PC Gamer US Preview Scans

[Ausdoerrt]

Aaaaactually, if they added cars and got rid of fast travel, that wouldn't be so bad

 

[aenemic]

I'd much rather jump into a vehicle and travel to my destination, Borderlands-style, than having instant fast travel. they could easily balance it accordingly (so it isn't a high-speed slaughter machine of doom as in Borderlands) and make fuel rare enough.

or they could at least implement the vehiclee more in the sense of Fallout 2, as a static hub for fast travel and personal stash.

 

[Dionysus]

Logically, I guess you are right but FO/FO2 were able to make the world feel bigger for the players.

Well, it tells you that it covers a bigger area. It doesn't actually "feel" very big because it's fairly obvious that the space between settlements is made of a handful of empty repeating sets and you can go from one end to the other in a few minutes.

Compared with more description heavy Infinity Engine, Embryo engine, which put emphasis on the sensational feel of the world, almost inevitably makes the world feel smaller, where, I guess, the "hard mode" would fit. In fact, in STALKER, which has a similar way to present the world, while the world is not big, the restrictions such as radiation and weight made the world feel bigger, for example.

Technically, Fallout didn't use the infinity engine. And STALKER actually seemed to be smaller than FO3 to me. I don't know how big it actually was, but the fenced-in nature of the world made the whole thing feel relatively small and linear. Although the lack of fast travel managed to make it feel more tedious, it didn't make it feel larger because I was always backtracking.

Anyway, I agree that there's no reason to put PC-accessible vehicles in NV. But I still want a jetpack and some areas that can only be accessed by flying or climbing.

 

[Patton89]

The car should be a scavenged, partially rebuily piece of crap that barely functions. That way, the car doesn't really need to be really fast, but it can go at 50 kmp/h, and it would make sense. Something like the muscle car from Half-life 2 episode 2, but crappy.
And no fast travel. It just makes the game world seem a lot smaller than it is. And to boot it doesn't make much sense in game terms.
I know it's convinient and all, but I want to be able to turn it off.

 

[Lexx]

Aaaaactually, if they added cars and got rid of fast travel, that wouldn't be so bad

Still, it's very unlikely to see working cars in a Fallout 3-like game. The world is just not build for such stuff and to make it look good. I guess it would be more work to make it look good than to just scrap that whole idea.

 

[Patton89]

Yeah, it's unlikely that we will see a car in NV, but a man can dream, right ?

 

[Dionysus]

And no fast travel. It just makes the game world seem a lot smaller than it is.

The strong point of fast travel is that it only works for backtracking. So, it shouldn't make the world feel smaller because you have already traveled the distance in first person. That is, unless you think making 20 trips to the same place makes the distance for a single trip feel larger. My experience is actually the opposite. My first trip on an unknown road feels longer, probably because I'm processing a lot of novel information. Although backtracking becomes progressively more tedious, the trip itself feels shorter.

A vehicle would be problematic unless they put artificial restrictions on it (like only being able to use it for backtracking) or changed the scope of the entire world to accommodate it. Alternatively, they could have trains or something that is inherently restricted. But that sort of system is less appealing because it can still be used to avoid exploring new territory (unless they add more arbitrary restrictions), and travel eventually becomes a silly scheduling game that only adds more loading screens to FO3's current system.

 

[Dario ff]

Yeah, it's unlikely that we will see a car in NV, but a man can dream, right ?

A man can mod too Though I shouldn't rely on modders to fix the game. Not after what you see for Fallout 3

I don't think it'd be a bad idea to scrap Fast Travel and put cars(We won't see something like that in NV for sure, they don't have enough time IMO). As long as quests aren't mindless fetch and deliver across long distances, it isn't that bad to walk(or drive ).

The problem with FO3 is that if you wanted to walk from one point to another, there were random encounter every 2 minutes

 

[Patton89]

What I don't like about fast travel, is the fact that while it is convinient, it doesn't really feel "real" traveling, it's more like a teleport spell in a fantasy game.
It doesn't fit the setting.

You can't get ambushed while using it. Now, if they added random encounters, it would seem like you were actually traveling from point A to point B, instead of teleporting to the place perfectly safely.
No ultra safe fast travel like in Fallout 3, but a travel system with random encounters. Make outdoorsman skill and perception effect the probability of random encounters.

