Bethesda producer on Fallout

[Sander]

On the fact that you wouldn't like to be able to have control over party members, and that you are of the opinion there can't be a well-executed paused realtime combat system (which was just an example, because that seems to have been the hot thing to do in the last few years when revisiting once-turn based games).

Yes, those are based on facts.
Fact: a player-controlled party does not fit with Fallout's design.
Reasons: Fallout was built around the lone wanderer of the wastes concept (party members were only added at the very last moment). It was also meant as a computer translation of P&P gameplay, and you *never* control a party in P&P, you control yourself and your fellow players and/or the DM controls party members.
That's why it doesn't fit with Fallout, that's not just personal 'opinion', but a solid reasoning based on facts.

Here's another fact: real-time combat doesn't fit with the P&P idea either. Real-time with pause is a bastardisation of real-time that actually serves to remove you farther from the gameplay and tactical combat, since the advantages of a turn-based game are gone (solid tactical gameplay where you make choices, theoretically unlimited time for the AI (yes, this is *still* relevant)) and the advantages of a real-time system (in the action, player-skill based) are also gone.

Since you asked nicely: I do not and I have not said that.

"Of course it wouldn't be Fallout 1 or 2 anymore - but is that automatically be bad? If it were, people would be crying out that Bethesda is asking money for selling what would essentially be a mod."
Yes, you did.

I said we don't want Fallout 1 or 2 (because we have them already), we want Fallout 3. And surely it won't hurt too much if FO3 were a little different here and there (like using a new engine, playing in urop or asia or africa, or even changing the combat system a bit).

You have no clue for game design, do you?
As is explained frequently, the elements of the game *work together*. The combat system hinges on SPECIAL and isometric view, and vice versa. Yeesh.
Also, playing in Europe or Asia or Africa *is* a bad thing since that destroys the *essential* Americana feel.

Do you honestly and realistically think anybody would make a FO3 that is exactly like FO1/2? Do you want an FO3 exactly like FO1/2? There would be not much wrong with that, but really, a modding community could do that, couldn't it?

Yes, they could.
But no one is asking for that. Look at Van Buren, it wasn't 'exactly like' FO1/2 in many ways, it revamped SPECIAL in dubious ways, it had a RT/TB hybrid engine, it had multiplayer co-op, but it was still received well when the design-docs leaked.
That's because it did keep many of the essential tenets: the setting elements, SPECIAL, that there is a TB engine at all, *choice and consequence* etc. etc. etc.

I am not, but I also don't see Bethesda doing this.

That's because you don't see Beth do anything at all.

We'll have to wait and see till, well, we get to see something.

That's neat. That's what we've been doing for, say, three years. Cool isn't it?
Didn't get us anything, though, and when you actually look at the info we *do* have *nothing* of it is promising whatsoever.
So yes, thank you, we do know what we're talking about. We've formed opinions based on what we know (including, hehe, the Roshambo and VDweller leaks) and mainly what Petey Hines has said and Bethesda's prior history.

Wait and see was interesting, now it's getting really, really fucking tiresome. So unless Bethesda comes up with something to *earn* our respect and adoration, they aren't getting any of it.

I'll be the first to admit Beth shouldn't have done FO3 if it turns out wrong - I just don't think we could or should say so yet. And of course this is not a developer fansite, but we can't ignore the reality that also affects the developer. We can't ask them to make a game they think won't sell, because they obviously won't do that.

Bullcrap.
They spent a lot of money on getting the license, betraying then the core-audience of that license (and in fact the only people who care about that nametag) would seem to be counter-productive. See Ultima.

Then why was everybody crying foul when FO3 isn't being developed by Troika or whomever now?

Oh, for fuck's sake.
Troika is not BIS. Troika was established by the *original Fallout developers* who had *nothing* to do with Van Buren.
How many times must I keep repeating this?

I can understand people being upset with Herve not giving it to them, but I cannot understand people being mad at Bethesda for not letting other people do it when they want to do it themselves and think they can do it well enough.

Okay, here's a neat one. You've adopted a baby. When the baby is mature you have a choice of either showing it his real parents or showing it to a couple who want to pretend they're his parents and are willing to pay more for it. Who do you choose?
DUN-DUN-DUN

I hear people moaning about how Bethesda won't talk to NMA, which is what I was commenting on.

