What Makes New Vegas "So Great" : Fallout: New Vegas

» Wed May 09, 2012 8:30 pm

Yes. I said the use of the engine and assets was understandable. At least I tried to imply such.

I got what you implied, I don't know why I restated it in my post, but either way I think the game would have been much better off if a new engine could have been made specifically for New Vegas. I what Obsidian would have done...

Ammotypes with this kind of game are troublesome because you do not need any. It's good to have a bunch, sure, but if you do not need any in any situation, why would you be concerned about them even if you did think they're a good addition (and there was no situation where a different set of ammo would've been useful)?

The way I see it, ammo types do a few things for the game. For one, they add realism, and they make a guns expert person happy. Combat wise, different ammo types add variety help with weapon balancing, and make hardcoe mode more compatible with the game.

Here's an example off the top of my head:

Lets say you're fighting an enemy in Enclave power armor, and their total DT is around 40. Your character prefers to use a sniper rifle with a handgun as backup. If the sniper rifle only does 45 pts of damge per shot, then the target will only take 14 pts of damage every time they are hit. And they should if they're wearing power armor. But with the edition of armor piercing rounds, the combat in this situation has more variety, allowing a player who isn't reliant on stimpaks to take down the enemy more quickly (but still realistically). Now each shot will do around 34 points of damage, a full 20 pts more damage per shot than with regular rounds.

My main point is that different ammo types give alternative combat options to people with different play styles. A gun nut character can really get a lot out of different ammo types (especially with hand loader) while someone who doesn't care to use the various types of ammo can just ignore them.

» Wed May 09, 2012 3:36 pm

The way I see it, ammo types do a few things for the game. For one, they add realism, and they make a guns expert person happy. Combat wise, different ammo types add variety help with weapon balancing, and make hardcoe mode more compatible with the game.

Realism I do not care about (though do not object either as long as it does not intefere with proper gameplay too much). Guns expert persons would be happier if what they got, made a difference, don't you think?
Variety is good, but without a proper gameplay effect, what purpose does variety serve?
And I certainly don't think different ammotypes help the general balancibng of the weapons with all the new and different variables.
HC mode I agree with in general, but if the ammotypes do so little, what good would they do in the HC mode?

Here's an example off the top of my head:

Lets say you're fighting an enemy in Enclave power armor, and their total DT is around 40. Your character prefers to use a sniper rifle with a handgun as backup. If the sniper rifle only does 45 pts of damge per shot, then the target will only take 14 pts of damage every time they are hit. And they should if they're wearing power armor. But with the edition of armor piercing rounds, the combat in this situation has more variety, allowing a player who isn't reliant on stimpaks to take down the enemy more quickly (but still realistically). Now each shot will do around 34 points of damage, a full 20 pts more damage per shot than with regular rounds.

My main point is that different ammo types give alternative combat options to people with different play styles. A gun nut character can really get a lot out of different ammo types (especially with hand loader) while someone who doesn't care to use the various types of ammo can just ignore them.

That's all well and good, but the characters choice of weapon does not make any difference unless he chooses close combat. Basically, there could be just "close combat" and "ranged combat" skills. Back up weapon does nothing in practice, as you can change your weapon from the inventory at your leisure even in combat. The whole combat system needs rehauling - not towards a better FPS (like BF 3 or such) but towards a better RPG, slower and more reactive to the characters skills.

» Wed May 09, 2012 7:46 am

Realism I do not care about (though do not object either as long as it does not intefere with proper gameplay too much). Guns expert persons would be happier if what they got, made a difference, don't you think?

They do make a difference imo, if you're fighting a high DT enemy, AP rounds can cut down on ammo usage and kill the target faster, thus making combat easier.

And I certainly don't think different ammotypes help the general balancibng of the weapons with all the new and different variables.

I see it as they make lower tier weapons capable of doing decent damage when wielded by a higher level player, for example I still use a 10mm pistol even on my level 50 character, and the only reason combat is possible with this weapon against leveled enemies is because I use AP and JHP rounds. I carry the 10mm for RPing purposes, and while I do have more powerful weapons in my inventory that I could switch to, I prefer to use the weapon that makes more sense with the background that I've written for my character. So the variety in ammo types does help to balance the weapons in some way, although you are right in that they add a ton of new variables.

