Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Role Playing (Games) Games

Fallout: New Vegas Coming This Fall, Trailer Released 100

Posted by Soulskill
from the out-is-still-falling dept.
Bethesda announced today that Fallout: New Vegas is scheduled for release sometime this fall, and they released a trailer as well. Details are scant yet on the official site, but they had this to say: "Experience all the sights and sounds of fabulous New Vegas, brought to you by Vault-Tec, America's First Choice in Post Nuclear Simulation. Explore the treacherous wastes of the Great Southwest from the safety and comfort of your very own vault: Meet new people, confront terrifying creatures, and arm yourself with the latest high-tech weaponry as you make a name for yourself on a thrilling new journey across the Mojave wasteland. A word of warning, however — while Vault-Tec engineers have prepared for every contingency,* in Vegas, fortunes can change in an instant. Enjoy your stay. (* Should not be construed as a legally-binding claim.)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fallout: New Vegas Coming This Fall, Trailer Released

Comments Filter:
  • by c0mpliant (1516433) on Friday February 05, 2010 @03:44AM (#31032422)
    Obama has advised people not blow money on Vegas, I think I'll follow that advice
    • by JustOK (667959)

      save your money for the ncaab brackets.

    • Obama has advised people not blow money on Vegas, I think I'll follow that advice

      After blowing up Vegas with a nuke, I don't think that blowig a little money before your head rots off is that big a deal.

      No one expects the zombie apocolypse.

    • by JustNilt (984644)

      Actually, the way I heard it, he used people blowing money in Vegas or buying a boat when they can't afford to do so as an analogy for the way the US government is spending money. Apparently he should have used a car analogy instead.

      Back on topic, I was a little disappointed in Fallout. It was a great game but I'd hoped for a grittier feel. Hehe ... no, seriously, I can hardly wait. I love post-apocalyptic stuff like this, especially when there's humor involved.

    • Yeah! If you didn't like Fallout 3 because they changed things, I can't imagine why you'd want to play a Fallout game made by the creators of the original games.
  • I don't think I even did everything that is possible in Fallout 3. Not that I want to complain! Looking really forward to this one. Fallout 3 has kept me on the edge of my seat for many many hours! But I am a bit confused by the article calling it fallout 3.5. Is this standalone? Or New dlc?
    • by mykos (1627575)

      I do believe that it is its own game.

    • Re:That is fast! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by djsmiley (752149) <djsmiley2k@gmail.com> on Friday February 05, 2010 @03:53AM (#31032466) Homepage Journal

      Stand alone...

      What worries me now is the word "simulation" in the middle of that statement. I loved fallout 3; played through 3 times (twice for both karma routes + once for all dlc). The only DLC I didn't really enjoy was anchoridge simply because it was a "simulation" and a game for me is a simulation, so you get one inside the other, which then only limits more of what you can do/what is acceptable.

      In anchoridge I didn't really care about the person I was controlling as it wasn't "now". Sounds stupid I know as its still a game but I didn't have the connect with the chara. I'd built up over 30 or so hours...

      • by santax (1541065)
        I know what you mean. It is hard to roleplay someone who is roleplaying. Had the same thing (and i found it awfully linear) but, that Chinese suite rocks :D Thanks for the quick answer btw.
      • Re:That is fast! (Score:4, Informative)

        by mlk (18543) <michael.lloyd.le ... NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday February 05, 2010 @04:29AM (#31032608) Homepage Journal

        The phrase "Vault-Tec America’s First Choice in Post Nuclear Simulation" was used in the PR for Fallout 3 as well. I think it was even on the back of Fallout3s box.

        • Right - either that, or Bethesda is going to release an actual nuke, so that we can all run around the blast zone shooting at mutated wildlife.
          • Re:That is fast! (Score:4, Informative)

            by TheGeniusIsOut (1282110) on Friday February 05, 2010 @11:31AM (#31035538)
            All Fallout games have been referred to as simulations in their respective manuals, the premise from the original Fallout being that these were simulations experienced by Vault dwellers to prepare them for life outside the vault.
          • by mlk (18543)

            The key part of the phrase is "Vault-Tec". The Fallout 3 the manual (and various bits of PR) are written in such a way that it is not a game released by Bethesda, but a simulation released by Vault-Tec for people living within the vaults.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by RogueyWon (735973) *

        Noted and agreed. However, I don't think we need to worry too much.

