Fallout: New Vegas - Fall 2010

4xis.black wrote:
So like, why is committing violence against children so much worse than committing violence in general? At what age does a person become suitably killable?

I really have no answer to this except to say that I'm ok with the law as it stands. *shrugs* Violence against kids is a little off-putting, and some adult running around shooting kids just strikes me as very... I dunno, creepy.

*tagging the thread*

So what do you guys think, will this one be fairly unrelated to Fallout 3 and addons or will I have to power through FO3 to get the maximum milage out of New Vegas? Kinda like your ME2 experience becomes a whole lot better when you played ME1 and continued your character.

I think having the core mechanics under your belt from FO3 would probably make getting into Vegas easier. There will probably be a few inside joke type things too, like messages referencing characters or places from FO3.

But the protagonists are totally unrelated, you won't miss out on porting inventory or EXP over or anything like that.

Edit: Although now that I think about it, it would be pretty awesome if you could start a new Vegas game and choose a FO3 save file to run parallel to your Vegas adventure. So you would hear about Megaton getting blown up by some mysterious vault dweller out east on the radio, early-ish in the game, and later on you would start hearing some stuff about Project Purity and how the supermutant fight in the National Mall trenches is shaping up. It would only be truly cool if it was able to parse the decisions you made and sidequests you completed, and use that to dictate what kind of radio chatter the Vegas character was hearing, though.

As previously noted, you are not the same character you were before. You're a completely different person. You are not even a vault dweller who has left or been exiled or whatever. While playing Fallout 3 will definitely give you a sense of how to play New Vegas in terms of mechanics and such, it won't give you like extra paragon points or anything like games like ME2.

Hell, from the sounds of things, even the tone of the game is going to be decently different. Obsidian seems to be exploring the sort of goofy style that the first two had. Admittedly, Fallout 3 has some goofy friggin' moments (the tree dude comes to mind, along with the redneck zombie mutants in Point Lookout). And, personally, I think that even visually it's got some pretty decent differences going.

This isn't a perfect analogy, but it's like the difference between playing Morrowind and playing its expansion pack Tribunal. The city (forget the name) just looked so very different in terms of architecture and feel from anything going on back on the island of Morrowind. Yes, Fallout 3 and New Vegas use the same engine. Yes, a lot of things will be similar in visuals (NPCs, super mutants, etc...), but I think we'll see a decent difference in terms of the vistas we'll explore and the locations we go to.

EDIT: Also worth noting, after reading up Clem's post. The timeline is not actually parallel to the events in the Capital Wastelands. I remember reading something like 8-20 years after the events of Fallout 3?

Demosthenes wrote:
EDIT: Also worth noting, after reading up Clem's post. The timeline is not actually parallel to the events in the Capital Wastelands. I remember reading something like 8-20 years after the events of Fallout 3?

Boo-urns! I guess they could always use the way things played out in one's FO3 save as ripple effects in Vegas (small-ish changes you hear about from time to time... DC = out of water and a horrible wasteland vs DC = doing quite well, with mutations no longer an issue!).

But I bet this won't happen. Too many variables, especially with the way Broken Steel tweaks things.

Clemenstation wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
EDIT: Also worth noting, after reading up Clem's post. The timeline is not actually parallel to the events in the Capital Wastelands. I remember reading something like 8-20 years after the events of Fallout 3?

Boo-urns! I guess they could always use the way things played out in one's FO3 save as ripple effects in Vegas (small-ish changes you hear about from time to time... DC = out of water and a horrible wasteland vs DC = doing quite well, with mutations no longer an issue!).

But I bet this won't happen. Too many variables, especially with the way Broken Steel tweaks things.

It is actually 3 years - so maybe there will be some bleed over:)

4xis.black wrote:
So like, why is committing violence against children so much worse than committing violence in general? At what age does a person become suitably killable?

