1UP interview with Emil

[Tigranes]

Uh, overboard much?

There're some stupid things in there that betrays a lack of thought (UK->US travel, companions/ending, etc) but it's not a pile of glistening poo.

Yeah... like those terrible games where you just run down the same dark subway tunnel.

Yeah, maybe they should have copy & pasted the Behemoths to keep with the design? I mean, the subways were boring, but that's no reason to attack them for, uh, not including a lot of Behemoths, which would have been moronic.

Here I think he's too embarrassed to admit he doesn't know what a "character build" is.

Or maybe Emil actually can't remember. I mean, this is right down 'your mom' jokes.

What simple guy knows what a republic is?

Next, we can mock him about how they got the exact shade of brown wrong in the Wasteland, and throw in a soil erosion joke.

Seriously, it's not like there's a lack of stuff in FO3 to constructively criticise without going nyah-nyah at Emil. It's also nice to hear these kind of afterthoughts from the designer, by the way.

The explanations for the companions/ending screwup is the one that makes the most sense, I guess, given what we've got. I think it would be a lot more palatable as a simple "sorry we couldn't fit it in" if the ending itself wasn't so crap and nonsensical to begin with (The magical purifier-which-shalt-explode-if-you-don't-turn-it-on, etc). Fawkes' comment about 'destiny', for instance, would have toed the line of acceptability if you had built an emotional connection with your dad over the course of the game. As it is, the main quest is too short, the time you spend with your dad is extremely annoying, you are shoe-horned into a particular role awash with NWN1-ish heroic language, and Fawkes' comment only serves to reinforce the paper-house feeling of the whole hero-dad thing.

Never mind how Alistair Tenpenny's complete lack of backstory, motivation and logical behaviour is passed off as "giving players something to think about", eh.

Oh, did anybody think it was weird how they say they wanted to end FO3 because... FO1 and FO2 end as well? What?

 

[Genma:TheDestroyer]

Hum, perhaps the DLC will change things so you can convince your more suitable companions to carry out the radiation task, thus freeing you up for later adventures.

Or, if you're more manipulative and don't care what happens to them, even being able to convince your normal human companions to go out in a final blaze of glory.


You'd think that would be a logical choice for one way of resolving the issue.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

From what I remember Emil or Todd once said themselves that they do very little on preparations, they more jump into game development right away without thinking to much what they are making.

Indeed they did and I got shit (maybe not here) for calling them out on shitty design. Having done some mechanical engineering projects myself, I know that if you just skip to the build phase that you will always end up with a flawed end product.

Yeah, maybe they should have copy & pasted the Behemoths to keep with the design? I mean, the subways were boring, but that's no reason to attack them for, uh, not including a lot of Behemoths, which would have been moronic.

The point is that his given reason is demonstratively bogus as they did what he said they didn't want to do other places in the game.

It's true there are a few references to the characters, events, and locations of Fallout and Fallout 2, but they're mostly there as cool nods for fans that played those earlier PC games... We wanted to tell our own story, without too many direct ties to what had come before.

Oh of course, that's why you decided to make a sequel and not a spin-off or spiritual successor, you didn't want to be bogged down by all of that canon.

No, actually, there was never a draft of the story that featured a different faction -- it was always the Enclave. Why? For us, it just made so much sense. I mean, Fallout 2 established the Enclave as the remnant of the U.S. government, yet they'd set up shop on an oil rig off the coast of California. Wouldn't they eventually want to get back to Washington D.C. -- the nation's capital -- and set up shop again? Our game's set in D.C., so they were the perfect antagonists for us.

California's one of the world's largest economies by itself, has a very good climate (fertile, easy to survive in, weather is fairly tame [ie no hurricanes], etc.), and has a lot of resources. Why exactly would they give a shit about D.C. exactly?

So the story does kind of break down. But you know what? We knew that, and were OK with it, because the trade-off is, well, you get these cool followers to join you.