        Looking at the Fallout 3 manual, you can see that it's also written in Vault-Tec style, but also refers to Fallout 3 as "simulation" in places. I think the implication is supposed to be that Vault-Tec is real world coroporation, and the game we have bought is the simulation.

        Oh, and for the record, I thought Operation: Anchorage was basically... well... ok. Adequate, I guess. If there was a real stinker among the DLCs, it was surely Mothershi

        • The problem with Broken Steel raising the level cap to 30 was that it basically trivialized the portion of the game with regards to "it's better to be a specialist then a generalist" aspect. With 10 more levels, it was pretty easy to get to 90+ in all skills.

          MZ was basically a big piggy-bank in the sky, completely out of place in the FO3 universe. The only interesting portion of it was the audio recordings of the captives. Definitely the least favorite of the expansions, even if some of the puzzles / e
          • The problem with Broken Steel raising the level cap to 30 was that it basically trivialized the portion of the game with regards to "it's better to be a specialist then a generalist" aspect. With 10 more levels, it was pretty easy to get to 90+ in all skills.

            Fallout 3 Wanderers Edition fixes this with its "level 30 balance" module, you get a lot less points to distribute. FWE also uses skill books to give you perks instead of skill points. The end result is that you actually have to specialize in certain sk

      • I didn't really enjoy was anchoridge simply because it was a "simulation" and a game for me is a simulation,

        I think that what was wrong with Anchorage wasn't how they framed it in the game, it was the lack of plot, characters, sidequests, or creativity in that DLC. Mothership Zeta wasn't a game-in-game "simulation" but still sucked worse than Anchorage for the same reasons.

    • I don't think I even did everything that is possible in Fallout 3. Not that I want to complain! Looking really forward to this one. Fallout 3 has kept me on the edge of my seat for many many hours! But I am a bit confused by the article calling it fallout 3.5.

      Is this standalone? Or New dlc?

      It can be new and standalone but not revolutionary enough to be fallout 4 Is my guess. They will get the game engine and put some new graphics,characters,storyline,weapons and objects in.

      I loved fallout 3 so I am not necessarily complaining.

      I actually found this to be the most addictive single player game ever. I have a short attention span and this nearly didnt cut it for me as it took more than 60 secs to actually do anything but I am glad I persevered. I am now left wondering what other games I have miss

      • by santax (1541065)
        I have mass effect 2 and also a short attention span. Personally I liked fallout 3 better, but this due to some insane battles you will be doing right from the start in Mass Effect. For me fallout 3 was more convincing. However, be sure to give it a try! The story is very nice. (although I only played for about 6 hours) Dragon Age could also be interesting, but it was to much text for me. And you are probably right with the engine and all.
        • I have mass effect 2 and also a short attention span. Personally I liked fallout 3 better, but this due to some insane battles you will be doing right from the start in Mass Effect. For me fallout 3 was more convincing. However, be sure to give it a try! The story is very nice. (although I only played for about 6 hours) Dragon Age could also be interesting, but it was to much text for me. And you are probably right with the engine and all.

          I shall give Dragon Age a go then - thanks for that. I shall have to play it when the other half isn't around as I dont want her thinking I am a geek :)
          Shooting things or driving fast is manly right??? :)

          • by santax (1541065)
            True but in this case I would suggest to keep the other half there... I know ms. Santax fell in love with both dragon age and mass effect. Then again, I think she is a nerd :D (can you believe it, she collects star wars-dvd's and has those things on the front that we manly men all love so much)
          • by JosKarith (757063)
            My other half bought Dragon Age the day it came out. Though I completed it first, so it's all good. She did beat me to the end in Fallout 3, but that's cos' I dodged the main quest as much as possible to get as many side quests in as I could.
          • by Draek (916851)

            Watching ladies making out with each other is manly, but the womenfolk tend to complain when you do it in front of them for some reason.