HC mode I agree with in general, but if the ammotypes do so little, what good would they do in the HC mode?

Take my example with the high DT enemy, the AP rounds cut down on ammo usage, thus cutting down on the number of rounds that you need to carry. The AP rounds also let one weapon be more versatile against different enemies, potentially cutting down on the number of weapons you need to carry. Most importantly, the AP rounds help to kill the enemy more quickly, thus cutting down on the time that he has do damage you, which is more important in hardcoe mode because of the lack of instant healing.

That's all well and good, but the characters choice of weapon does not make any difference unless he chooses close combat. Basically, there could be just "close combat" and "ranged combat" skills. Back up weapon does nothing in practice, as you can change your weapon from the inventory at your leisure even in combat. The whole combat system needs rehauling - not towards a better FPS (like BF 3 or such) but towards a better RPG, slower and more reactive to the characters skills.

By "backup weapon" I meant to say that this character only carries sniper rifles and handguns. And I disagree that the character's choice of weapon doesn't make any difference outside of close combat, I mean an anti-material rifle is more effective at long range than a trail carbine and an AM rifle with explosive rounds is more effective at range than if it were using regular rounds.
As for combat in general, I like the way it is now, with a choice between FPS and slower VATS combat, but I think VATS needs to be overhauled. Like you said I think it should be more reactive to the character's skills, and I also think that choosing VATS should make that combat session completely turn based. For example, if you take four turns and drain all of your action points, then your character should stand idle until your enemy(ies) take four turns before you can return to FPS mode. :shrug:

I don't know if that would work out, but I always thought that VATS would work better that way.

» Wed May 09, 2012 9:37 am

They do make a difference imo, if you're fighting a high DT enemy, AP rounds can cut down on ammo usage and kill the target faster, thus making combat easier.

The point is, I never noticed any difference or need to change the ammotype in any case. I was always on the upper hand even if I had enough regular ammo (which was more than plentiful).

I see it as they make lower tier weapons capable of doing decent damage when wielded by a higher level player, for example I still use a 10mm pistol even on my level 50 character, and the only reason combat is possible with this weapon against leveled enemies is because I use AP and JHP rounds. I carry the 10mm for RPing purposes, and while I do have more powerful weapons in my inventory that I could switch to, I prefer to use the weapon that makes more sense with the background that I've written for my character. So the variety in ammo types does help to balance the weapons in some way, although you are right in that they add a ton of new variables.

The point is clear, no doubt. But the end result remains -- you do not need any of the different ammotypes in any of the quests, ever, they're just flavor as what they were designed for (though, maybe not intended for... I dunno).

By "backup weapon" I meant to say that this character only carries sniper rifles and handguns. And I disagree that the character's choice of weapon doesn't make any difference outside of close combat, I mean an anti-material rifle is more effective at long range than a trail carbine and an AM rifle with explosive rounds is more effective at range than if it were using regular rounds.
As for combat in general, I like the way it is now, with a choice between FPS and slower VATS combat, but I think VATS needs to be overhauled. Like you said I think it should be more reactive to the character's skills, and I also think that choosing VATS should make that combat session completely turn based. For example, if you take four turns and drain all of your action points, then your character should stand idle until your enemy(ies) take four turns before you can return to FPS mode. :shrug:

I don't know if that would work out, but I always thought that VATS would work better that way.

That goes down to the alley of play pretending. There is no specialization for sneak combat, so you are as able with any gun you choose to be despite your ability to sneak. So basically, while what you say is true, the game does not really recognize it and handles it all the same. And that in addition you have the amount of ammo, which is wildly too available, and which in turn makes any use of any sort of back up weapon redundant. You can make up an kind of configuratios you like (sniper, assault, etc), but the game recognizes and supports only two (close and ranged).

Do mind the typos, it's really really late here....

» Wed May 09, 2012 7:01 pm

The point is, I never noticed any difference or need to change the ammotype in any case. I was always on the upper hand even if I had enough regular ammo (which was more than plentiful).

I agree that ammo types are less useful do to how overly abundant regular ammo is, (which I think they should change) but hardcoe mode corrects this to some extent. When ammo actually has weight, you have to conserve it a little bit more and try to carry less rounds. Ammo types let you use less rounds to kill an enemy, and therefore (in theory) you don't have to carry as many. This is still kind of offset by the ridicules amount of regular ammo you can find as loot though.