You had shitty design that didn't make sense so instead of delaying the project to fix it, you just put it out because you thought that what was gained was bigger than the glaring flaws? Here's an idea, fix it in a post-release patch that's free (like The Witcher). Also, you said in another interview that the whole point of the main quest was sacrifice which would mean that these followers would fuck up that idea and your bogus idea for how the game would end would only be an option, one that most people wouldn't take on their first play through.

In general, it's really tough to try and pinpoint where certain ideas or creative influences come from. It's not usually that specific. When inspiration strikes, it strikes, and creativity follows. But I'll try to narrow these down a bit.

When "inspiration strikes" you are saying that someone was suddenly hit with an idea, it's rare for multiple people to have the same inspiration, let alone an entire design team with an entire product.

As for having a town of little kids? It just seemed like a good addition to the fiction, showing yet another way people in the Wasteland have survived over the years.

...What? How exactly does a town that banishes adults survive in a wasteland where resources are scarce and raiders are plentiful? It was a shitty ripoff of "Lord of the Flies" that didn't fit the setting at all.

Hey, what can I say? It seemed like somewhere out in the Wasteland, there'd be a simple guy, named Dave, who wanted to start his own republic. Hell, if the world ended, and you were still alive, wouldn't you?

A republic named after a single person? How exactly does this make any fucking sense? Maybe you ought to choose a government that isn't communal in nature.

But it was also an opportunity to introduce another character from outside the U.S. Allistair Tenpenny came to the Capital Wasteland from Great Britain to seek his fortune, so that alone tells you that the U.K. was also hit in the war. And if he came to U.S. to succeed, that says a lot about how screwed up Europe must be. So we just allude, a little bit, to the state of the rest of the world. We like to leave a lot to the players' imaginations, and somebody like Tenpenny serves as a catalyst for those thoughts.

Here's a question, if Europe is as shitty as you suggest, how the fuck did he cross the ocean when the US doesn't have any seafaring capability?

Nope, there's not. For us, it was about reinforcing to the player that, you know, the Capital Wasteland is a brutal place, and sometimes, not everything is black and white -- or has a completely happy ending. If that's not the essence of Fallout, I don't know what is.

What's not black and white about one group or the other having to kill off the other? Yes, you had some good ideas for this quest but your execution was pretty shitty, unconvincing, and aggravating for players. Not because you couldn't save everyone but because the major plot twist happened completely off screen and the explanation for it was all but non-existent and the reactions of the characters involved towards you was also completely contrary to their actions.

When we originally wrote the main story, your character died at the end. There was really only that one ending. We liked the serious tone of it and felt the theme of sacrifice was really important for what we were doing with the game. But then we realized that, well, not having multiple ways to complete the game was pretty contrary to the spirit of Fallout. So we designed and implemented a few ways to end the game: You can sacrifice yourself inside the purifier, you can have Sarah Lyons go in, or you can just stand there and refuse to do anything (and the purifier complex will blow up around you).

Translation: we originally designed the game and then realized that the game was too different from Fallout to even pretend that it was a sequel so we made some shitty simply alternatives to pretend and then lied that we offered exponentially more than we actually did.

What we didn't realize is that, largely because of Oblivion, people really expected Fallout 3 not to end! It's something they've come to expect of us, and we underestimated that. You can be sure it's a mistake we won't repeat in the future.

First off, you're greatly innovative, not wanting to change things because damn, that might catch people off guard. Second, maybe if you actually listened to fan/community input you wouldn't have this problem since this expectation was clear for a damn long time on the Bethesda forums.

 

[4too]

The Future Is Now

The Future Is Now



1) Dave. Didn't Douglas Adams have a self actualizing egocentric in 'Salmon Of Doubt?'


2) Future plot device: wake up and it was all a DREAM! Can restart retread retell any tale. Yeah, who shot J.R.



3) Here's another bit of magic to ponder ...

