Interview New Vegas is Nearly Done & Won't Tank Like AP

[Jason]

Tags: Fallout: New Vegas; Obsidian Entertainment

<p>Obsidian's Josh Sawyer did some candid speaking with <a href="http://www.strategyinformer.com/xbox360/falloutnewvegas/interviews.html" target="_blank">Strategy Informer</a> about <strong>Fallout: New Vegas</strong>.</p>
<blockquote>Strategy Informer: Speaking candidly for a minute - your last game, Alpha Protocol, wasn't received that well. Has that affected the development of New Vegas at all?<br /><br />Josh Sawyer: Well whenever you put that much time and effort into something, and there's all that negative opinion on it, it's kind of sobering and we think "Ok, this isn't a fluke here, we made some mistakes that we want to learn from". Personally I felt all along that we want to make the gameplay experience feel good - I know that sounds like a very simple thing but in some cases I feel like designers sometimes kind of internalise their opinions about something, and don't think from the perspective of the players. Is the player going to enjoy shooting? Is the player going to enjoy doing this kind of thing in the game? Are these objectives clear to them?<br /><br />They seem really basic but sometimes I think they can be really difficult to pull off, and I think with Alpha Protocol people criticised things that were really basic gameplay elements. For New Vegas I was like "ok, we don't want to reinvent the wheel here", what can we just improve upon? A lot of people liked Fallout 3, so shooting mechanics, VATS, stealth... don't just break the mould and start again, how can we take what's there and improve upon it? We want players who are coming into it to feel like this is similar to what they've seen, but better.</blockquote>
<p>And when asked how far along the game is:</p>
<blockquote>Josh Sawyer: Oh it's done. We're actually getting ready to submit. The only thing we've been doing recently is fixing bugs, stabilising frame rates, certification at Sony and Microsoft and that's it! We're getting ready.</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Spotted at: <a href="http://planetfallout.gamespy.com/">Planet Briosafreak</a></p>

 

[Dormir Con Las Arañas]

you know, fallout 3 was so good, it's like obsidian had nowhere to go but down

 

[Konjad]

idk why but I still have hope it can live up to old fallouts

 

[Duckard]

I hope it wont be as bad as Fallout 3. I think it's very possible.

 

[Secretninja]

I dunno about that, but I am sure I will have fun playing through it one time. I doubt it will have the replayability of the old ones.

 

[tunguska]

They seem really basic but sometimes I think they can be really difficult to pull off, and I think with Alpha Protocol people criticised things that were really basic gameplay elements.

Well at least he nailed it. That's exactly right. I wasn't able to get to all those juicy MCA dialogue trees with all that innovative C&C because the basic gameplay mechanics just weren't fun. In fact I found them excruciating. With Dragon Age Bioware made a similar mistake (except they don't have MCA dialogue). Now, I do understand that it could be very challenging to code in "fun". It would be a mistake to underestimate how difficult that is. What I don't understand is how the dev team and even the play testers couldn't see that it wasn't there. When they saw that they should have stepped back and said "Okay, how can we fix this?"

I think the problem is that the remnants of Team Torment are just not all that good at making action games. It would be like Crytek or Rockstar trying to code PS:T or BG2. They probably couldn't do it and in that case might not even know that their game wasn't fun. And Obsidian may very well make a similar mistake with Dungeon Seige III. If they shoot for Icewind Dale they should be fine, but if they shoot for Diablo III they will fail. That's Blizzard's niche. I just don't think they can beat Blizzard at their own game. Action games are what they do. It's what they are good at. Of course I don't happen to find their style of action games fun, but a lot of people obviously do. If they were trying to create an action game to "embrace and extend" and make more money, it really backfired on them. I don't see why they can't just stick to what they are good at. Obsidian are the only major developer that really has the ability to make the older style of cRPGs, real cRPGs. BIS cRPGs were among the best that were ever made. They should see it as their responsibility to make the kinds of games that no one else makes anymore, that no one else can make.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

The action/stealth gameplay in AP was still by far better than, say, what Deus Ex and Bloodlines had to offer in the same category.

 

[SharkClub]

The action/stealth gameplay in AP was still by far better than, say, what Deus Ex

Nope.

Stealth in AP is way overpowered.

 

[Achilles]

They seem really basic but sometimes I think they can be really difficult to pull off, and I think with Alpha Protocol people criticised things that were really basic gameplay elements.

Well at least he nailed it. That's exactly right. I wasn't able to get to all those juicy MCA dialogue trees with all that innovative C&C because the basic gameplay mechanics just weren't fun. In fact I found them excruciating.

But they're all set to repeat those mistakes! Wtf is this "damage threshold" shit? I can hear the cries of the gamers already: " I keep shooting the giant super mutant with my water pistol and he doesn't die! What kind of a shit game is this?". It's like they want their games to fail I tell you.

 

[Roguey]

That's an odd question considering Alpha Protocol was only released a few months ago. There's not much you can change with only a few months to release.

Avellone also said the same thing about AP being done last October so there are clearly varying degrees of "doneness." They should just say content/feature complete to avoid misunderstandings.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

The action/stealth gameplay in AP was still by far better than, say, what Deus Ex and Bloodlines had to offer in the same category.

Nope. Liar.

 

[Bluebottle]

The action/stealth gameplay in AP was still by far better than, say, what Deus Ex and Bloodlines had to offer in the same category.

When considering the systems in isolation, then maybe (I'd still say it was too easy) . The trouble is, the systems need good levels to use them in, and this really wasn't the case in Alpha Protocol.

I'd actually quite like to go back and give the game another shot, playing it strictly as a gun based character. The linear level design really doesn't sit will with stealth, but I suspect it might hold together a little better when played as a shooter.

