oblivion in this area, but could still be better. I didn't like the fact that at higher levels most challenging enemies were bullet sponges, which were tedious IMO (Point Lookout, I'm looking in your direction).

Edit:
Also what UnDeCafIndeed said.

I don't mind being obscenely powerful by the time I'm level 25-30 as long as the game has given me ways to become powerful in a way that's specific to my character build. My biggest problem with Fallout 3's character advancement was the fact that every character ends up pretty much the same by level 30.

I don't know how to balance it right off the bat, there are so many variables to think of.
But say deathclaws.
At level 1 to 10 you will be insta-killed by one of them.
At level 15 you'll be able to take two slashes by it's claws.
At 20 you'll be able to stand toe to toe with it.
At 30 one deathclaw is no biggie for you, but here's where it changes, instead of meeting one deathclaw, you meet three deathclaws.
I don't think that lower leveled enemies should disappear, but there should be more of them.
Not to the point of a horde, but y'know. Just some more of 'em.
Raiders will progressively get better gear until level 20, and at 30 you'll really see an increased number of them instead of them being bullet sponges and having the top of the line gear.

Again, to balance it all out (your health, enemies health, your supposed gear, your actual gear, enemies gear, your SPECIAL, enemies SPECIAL, your perks, enemies perks(if they have perks) etc.) is very hard.
For us to just come up with a simple solution ain't gonna be easy.
But very hard should be very hard, wether it's enemies getting more health, enemies getting x1.5 or x2 damage multiplier, enemy AI getting better depending on difficulty or something else.
I don't care how they do it, either fix the difficulty levels or remove them altogether and just have "normal" and "hardcoe" mode.

I mean, me and my friend tried playing resident evil 5 when we borrowed it from a friend on the higher difficulty and we were crushed.
We tried playing left 4 dead 2 on co-op expert realism and we spent 10 hours on the third map of dead center.
It's an incredible challenge, and it proved we weren't good enough for it.
That's how it should be here aswell.
Very hard should mean something, it should be a ridiculous challenge, and if you can't keep up with it, then do as we did, change the difficulty, or try harder until you finally beat it. (We actually did beat Dead Center on expert Realism after a couple of days of intense gaming)

Yes this.

A high level character should be powerful and as UnDecafIndeed has said offered a challange depending on whether he seeks it out in places. Bullet sponge enemies beth games are not particularly dangerous but dealing with them slows the game down in a repetetive slog fest. That breaks the fast skirmish feel that the games aim for imo.
So extreme health on npc's would put me off NV if they were to be included.

I like: The fact that its Fallout!!! :fallout:

I dislike: Its using Steam!!! :banghead:

I don′t see why steam gets flak by some people.... <_<

LIKE: Ironsights, and the new diversity of weapons, NPCs, and Quests.

DSILIKE: the unpopulated look of the Vegas strip, the terrible AI seen in FO3 and now in the gameplay videos (enemy NPCs running out from inside their nice well built and sandbag-reenforced ramparts and running straight into the player's storm of bullets instead of shooting from safety...just...why???).

@Gabriel

I think that adding a health difference or damage multiplier to either the player or the enemies is just bogus. To me it makes no sense from a basic logic standpoint why any one human being should be able to absorb more bullets than another. My disbelief can be suspended for things that are congruent and homogenous (such as the general feel and technology of the FO universe) but when it's an imbalance like some people's .32 bullets somehow hitting harder than another person's, I just can't do it. Make the difficulty slider affect buying/selling, the volume of valuable loot, enemy AI, etc., things that can change without feeling like crap.

/endrant

that sir is a very very good point.
however, they may have noticed this and have a reason for not 'improving'
it could make the game tedious if the enemy were constantly running away and hiding.

I'm pretty sure there could be found a middleroad with this. I mean, rather than leaving it halfassed in fear of possible tedium.
And anyway, one would think stupid AI would make the game more tedious than even halfsmart.