The point is clear, no doubt. But the end result remains -- you do not need any of the different ammotypes in any of the quests, ever, they're just flavor as what they were designed for (though, maybe not intended for... I dunno).

I agree, and I like the fact that they aren't absolutely necessary. My point is simply that they are a useful addition to the game, and as for what they were intended for... well I don't know, but I would guess that it was because Sawyer is a gun nut :laugh:

That goes down to the alley of play pretending. There is no specialization for sneak combat, so you are as able with any gun you choose to be despite your ability to sneak. So basically, while what you say is true, the game does not really recognize it and handles it all the same. And that in addition you have the amount of ammo, which is wildly too available, and which in turn makes any use of any sort of back up weapon redundant. You can make up an kind of configuratios you like (sniper, assault, etc), but the game recognizes and supports only two (close and ranged).

Do mind the typos, it's really really late here....

Unfortunately that is true, but that just goes back to the limitations of the game engine. Hopefully Fallout 4's engine will compensate for some of this stuff, and make different ranged weapons more distinct in how they function in combat.

» Wed May 09, 2012 11:38 am

The point is clear, no doubt. But the end result remains -- you do not need any of the different ammotypes in any of the quests, ever, they're just flavor as what they were designed for (though, maybe not intended for... I dunno).

It would be terrible game design if a particular ammo type was required for a quest.

» Wed May 09, 2012 6:27 pm

It would be terrible game design if a particular ammo type was required for a quest.

Why? If AP rounds were required to defeat a highly armored target, or needing HP incendiary rockets to destroy an obstacle otherwise unpassable, what would be terrible about it? That you couldn'd get through these situations by waving your socks in the air?

» Wed May 09, 2012 3:47 pm

Why? If AP rounds were required to defeat a highly armored target, or needing HP incendiary rockets to destroy an obstacle otherwise unpassable, what would be terrible about it? That you couldn'd get through these situations by waving your socks in the air?

Well, it would be rather poor quest design for those players who never found or acquired those specific types of ammunition or weapons- someone who never found (or kept) a rocket launcher, let alone incendiary rockets, and then was not informed he'd need them until they reached the point where they failed utterly due to not having them... or a player who chose a playstyle that doesn't include those types of weapons and ammo. Yes, that would be pretty terribad quest design. Which is exactly why no such thing was done in the game. All quests and quest challenges need to be doable by any character style- guns, EW's, melee, non-violent sneak/charisma/speech/companions/etc. If they got so specific as to require one special type of ammunition in order to beat a quest, it would break the game for many players.

In the actual game, situations like those are leveled out for all players by various means, anyway. When you have to blow up some special thing/place/whaterver, they either provide you with the quest explosives needed, or tell you so you can go buy or scrounge the necessary explosives and then come back. Heavily armored opponents? Each build type has a way of getting around heavy armor, without having to have just one specific type of ammo for one specific weapon class. Even Lanius, one of the toughest opponents in the game, can be talked down peacefully by a character who majored in speech. That's how you create quests that are fun for everyone, without making them pointlessly fussy and frustrating for all but those with exactly the right kind of ammo.

» Wed May 09, 2012 5:07 pm

Well, it would be rather poor quest design for those players who never found or acquired those specific types of ammunition or weapons- someone who never found (or kept) a rocket launcher, let alone incendiary rockets, and then was not informed he'd need them until they reached the point where they failed utterly due to not having them... or a player who chose a playstyle that doesn't include those types of weapons and ammo. Yes, that would be pretty terribad quest design. Which is exactly why no such thing was done in the game. All quests and quest challenges need to be doable by any character style- guns, EW's, melee, non-violent sneak/charisma/speech/companions/etc. If they got so specific as to require one special type of ammunition in order to beat a quest, it would break the game for many players.

In the actual game, situations like those are leveled out for all players by various means, anyway. When you have to blow up some special thing/place/whaterver, they either provide you with the quest explosives needed, or tell you so you can go buy or scrounge the necessary explosives and then come back. Heavily armored opponents? Each build type has a way of getting around heavy armor, without having to have just one specific type of ammo for one specific weapon class. Even Lanius, one of the toughest opponents in the game, can be talked down peacefully by a character who majored in speech. That's how you create quests that are fun for everyone, without making them pointlessly fussy and frustrating for all but those with exactly the right kind of ammo.

