Thank you. You at least get what I am trying to say. If the story is built even remotely like FO3 or pretty much any other RPG ever made, the whole "kill everyone or nobody" thing is practically impossible. Thats why Im skeptical.



First, anything not involving putting a knife through their eye or a bullet in their head is "letting them go".

Secondly you still aren't understanding what I am saying. You do realize FO3 had a canon storyline right? The storylines in FNV are also canon depending on which side you pick, how are they going to build pacifism into a canon storyline?

lol you are starting to make me doubt my memory... maybe it was Fallout 1 I played and not Fallout 2? It was about 10 or so years ago, I was still a kid. I remember you could convince the master through speech to kill himself, but again that would be manipulating events so that he would die, thats not pacifism.

Your first statement is purely a matter of opinion. Just because YOU deem that to be "letting them go", doesn't mean the whole world does.

Second, just because it's canon doesn't mean that it ends with death. Have you ever thought that you could kill everybody in the game and then in the ending the "main bad guy" still lives and has a change of heart? And ever heard of multiple endings?

Again your looking at it in black and white. Your opinion of what "letting someone go" means is not the fact of what it is.

Let's take a made up example.

You are at the end of the quest line where you decide the fate of some bad guy in some quest. you have 3 options:

1.kill him
2.convert him to your side through speech
3.Imprisonment/turn him over to authorities.

In all scenarios he is effectively stopped, but which one of those exactly is letting them go? only one is a violent solution. There are plenty of ways to beat the bad guy that doesn't involve killing them.

transmission: I'm seriously beginning to think that this guy is just trolling and wasting our time. Either that or he hasn't played enough games or watched enough movies to know that stories aren't always as simple as "The prince slays the dragon and saves the princess from peril".

Firstly I'd just like to point out that no dev has at any time that I am aware of said that a pacifist ending would be canon to New Vegas. Just that you could play through the main quest without killing anyone.

Secondly, can you all just agree to disagree until a time as it can be proven one way or another through game play. Otherwise I can only see this thread ending badly :ahhh:

Agreed on the first point.

Sigh* you still aren't getting what I'm saying... see my second response.



No, you misunderstand me. Ok lets look at the FO3 storyline. One mission in particular... kill all the supermutants the water matenience facility so your dad and his scientists can set up a lab. How the hell are you going to do that in a pacifist fashion? The story can't continue until you do it. I know it isn't FNV but what if you get a similar mission? Also, to your example about the three options, unless its the end of the story, do you honestly think they will write three sperate storylines for what you decide to do? What happens of the next story quest is dependant on him dying? (only the number 1 option was given because he attacked you, refused to surrender and there was no dialoge). Run away? and abandon the mainquest? What happens to pacifist characters when the story requires them to kill someone? What happens to sociopath characters when the story requires them to let someone live? You can't have both because the storyline invariably depends on you actions in the previous quest. Unless they are writing like 5 completley different stories, along with one for ech faction... then I will be VERY impressed. Writing a story where nobody cannonically dies is a huge handicap, which is why I think they won't do it.

uh yes they will write different story lines for what happens they did for every fallout game and any game where there is a choice. That is why there is a choice for you.

I will bring up tenpenny again. In that quest you have 3 choices. Kill the tenpenny residents, kill the ghouls, or get them to live together. Each scenario offers a completely different ending with characters that react differently to you and say different things.

In your example all they have to do is add another option where you convince the other faction that the person you left alive doesn't need to die.



this statement just baffles me. the reason they give you choices in games like these is to change the storyline. The fallouts and pretty much all Obsidian and Bioware RPG's focus on going through different story paths from the same quests. they do write different stories for every choice that's why there is over 60,000 lines of dialogue in this game.

I'm honestly kind of convinced you're a troll now with that statement. a good one too. Or do you not realize that you can open up more dialogue options with quests givers if you choose the right dialogue? there are more ways to do quests in these kinds of games than exactly what the quest ticker tells you...

Yes, if there was a similar quest, then you would indeed have to kill someone. But, since the developers had non-violent playthroughs in mind, they probably had check-boxes on all of their quest plans that required them to include a non-violent option. So rather than killing all of the Super Mutants, maybe you could use tear gas to clear the building, or offer them a new home with some extra incentives.

And again, why is it a "handicap" if nobody dies? You need to open your mind to the possibility of things not working out as you are used to them.

Sorry but I'm with transmission here. I'm just going to deem you a troll and refrain from entertaining you with any more responses. I've got better things to do, no offense.

No I'm not trolling. Your tenpenny anology is innaccurate because it isn't apart of the main quest and thus has no effect on the story's ending. And it's a huge handicap because they no longer can do "go here and kill these guys" missions that are in every RPG ever made. They have to be very careful about what they put into the story so they won't force (for example) a pacifist player to kill.

What I'm saying is that more choices actually limits where the story can go because they have to keep everything vanilla to make sure it meshes with all the different options. Remember we are talking about the mainquest here, not freeroam... Mainquest is a linear, canon mission chain. Sidequests are the ones you get to have fun with because they don't directly effect the game's ending.

you still don't know that there isn't a pacifist way to complete those kinds of quests.

they can easily add in an option where you took something important from the guy to "prove" that he's dead to the other guy. you could convince the first guy to turn himself into the other guy. you could convince the second guy to let the first guy go.

ill give you an example from the main quest of fallout 3.

Moriarty wants you to take care of silver and get some caps for him in exchange for your dads location. you can bargain with silver and let her go, kill silver, talk the girl into telling you the computer password in his shop or hack it yourself. Only one option is the violent one but it's the one Moriarty preferred, yet every choice leads to the next quest line. In some you dont even have to go through Moriarty again to complete it. that right there debunks your argument.

That's actually a very good idea. But they can't make every encounter like that.

And I'm insulted. I thought I was having a serious debate about possible FNV mechanics and I get called a troll? Unbelieveable

PS: Looking back on it, my comment about writing 3 different sotrylines was sort of silly... What I meant was 3 COMPLETLEY different storylines. Like different starting places etc.

I concede your point. Although I still stand by my statement that they can't design EVERYTHING like that.

EDIT: You forgot one more... use ladykiller on nova for the terminal password. Which is what I did... Ah good times, and so many caps wasted... uh ahem...

I always wanted non-lethal weapons in FO3. They should have a reverse blade sword (One that doesn't kill because the blade is on the wrong side.)

In Fallout 3 I was heavily into the exploration side of the game.
Going to every corner of the map and into the deepest levels of the buildings.
It will be the same in vegas. And there is no way I could explore without being attacked by hostile forces at some point.
Doing a character who doesnt kill will mean you have to be so cautious you might have to avoid large chunks of the map.

Ill just be playing on my regular Fallout format the first time around, wich is role play, say what I would say, kill who I would kill, wich usually starts me out as neutral, then puts me at good, then neutral again....But anyhow when I do my non-lethal playthrough Im going to make my character look like snake give him a bandanna and recon armor and just raise my sneak skill as high as possible as soon as possible.

"over 70 quests, and...."