            Anyways, I hope you enjoy Dragon Age, I know I did :) though I'm of the kind that's easily obsessed, I spent about four hours on the Character Creator alone before playing, so my experience may not necessarily relate to that of anybody else in this thread.

            • Watching ladies making out with each other is manly, but the womenfolk tend to complain when you do it in front of them for some reason.

              Anyways, I hope you enjoy Dragon Age, I know I did :) though I'm of the kind that's easily obsessed, I spent about four hours on the Character Creator alone before playing, so my experience may not necessarily relate to that of anybody else in this thread.

              I am not sure whether the experience was making out with other men,womenfolk complaining or something about dragon age now ;)

          • Mass Effect 2 > Fallout 3 > DA:O

            After a certain dramatic event in Fallout 3 that changed the course of the game, I just didn't care enough about the general population to keep "fighting the good fight." DA:O became incredibly boring for me while in the dwarven caves - I wish I would have stuck with it, but I would sit at my PC and just yawn and wonder what was on the tele. ME2 has been non-stop action through about 30 hours (except the tedious, ridiculous mineral searches).

        • I really liked all the text in Dragon Age, but then again I really liked the characters and love just spending time talking to them. I thought the game had some of the most fleshed out characters I've ever seen in a video game. My only real problem with the game was that I've found that mages aren't really as fun or powerful as the other classes.

          Also, for those missing it in Fallout 3, Dragon Age does give you the opportunity to kill a small child.

          • by Nasarius (593729)
            The characters in DAO are goddamn amazing. By far the best in any game I've played. They genuinely feel like people with consistent personalities, who react very differently to each other, to your actions, and to your words. You can't get away with mindlessly tapping the "positive" dialogue option (like you can in the Mass Effects) if you want, say, Morrigan to like you.
            • On the other hand, I did appreciate being able to even talk to some random schlub, let alone find their missing whotsit, without Morrigan bitching incessantly about it.

            • Nicely said. I played through DA:O The first time, and being that this is my first time playing a game of this type, (choose responses and it affects love/hate relationships) I found it very interesting that each set of characters has things that they feel and care about.

              That said, i'm on my second round playing through and I'm as enthralled by the story as the first time. you miss things playing it only once.
  • While Fallout 3 was not bad I was always feeling something is amiss, most probably because Bethesda's team is still different from the original Black Isle.

    Now we're finally seeing the day the Fallout license is back on the original Black Isle developers' hands, in their new company. This game is seriously going to rock.
    • by ergean (582285)

      Same here. I miss the feeling from fallout 1 & 2. Somehow Fallout 3 feels like Oblivion with new toys. :(

      While I enjoyed the Alien DLC... there is something missing in all of that.

      And the ending was not that great. I remember finishing the 1 & 2 a few times just to see the ending. Now I don't even care to start the game again. Even Mass Effect felt more enjoyable.

    • by Supurcell (834022) on Friday February 05, 2010 @06:48AM (#31033172)
      But Obsidian's only done sequels. Sequels that didn't live up to the originals(KotOR 2 and NWN 2). I agree that Black Isle was a great company and made some great games, but the same magic was not present in Obsidian, or Troika for that matter.
      • by meringuoid (568297) on Friday February 05, 2010 @08:32AM (#31033742)
        Sequels that didn't live up to the originals(KotOR 2 and NWN 2).

        KOTOR 2 was terrific, up until near the end when everything fell apart because it was just not finished, because the publisher insisted they just ship immediately to make Christmas rather than actually writing an ending. Hence the long optional dialogues at the end with Darth Traya filling in a bunch of loose ends of the plot for you. Otherwise, it was essentially Planescape: Torment in a Star Wars setting.

      • by MattLees (1127603)
        Agreed NWN2 was just not as good as the original. Oh it added a some shiny graphics but at the expense of requiring a supercomputer to run properly. You could run a server and a client of the original on any old machine without a problem.
      • by jgtg32a (1173373)

        Funny thing is if you follow the Black Isle guys around you'll quickly find out that all the games they are apart of have amazing stories and the best writing, with is then off set by a lot of bugs, and glitches.