I dunno. I don't really find practical usage of an item poor design. Think about a door needing a specific key to open. Is that poor design because the player was not informed about a locked door before s/he reached it? Not everything needs to be laid out for the player without any possible inconveniencies where the player might have to think some or take a few steps back due to lacking tools. And more over, one way need not be the only way, but just a different one and distinct from the others.

» Wed May 09, 2012 7:05 pm

I dunno. I don't really find practical usage of an item poor design. Think about a door needing a specific key to open. Is that poor design because the player was not informed about a locked door before s/he reached it? Not everything needs to be laid out for the player without any possible inconveniencies where the player might have to think some or take a few steps back due to lacking tools. And more over, one way need not be the only way, but just a different one and distinct from the others.

A special key, anyone can figure out how to find. Making a specific kind of ammo necessary to finish a quest, would definitely bolix up any character who hadn't specialized in that specific weapon/ammo type, and built the necessary skillset up to go along with them. Not the same thing, sorry. It would just be annoying fussiness, not good quest design.

» Wed May 09, 2012 4:20 pm

Not everything needs to be laid out for the player without any possible inconveniencies where the player might have to think some or take a few steps back due to lacking tools. And more over, one way need not be the only way, but just a different one and distinct from the others.

Uh, and guess what, there are already multiple ways to deal with (for example) high DT enemies. One is using AP ammo. Another is using a weapon with higher damage per hit. Another is using armor ignoring damage (DOTs like fire or poison). Another is taking perks that bypass DT. But you do have to deal with the situation in some way, which is hardly the same thing as "everything laid out for the player."

Making certain ammo types required for certain quests is just lazy design.

» Wed May 09, 2012 3:03 pm

A special key, anyone can figure out how to find. Making a specific kind of ammo necessary to finish a quest, would definitely bolix up any character who hadn't specialized in that specific weapon/ammo type, and built the necessary skillset up to go along with them. Not the same thing, sorry. It would just be annoying fussiness, not good quest design.

How is obtaining a special key any different from obtaining special ammo? If you can't get past something, then you can't. You either try to find a solution, or give up knowing that your current character isn't up for it. That's not bad design, that's making your decision matter, and giving you something to think about while you stroll on.

Uh, and guess what, there are already multiple ways to deal with (for example) high DT enemies. One is using AP ammo. Another is using a weapon with higher damage per hit. Another is using armor ignoring damage (DOTs like fire or poison). Another is taking perks that bypass DT. But you do have to deal with the situation in some way, which is hardly the same thing as "everything laid out for the player."

Making certain ammo types required for certain quests is just lazy design.

Yeah, fancy that.
You misunderstand. I'm saying that having these specific items would the only way to get through an obstacle in that specific manner. Be it getting past a high DT enemy by killing him, or destroying a physical obstacle or what not. That in order to do a job, you need the right tools for it. Not that you can choose what ever way in, and all are as open for eveyone. There's really no difference here than in an example of a character who bumps into a door to which he has no key, and which he cannot pick.... yet. Basically, giving the player a puzzle of sorts to solve.

I do not see the big deal here -- other than you being upset about a thought that you may not be able to get through something.

» Wed May 09, 2012 6:20 pm

You either try to find a solution, or give up knowing that your current character isn't up for it. That's not bad design, that's making your decision matter, and giving you something to think about while you stroll on.

It's bad design in the same way that having all your quests be fetch quests or keycard hunts is bad design.

You misunderstand. I'm saying that having these specific items would the only way to get through an obstacle in that specific manner. Be it getting past a high DT enemy by killing him, or destroying a physical obstacle or what not. That in order to do a job, you need the right tools for it. Not that you can choose what ever way in, and all are as open for eveyone. There's really no difference here than in an example of a character who bumps into a door to which he has no key, and which he cannot pick.... yet. Basically, giving the player a puzzle of sorts to solve.

Do you not understand that there is a continuum between having all options open to all characters, and there being a single, arbitrarily limited, way to accomplish a task? Because, as I've already pointed out, using specialty ammo types are one way of tackling certain combat situations, it just isn't the only way. Your assertion that the ammo mechanic is unimportant because it isn't required is just wrong.