Between the dire economic forecasts, some media time is filled with sweet nothings about the seemingly recession proof video game industry.
Most coo about the Wii and the designs for, the designs on, casual gamers as *proof* of a broad based demographic.
Bigger market, eternal acceleration of profits, ... amen.

Oh, and recall how other talking heads like the "B" word, their mouths emote -- BILLIONS - with a curious inflection -- envy / greed? ,
Appears to be a strange fixated emphasis on gross profits
when talking trash about how the game industry may some day surpass the movie /TV industry in money minting "pow-ahz".

Games are reputed to be cheaper to extrude then AAA movies.
And, from this interview we see why, games -- especially big sand box simulations -- are not burdened with presenting a coherent story.
Story continuity fails in a movie and the fourth wall of immersion / fantasy comes tumbling down, movie becomes an 'art flick', too cool to be hindered by plot and delivery, too cool to be well written and organized in production, just dig it man...
When story fades in a game, well -- traditionally, the story is just an excuse for the immersion of gameplay, or the immersion of splatter humor, jiggle physics and bloom graphics.

For years and years. video games seem to still be hyper complex productions, seemingly unprofessional and disorganized, no time to fill in plot holes, no time to bug hunt.
Out on the shelves by the Christmas quarter. More luck then planning. Happy accidents.
Expressed immersion by video quality is only a hook, the real spell, the altered state reality, may be inducing repetitive motion hypnotics by the obsessed mental state of grinding game play.
Behavior modification as entertainment, well no news there ...

Hey-hey-hey-- B-soft made the dead line, shipped the boxes, and was never hindered by having to solidify a story, that's par for a billion, BILLION, dollar industry!

A fast track prestidigitation passes as good enough, good enough for who it's for, you me and all our casual pals, and the media drum beat raves 11 out of 10 hyperbolism!

We buy that 11 out of 10 moonshine, it's part of the price of entry of this encapsulated illusion called a video game.
The hype grooms our expectations. Expectations guide our experience, our enjoyment of the fast mass marketed mirage.

Yeah, I want to invest my dwindling retirement portfolio on this THIS game entertainment industry?

If can save money on writers, can save money on the producers and all the production heads, and bet on a happy accident?

For all the talk of business experience and 'proven' performance models it's all just a gamble, ain't it!

Please, save the 'sure thing' hype for the nex' speculation bubble, the nex' ponsey / pyramid scheme the nex' gen--eration of smart money.

Games are games, and the sooner the focus is on making games, and not gaming the market, the better and healthier this industry may be .
Just for fun ... How about basing this fantasy industry on a sliver of coherent fiscal reality,
more a crafted product then a product of craft?

The saving grace for this interviewee, is that B-soft is still in the 'game' and ready to roll out the plot patches on their work(s) in progress.
AND THERE'S MORE ... the best of all come ons!
No procrastinator in history could be this lucky! Right? All in the plan, all in the deal, a fast shuffle business model, 3 card showmanship ftw!

If B-soft is the tip top of these disorganized organizations and the template business model then we know how the wanna bees will emulate, we know the future.
We see it now and it will be repeated until the next bubble bursts.

Save the story for the movies, that's their problem!

We see the now, we see the future.

We see, we do, stimulus response, that's all the story that matters for the Big Billions.

The future is now.

Are we there yet?




4too

 

[AskWazzup]

Although before the game was out, i still had some hope that emil might raise the quality bar for bethesda, if just a bit, it seems that i was wrong. This guy is just as cheesy as Todd, with the exception that he sometimes tries to add some macabre tones to the game (although he usually fails at that also).

It seems that bethesda just doesn't have any people who could delve a bit deeper when it comes to irony, sarcasm, logic and tie all those aspects together to something that makes sense and establishes a subtile atmosphere for the game.

These interviews with the main people from bethesda kind of reinforces my belief that they are just a bunch of amateurs who just so happen to have a wealthy publisher making up for their lack of talent with big marketing campaigns.