Only real reason I would to use fast travel in DC, was to avoid those horrid metro tunnel dungeon crawl sections, which were utterly tedious and artificial, and really didn't make that much logical sense.
Otherwise, the locations were so close, I didn't really see any point in using fast travel.

Again, I know it's very unlikely that there will be any vehicles in NV, but honestly, vehicles would make more sense then an instant travel ability with no risk.
Vehicles would be able to outrun all enemies, so it would make more sense to be able to avoid confrontations entirely.

So I correct myself, NO FALLOUT 3 fast travel please.

 

[Kick Baby Jesus to Death]

Well, it tells you that it covers a bigger area. It doesn't actually "feel" very big because it's fairly obvious that the space between settlements is made of a handful of empty repeating sets and you can go from one end to the other in a few minutes.

My point was that, considering that they are basically small areas jointed each other, through the usage of the main pap made it feel like a connected living world. Considering the areas where can be explored, it is illogical to even think they are bigger than the areas accessible by FO3.

Technically, Fallout didn't use the infinity engine.

Seems like you are right but what should I say, isometric games? In any case, what I meant is that bird view 2D games compared with its first person counterpart.

And STALKER actually seemed to be smaller than FO3 to me. I don't know how big it actually was, but the fenced-in nature of the world made the whole thing feel relatively small and linear.

I think the lack of convenience made the world much bigger than its designed areas, which shouldn't sound illogical. The problem is that we haven't got precise data to compare each map.

 

[jomiyo]

If they do include a vehicle, most certainly a beat-up relic, that barely runs. I'd prefer it go no more than 20mph, but maybe that's just me.

Balanced rarity of fuel, the several scattered about parts and stuff to increase fuel efficiency, trunk/boot size, and looks to a reasonable degree (some flags, a fog light, an expensively unique "paint job" made from one of a few specific materials (e.g. gecko hides, black tar from a radioactive tar pit, etc) that you have to collect).

Yeah, a CB radio of sorts, for occasionally picking up mission-helpful transmissions and perhaps the odd random encounter.


However, won't exactly be bothered if they don't do it.

 

[Dario ff]

Seems like you are right but what should I say, isometric games? In any case, what I meant is that bird view 2D games compared with its first person counterpart.

Isometric camera would be right. The Infinity Engine is based on a big rendered background(subdivided in different sectors) and allows pixel-wise positions and collisions, while the Fallout engine is Tile-Based with positions only on a Hex map, and the collision is determined by the hexes.

Of course, there's also other Isometric engines that are tile-based(just for painting the map), but allow pixel perfect positions.

And about implementing a car in the Gamebryo engine, it uses Havok physics, and numerous games like Red Faction guerrilla have cars with the same physics engine.

 

[Kick Baby Jesus to Death]

So I correct myself, NO FALLOUT 3 fast travel please.

I don't think it is wise to delete it. Even in STALKER, whose areas, I strongly believe, much smaller than those of FO3, it was tedious to travel back and forth. Also, the fast travel feature is not imposed on you. You can still travel on your foot.

Also, practically speaking, not so many people have time to travel back and forth the same area or would like to spend their time on such activities...

 

[Patton89]

Did I say delete it entirely my last post ?
Had you read my post you would have understood I suggested CHANGING it to a travel system more akin to Fallout 2.

 

[Kick Baby Jesus to Death]

Did I say delete it entirely my last post ?
Had you read my post you would have understood I suggested CHANGING it to a travel system more akin to Fallout 2.

You mean, including random encounters, then? Actually, I myself suggested it in Beth forum while back. I don't know how technically difficult it would be, though.

@samothethief
Thanks for your explanation of the term.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

The strong point of fast travel is that it only works for backtracking. So, it shouldn't make the world feel smaller because you have already traveled the distance in first person. That is, unless you think making 20 trips to the same place makes the distance for a single trip feel larger. My experience is actually the opposite. My first trip on an unknown road feels longer, probably because I'm processing a lot of novel information. Although backtracking becomes progressively more tedious, the trip itself feels shorter.

Well, then design the game in a way that the player doesn't have to backtrack all the damn time. Concentrate less of Diablo-style loot hoarding and give the players something more interesting to care about than shuffling inventory. The first two FO games managed to do this reasonably. It's a post-nuclear setting, it's supposed to have SCARCITY not random heaps of random loot (not to mention that I despise loot-hoarding games in general).

