Fallout: New Vegas - Sawyer Interview Tidbits

[Dhruin]

NMA is pointing out a new Fallout: New Vegas interview (http://nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=53820), this time with J.E. Sawyer on Xbox Live (presumably through the Insider section). If you don't have an X360, you'll have to live with this summary:
1. New areas will open up for the player depending on your reputation
2. Not all weapons have mods
3. "You only buy mods from stores" - once bought you highlight the weapon you want to add it to in your inventory and apply it
4. They will cost you a lot of money
5. Hardcore is seperate to difficulty
6. Hardcore is more of a mechanical shift as opposed to just bumping up hp - he compares it to Ninja Gaiden
7. There is a dehydration meter
8. Dehydration meter will have impact o the player (most likely drop in stats)
9. Being out in the desert in the day, as opposed to night, will have a greater effect on your need for food and water
More information. (http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/newsbit?newsbit=14389)

[ToddMcF2002]

Those changes sound awesome. Its the little things that make FO3 so damn good. Right now GNR is complaining about my "death wish" survival guide LOL.

[txa1265]

"9. Being out in the desert in the day, as opposed to night, will have a greater effect on your need for food and water "

Really like that ... you balance dehydration versus danger ...

[Kostaz]

That just raised my excitement meter quite a bit.

I'll have to remind myself this is Bethesda's marketing though :(

[holeraw]

This "hardcore" which "is separate to difficulty" makes me think that they are actually making a proper RPG!

[Lemonhead]

I really like the dehydration meter, is it only for the hardcore mode? I guess it doesn't matter since I'll most likely be playing the hardcore mode. The focus on survival is a nice shift that could be cool. With that I hope that ammo/guns are scarce so that you have to pick and choose your battles. And use skills like persuasion and sneaking to avoid fights if need be.

[JDR13]

Sounds great for the most part. There's a few things I'm not sure about though…

1. New areas will open up for the player depending on your reputation

I don't like the idea of areas being closed off for any reason in this type of game. Hopefully it doesn't add an unnecessary element of linearity to certain sections.

Also, I wonder about the decision to have weapon mods *only* in stores.

[Grandor Dragon]

I agree with both points. I would like to enter the areas at least as a hostile. Also, the repair skill could easily be used for building mods. I wonder whether there will still be craftable weapons?

[Dez]

I hope its like in gothic 1. You couldn't enter the castle unless you joined the camp as a shadow (or brought the weed package to gomez as a swamp camp novice or became a rogue and delivered a message from water mages).

[Dhruin]

Sounds great for the most part. There's a few things I'm not sure about though…

1. New areas will open up for the player depending on your reputation

I don't like the idea of areas being closed off for any reason in this type of game. Hopefully it doesn't add an unnecessary element of linearity to certain sections.

Also, I wonder about the decision to have weapon mods *only* in stores.

Obviously it depends entirely on the implementation, but if I were a slaver, why the hell would I want any random person wandering around my camp?

[txa1265]

Sounds great for the most part. There's a few things I'm not sure about though…

1. New areas will open up for the player depending on your reputation

I don't like the idea of areas being closed off for any reason in this type of game. Hopefully it doesn't add an unnecessary element of linearity to certain sections.

Also, I wonder about the decision to have weapon mods *only* in stores.

I agree with what Dhruin said - it is a very Bethesda mechanic to let a Paladin into the 'den of all evil' or whatever, all in the name of freedom ... I would rather have restrictions based on things that make sense.

[JDR13]

So that explanation justifies a lack of options?

[txa1265]

So that explanation justifies a lack of options?

Realistic restrictions as opposed to nonsensical illusory 'freedom'? Yes.

But again - it is all in the implementation. Feeling hemmed off for no good reason is one thing, but having entry into a secured area as a goal you can only attain by meeting certain requirements is another ... but again, can either be done well or poorly.

[JDR13]

Realistic restrictions as opposed to nonsensical illusory 'freedom'? Yes.


Except that I wasn't talking about nonsensical illusory freedom. That sounds like another rationalization (by the devs) to me.

What I'm talking about is the devs simply including *more*, which could be nice if done correctly. Such as including options to enter such areas using stealth or disguise.

[txa1265]

Except that I wasn't talking about nonsensical illusory freedom. That sounds like another rationalization (by the devs) to me.

What I'm talking about is the devs simply including *more*, which could be nice if done correctly. Such as including options to enter such areas using stealth or disguise.

I wasn't sure based on what you said about 'no restrictions of any kind' ... since that sort of implies the typical Bethesda 'linearity dressed up as open world' stuff.

But the latter part I completely agree about. I can see that 'certain areas not available' could work like going up against the Orc at level 1 in Gothic 2 ... it isn't so much about the game restricting you as that in the reasonable context presented by the game you just aren't ready for the challenge.

[JDR13]

I wasn't sure based on what you said about 'no restrictions of any kind' … since that sort of implies the typical Bethesda 'linearity dressed up as open world' stuff.


I was talking about not making areas inaccessible, I never said anything about not having any restrictions. There would be obvious restrictions in that you couldn't go into those areas without utilizing the aforementioned ideas.