No, you hear people *saying* that NMA is blacklisted. Which is a fact. You hear people basing their opinion of how Fallout 3 will turn out on the fact that Bethesda has blacklisted NMA. Which isn't a strange reasoning and a far cry from being about them hating us.

I do admit I didn't follow the TES franchise, so I wouldn't know how canon Oblivion is.

And here I thought I was referencing that several times over in this thread. So far for reading comprehension.
Again: Oblivion fucked over TES canon and Morrowind gameplay, when Morrowind had already fucked over the original TES gameplay.

And all the while they kept claiming they were making 'RPGs' because the games they made were so 'open-ended' and full of 'choices'.
They neglect to mention that choices without consequences are meaningless.

How do you measure fun? Of course this is an opinion. There have been bugfix patches, the last one done by fans, BTW. I didn't say it was the fault of the hardcore fans, they obviously didn't make the game. I said it was because they listened only to the hardcore fans.

Hence it is the fault of the hardcore fans, because the hardcore fans 'apparently' gave the wrong advice (according to you).
But you have yet to explain if and if so how it fucked over the franchise. Because every review I've read, including from hardcore fans, has been 'Meh'.

MOO2 was quite different from MOO1 as well, and is regarded as the best of the series by many fans. Being different doesn't equal being worse.

No, and I never said that. A game can be different but still fitting for the franchise, it depends entirely on what the design tenets were and what the perceived core-design is.

But how are they to know they'd be welcomed with open arms? If I read the news, I really wouldn't get that idea. And how are they to know which of the changes they are obviously going to make (it's been a while since FO2 after all) would go down well? The risk for them to get spat on is just too great.

Bullshit. If they adhere to Fallout design, there's no risk for them.
Aside from that, they're being spat on now, aren't they? How exactly would it be worse if they actually something, you know, positive which you somehow believe they have?

 

[Goweigus]

yup

Is there any slight chance or probablility that they will try not to screw up on FO3 too badly? Perhaps they have taken to NMAs criticisms and that of Oblivion. Theoretically companies get better with the more experience, and don't tend to admit any wrong doings. So maybe they *can* or will do better on FO3 than we think, because they want to improve their games (maybe they realize some of the things they did wrong with Oblivion) and they won't admit to us any wrong doing because most people just dont do that.

 

[Bradylama]

What Bethesda has gotten better at doing is selling to the lowest common denominator. Morrowind infuriated Daggerfall fans because it turned what used to be a roguelike into a roaming action adventure with less features. Then Oblivion infuriated Morrowind fans by turning what used to be a roaming action adventure with a reactive world and faction relations into a linear roaming action adventure with no consequences for your actions whatsoever, a level-scaling system that trivializes character progression, and less features.

Each subsequent title pushed more units, yet there's no denying that when it comes to actually making games, Bethesda has gotten continually worse.

 

[Smoke_Jaguar]

Each subsequent title pushed more units, yet there's no denying that when it comes to actually making games, Bethesda has gotten continually worse.

This is true, but what Bradylama doesn't say is that ALL of Bethesda's games are actually one big game: TES. Their only experience in a franchise is Star Trek: Legacy. People say that blows, but I won't comment on that, since most Trek games blow.

They never made anything that sells that doesn't have swords elf dwarf magic spells crap built into them, and I really think that they hoped to implement these thing in Fallout. Don't say no, you'll see they will push some of this crap into the game.

So, not only Fallout's design is very diffrent from what they've been doing all there years, but it also has canon, which they obviously don't care about, but, they will do a better job on FO3 that they will do on the next TES.

In my point of view, things like S.P.E.C.I.A.L., turn based, isometric, morbid humor, mature content, branching dialogue, simply won't exist in FO3. They won't do them. They will do something new, because they know that IF they do those things, they will do it very badly.So, expect a new game, bad or good (bad IMO), *totally* new.



*Edited. Since this caused some unwanted and off topic debate, I deleted this last part of the post.

 

[Sander]

Ehm, yes they can. They have licensed the right to produce a Fallout 3, and have options on Fallout 4 and 5. This includes the use of the SPECIAL system for those purposes.
Please do some research next time.

 

[Smoke_Jaguar]

they CAN'T do those things in Fallout 3. The S.P.E.C.I.A.L system is not what they bought, they just bought a license to do "a" game in the Fallout universe

Read more carefully next time.