        However it seems this time it'll be a bit different Obsidian has hired Oscuro, from the modding community.
        Oscuro is damn good with the Gamebryo Engine which powers Oblivion and FO3. Because admit it Bethesda isn't really know for releasing well polished game, there are a lot of bugs on rele

        • WOW, that's a good pickup by Obsidian. I consider OOO Lite to be an absolute necessity for playing Oblivion. Bethesda created the world, and Oscuro made it a deep, enticing experience.

          If he's involved in this, I will be buying. I liked Fallout 3 better than Oblivion, and adding OOO into the mix just SCREAMS quality!

      • by revlayle (964221)
        Sans Alpha Protocol - that is an original game that Obsidian is making (to be published by Sega)
  • I fondly recall playing Fallout and Fallout 2, but still haven't tried Fallout 3. Between that game being 3D and real time on the one hand, and moralistically limiting actions (no killing children, for example) on the other, I'm afraid it won't be the same, or even that it'll somehow ruin the first couple games.

    So, I'm asking anyone who's played all three games: is Fallout 3 really Fallout? Will this new game be?

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Denihil (1208200)
      Honestly, from my experience, nothing will be the same as the original experience, even if it was back to isometric tiles again. Though honestly i don't think that's the producers fault, but more along the lines of growing up a bit, changing individual values (i.e. nowadays we expect something different in a game we buy subconsciously) and other factors which everything said make us just not like a franchise as much as we used to.
      I mean, this is all personal experience, don't get me wrong, but i'm 25 now.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by DoctorFuji (1331807)
      Just finished playing Fallout and Fallout 2, after playing Fallout 3 (twice). I think there is continuity in the story line and the "world" of Fallout is maintained in Fallout 3. The biggest difference is playing from a different perspective since FO3 is first person. The biggest improvement IMO is that travel in FO3 is better. I had a few random encounters in FO and FO2 where I got wiped out, whereas in FO3 you can better manage when to run away. Just started FO Tactics with much improved graphics, but not
      • >If only they would go back and upgrade the graphics to the first two....

        Graphics? I thought the graphics were fine. They should upgrade the bugs.

        Fallout's finest charm is the combat takes place in discrete space. All of your units are standing on tiles, with different distances and angles from each other. This is like X-Com, any "tactics" game, and even the original Wasteland. In particular, I never had friendly fire be such an issue in a game besides Fallout. (Granted, X-Com had a lot of F
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Beefmancer (1260556)
      Personally, my answer in "no". Fallout 3 doesn't showcase the intelligent writing of the first games, or immerse the player in the same way. It feels uninspired to me (the old "Oblivion with guns" critique sounds right) and suffers from some poor design choices, despite a ton of great work going into the visual environment. So as you guessed, it's not the same. Fortunately I can see it as a work from different people, so it doesn't ruin anything for me!
      • by thepotoo (829391)

        Exactly. If you cared about the writing and characters in the original Fallout games, you will be sorely disappointed with FO3. However, combat was better in FO3, the world was neat to explore, and it felt just right - until you started talking with the NPCs.

    • by LtGordon (1421725)

      I fondly recall playing Fallout and Fallout 2, but still haven't tried Fallout 3. Between that game being 3D and real time on the one hand, and moralistically limiting actions (no killing children, for example) on the other, I'm afraid it won't be the same, or even that it'll somehow ruin the first couple games.

      I know, right! The inability to ruthlessly murder young children is what stopped me from buying Uncharted 2.

    • Re:Recommendation (Score:5, Informative)

      by oneiros27 (46144) on Friday February 05, 2010 @09:09AM (#31034000) Homepage

      I've played through Fallout 3 twice, and each of the first two more than that. I've even played Fallout: Tactics.