[txa1265]

I don't like the idea of areas being closed off for any reason in this type of game.

This was what you said, and was all anyone had to go on.

I was talking about not making areas inaccessible, I never said anything about not having any restrictions. There would be obvious restrictions in that you couldn't go into those areas without utilizing the aforementioned ideas.

As I said in the part you didn't quote - we agree ... but as mentioned, when you started this line of thought you had no 'aforementioned ideas', simply an absolute 'no areas closed off for any reason' statement.

[JDR13]

but as mentioned, when you started this line of thought you had no 'aforementioned ideas', simply an absolute 'no areas closed off for any reason' statement.

You're kidding right? So now you're going to tell us what I had in my mind? :lol:

No areas closed off does not mean the same as "no restrictions". You flat out misquoted me, that's the bottom line. It's not a big deal, but just try to man up for once, instead of dissolving into more semantics.

[txa1265]

You're kidding right? So now you're going to tell us what I had in my mind? :lol:

No areas closed off does not mean the same as "no restrictions". You flat out misquoted me, that's the bottom line. It's not a big deal, but just try to man up for once, instead of dissolving into more semantics.

Actually ... if you notice it has been you playing semantics games in this thread. We directly quoted you, and replied based on what you SAID. Whether or not that is what you MEANT is based on YOU telling US what was in your head. Instead you have refined and added to your context at each exchange.

In the last post I directly quoted you and correctly. While 'closed off areas' doesn't directly and only mean 'restrictions', I think it is pretty damn obvious that 'closed off areas' IS A RESTRICTION.

[JDR13]

Actually … if you notice it has been you playing semantics games in this thread. We directly quoted you, and replied based on what you SAID. Whether or not that is what you MEANT is based on YOU telling US what was in your head. Instead you have refined and added to your context at each exchange..

Lol…right, and when I immediately replied "So that explanation justifies a lack of options? " that didn't tip you off to anything, right? Please… just stop.

[txa1265]

Lol…right, and when I immediately replied "So that explanation justifies a lack of options? " that didn't tip you off to anything, right? Please… just stop.

No, it honestly didn't - because without any sort of context (you didn't quote anything) I was left assuming what you meant, which was that you were replying directly to my statement "I would rather have restrictions based on things that make sense." Because, without you saying otherwise, I don't think it was unreasonable for me to make that assumption.

Look - a few posts back I stated "I completely agree" in a two paragraph post. Yet you specifically chose the OTHER part, and I can only assume that you did it for a specific reason. Why do I say that? Because two posts lated I once again noted "we agree" and even bolded it ... yet in your quote you once again made a conscious choice to not include that part. I am honestly not sure of the rationale.

But before you made a point - I misquoted you. While I was only attempting to paraphrase my understanding of your point when I said "I wasn't sure based on what you said about 'no restrictions of any kind'", I certainly could have made the effort to make sure I got your wording correct, but I didn't. So I apologize for that misquote and for any subsequent misunderstanding.

[JDR13]

Look - a few posts back I stated "I completely agree" in a two paragraph post. Yet you specifically chose the OTHER part, and I can only assume that you did it for a specific reason. Why do I say that? Because two posts lated I once again noted "we agree" and even bolded it … yet in your quote you once again made a conscious choice to not include that part. I am honestly not sure of the rationale.


You are correct in assuming I chose that part for a specific reason, and I thought I made it obvious what the reason was. I felt you were misquoting me, nothing more. What does it matter whether or not I included the other paragraph? I didn't quote it because there was no reason to. It simply had nothing to do with the part that I felt I needed to correct, there was no hidden motive behind it. You seem to have a habit of making something out of insignificant details. Not trying to fan the flames here, just telling you how it seems sometimes.

Anyways, I'll try to make a conscious effort to be more specific in the future. I realize that the brevity of my posts sometimes leaves them lacking in clarity.

[txa1265]

Not trying to fan the flames here, just telling you how it seems sometimes.
I think the problem is that despite largely agreeing on a wide range of topics our stylistic methods diverge just enough that we often end up at odds over what amounts to minutia, and while each carries on trying to get to closure using our own style the other thinks 'if he would only ...'. And so it goes.

Anyways, I'll try to make a conscious effort to be more specific in the future. I realize that the brevity of my posts sometimes leaves them lacking in clarity.
And as mentioned I will try to ask questions more directly rather than pick apart semantics ... and also honor wishes to just drop stuff when requested. Though I think in this particular case it was productive ... :)

[Corwin]

Ah, the old style and substance debate. At least you keep it civil!! :)

[Maylander]

@JDR and txa
You are now sounding like politicians:
Politician A: "It's obvious that we need to invest more money to improve education in this country!"
Politician B: "No! We need to improve schools and give our children a better education by spending our money in that section!"
Politician A: "That's crazy! What about education? We obviously need more money!"

Politicians always agree that certain topics are important, but they never actually listen to each other, so they never manage to sort out their dififerences..

[crpgnut]

Both are just fussy old men :D Fortunately for me, I'm just an old fogey.