Fallout: New Vegas - Sawyer Interview Tidbits

NMA is pointing out a new Fallout: New Vegas interview, 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.

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.

"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 …

That just raised my excitement meter quite a bit.

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

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

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.

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 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?

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).

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

So that explanation justifies a lack of options?

Originally Posted by JDR13
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.

Originally Posted by txa1265
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.

Originally Posted by JDR13
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.

Originally Posted by txa1265
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.

Originally Posted by JDR13
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.

Originally Posted by JDR13
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.

Originally Posted by txa1265
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?

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.

Originally Posted by JDR13
You're kidding right? So now you're going to tell us what I had in my mind?

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.

Originally Posted by txa1265
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.