This is not a debate if they can or can't, they just won't. If you can read between the lines, and I hope you do, I don't want to spell out my posts, you can see what I'm saying: The S.P.E.C.I.A.L system involves a whole lot of things, that if not implemented as a whole, it won't work.

If you did a little research, you'd know how much Bethesda thinks of that system (Cheng and Howard interviews).They just love the 'Luck' skill and the caravans.

 

[Sander]

they CAN'T do those things in Fallout 3. The S.P.E.C.I.A.L system is not what they bought, they just bought a license to do "a" game in the Fallout universe

Read more carefully next time.

This is not a debate if they can or can't, they just won't. If you can read between the lines, and I hope you do, I don't want to spell out my posts, you can see what I'm saying: The S.P.E.C.I.A.L system involves a whole lot of things, that if not implemented as a whole, it won't work.

If you did a little research, you'd know how much Bethesda thinks of that system (Cheng and Howard interviews).They just love the 'Luck' skill and the caravans.

Yes, I know that. I wasn't commenting on that, was I?
Here's what you said:
"Besides, from what I know of the Law, they CAN'T do those things in Fallout 3. The S.P.E.C.I.A.L system is not what they bought,"

I commented on that little piece of misinformation. They bought the license to do a Fallout game *including SPECIAL*. Which is all I said.

 

[Smoke_Jaguar]

I'm sorry it's not my first language and I rarely speak it to someone other than this fucking screen.

In Romanian it would have made perfect sense. To sumerize, I wanted to say this:

They didn't buy a game system, they bought a game license.

BTW, I just remembered something, if they want to make FO3 a multiplayer game, then it's good bye for all these complicated systems.Corporates (like Bethesda, they have all kinds of companies, a health care one, a legal representation one, etc) tend to disregard your own options and just provide you with the most general ones.

I really look forward to which "classes" will arise in Fallout. Whoopyfuckindoo.

 

[st0lve]

Isn't the SPECIAL system a part of their license? I think it is.

 

[Smoke_Jaguar]

Yes it is.Feel free to comment the rest.

 

[Briosafreak]

Being part of the License doesn't mean the implementation will be any good, let's wait for now.

 

[Sander]

SPECIAL is actually the least of my concerns. I'd be seriously surprised if they didn't use SPECIAL, although I do expect them to alter it.

The problem lies much more with how they will use it in-game, which, considering their track record, is probably very, very poorly.

 

[Ausir]

Lionheart also used SPECIAL but it doesn't mean it was well implemented.

 

[SumsoluS]

Lionheart......I couldn't believe how bad it was especially the last half campaign 'end boss'....just restrictions everywhere you went, it really felt like you were on one path only. bleh.

 

[Sinister_Messiah]

I'd say this discussion turned out pretty good.

 

[Bunkermensch]

The day Bethesda is proudly presenting their new masterpiece in a XBOX magazine this board will probably explode and blew all the bad seed of Beth out of this world.

only a guess, but possible

 

[Briosafreak]

I'd say this discussion turned out pretty good.

Yeah, not bad at all.

 

[Brother None]

Isn't the SPECIAL system a part of their license? I think it is.

Actually, it isn't "part of" the license, to the best of my knowledge. But the right to use it was a part of the Interplay-Bethesda deal, whether by accident or conciously I don't know.

 

[zioburosky13]

Lionheart......I couldn't believe how bad it was especially the last half campaign 'end boss'....just restrictions everywhere you went, it really felt like you were on one path only. bleh.

Oh the stench!

Another clear example of "SPECIAL with real-time combat = turd gameplay"

 

[mortiz]

Bethesda is developing a game for a fan-base that probably hadn't even heard of Fallout before they picked up the license. Yet they still chose to purchase the license probably knowing there'd be a strong negative reaction from some quarters. Their intention was always going to be to fuck around with the Fallout formula to fit in better with their business plans. After all, an iso cRPG in the style of Fallout on a console? Please, I don’t think so. They didn’t need to go through a design process to work out that was going out the window. They bought Fallout for the name only and that should be completely obvious to anyone. Anyone who truly loved the series wouldn’t mess around with the working formula, especially since without it how is it any more Fallout than if Beth had decided to develop their own IP? The name doesn’t make the game.

Bastards did it to spite us!