EP: Liberty Prime is kind of an interesting case. We knew we wanted to have this big, pre-war, anticommunist robot. In the original plan, he was going to be massive, and the player was going to ride in his head, anime style. And, well, yeah -- that never happened! And then there's the name.... He was actually named long before the Transformers movie, and long before Optimus Prime sort of reentered the American consciousness. Honestly, he wasn't named after Optimus Prime, as most people suspect. At least, not intentionally -- but the subconscious is powerful thing, and I pull a lot of stuff from there unintentionally

This is horrible

 

[TyloniusFunk]

irony, sarcasm, logic tied together so that it makes sense and establishes a subtle atmosphere

This is just it. There is no theme. This interview is a sad moment for video game legitimacy.

amateurs who just so happen to have a wealthy publisher making up for their lack of talent with big marketing campaigns.

Rather, production units. I'm sure they're giving 110% 4too.

 

[coliphorbs]

This pisses me off:

When we originally wrote the main story, your character died at the end. There was really only that one ending. We liked the serious tone of it and felt the theme of sacrifice was really important for what we were doing with the game. But then we realized that, well, not having multiple ways to complete the game was pretty contrary to the spirit of Fallout. So we designed and implemented a few ways to end the game: You can sacrifice yourself inside the purifier, you can have Sarah Lyons go in, or you can just stand there and refuse to do anything (and the purifier complex will blow up around you).

And then you went ahead and advertised lies about 200 different ending variations? SCHYEAAAAAH.

But eh, Bethesda and false advertising are old news. Remember that original Oblivion trailer? Haw haw..

 

[TheWesDude]

no, no, no... you guys dont understand.

they did not create this game to:

be intelligent
be coherent
be a sequel
for you
for me


if you do not like the mechanics, they didnt create it for you

if i do not like the mechanics, they did not create it for me

if you do not like the story, well you get the idea.

they wrote it FOR THEMSELVES.

all the justifications end right there. it makes sense for them, thusly it is. how DARE you expect THEM to want coherency or a faithful sequel... they only promised a game THEY would want to play.

and they did. 11/10.

BUT

by MY standards, FO3 is more of a 3-4/10

 

[Ovg]

This guy just shown, what Bethesda was thinking. When he speaks about Little Lamplight he actually shows us, that they found it so uber-cool, that they added it to their game. Also, when he says that the ending has much to do with fallout 1 AND 2 he get's it partialy wrong. Although in FO1 after you defeated (one way, or another) the main "boss", you were getting endgame video. In fallout 2 you didn't have to end your game, there was even more content revealed to the player after the end boss fight! I just hope they'll get better at making good games.

 

[Chancellor Kremlin]

This pisses me off:

When we originally wrote the main story, your character died at the end. There was really only that one ending. We liked the serious tone of it and felt the theme of sacrifice was really important for what we were doing with the game. But then we realized that, well, not having multiple ways to complete the game was pretty contrary to the spirit of Fallout. So we designed and implemented a few ways to end the game: You can sacrifice yourself inside the purifier, you can have Sarah Lyons go in, or you can just stand there and refuse to do anything (and the purifier complex will blow up around you).

And then you went ahead and advertised lies about 200 different ending variations? SCHYEAAAAAH.

But eh, Bethesda and false advertising are old news. Remember that original Oblivion trailer? Haw haw..

Ha! Indeed, they fixed it! By adding THREE COMPLETELY AND NOVEL WAYS FOR YOU TO DIE!!! Some choice indeed.

EP: No, actually, there was never a draft of the story that featured a different faction -- it was always the Enclave. Why? For us, it just made so much sense. I mean, Fallout 2 established the Enclave as the remnant of the U.S. government, yet they'd set up shop on an oil rig off the coast of California. Wouldn't they eventually want to get back to Washington D.C. -- the nation's capital -- and set up shop again? Our game's set in D.C., so they were the perfect antagonists for us.

