Fallout: New Vegas - Sawyer Interview Tidbits

Dhruin

SasqWatch
Joined
August 30, 2006
Messages
11,842
Location
Sydney, Australia
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.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
11,842
Location
Sydney, Australia
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.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
3,593
Location
Boston MA
"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 ...
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,932
That just raised my excitement meter quite a bit.

I'll have to remind myself this is Bethesda's marketing though :(
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
1,718
Location
Dear Green Place
This "hardcore" which "is separate to difficulty" makes me think that they are actually making a proper RPG!
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
693
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.
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
999
Location
The Great White North
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.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,136
Location
Florida, US
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?
 
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
557
Location
London, UK
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).
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,468
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?
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
11,842
Location
Sydney, Australia
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.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,932
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.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,932
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.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,136
Location
Florida, US
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.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,932
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.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,136
Location
Florida, US
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.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,932
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.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,136
Location
Florida, US
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.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,932
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.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,136
Location
Florida, US
Back
Top Bottom