I do not see the big deal here -- other than you being upset about a thought that you may not be able to get through something.

You're giving yourself far too much credit if you think I'd be upset about anything you wrote.

» Wed May 09, 2012 11:51 am

It's bad design in the same way that having all your quests be fetch quests or keycard hunts is bad design.

When was this about all or nothing?

You're giving yourself far too much credit if you think I'd be upset about anything you wrote.

Good thing I'm thinking it, as being upset at my writings wasn't the point.

Anyways, I don't seem the be able to get my point through for what ever reason, so I'll just leave it at that. It's not really something worth arguing over anyway.

» Wed May 09, 2012 5:42 pm

Iron Sights mode, better customization of stats at the beginning, Vegas, West Coast, Vegas, pretty much is the same system that Fallout 3 was with some minor (Important Tweaks), and lastly more Vegas.

The Bad, no real Level Scaling for enemies, forced corrider linearness in terms of the beginning of the game and no random encounters system. Besides those minor issues, New Vegas is great.

» Wed May 09, 2012 7:13 am

When was this about all or nothing?

The irony is striking.

My statement still holds if you remove the qualifier "all". Keycard hunts and fetch quests (at least those without context or choice) are lazy design and what you're suggesting is just a veiled keycard hunt.

Anyways, I don't seem the be able to get my point through for what ever reason, so I'll just leave it at that. It's not really something worth arguing over anyway.

Your argument isn't hard to understand, it's just bad.

» Wed May 09, 2012 7:03 pm

How is obtaining a special key any different from obtaining special ammo? If you can't get past something, then you can't. You either try to find a solution, or give up knowing that your current character isn't up for it. That's not bad design, that's making your decision matter, and giving you something to think about while you stroll on.

Yeah, fancy that.
You misunderstand. I'm saying that having these specific items would the only way to get through an obstacle in that specific manner. Be it getting past a high DT enemy by killing him, or destroying a physical obstacle or what not. That in order to do a job, you need the right tools for it. Not that you can choose what ever way in, and all are as open for eveyone. There's really no difference here than in an example of a character who bumps into a door to which he has no key, and which he cannot pick.... yet. Basically, giving the player a puzzle of sorts to solve.

I do not see the big deal here -- other than you being upset about a thought that you may not be able to get through something.

Obtaining a 'special key' is different from having to obtain and be able to use a special kind of ammo. Like I said alreaady, and you failed to address, anyone can go find a stupid key, even if they have to go look it up on a wiki or whatever. A special ammo type, on the other hand, totally screws things up and makes the quest impossible to accomplish at all for classes/builds that don't even use the weapons that require that special ammo. Therefore, you are creating quests in the game that are only doable at all by a smaller fraction of the player base. You might like that kind of niche 'can do or can't do' type of quest structure, but I'm sure you'd be in a small minority on that one. Forcing players to make a specific weapons build and invest skillpoints into it in order to be able to complete some quests in the game, would not be right. The devs made a good choice in avoiding those kinds of pointless frustrations.

» Wed May 09, 2012 6:45 pm

I don't think closing off certain paths depending on character build is necessarily a bad thing, since it can add replay value to the game. But doing it in a totally arbitrary fashion, like making some enemies only kill-able by a particular ammo type is dumb.

» Wed May 09, 2012 9:09 am

I don't think closing off certain paths depending on character build is necessarily a bad thing, since it can add replay value to the game. But doing it in a totally arbitrary fashion, like making some enemies only kill-able by a particular ammo type is dumb.

Yes, I wouldn't mind class or build-specific quests, plenty of games have those, and they work perfectly fine. As long as they aren't done in a bizarre and arbitrary manner, as you mention.

» Wed May 09, 2012 5:57 pm

Fallout New Vegas was my first fallout game, i started because i was watching the yogscast videos, bought it, and now im 300+ hours of gameplay, and i am literally a diehard fnv fan. IT IS AWESOME!

» Wed May 09, 2012 8:37 am

If you NEED that to enjoy an M rated game I find it ridiculous, I mean, yeah that kind of stuff is IN the world, but if you NEED sixual assault, gore, and swearing you may need to reevaluate your priorities. I mean, a game with good writing doesnt NEED cursing in most if not any of it's dialogue. Scarface for example is a decent movie, but that movie is so heavily laden with cursing it just ruined alot of it for me.