      It's not the same game, but it's still very good. Some of my major complaints:

      • The humor's just not the same. Yes, there's humor there, and I had hope in Bethesda (the lead on Oblivion was also an author of the RPG Paranoia), but it's not what I would've hoped for
      • The morality aspects are massively simplified -- there's a whole *one* karma meter; there's no concept of factions. (for those who didn't play the originals -- you'd have to develop your reputation with the Brotherhood of Steel, the Bandits, each town you came to, etc.)
      • Most of the perks are pretty boring -- and if you go to level 30, it's even worse. The original allowed you to take disadvantages to get more points to spend on other things.
      • It's too easy to max your skills ... tag skills are just +15 to a skill. I wanted to say that in the original, it was harder to get skills up to the higher levels (like it started costing 2 points per skill point, but it only cost 1/2 for tag skills)
      • Fast travel is lame ... you never have the random encounters in-transit, although they do make it so you drop right into the middle of the area you're going to fully populated with people (I regularly go to Wheaton Armory to make some fast money). And the times are completely unrealistic -- the time that passes on the clock is negligible compared to walking it. (which wasn't even possible in the originals)
      • And when walking it -- you have something that just magically tells you when here's areas worth investigating nearby? I guess that gives you a reward for walking about, but they could've at least done it so you don't know about everything when you're 5mi away. (some areas are going to be noticable from miles away; some aren't)
      • VATS was well done, but I miss shooting out the eyes -- even if it didn't kill, it gave you a chance to even the odds.
      • There's now variant weapons, but no variant ammo to give you a slight boost, but have to conserve. And ammo gets to be *way* too plentiful. (I used it like caps, as it had no weight -- and anyone who's ever carried around a case of 1000 rounds of anything (other than 22, perhaps) for an extended amount of time knows that's not true)
      • They screwed up on what's of value ... caps inside a safe? Sure, if it's an area that's in use ... in an old vault, they should be in trash cans. And any time you find old money in trash cans, that's just stupid.
      • The explanation for mutants doesn't fit the original story line

      And then, there were some other issues that just didn't make sense to me:

      • A can of pork and beans weighs a pound. An empty can weighs a pound; The same holds true for bottles of stuff and empty bottles.
      • It's set *much* later than the earlier two -- This means that just about any pre-prepared food isn't going to be safe. Any food stores would've been raided years ago. (a soda machine that still has soda in it?).
      • The Washington Monument is made from *stone*. There is *no* metal framework on the inside that would've resulted in it looking liked it did in the game
      • Vendors suddenly just have more money every couple of days ... wouldn't they slowly make other sales, especially the traveling vendors?

      All of that being said, I still played through twice, and I even started a 3rd play-through. (just put it down 'til I finish another project ... and was debating Mass Effect 2, but was told it sucked without an HD TV). It's a good game. It's got some of the personality of the original, and I might be biased as I lived in DC for years, and still live in the metro area, so I got a lot of the places and references. Fallout 3 was well done, and it's a good game, but it could've been better, based on the heritage of the original. As it was, it's more like a ne

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Ranma-sensei (800217)
        Yeah, the humor issue bugged me, too. The originals were more... british, if I might say so.

        Most of the rest... Well, I have like 30 Mods running to fine-tune the look and feel - ever died of radiation poisoning trying to disarm the nuke? Or how about shooting a Death Claw with a dart gun and then killing it with BBs while dancing around it? No problem with correctly calculated crippling effects.

        Additionaly, I definitely use the original FO music files.

        However, they did get one thing right:
        In FO1, 2
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by nine-times (778537)

        My main complaint is that it's a little too violent. I don't mean in the "I don't want my kids to play violent games" sense, nor do I mean, "Ewwww... blood and guts, I don't want to see that!" What I mean is, my recollection of the previous fallout games was that you could go from town to town without really fighting anyone. When you did run across some kind of adversary, you could usually find some way around actually fighting them. Often enough, if your character's communication skills were good enoug

        • by Micahsa (815660)
          Great review above and I also agree with the violence aspect. It is much more of a FPS with RPG aspects than a true RPG like the first two. I understand the reasons for this, as you can reach into both camps with this type of hybrid, but playing through a second time maxing the difficulty, it reminded me more of Halo on legendary than a RPG.
      • by flabordec (984984)

        And the times are completely unrealistic

        They screwed up on what's of value ... caps inside a safe? Sure, if it's an area that's in use ... in an old vault, they should be in trash cans. And any time you find old money in trash cans, that's just stupid.

