Rumor: Fallout: New Vegas features

Starwars said:
http://www.oxm.co.uk/viewer.php?mode=article&id=12563

Info coming February it seems. Can't believe that it actually says that the game is Bethesda's though. Kinda disrespectful.

Looks like Fallout 3 screenshot with Vegas sign.
 
I spy with my little eye a flying saucer, or maybe it's just a big something in the distance.
 
Ausdoerrt said:
Still, quality of music is the defining factor. Also variety, look at Last Remnant - there's a good 15 "combat music" tracks depending on area or how well the battle is going.
I was actually going to mention that games should look into having a battle track to compliment every area's score so that there would be less clashing, but I completely forgot to mention it. Of course the "flaw" with this idea is it's more expensive because more music has to be commissioned. That said, I think that battle music would be great if it were like that.

Starwars said:
http://www.oxm.co.uk/viewer.php?mode=article&id=12563

Info coming February it seems. Can't believe that it actually says that the game is Bethesda's though. Kinda disrespectful.
Pretty much par for the course for the idiots at OXM. They are up there on the list of worst gaming publications.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Does anyone remember the very first Fallout 3 teaser ? Boy I cant believe how ... hyped I was for Fallout 3 after that video. But when I think what we got now ... urgh I feel so dirty >_>. Damn Bethesda!

I remember it way too clearly. :( At the time I knew nothing of Bethesda, I just knew they had a great reputation for their RPGs. When I saw that teaser I was incredibly excited that a series I loved and thought dead was coming back with the teaser giving a good feeling. Boy, was I wrong...
 
I've also been listening to a podcast right now featuring Todd Howard where people could ask questions to him. There was some brief talk about New Vegas but Todd just said he couldn't talk about it yet.

The guy making the call was interestingly enough worried about New Vegas being in OEIs hands as he felt they'd been making a "media boo boo" with Alpha Protocol last year. Todd said he felt AP looked good from what he'd seen and that he had a lot of respect for OEI and emphasized the fact that many OEI guys have worked on the previous Fallout games.

Todd has always annoyed the hell out of me in previous interviews and stuff but I thought he was pretty good to listen to here.
 
Starwars said:
Todd has always annoyed the hell out of me in previous interviews and stuff but I thought he was pretty good to listen to here.

Just remember that he and his ilk at Bethsoft have a fair degree of control over what goes into NV. Don't believe for a second that Bethesda will use a loose leash just because Obsidian have a better understanding of what made the series good.
 
Starwars said:
Todd has always annoyed the hell out of me in previous interviews and stuff but I thought he was pretty good to listen to here.
I just think that both him and Pete are horrible public speakers who always sound like nerdy idiots (Narutards was an example that came quickly to mind, but I'd say they sound more stupid than nerdy). I really think that they either need to send them to seminars/speech classes or hire someone whose good at public speaking.

sarfa said:
Just remember that he and his ilk at Bethsoft have a fair degree of control over what goes into NV. Don't believe for a second that Bethesda will use a loose leash just because Obsidian have a better understanding of what made the series good.
I wouldn't be surprised in the least if it's neutered but I expect the writing quality to be, at the very least, reasonable. I also expect that the ideas will be, on average, a little less stupid and higher quality writing helps better disguise such things and makes people more forgiving (right or wrong).
 
Honestly, I don't beleve Beth would force Obsidian to makke a bad game, just because they couldn't do a better one. What's the point?
 
Of course they won't purposefully tell them to make the game worse. But they might tell them to change things so that it's better for them and their target audience, but worse for us.
 
Ausir said:
Of course they won't purposefully tell them to make the game worse. But they might tell them to change things so that it's better for them and their target audience, but worse for us.
I honestly think Beth is too busy with TESV to mess with Obsidian too much. TES is their original series after all.
 
Ausir said:
Of course they won't purposefully tell them to make the game worse. But they might tell them to change things so that it's better for them and their target audience, but worse for us.

if I so much as hear a rumor about Beth forcing them to cut dialogue or make quests more simple I'm personally gonna take a trip to Beth HQ, find Todd and kick him in the balls. I'm willing to deal with the consequences.
 
Now, now, no personal attacks, threats and immature dicking around, please.
 
OakTable said:
I honestly think Beth is too busy with TESV to mess with Obsidian too much. TES is their original series after all.
Considering how they neutered various parts of Fallout 3 for various parts of the world, despite there being no good reason to, I highly doubt they'll be hands off in terms of content.
 
UncannyGarlic said:
OakTable said:
I honestly think Beth is too busy with TESV to mess with Obsidian too much. TES is their original series after all.
Considering how they neutered various parts of Fallout 3 for various parts of the world, despite there being no good reason to, I highly doubt they'll be hands off in terms of content.

They built their FO3 themselves, so it was a mutant child from the moment it was born, whereas NV is made by a separate company and while im prepared to eat these words, i think we're at a lot less risk of NV being similar to FO3 with it in Obsidian's studio than if it was inhouse. Who knows, we might get lucky.
 
hmm, I just realized - with the pretty short developement time that seems to go into NV (ok so it might still be a couple of years, but in that case they wouldn't start the PR circus just yet), can we expect any change to graphics at all? most importantly, are we gonna have to look at those laughable animations yet again? because to be honest, they're in my top 3 of Fallout 3's biggest flaws. and no matter how good NV may turn out to be, the animations may very well ruin it entirely for me.
 
same here. If they want to change something it should be the animations. I can remember games that are almost 10 years old and have better animation compared to Fallout 3.
 
Why would they change anything about graphics? I though all reviews said they were perfectly "immersive" and "mindblowing"?

/sarcasm
 
I remember being concerned about the development time of Fallout: New Vegas from the get-go. Sure, they have Bethesda's dev kit or whatever, which I'm sure cuts down on development time considerably, but just over a year hardly seemed like enough time to develop a story and create new assets.

While the hoax was intriguing, I think I know why it captured so many of our imaginations. It was plausible. How else, especially given the truncated development time, could Obsidian write and develop a storyline UNLESS they were cannibalizing story from Van Buren?

I know this is just wishful thinking, but how plausible does the rest of the community think this is? There is at least partial setting overlap, or the potential for it, so why not? Or do you believe that Bethesda already had a plot readied when they contracted the project out?
 
Perhaps they were working on the story before even New Vegas was announced? Maybe Beth gave them green light even earlier and said anything about NV once the hype around Fallout 3 went down?
 
Back
Top