1UP interview with Emil

Discussion in 'NMA News and Information' started by Per, Dec 29, 2008.

  1. Fade

    Fade It Wandered In From the Wastes

    109
    Aug 27, 2007
    Pre-War is the point. It's been 200 years since the war and except for the Vaults everyone is suppose to have changed somewhat. Don't you think that the Enclave would want to gather all of it's troops in one place instead of dying off in small groups all over the country? Why go back to DC when you know it's going to be bombed out like the rest of country?

    The way some of the recent vistors think also blows me away, so I guess we are even on that point. Although you might want to check how we thought when news of Fallout 3 first was released.... both of them.

    What they know isn't geared toward "What is a Republic?" rather more useful things like keeping part of a town running.
     
  2. TyloniusFunk

    TyloniusFunk It Wandered In From the Wastes

    130
    Nov 19, 2008
    How dare you imply that people of the working class are simple!
     
  3. Yazman

    Yazman It Wandered In From the Wastes

    134
    Dec 23, 2004
    I never got the impression that the Enclave had to go "back" to DC.. by pure logic I would imagine that they originated there, and that if they didn't, there would be a lot of valuable government materials/contingency plans/technology in nuclear-proof bunkers stored there... like in the real world. It also never seemed to me in Fallout 2 OR 3 that the Enclave, in ANY location, were in "small groups." The force at the oil rig was MASSIVE, especially considering the resources they had.. and I got the impression from Raven Rock that they had not only an extensive military force but also a pretty large group of scientists.

    I am not a "recent visitor" as I've been coming here for a very long time, its just that I usually come here for news and when I do view the boards I generally never post.
     
  4. Fade

    Fade It Wandered In From the Wastes

    109
    Aug 27, 2007
    I think the problem lies in what assumptions we are making. You are basing yours on the real world where there are nuclear-proof bunkers in DC. While I am seeing the extensive force they had at the Oil Rig & comparing it to the rest of the Fallout world. I just don't see how they can have that massive a force in one place & have much left for other places. Hence why I consider Fallout 3's Enclave to be flawed.

    Recent is subjective and the comment about the way we think doesn't come across as pleasent or like we don't have our reasons for thinking as we do.
     
  5. Kyuu

    Kyuu Insert Awesome Title Here

    Jul 19, 2007
    That's such a tired line of bullshit. One, "NMA" is not a singular entity. It's a forum. There are many people who post, each with their own opinions. Perhaps you may think there's some kind of "group think" mentality, but that's an easy mistake to make when you're not the sort of person who thinks things through. Obviously, a lot of the more tenured posters are going to agree on some points. You'll find a similar phenomenon occurring in most social groups, whether it's an online forum, a neighborhood watch meeting, or a group of old-fogie politicians chairing a committee. I'll leave it to you to try and reason out why this is. It's not that hard.

    However, dissenting viewpoints are not discouraged. People just leap to that conclusion when they come roaring in with tired old arguments that have been presented and refuted before. Then, becoming frustrated, they make more and more a nuisance of themselves until they are finally smacked down by the local authority figures who get tired of it, a.k.a. the mods.

    Anyways, back to the point: even if you insist of thinking of "NMA" as some singular consciousness holding a single set of opinions, the assertion that Bethesda was doomed to being hated no matter what they did is simply foolish. Bethesda made a game that has more in common with Oblivion than any of the Fallout games. Even Tactics did a better job with the canon and Fallout universe, and it was a spin-off. Bethesda's intention was to cash in on their core audience, that's it. They never had any intention of doing anything different than what they do best, as their PR-man made clear from the beginning, and it shows.

    You are entitled to like trash games like Oblivion and it's slightly-modified reskin, Fallout 3. That's your prerogative. That doesn't somehow make it wrong for anyone here to criticize it for being not only a trash game, but a trash game using the IP that Bethesda purchased and, inexplicably, completely tossed out with the exception of the most superficial elements.
     
  6. UncannyGarlic

    UncannyGarlic Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Feb 6, 2008
    Agreed. If the Enclave were interested in DC then they would have been there a lot sooner and taken everything of importance. Also note that the Enclave is completely different than in past games, throwing out any and all attempts to be covert.

    Not sure if that was the intent but I'll say that yes, people are stupid and the lower you go on the education and/or income graph, the stupider people are on average. I bet that if you polled Americans that less than 50% could tell you what a republic is in any detail. Most know that it's a form of government but I'd be surprised if it went any deeper than that.
     