Exactly, I mean it just gets boring to stand outside a compound with amazing defences all around it, shoot one bullet, and have everyone come charging out at you as you and a couple of companions fire a storm of bullets at them. Just BASIC stuff like not deliberately running into a huge crossfire, or staying behind cover (even standing, so they're just half-exposed) when the fight allows for it. And if you leave the compound, they would just stay there, after all, why should they run after you? They have a base full of guns and supplies...

I don't really want enemies to get more health or damage multiplier either. (But if it's the only way then I'll accept it, anything to make the difficulty system work)
But I'd rather have less enemies and poor AI at Very Easy and more enemies and far better AI on Very Hard.
I just think that overall it would make it harder with more enemies (If they balance PC/enemy health/damage). (And again, no hordes.... no 60 molerats rushing towards you)
So a metro with 12 ghouls on normal would be 20 ghouls on Very Hard and 7 ghouls on Very Easy.
A deathclaw encounter in the wastes would be almost never on Very Easy, one on Easy, two on Hard, and three on Very Hard.
This way enemies would not get any cheaty sponge health or unreducable damage (Point Lookout) and it could make the game at least somewhat harder.
And I'd also like it if everything get's their own perks if you have higher difficulty.
On Normal one out of five raiders would have a perk, on Hard every other raider would have a perk and on Very Hard every raider would have a perk.
(This includes creatures and robotic enemies as well)
One of the things that made things unfair was that, say you have the exact health, armor and weapon as a raider, you would most probably still be better because of perks.
NPC's should get perks to even it all out.
This does not make it a cheat on their side, we get perks, they should get perks.

And I'm really going offtopic here so I'ma stop now.

Agreed.

Nevermind, misread....

I like: the fact it looks so similar to Fallout 3 that I know I'll like it
I dislike: the lack of nuclear destruction

Yeah, I feel like the indirect repercussions of basically the rest of the continent having suffered a nuclear holocaust should e a little more obvious. As well as the fact that upkeep won't exactly be on-par with what it was before the war. And...where are they getting the neon for the lights?

Like: Everything I've heard about F:NV up till now.
Dislike: *Ice cold Voice* G-a-m-e-b-r-y-o...

I seriously don't get it why it's still being used...there are a lot of engines that offer a visual quality extremely superior than the one gamebryo offers (and I'm not asking for CryEngine 3 and DirectX 11 or anything).

Maybe they have a contract with Bethesda/Obsidian? I don't know. Just an idea. ^_^

It's the engine that makes modding at the scale of GECK and TESCK possible, and pretty much the only one of its kind. The real problem is that the Gamebryo version of Oblivion and Fallout is not quite the most recent and much more stable one.

First of all, many engines can't accomplish the huge, seamless environments on current console hardware with decent framerates, so that's part of it. Also, it's really, really expensive to re-tool your game to use a different game engine. Aside from needing to familiarize and train your architects and programmers with a new engine (not trivial) there's a ton of design work, documentation, prototyping, programming, optimizing, and testing to do to get it done.

I'm not just talking about game programming, but they'd have to develop a whole new set of tools for the artists and content creators/scripters to use...not to mention a new version of the end-user tools if they decided to keep allowing user-created mods...if the engine they end up using even makes it practical to allow user modding on the scale that Gamebryo does.

It's a big deal to change engines. A big, long, very expensive deal. It's in their best interests to use Gamebryo for as long as they can. They have a lot invested into it. Changing engines right now would cost a fortune and add a lot of risk to their projects.

They could ask John Carmack to help them tweak the engine to better suit the current "needs" of the market. His in their payroll afterall.

Hehe...hopefully for Fallout 4/TES V we'll see something like that. I mean, have you seen any recent footage of Rage? It looks exactly how I wish Fallout 3 and New Vegas looked.

I watched the trailers a couple of times and thought exactly that.

Who's that?

Head of ID, another of the companies that was brought under the Zenimax umbrella.

He's most famous for Doom.