GameTrailers interviews Chris Avellone

That might well be true, and if anyone were to understand the divide, as you said, it'd be Obsidian. Still, I imagine there is a certain perspective that says Fallout can include silliness, and it's more the amount of it rather than the degree of it that matters. Heck, I wouldn't be opposed to a few pop culture references in New Vegas provided they were fairly limited. It makes a lot more sense from a cost:benefit perspective to simply adjust the numbers that decide which encounters the player gets more often, rather than develop entirely new game content that many or even most players will never see.

 

To get to something totally different: I like the loading screens on the background tv. Looks to me a lot better than the Fallout 3 stuff.

 

I like how one is the Poseidon Oil company, nice Fallout 2 referance. I know they owned the Helios 1 facility but it's nice seeing their logo on a loading screen.

 

I agree. Aside from the design, it looks well drawn, unlike FO3's.

 

I for one will be playing with the all the silliness on. I think I enjoyed most if not all the references in Fallout 2. How many of us DIDN'T wander aimlessly around the wilderness just to try to trigger the special encounters.. which were mostly silly.

 

I didn't. I was wandering amlessly around the wilderness hoping to trigger a normal random encounter and not the special one.

 

I'm curious if it's possible to miss out on special items if you don't get the Wild Wasteland encounters.

 

On the SomethingAwful boards J.E. Sawyer said that Wild Wasteland doesn't give mechanical bonuses. Hopefully that means that one who doesn't pick that trait just misses the silliness and not cool items and such.

 

In this case, MCA does not articulate very well in some part of his interview, that's why making a transcript could be a very difficult task wthout the (...), especially if you are not native-english speaker.

I'm still trying to understand what he said just after "they had a different agenda than you".

 

Wild Wasteland does seem like a pretty good compromise to me. Never would've thought of it myself.

Also, there's a preview of NV at Gamespot we missed and some Bethsoft forum users posted their opinions of the QuakeCon Fallout New Vegas demo.

 

J.E. Sawyer posts on SomethingAwful? Good lord.

 

what i'm guessing this means...is that it doesn't give you anything like the elixir did...like boost your skills or SPECIAL, though i would guess-as the other Fallouts did-there would still be unique items to gain. but mebbe not. who knows.

 

Much more than on the Bethesda's boards from what I can see.

Here's a link to all of his posts on the Fallout : New Vegas topic there if you're interested.

Oh, and the incriminated quote : (referring to Wild Wasteland) It provides no mechanical benefit, only a cosmetic/aesthetic/whatever difference.

 

ah. after reading that it does appear there might not be any unique item bonuses to choosing Wild Wasteland. not that this really affects my will to choose or not choose it.

 

Hey guys, what does MCA said about the president at the end of "Mining the Past Interview ?"
Is there something about a mustache ?

 

Someone on Beth forums pointed out the background music on the second interview. It's nice, I hope it's from FNV

 

When I said that I was specifically referring to Fallout 3's follower NPCs, in particular Charon (I think that was his name) because I referred to them being overpowered. I don't feel the same way about any of the follower NPCs from Fallout 2. They may not have been overpowered but I did care whether they died or not, so I usually tended to not bring them along on more dangerous journeys.

So, are you saying you care whether any of the follower NPCs from Fallout 3 die or not? Not that it really matters. I could easily change my statement from "we" to "I" and nobody would care. Oh my! There I go speaking for others again..

It's just a generalizing statement, covering what I assume to be the opinion of many gamers. I'm sure it doesn't cover ALL the people who have played Fallout 2 & 3, but it probably speaks correctly for the opinions of many of them.

Of course, I suppose I could be alone in my opinion, and everyone else but me likes companions who have crappy AI, and they cry every time one of them gets killed.

I would prefer to have a companion I can talk to in-between missions who will perform non-combat tasks (like maybe repairing weapons for me or healing), who has a personality, rather than some dumb shmuck I have to keep alive in order to hear their story. It's much easier to keep a coward alive. xD

I'm not saying they shouldn't have a backstory. I'm saying they are wasted on a role that should be given to temporary allies (like those BoS shmucks who get killed by the Behemoth). I find NPCs to be much more interesting when given roles like those in Starcraft 2, where you can talk to them in-between missions.

Furthermore, consider also that companions all have sucky AI in Morrowind, Oblivion, and Fallout 3 (not that your buddies fare any better in Fallout 1 and 2, shooting you in the back and charging to their deaths and all.). I loathe the AI so much in all 3 games that I've always preferred to go it alone. I finally decided to take Charon along in Fallout 3, and discover that he sucked all the fun out of the game...

Edit: There's really only a few possibilities when you have a follower in a FP game.
1. They're invincible, so you don't have to look after them.

2. They're there temporarily, so it's just an extra challenge for the moment to look after them.

3. They just follow you and don't fight or anything. Same as #2, but easier to keep them alive.

4. They charge into combat with enemies too powerful for them, getting killed in the process.

5. They charge into combat with enemies too weak for them, killing everything for you and sucking all the challenge of the game.

Okay, now for review:
1. Unrealistic and pointless. If they're integral to the storyline then either don't have them fighting or fail the quests if they do die.

2. Best possible scenario.

3. Unless they're a pack mule or someone to escort for a quest, then this is pointless.

4. Good for a laugh, but again, pointless.

5. This is the worst possible scenario. You don't even have to play the game at this point.

 

They don't have to be a "dumb shmuck". They can have a personality as well, it's all a matter of writing. I sympathize with the comments on the AI, but likewise they don't have to be terrible either. It all comes down to how much effort is put into it. (On the note of AI though, I'm not expecting wonders.)