  7. TyloniusFunk

    TyloniusFunk It Wandered In From the Wastes

    130
    Nov 19, 2008
    To lay this to rest for all: I was saying that a "republic" is not a simple thing and therefore a "simple guy" wouldn't know enough about them to want/be able to start one.

    Regarding the lower/working class: people with less money can afford less education/intellectual enrichment and therefore are more often "ignorant". "Stupid", on the other hand, knows no bounds, demographic or otherwise.
     
  8. UncannyGarlic

    UncannyGarlic Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Feb 6, 2008
    Yes they are ignorant but given the variety of definitions for stupid, it depends on usage. In this case it was clear that the use was as follows:
    People with lower incomes and education levels ("working class") are statistically less intelligent, hence they are stupid. Regardless, it's an aside. Agree with your first point.
     
  9. TyloniusFunk

    TyloniusFunk It Wandered In From the Wastes

    130
    Nov 19, 2008
    Reply here.
     
  10. Yazman

    Yazman It Wandered In From the Wastes

    134
    Dec 23, 2004
    When I refer to "NMA" I am not saying it is a single entity, I am referring to the prevailing opinion here that most people have, and have had since before they knew anything about the game. I remember people had zero enthusiasm for it the second it was announced Bethesda had the rights to a Fallout sequel. Many people here complained, whinged and bitched unendingly and with no actual reason to do so in the first year or so when we knew literally NOTHING about Fallout 3.

    I never said anything about dissenting viewpoints being discouraged, and I know they aren't. Most of us here, even the ones I disagree with still make coherent arguments and tend not to resort to ad hominem bullshit like many of the newbies. I agree with you that they often become a nuisance. Not all of them but a lot of them just write their posts in an overly aggressive or condescending way.. although many of us here are also guilty of doing this.

    I don't think NMA is a hive mind consciousness. When I say "NMA" I just refer to the prevailing view here, I freely admit and agree with you that many of us have entirely different opinions. I think probably about 60-70% of people here hate Fallout 3 with a passion though, and the rest either like it or think its an improvement over Interplay's crap (like Fallout 3 and POS). You can see there's a bigger divide over Fallout 3 than any other Fallout-related property just by looking at the often raging debates on the Fallout 3 Discussion board. I apologise for not making what I meant more clearly, I should have clarified it (or just been more precise) rather than just saying "NMA."

    I don't agree, I think it does have some things in common with Fallout 3 but that's just because another company developed a Fallout game. If Bioware developed Fallout 3 it would have had things in common with Mass Effect/KOTOR/Jade Empire, and if Blizzard had developed Fallout 3 it would have things in common with Diablo and WoW.

    I think the best way to put this is when a Blizzard developer responded to accusations of Blizz making Diablo 3 "WoW-like" and that it should have "nothing in common with WoW", and the developer responded and basically said that every developers uses systems and ideas from their recent properties even if the new game they are developing is entirely different, because every new game most developers make is sort of like the sum of all their previous work in the setting of its universe. They take with them what they have learned and they can't really do anything but do that, and thats why Fallout 3 has things in common with Oblivion. I guarantee you that if they make another, it will have a lot LESS in common with the Elder Scrolls series because they have grounded themselves in the game's universe and will thus be able to learn from what didn't work and what did.

    I think Tactics did a terrible thing to the series by virtue of the fact it was a tactics-RPG/strategy-RPG, essentially being a combat-focused game which took away basically all enjoyment I got from playing Fallout - which I get from the role-playing/RPG part. Squaresoft did the same thing when they developed Final Fantasy Tactics which really stands in the same position as Fallout Tactics in terms of how the fans view it. A lot of people like it but a lot of people were disappointed.

    I enjoy the combat part of Fallout but at the end of the day, I can deal without it. I am one of those people who prefers to play mostly avoiding combat and entering it for the parts that advance the story in the way I want it to. For example, random combat I can't fucking stand most of the time but killing Salvatore or the Mordinos is cool with me because its part of the game's world and story, part of my experience. Fallout Tactics is an abomination to me because in my opinion they stripped it of its soul, the "experience" and "role-playing" parts of it.

    Bethesda is a corporation and the purpose of a corporation is inevitably to generate profit by whatever means possible. At the end of the day in a capitalist society passion will ALWAYS give way to profit so what you are saying here is really a moot point. Interplay's intention was to cash in on their core audience too, thats why they developed shitty games like Fallout Tactics (strategy-RPG? A pathetic, horrible fucking game that I despise utterly) and Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel (Basically a Diablo clone, and a TERRIBLE one at that).