I'll play devil's advocate and answer the second question: When they're old enough to enlist in the armed services and/or own a gun.

garion333 wrote:
4xis.black wrote:
So like, why is committing violence against children so much worse than committing violence in general? At what age does a person become suitably killable?

I'll play devil's advocate and answer the second question: When they're old enough to enlist in the armed services and/or own a gun.

So 17 if you believe the first part and 12 for the latter?

4xis.black wrote:
So like, why is committing violence against children so much worse than committing violence in general? At what age does a person become suitably killable?

Good question. I don't think there is an answer except to say that since minors usually are considered to be incapable of making certain choices they are treated differently.

The question I find fascinating is why gamers want it so much. Don't give me BS about it being more realistic - nobody likes having to eat food and drink water all the time in games, we all love just using a stimpak to get health, and 90% of people bitch when there are strict weight limits, etc. Remember the complaints about only being able to carry 2 weapons in Halo? Or the item degradation in System Shock 2 (which they removed in a patch because people hated it so much)? People don't want realistic games.

So why do gamers want so much to be able to kill children? What is so exciting about it? I have a hunch it is pretty close to the reason they don't allow it in games.

Not sure if there's any new information in it, but the new EGM[i] has a small preview of New Vegas in this month's issue.
http://www.egmnow.com/egmi/238-2/

farley3k wrote:
4xis.black wrote:
So like, why is committing violence against children so much worse than committing violence in general? At what age does a person become suitably killable?

So why do gamers want so much to be able to kill children? What is so exciting about it? I have a hunch it is pretty close to the reason they don't allow it in games.

The best explanation I've heard for why children should be killable in Fallout 3 was in the Catch-All. The basic premise was that you have an established game mechanic (killing your troubles away) and when you get to Little Lamplight this is abandoned. A choice that the player had throughout the entire game is taken away. Adding to this is that the kids in Little Lamplight are douchebags and not being able to kill them tends to kill the immersion that the game is built on.

Vector wrote:
farley3k wrote:
4xis.black wrote:
So like, why is committing violence against children so much worse than committing violence in general? At what age does a person become suitably killable?

So why do gamers want so much to be able to kill children? What is so exciting about it? I have a hunch it is pretty close to the reason they don't allow it in games.

The best explanation I've heard for why children should be killable in Fallout 3 was in the Catch-All. The basic premise was that you have an established game mechanic (killing your troubles away) and when you get to Little Lamplight this is abandoned. A choice that the player had throughout the entire game is taken away. Adding to this is that the kids in Little Lamplight are douchebags and not being able to kill them tends to kill the immersion that the game is built on.

That's what I came here to say. With one or two exceptions, I wanted to wipe the citizens of Little Lamplight out, and I was playing a saint.

If they're old enough to live on their own, they're old enough to take a mini-nuke in an enclosed space.

Vector wrote:
farley3k wrote:
4xis.black wrote:
So like, why is committing violence against children so much worse than committing violence in general? At what age does a person become suitably killable?

So why do gamers want so much to be able to kill children? What is so exciting about it? I have a hunch it is pretty close to the reason they don't allow it in games.

The best explanation I've heard for why children should be killable in Fallout 3 was in the Catch-All. The basic premise was that you have an established game mechanic (killing your troubles away) and when you get to Little Lamplight this is abandoned. A choice that the player had throughout the entire game is taken away. Adding to this is that the kids in Little Lamplight are douchebags and not being able to kill them tends to kill the immersion that the game is built on.

It seems like the best option is going the Oblivion route and simply not putting kids in the game at all, or at least not in quests... or at least not in quests where if they were anything but kids, killing them would be a perfectly reasonable, if still a little questionable, option.

To me, the Childkiller "perk" was there for when you were careless with your miniguns and shredded a bunch of innocent bystanders.

farley3k wrote:
So why do gamers want so much to be able to kill children? What is so exciting about it? I have a hunch it is pretty close to the reason they don't allow it in games.