Cut him some slack Col it's his preference not yours, we all have different tastes, wants, needs......look at the porm industry everything from animals to inanimate objects an everything in between, and they make billions a year, same with the music industry. I like Scarface just the way it is, as well as millions of others, no one needs to rethink priorities it's just different strokes for different folks.

wolf

» Wed May 09, 2012 4:34 pm

I hate to say it, but I do dread Fallout getting "the Skyrim treatment" in Beth's next Fallout outing. The general public will eat it up regardless, but I want Bethesda to promise they will stick to the precedents set by Obsidian in future Fallout games (Greater variety of options in weapon selection, multiple possible endings based on who you side with, no excessive streamlining, well-developed characters, world open but not too open, etc) instead of focusing on scenery porm.

» Wed May 09, 2012 8:50 pm

I hate to say it, but I do dread Fallout getting "the Skyrim treatment" in Beth's next Fallout outing. The general public will eat it up regardless, but I want Bethesda to promise they will stick to the precedents set by Obsidian in future Fallout games (Greater variety of options in weapon selection, multiple possible endings based on who you side with, no excessive streamlining, well-developed characters, world open but not too open, etc) instead of focusing on scenery porm.

I doubt they can dumb down SPECIAL anymore or reduce the number of skills.
They didn't have great writing in FO3 but the speech options (while the % svcked) worked so I don't think Speech will be nerfed either.

So I don't think we have to worry so much about those two.
But I think it's highly possible they might make it so every faction can be joinable, they [censored] up on the coherence on the wasteland, economy, agriculture and production again, weapon degredation getting removed and a perk every level to be brought back again.

Ugh...
I don't trust Bethesda...
I want Fallout Online.. Interplay, hurry up damnit!

» Wed May 09, 2012 5:35 pm

I doubt they can dumb down SPECIAL anymore or reduce the number of skills.
They didn't have great writing in FO3 but the speech options (while the % svcked) worked so I don't think Speech will be nerfed either.

So I don't think we have to worry so much about those two.
But I think it's highly possible they might make it so every faction can be joinable, they [censored] up on the coherence on the wasteland, economy, agriculture and production again, weapon degredation getting removed and a perk every level to be brought back again.

Ugh...
I don't trust Bethesda...
I want Fallout Online.. Interplay, hurry up damnit!

wha? you trust those blokes? and F:Online is placed on hold till Interplay gets through with the court thing and if they win. Most likely they won't, and I'll be a happy man if they didn't, sorry, but I don't want another company ruining the franchise as much as now with Beth.

» Wed May 09, 2012 12:46 pm

wha? you trust those blokes? and F:Online is placed on hold till Interplay gets through with the court thing and if they win. Most likely they won't, and I'll be a happy man if they didn't, sorry, but I don't want another company ruining the franchise as much as now with Beth.

I don't trust either, but Fallout: Online looks more Fallout than Fallout 3 did, and since Obsidian doesn't own the franchise I can't place trust in them either.
Also, it's not on hold as far as I know, it's still in development.
I don't trust either of them, but I can't see anything positive happening with Fallout in Bethesda's hands, they got a chance, and that was Fallout 3.
Now Interplay gets a new chance with Fallout: Online, and I want to see if they are more fit to develop Fallout games than Bethesda are.
Yeah yeah, Herve Caen cancelled VB and developed Fallout: Brotherhood Of Steel, I know, I know, but maybe they've learned? Maybe F: O will be a true Fallout game.
So I'd rather place blind trust in a developer who's outlook is still good than a developer who's recent product was awful to the franchise.
(I know, it might sound hypocritical, but like I said, F:BOS was a long time ago, maybe they learned from their mistake. Maybe Fallout: Online will be even more Fallout than New Vegas was. I'd like to give Interplay another chance instead of just tearing them apart for their past actions. Both companies currently svck for Fallout, Bethesda for FO3 and Interplay for F:BOS. But let's wait and see how Fallout: Online turns out before we continue hating on Interplay.)

Summary: Bethesda had a chance with FO3, I'd like to give Interplay a chance with Fallout: Online before I condemn them for their past mistakes.