    Fallout 3 at least RESEMBLES a Fallout game and is an RPG, and even if its a flawed one I think it is a hell of a lot better than anything Interplay ever produced post-Fallout 2.

    Well I think what they meant by that is, that they were going to use some systems from Oblivion regardless because thats what they know how to do and Fallout 3 could have been a LOT worse if they carbon copied Fallout 2 like you seem to think would be a better option (correct me if I'm wrong). Many of the systems that I dislike in Fallout 3 are not inherently bad but more unpolished.

    Basically I think what they meant by that is that they were going to be influenced in their development by their previous projects no matter what they did with Fallout 3, primarily because no human is capable of disregarding his previous experience, especially when the Bethesda team had been developing the Elder Scrolls series for so long.

    Imagine what Fallout 3 would have been like if developed by Origin, Rockstar, or Blizzard! I guarantee you that it would have had features characteristic of the Ultima series (Origin), or characteristics of Grand Theft Auto (Rockstar), or characteristics of World of Warcraft/Diablo (Blizzard).

    What the fuck? You just pulled that out of your ass. I hate Oblivion and I think it is a thoroughly un-enjoyable game. The only redeeming feature of Oblivion was the Shivering Isles expansion which was actually fantastic imo. But don't put words into my mouth, I never said I liked Oblivion. Once you start telling me what I think without my having said anything of the sort, thats when you start losing all credibility in my eyes.

    I just think many people's criticisms of Fallout 3 are basically nit-picking, or unjustified hatred (and it is hatred a lot of the time) over something they should just be criticising. I don't think its wrong to criticise it but many of the reasons people have for calling it a "trash game" are not enough to justify calling it trash to me, and in many cases are just plain wrong or shortsighted - for example I think its ridiculously silly to assume that the government would not have a presence in its capitol. They had to come from somewhere! They must have had their own vaults around the country that they migrated from, rather than just staying on an oil rig for 200 years.
     
  11. Per

    Per Vault Consort Staff Member Admin

    Apr 1, 2004
    We knew it was being made by the makers of Morrowind/Oblivion, and had some developer quotes like isometric games not being what they do well. That's not "literally nothing", however much whining was extrapolated from it. Given that malcontents were often told by apologists that they shouldn't be voicing their displeasure (whining) until it was effectively too late to influence anything, and that all the predictions of the malcontents came to pass, it's easy to think that the whining was fairly justified in retrospect.
     
  12. TheWesDude

    TheWesDude Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Feb 25, 2005
    at what point does it stop being criticisim?


    1) the looks are ok, but the texture skins are shitty.

    2) very little variety in npcs, they all look the same or fit into several criteria other than the uniqe skinned npcs, and even then they leave a lot to be desired

    3) majority of the quests not involved with the main story arc are unimaginative, feature few options to resolve unlike the originals

    4) multi-player FPS mechanics for combat on a singleplayer game. single player fps games get it much better and have more satisfying combat.

    5) the main story arc is very simplistic, without many overtones, undertones, or shadowing. the ending is horribly written, and horribly executed which is even admitted by bethesda

    6) overall the dialogue is very poor. even teen age level books i have read in the past have far superior writing than the dialogue in this game. yet its written for those over the age of 16 (18)


    what were the games redeeming features???

    story, dialogue, graphics, animations, combat, hell even the setting are horribly executed.
     
  13. Kyuu

    Kyuu Insert Awesome Title Here

    Jul 19, 2007
    Ignoring the fact that all the "whinging" (are there a lot of British/Australian people around or is it just popular to say "whinging" instead of "whining" nowadays?) has been pretty well justified by the reality that is Fallout 3, if you were really around or had bothered to do any research you would know that the negative speculation was actively discouraged by the powers-that-be here at NMA back then.

    Also, as Per pointed out, there was hardly "NOTHING" to go on. The fact that Bethesda openly admitted they were going with the same approach they used for Morrowind/Oblivion was a pretty damn good indicator of what direction the game was going to take. Not to mention the fact that a clown like Todd Howard was in charge and that Bethesda had established a well-deserved reputation for outright dishonest PR.
     
  14. Tigranes

    Tigranes First time out of the vault

    78
    Dec 13, 2003
    Is anyone actually prepared to claim that having one guy in Washington D.C. 200 years afer the war create a form of government which elects its leaders through a ballot box every so often, is improbable or unfeasible to the point of breaking the setting? I mean, that's all the 'Republic' of Dave is. Maybe it wouldn't in a version of Fo3 that had books degrade and computers short out after such a long time, I suppose. The game says that the 'Republic' and the system was founded by Dave's 'father', who roamed the wastelands a bit, so a D.C. wanderer picking up ideas about Republican governments isn't so far-fetched at all. Maybe you can argue it's silly, but that's a different call.