I can think of one recent game that allowed it. There was a level in, I think, one of the Painkiller expansions that was filled with demonic children. Even though they were vicious little bastards who were trying to kill me, shooting them wasn't exciting. It felt very, very wrong.

farley3k wrote:
So why do gamers want so much to be able to kill children? What is so exciting about it? I have a hunch it is pretty close to the reason they don't allow it in games.
It was the poor voice acting in Fallout 3.

In one of the previews for Fallout New Vegas they stated that Bethesda has a rule about having their newer games take place after the events of the earlier ones. The Fallout New Vegas team wanted to place the events after Fallout 2, but Bethesda said they had to place them after Fallout 3. Because of this, you can expect more connections to characters from Fallout 2 than ones in Fallout 3. I think they said only the youngest Fallout 2 characters would be alive and they will be really old. Perhaps your child from Fallout 2?

boogle wrote:
It was the poor voice acting in Bethesda games.
FTFY

I hope Obsidian get control of all their production

Redwing wrote:
It seems like the best option is going the Oblivion route and simply not putting kids in the game at all, or at least not in quests... or at least not in quests where if they were anything but kids, killing them would be a perfectly reasonable, if still a little questionable, option.

This. Killing kids is clearly not an option, especially given the amount of gore in Fallout 3. So don't have them be a significant part of the game. Don't have another Little Lamplight.

New weapon modifications, entirely new landscape, bringing back Nightkins and Geckos, and the hot topic is killing children. Right...

Personally, the ability to upgrade my guns and see visual differences in them as well as having the unique weapons in the game be something actually unique is enough to get my interest going again. I soaked more hours into Fallout 3 that I care to admit, and these changes (plus geckos!!!!) are going to be so damn awesome!

It's especially jarring considering that the only thing keeping me out of Little Lamplight besides whats-his-name's insistence that I go do some bullcrap quest first is a thin tin wall. I have an effing SHOULDER-MOUNTED NUCLEAR MISSILE LAUNCHER and a tin wall is keeping me from going where I want when I want. Riiiiiiiight. Screw morality, if I yell "duck and cover!" before chucking a grenade at that wall and Little Johnny doesn't get down in time, it's not me killing him. It's Darwinism.

Luggage wrote:
*tagging the thread*

So what do you guys think, will this one be fairly unrelated to Fallout 3 and addons or will I have to power through FO3 to get the maximum milage out of New Vegas? Kinda like your ME2 experience becomes a whole lot better when you played ME1 and continued your character.

If you're interested in New Vegas, why WOULDN'T you want to play through Fallout 3 first? It's cheaper for one thing ($16 on Amazon for the console version, thirty on Steam for the PC version, less if you wait for sales), and you can play it right now instead of waiting for this fall or God knows when New Vegas will hit.

Vector wrote:
farley3k wrote:
4xis.black wrote:
So like, why is committing violence against children so much worse than committing violence in general? At what age does a person become suitably killable?

So why do gamers want so much to be able to kill children? What is so exciting about it? I have a hunch it is pretty close to the reason they don't allow it in games.

The best explanation I've heard for why children should be killable in Fallout 3 was in the Catch-All. The basic premise was that you have an established game mechanic (killing your troubles away) and when you get to Little Lamplight this is abandoned. A choice that the player had throughout the entire game is taken away. Adding to this is that the kids in Little Lamplight are douchebags and not being able to kill them tends to kill the immersion that the game is built on.

This is exactly it. I would never have killed a single child in any of my numerous play-throughs of FO3, even the ones where I was playing as a mercenary sociopath. I don't think I could stomach it. And if it happened by accident, I would have felt guilty for the rest of the game. But even then, it still bugged me that I couldn't. It was mechanically and narratively inconsistent. It's one glaring, arbitrary limitation in a game built around freedom. And limiting you in this way for moral reasons is a little laughable coming from the game that let you nuke an entire city (a city, I should mention, with a number of children in it).

Simon Parkin said it better than I could.