 

[Archibald]

Comparing it to Bloodlines stealth kinda proves that it was absolute shit.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

The action/stealth gameplay in AP was still by far better than, say, what Deus Ex and Bloodlines had to offer in the same category.

When considering the systems in isolation, then maybe (I'd still say it was too easy) . The trouble is, the systems need good levels to use them in, and this really wasn't the case in Alpha Protocol.

I'd actually quite like to go back and give the game another shot, playing it strictly as a gun based character. The linear level design really doesn't sit will with stealth, but I suspect it might hold together a little better when played as a shooter.

Indeed. The mechanics and gameplay itself is better in AP than in Deus Ex, but Deus Ex wraps its mechanics in equally better level design.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

No. Just no. A stealth system is only good as the levels you can use it in. For Deus Ex's flaws, it's stealth system was better than AP's, and then when paired with the level design, it is infinitely better. Infinitely.

AP is shit. Just thought I'd throw that out there again. It's been awhile since I said that.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

The AP stealth system has a tad better AI, and you can use your environment, equipment and character skill more in the context of stealth. Deus Ex's level design isn't so much about stealth, but rather about approach and entry.

Deus Ex stealth system has essentially two factors: Obscure AI detection crouching in ducts and the invisibility that makes a comeback in AP in more restricted use. By contrast, AP stealth has far "smarter" opponents (idiots vs retards which is better and why, but hey that's the usual AI for you) who have a more defined (and varied based on enemy type) detection capabilities and utility resistances, and better design explicitly for stealth purposes through availability of objects and corners that are safe from the AI eagle eyes even if you are limited to going through that precise room. AP is also a lot more clear about backstabs and when the AI can see you, though I think the latter is more due to the additional clarity provided by third person view.

You could say AP does the "ninja" aspect of its levels better, but DX is far superior when it comes to breaking and entering while bringing aboard the much larger scale of the levels to begin with. In fact, I'd say it's the levels themselves Deus Ex excels through so much, not the gameplay you use in their context.

There's also something to be said by by far larger irrelevance of computer, hack and lockpick skills in Deus Ex, due to the character skill only affecting your inventory or need to read fast.

 

[Mastermind]

Comparing it to Bloodlines stealth kinda proves that it was absolute shit.

Bloodlines stealth was almost perfect (I almost always play a stealth character if it's well implemented). And I hated bloodlines as a whole due to the shitty combat and controls (should still get around to finishing it though). I think a lot of you people just don't know how to have fun.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

First, there are the cameras, which affect stealth. That green light completely ruins the point of even having cameras. The AIs between the two are about on par. As far as using your surroundings... Are you serious? Grab a bottle in DX to throw it in the opposite direction to get the guards off your tail. I mean, DX isn't perfect in stealth by any stretch, but it is a hell of a lot better than AP.

And let's not compare shadow operative with the cloak ability. Cloak is of limited use most of the time because of the huge drain on your energy, while Shadow Operative is an "I Win" button (especially paired with that ridiculous chain shot). The level of challenge between the two is completely on the side of DX, as well. AP gives you plenty of boxes to hide behind in the linear levels, while in DX you have to find your cover which sometimes just isn't there.

 

[SoupNazi]

There's also something to be said by by far larger irrelevance of computer, hack and lockpick skills in Deus Ex, due to the character skill only affecting your inventory or need to read fast.

The skill actually affects a lot more than that. If you hack security systems with a low level electronics (or whatever) skill, you don't have access to some options, typically gun turret control or whether it targets you or the enemies.

By contrast, AP stealth has far "smarter" opponents (idiots vs retards which is better and why, but hey that's the usual AI for you) who have a more defined (and varied based on enemy type) detection capabilities and utility resistances

I'll take Deus Ex' AI over "an invisible entity just beat my buddy unconscious but I don't care" in AP.

AP is also a lot more clear about backstabs and when the AI can see you, though I think the latter is more due to the additional clarity provided by third person view.

There are backstabs in AP? You just walk up to an enemy from anywhere and press an "I WIN" button no matter where's he facing. On the other hand in Deus Ex you risk that if you hit something non-vital, or come up front, the first hit might not be lethal.

Don't take me wrong, I liked AP, but 70% of the gameplay mechanics were utter shit and can't be compared to Deus Ex.

 

[Archibald]

Comparing it to Bloodlines stealth kinda proves that it was absolute shit.

Bloodlines stealth was almost perfect (I almost always play a stealth character if it's well implemented). And I hated bloodlines as a whole due to the shitty combat and controls (should still get around to finishing it though). I think a lot of you people just don't know how to have fun.

It was broken. For Nosferatu i could somewhat buy it, but for other clans? It was ridiculous.

 

[Volourn]

Of course, it won't tank. It's a sequel to the ultr successful FO3 and not an 'original' Obsidian game. Duh. I'll wait to DS3 though b/c that has potential to be fun and good unlike this sure to be sozzy game.

 

[Gay-Lussac]

I'm looking forward to this. If I buy it will the money go to bethesda or obsidian?

 

[Turisas]

Bethesda (or ZeniMax, rather) is the publisher, so they get the profits.

 

[SharkClub]

I'm looking forward to this. If I buy it will the money go to bethesda or obsidian?

Bethesda, as they're the publisher, I guess. Obsidian gets payed beforehand for making it or something. I doubt any extra royalties will go to Obsidian other than maybe some +rep with the kids of the gaming industry.

 

[Jora]

IIRC Avellone once said to someone that the way the system works, Obsidian doesn't see a dime. Buying their games only helps to ensure that they get more contracts.

 

[SharkClub]

There's also the thing that if New Vegas sells more than Fallout 3 then maybe Bethesda will out-source Fallout to Obsidian instead of going back and fucking up Fallout 4 as well.