Yes it makes so much sense to revive a faction that was killed off from the top down. Off course, im going to quote the

FOR US IT MADE SO MUCH SENSE

Convenience maybe? Im glad it made sense FOR THEM because for me it absolutely didn't.

I think this sums up Bethesdas overall quality standards:

and he's got a really cool scene there -- and it's like, "Oh, yeah -- now I'm gonna show the Wasteland who's boss."

[/quote]

 

[MrBumble]

Liberty Prime is kind of an interesting case. We knew we wanted to have this big, pre-war, anticommunist robot. In the original plan, he was going to be massive, and the player was going to ride in his head, anime style. And, well, yeah -- that never happened!

Awwww that's tooooooo bad...

1UP: Can you discuss the decision to have the main quest end the game? Why not let the player wander the Capital Wasteland afterward?

EP: When we originally wrote the main story, your character died at the end. There was really only that one ending. We liked the serious tone of it and felt the theme of sacrifice was really important for what we were doing with the game.

So...cliché...



His answer about the end of the game was just as lame as I expected...Well at least he's honnest about how little thought was placed into the main storyline.

 

[Alphadrop]

I was surprised when I first heard how they develop games. It's all so slap dash and rushed in development it's quite amazing they came out with a game at all.
Also surprised they can't see those glaring plot holes, though maybe they are so big that you need to step back a bit to see them

 

[Silencer]

Meh. The only spoiler here would be how limited the options are at endgame, if we couldn't have expected it.

 

[JR Jansen]

Re: The Future Is Now

Yeah, who shot J.R.

Nobody, i'm still here.

Sorry, couldn't resist

 

[Chancellor Kremlin]

Has anybody ever heard of BBC's ''Hardtalk''? I wish just for once they would get an interviewer who just didn't play ball, you know, like instea of:

''Yeah we knew it was a major plot hole''
''Oh ok, yes, and now to the next question..''

Something more like:

''WHAT THE FUCK!? YOU KNEW!!!!

Perhaps NMA should organise a number of set questions for Fallout 3's production team to answer, and electe somebody to ask them.

 

[M-26-7]

It's actually kind of hilarious when it really gets down to it.
1UP: So that whole plot thing, that was kind of a big fuck up on your part....
Emil: Hmmm?
1UP: You know, the whole ghoul, Fawkes, and the robot thing?
Emil: Oh yeah, heh heh, that was a pretty big fuck up wasn't it? Yeah well the NPCs were just an afterthought, we realized people might get a little pissed if we left such a staple of the series out. But while our designers were busy half-assing the whole npc part, our writers alerted us to this whole 'plot hole' business. We figured, since we already had the story made out, why adjust it to be coherent, because frankly it was hardly coherent to begin with
1Up: <3 Emil <3 ^,^ XOXOXO

 

[BloodyPuppy]

Well I wouldn't call companions a series staple. In fact I recall that they were a last second addition to Fallout 1.

 

[Beelzebud]

But with each of these, even if the player character doesn't die, the game ends. We'd discussed this, and were like, "You know what? Fallout and Fallout 2 ended. We should end our game, too." What we didn't realize is that, largely because of Oblivion, people really expected Fallout 3 not to end! It's something they've come to expect of us, and we underestimated that. You can be sure it's a mistake we won't repeat in the future.

So the lead designer of Fallout 3 didn't actually bother to play the first two games?

It's amazing to me that these people have such disregard for the franchise they bought out. The nerve of him to dismiss Fallout 2 of not letting you keep playing after the end, at the same time trying to claim credit for that concept from Oblivion... When it's just flat out wrong! One of the things I used to do was wander around a beaten Fallout 2 finishing all the side quests and optional things.

It's not something people have come to expect of Bethesda, the only people that seem to complain about it are ones that actually played the original games!

 

[Flick]

Because we are the only people who played them.

 

[Beelzebud]

If I had some talent I'd redo the South Park Indiana Jones episode to be Bethesda's head honchos raping the Vault Boy.