The feature they really need is a decent way to see the front of your character. Going into third person mode and sitting in a chair gets you pretty close to actually seeing your character's front. Then if you wait for a minute or two the camera starts to spin around the character, but often the distance will be too far away to see much. I want to see the damn dolls I'm dressing up!

PandaEskimo:

If you hold down the 'F' key while in 3rd person view you can spin the camera around your character with the mouse.

I'm contemplating installing Fallout 3 again on my pc and going for another wasteland wander...

Now where did I put that texture mod for the Chinese Stealth Suit?

BlackSabre wrote:
New weapon modifications, entirely new landscape, bringing back Nightkins and Geckos, and the hot topic is killing children. Right...

Personally, the ability to upgrade my guns and see visual differences in them as well as having the unique weapons in the game be something actually unique is enough to get my interest going again. I soaked more hours into Fallout 3 that I care to admit, and these changes (plus geckos!!!!) are going to be so damn awesome! :D

Actually a feature mentioned in there that people seem to have missed is Hardcore Mode! It doesn't elaborate on what Hardcore mode it, but I do know that many, many mods in Fallout 3 out there seem to try to make the Wasteland more of an actual Wasteland. I could never find the right combination to work for me however, and there was no one fix-all solution like the excellent Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul for Oblivion, so I never really bothered. This could be interesting though.

The achievement whore in me is cringing knowing that there will be an achievement tied to completing the game on Hardcore mode. It does sound quite cool though. Will certainly add an extra element of danger. Considering that fallout 3 was quite easy. Especially with sneak and small guns at 100%. That and the Chinese Stealth Suit.

hbi2k wrote:
If you're interested in New Vegas, why WOULDN'T you want to play through Fallout 3 first? It's cheaper for one thing ($16 on Amazon for the console version, thirty on Steam for the PC version, less if you wait for sales), and you can play it right now instead of waiting for this fall or God knows when New Vegas will hit.

Being as honest as possible, a game like Dragon Age, Fallout 3 or Stalker (which I already have somewhere in the pile) would put the final nail in the coffin for my diploma thesis. Currently I am hesitant to start anything that may have any immersion whatsoever. When my girlfriend gave me ME2 for Easter I was torn between joy and yelling at her for sabotaging me.

The best thing that could happen would be a few weeks of unemployment after I graduate, so I could shut myself in to power through Dragon Age, Fallout and Stalker within a month.

Luggage wrote:
hbi2k wrote:
If you're interested in New Vegas, why WOULDN'T you want to play through Fallout 3 first? It's cheaper for one thing ($16 on Amazon for the console version, thirty on Steam for the PC version, less if you wait for sales), and you can play it right now instead of waiting for this fall or God knows when New Vegas will hit.

Being as honest as possible, a game like Dragon Age, Fallout 3 or Stalker (which I already have somewhere in the pile) would put the final nail in the coffin for my diploma thesis. Currently I am hesitant to start anything that may have any immersion whatsoever. When my girlfriend gave me ME2 for Easter I was torn between joy and yelling at her for sabotaging me.

The best thing that could happen would be a few weeks of unemployment after I graduate, so I could shut myself in to power through Dragon Age, Fallout and Stalker within a month.

Well, on the plus side, it doesn't come out till late this year, so you've got some time still

As I understand it, in Hardcore mode combat is more difficult, stimpacks heal over time instead of instantly (this alone would be a good change: after a while in F3 you had so many in your inventory that you could shoot up every three seconds to power through any situation), ammo has weight, and you have to eat and drink or die of starvation / dehydration.

It'll be nice to have the option of adding a little more challenge to the game. Fallout 3 was challenging on my first play-through when I didn't know what I was doing, but in subsequent playthroughs when I knew how to min-max my character properly, even the hardest difficulty level was a cakewalk. Maxing out APs, accuracy, and crits and always going for the sneak attack VATS head shot made for a lot of dead mutants.