    Going to skip the 500th iteration of "OMG NMA H8 EVERYTHING LULZ". When you look at someone being angry, or disappointed, or cynical, you don't ask the question "What is wrong with them", you ask the question "What has happened to elicit such a response in them". Unless you think some people are just born angry. :roll:
     
  15. UncannyGarlic

    UncannyGarlic Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Feb 6, 2008
    So get a new team. Also note that many developers have done very different things than they did before, even Blizzard has a decent variety of games which are completely different from their past works, just take a look at their list of titles on Wikipedia. I'll agree that Blizzard has really cut down on variety since Diablo but they still worked on a FPS and an Adventure game which they canceled for quality reasons.

    Yes, a lot of companies do stick to the same stuff a bit more than they should but that's nothing to be praised and accepted.

    Guess you don't think much of your own credibility then, eh?

    So they're shit because Bethesda can't execute instead of being shit because they are inherently bad. Regardless of why they're shit they are in fact shit and thus priorities needed to be shifted so that the problem could be sorted out.

    Oh sure they have other bases but their main base was clearly the Oil Rig. Add in that this isn't "The Government" but rather remnants of it bent on killing all "mutants". which basically means everyone that is not living in a Vault or fresh out of one (they seem to go both ways on these folks), while remaining as covert as possible. Now explain to me why this group would be actively engaged in fighting the BoS (who they out gunned in previous games when they were better trained and supplied) and spreading around propaganda robots. Now explain to me how it would be possible for their top commander to not believe in the organizations ideas and have every single person under his command follow him unblinkingly? Also tell me how they are so well supplied, have so many men, and have enough fuel to fly everywhere with their Vertabirds.

    The writing is terrible, the game is full of bugs, the animations are god awful, the textures have inconsistent quality (some are good [maybe even great] while others are just horrible [low resolution]), the combat is lacking at best (compared to other ARPGs and FPS games), the system is broken (can completely max out), the RP options, with a few exceptions, are god awful, reoccurring factions (and elements in general, with exceptions) are not consistent with past games, and the gameplay is all but completely unrelated to previous installments (which is just bad for a sequel in a series with an established gameplay style). I could get more specific and could probably go on but I see little need.

    The game is arguably enjoyable (that's subjective) but what it is not is a quality product. Now if Bethesda fixes a fair portion of the problems with free patches then I'll take it back but I'll bet you $1,000 that they never do. Yes, they have made some improvements over Oblivion but when that is the basis of comparison for a game part of a completely different and established franchise, you have a fundamental problem. It would have been like if Diablo III was a marked improvement over Warcraft III as a RTS.
     
  16. TyloniusFunk

    TyloniusFunk It Wandered In From the Wastes

    130
    Nov 19, 2008
    My comment was really a subtle dig at the writing in this game. Most concepts in the game are sound, yet inadequately developed.
     
  17. Roflcore

    Roflcore Mildly Dipped

    579
    Nov 2, 2008
    No its not. If you are interested why you are wrong: Use the search button.
    Just to make it absolutly clear: Fallout 3 is not an rpg. Not by a longshot. Imo its not even an action-rpg, but with that statement I could live and discuss about it, however, if somebody claims Fallout 3 is an rpg he is just wrong and their no need for further talks.

    Also, if you like avoiding combat, why the hell did you play F3 in the first place? 90% of the experience points is gathered through combat. Hell The entire mainquest consists of pure combat railroad, not a single skillcheck and the dialog only allows you to skip parts of it!
     
  18. TheRatKing

    TheRatKing Vault Dweller

    702
    Oct 7, 2008
    I don't mind the idea of a man coming up (or finding out) about the republican system, but why call it the Republic of Dave? Why name a government based on elections after a single person. It would be much more believable if it was named "The Kingdom of Dave" or something similar.
     
  19. Fade

    Fade It Wandered In From the Wastes

    109
    Aug 27, 2007
    I think the reason for the name is it's a joke. I keep flashing on two movies whenever I hear the name. One having a guy called Dave replacing the president after the president has an accident. It's a comedy.

    The other was more serious & had a fishing village create a republic of Solomon Grundy after the fishing quota reduced.
     
  20. generalissimofurioso

    generalissimofurioso The Hole Time Orderite

    Jun 17, 2007
    I found the idea to be funny, though I thought that the actual area was woefully underused in both quest potential and humor potential.