I also thought the "no map-travel until you've been there once" was just a crappy way to make the game feel longer. I want to be able to travel straight to the point of interest if I want to. Implement RE like what most games with world-map travel have to make it more dangerous/fun, but don't make me walk on foot. Don't force me to explore the sandbox if I don't want to and just feel like doing the specific quests. I don't like this random, forced exploration because it detracts my attention from what I'm supposed to be doing. I suppose my attention span is too long for this kind of game design *shrug*

 

[SomeBritishDude]

Simply making a system similar to Fallout 2 car system could actually solve the problem quite well I believe.

The car could work almost exactly like the fast travel system; you can only get to a location in your car if you've been there. The difference would be that you obviously need to get hold of one first (this could be done with a quest early in the game), you have to actually access it in order to fast travel AND it requires fuel.

The main problems with this is first of all it would obviously be a case of Game mechanics over sense (why do I need to go somewhere in order for my car to travel there?!) and also there's the problem that if you wished to travel on foot you would have to return to your car in order to fast travel again. This could possibly be solved with certain hub points where you can summon your car, which would have to be explained away in a way that makes sense (Maybe Pre-war cars had a "call" system that would cause it to drive to a certain destination, but only some settlements in new vegas have this system...)

It may work better with something like a train, but that would require a level of sophistication in the a post apocalyptic wasteland that would somewhat the break the setting.

Honestly I don't know if there's a system that can satisfy everybody. The advantage of Fast-travel of coarse is you don't have to use it. I played Fallout 3 without it for the most part. It lengthens the period in which the game is somewhat challenging.

*snip*

This could be solved somewhat by bringing back the way Oblivions fast travel worked; All major settlements where available to fast travel from the get go.

But honestly Fallout 3's strongest point was it's exploration. Just wondering a desolate landscape to all the tiny bits and pieces you can find...If you didn't enjoy that part of it there's very little else it has to offer. Which is a sad thing seeing as this is the third game in a series that had a very different feel. You are suppose to be the main demographic Bethesda are aiming for.

But then again that's what it comes down to. I enjoyed Fallout 3 immensely. It I had played the old games first and expect more of the same I know for a fact I would have hated it.

 

[Crni Vuk]

though once you visited the Fallout 3 wasteland once it has nothing to offer anymore ... since well as you said thats the strongest point of the game. But most of the locations are quite repetitive and it really did not had that much content to keep my self motivated. At some point it just starts to become very dull particularly cause you have to fight every 30 sec. some enemy as well ... from deathclaws, to enclave, robots, super mutants, scorpions, raiders and so on ...

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Like Crni here, I happen to dislike pointless exploration, most of FO3 being just that. Therefore for me to enjoy any of the game, there would need to be a travel system that allows me to forego it in one form or another. A classic map-travel is indeed the best option, but I'm not sure how implementable that is in FO3/NV. That's sort of what I was referring to: if I extract the information about a settlement from someone, I should be able to use the map to travel there right away. But still, there are indeed multiple ways to make the system work better.

 

[Dionysus]

My point was that, considering that they are basically small areas jointed each other, through the usage of the main pap made it feel like a connected living world.

See, I'd say that the world in the first game was blatantly discontinuous. Arcanum had a similar style with a continuous world. Of course, that was sort of pointless, which demonstrates that this issue is a lot bigger than the mode of travel.

I think the lack of convenience made the world much bigger than its designed areas, which shouldn't sound illogical.

It certainly made the game a lot longer, but if anything, excessive backtracking made the world feel smaller to me. When I first went through starting area, it felt much larger than when I traversed it at the end.

Therefore for me to enjoy any of the game, there would need to be a travel system that allows me to forego it in one form or another. A classic map-travel is indeed the best option, but I'm not sure how implementable that is in FO3/NV.

Yeah, but that's like saying that Street Fighter needs to have a button that allows you to skip the fights entirely, because you don't like the fighting gameplay. You're basically asking for a different sort of game. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it goes far beyond just asking for a change in the fast-travel system.

Back to the topic, it seems that a lot of people pine for vehicles in FO3 just for the sake of having vehicles. Either that, or they assume that it would be accompanied by a shift to a GTA-sized scope.