        When two of your biggest complaints are that time is unrealistic and pickups are random, then you know you have a great game

      • by Rayonic (462789)

        The explanation for mutants doesn't fit the original story line

        These mutants are from a different strain of the same virus. Sure its a bit of a handwave, but its perfectly acceptable.

        The Washington Monument is made from *stone*. There is *no* metal framework on the inside that would've resulted in it looking liked it did in the game

        The game does have an alternate history. Its not like the rest of DC is 100% accurate either.

        It's set *much* later than the earlier two -- This means that just about any pre-prepared food isn't going to be safe.

        Said food is sealed and thoroughly irradiated. (With the Fallout universe's unrealistic radiation.)

        The humor's just not the same. Yes, there's humor there, and I had hope in Bethesda (the lead on Oblivion was also an author of the RPG Paranoia), but it's not what I would've hoped for

        Honestly I thought that Fallout 2 was a little bit too wacky.

        • Actually I felt like Fallout's radiation was pretty realistic. Remember, it was the Forced Evolutionary Virus that caused the mutations, not radioactive fallout.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by jgtg32a (1173373)

      Obsidian has a majority of the Black Isle crew the guys who made FO1/2. This will be a proper FO game.
       
      There was a mod that allows you to kill kids BTW

    • by Redlite (1588373)
      Fallout 1 and 2 are superior games in terms of story and overall mood. Fallout 3 is a weak adaptation with nice graphics. However if you judge Fallout 3 on it's own merits without attempting to compare it to the original two then it's a decent game.
    • Short answer: no, it's not Fallout.

      Long answer:

      I was initial worried about the idea of a first-person Fallout game, but after playing the (excellent, excellent) STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl became more hopeful for the idea, and resistant to others' concerns that it would be Oblivion with guns.

      Then I played it.

      It's Oblivion with guns.

      It missed the mark big time on two of the key elements of a Fallout game, which are the leveling system and the branching side quest arcs.

      1. The first two Fallouts encouraged ac

  • Mmm (Score:1, Troll)

    by Dunbal (464142)

    Well, Bethesda is going to learn that there's a price to pay when you release a buggy piece of shit like Fallout 3.

    • by dtolman (688781)
      It was more stable on the PC compared to a lot of other recent games I've played...
      • by JosKarith (757063)
        Considering some of the things Bethesda has released I didn't think it was that buggy. Anyone else remember Void Rangering in Daggerfall?
        Don't get me wrong, I love how open and sandbox Bethesda's games are. They've stolen literally thousands of hours of my life between them. I just would like to be able to play for more than a couple of hours without getting stuck on scenery, or falling through the floor. Hell, in Battlespire there were places you could jump over the world walls and land in the water that
      • There were a lot Of issues on the PS3 version, though. Two of the DLCs (Point Lookout and Broken Steel) were so buggy on my system that they were essentially broken. I had to hard reset the game over 10 times just to get through the last mission of Broken Steel, and I flat-out could not play Point Lookout--the framerate would continuously drop to below 1 FPS, VATS would cause the game to freeze, and going into some areas would simply give you a black screen. It's a good thing I saved before embarking on

        • Check your PS3's vents and placement. I see freezes and a weird choppyness glitch (you know how Oblivion would sometimes be choppy for a second when you crossed into a new cell, it's similar but lasts longer.), but only after my PS3's been running for hours on end.

    • I have to say, I love Bethesda games. They make fantastic fantasy RPG games. However, they're ALL buggy. Morrowind crashed more than any other software on my PC. Oblivion died randomly on me too. They seem to have very very poor Quality Control people, but their writers and artists are pretty top notch.

    • by revlayle (964221)
      yeah like awesome sales records and lots of GOTY awards... THAT'LL TEACH THEM!!
  • ... further Wasteland references. Fallout 1 and 2 still had those.

    I mean, Vegas, that was where you had to rescue an android (or rather - its parts) from cyborg robot-nappers ... and fought the terrifying Scorpitron.

"Our reruns are better than theirs." -- Nick at Nite

Working...