Bethesda Reacts To Three Major Fallout 3 Criticisms

Brother None

Brother None

This ghoul has seen it all
Orderite
MTV Multiplayer questions Todd Howard about three of major points of criticism of Fallout 3.<blockquote>Criticism: #1: “Fallout 3″ is just mediocre when judged as a first person shooter

Howard: Agreed.

Criticism #2: The ending isn’t very satisfying and much shorter than other “Fallout” endings

Howard: Based on the feedback I’ve seen, most people are pissed off that it ends, not the ‘ending’ itself. Maybe that’s one and the same, I don’t know. That’s another thing we’re changing in DLC3 [downloadable content #3, "Broken Steel"]. We really underestimated how many people would want to keep playing, so that’s probably the last time we’ll do something like that

Criticism #3: V.A.T.S. is boring once you’re accurate enough to head shot everyone

Howard: Depends on what you find entertaining. I like to blow people’s heads off, so, well, it never got old for me. I agree that the ‘to hit chance’ for head shots is probably too high.</blockquote>Seem to have missed out on "the ending sucks", "dialogue is wooden and badly written", "the main plot is terrible", "the PC port isn't that good" and "too many bugs". Still...it's a start.
 
Yup, those are the only possible criticisms I can think of. No other major complaints here.

Actually, I'd kind of like to know why Bethesda found it necessary to rape the shit out of the RPG elements, but that's a pretty minor complaint.
 
Brother None said:
Seem to have missed out on "the ending sucks", "dialogue is wooden and badly written", "the main plot is terrible", "the PC port isn't that good" and "too many bugs". Still...it's a start.
Click to expand...

Yup, exactly. On the other hand, this alone

Howard: Depends on what you find entertaining. I like to blow people’s heads off, so, well, it never got old for me.
Click to expand...

coupled with

Criticism: #1: “Fallout 3″ is just mediocre when judged as a first person shooter

Howard: Agreed.
Click to expand...

Pretty much describes the production of FO3. It's for people who like bad shooters, or like watching head explode without doing anything much for it.
 
I think it shouldn't be a "minor" complain, because FO3 is considered to be a Role Playing Game...
 
Frankly, I'm sure that's the exact reason he "agreed" to that question. He considers the game a full fledged RPG, and so it's alright for the game to suck as a FPS, simply because, in his mind the game is not supposed to be played like a shooter but like a first person view awesome RPG.

Also, perhaps we'll eventually get to people asking our dear Todd about 2 dimensional characterizations, monotonous voices and shitty main plots... or the way he lied about the game having those long cutscenes like the originals with hundreds of different possible iterations (which I think is what he was actually asked here)... and jeez, he doesn't even understand that there's no problem with a game ending, or having your character sacrifice himself ... the problem is that it was delivered in such a stupid way...
 
Well wait hold on the pc version is probably the best one out there. It crashes, but apparently so do the other versions. And the ps3 one is apparently a disaster?

lso, perhaps we'll eventually get to people asking our dear Todd about 2 dimensional characterizations, monotonous voices and shitty main plots...
Click to expand...

Lots of people thought Oblivion was great so
 
bhlaab said:
Well wait hold on the pc version is probably the best one out there.
Click to expand...

In graphics, sure. In stability and design, no. The xbox 360 was the primary platform, and it shows. The game is clunky on PC, to say the least. Here is a decent summary of some of the representative issues:
Welcome to console-vania, where you have to press TAB and then click your way through a multi-page interface to do just about anything from changing armor to looking at a map to reviewing quests and information. Yes, you get used to it quickly; yes, it is worse than Oblivion; and yes, I find it highly annoying. There are ways to get around these limitations, but it is pretty clear that the game was designed with the lowest common denominator of console controllers in mind.

I have taken time and played decent chunks of the game using my Xbox 360 wireless controller in addition to my preferred keyboard & mouse and it is obvious from the contrast of playing the game both ways that it was designed with the console controller as the primary control method both in terms of design and implementation. That isn't so bad - getting around works great using either set of controls, as does the VATS system, dialog system, level-up interface, and so on. The problem I have is with the Pip-Boy - it is very simple to navigate using the Xbox 360 controller, but definitely more of a hassle for the keyboard & mouse.

It isn't a killer flaw but you know what really gets under my skin? Bethesda went to such pains to talk about how they were going to make sure that the PC Fallout fan was taken care of, yet couldn't bother to even allow you to map a keyboard shortcut to get directly to the map interface. I am not suggesting that they change the inherent interface - which is pretty much the same one from Oblivion - but rather that they allow some degree of choice to users. It seems like such a small thing - and was certainly mentioned enough in Oblivion reviews and as a concern in PC previews for Fallout 3.

Oh, and while I am on the subject of rampant stupidity, how's this one: while you can remap the key used to bring up the Pip-Boy (default is TAB), you cannot change the fact that you still have to use TAB to exit. Also, I read that some folks remap the typical WASD movement keys to RDFG (I'd heard of ESDF before but not that one). Anyway, that is no problem except that F is mapped to 'Force Lock' and so when you're lock-picking you can easily press F by mistake and force the lock. And, of course, F cannot be remapped.

To mess up something as simple as key remapping. To not adapt a basic interface like the PipBoy to the PC at all. To fail to properly adapt barter and dialogue screens to higher-resolution PCs. To fail to mention basic mapped keys such as F1-F2-F3 for the submenus in the PipBoy anywhere ingame or in the manual. To fail to do all that despite all the promises made. This is a lazy-ass, half-arsed port. And the only reason Bethesda got away with it is because the media doesn't really care about the PC platform any more.
 
Todd Howard does for RPGs what Michael Jackson does for childcare.

edit:
The Vault Dweller said:
I'm actually very surprised and somewhat impressed by his honesty.
Click to expand...
He only answered one question and dodged the other two completely. I am surprised the one he did answer, that he didn't drop the "because it's so very much more" byline.

This is two in a row that he's (purely commercially speaking) hit out of the park. It's like someone confronting MacDonald's about where McNuggets come from - yeah, and people don't give a shit and still eat the rubbish.

It's a corporate McRPG success, fuck the critics Todd. Keep doing what you do best!
Dumb it down and whore it out.

Coming Soon:
Fallout 4: You Dumb Fuckers Just Paid Off My Beachhouse and Pete's Jaguar.
 
Brother None said:
Criticism #3: V.A.T.S. is boring once you’re accurate enough to head shot everyone

Howard: Depends on what you find entertaining. I like to blow people’s heads off, so, well, it never got old for me. I agree that the ‘to hit chance’ for head shots is probably too high.
Click to expand...
I guess that's the reason why they nerfed VATS in 1.1 patch.... :?
 
Brother None said:
Criticism: #1: “Fallout 3″ is just mediocre when judged as a first person shooter

Howard: Agreed.
Click to expand...
They could have left out the last part of the question... :roll:

"Fallout 3 is just mediocre"
 
The questions were weaksauce. I felt like I was hearing:

Criticism: The game is too awesome.

The real criticisms seemed to be left behind here.
 
He's not really being honest. They know that people aren't happy with the ending. At the very least, I think they have acknowledged the Fawkes debacle.
 
Dionysus said:
He's not really being honest. They know that people aren't happy with the ending. At the very least, I think they have acknowledged the Fawkes debacle.
Click to expand...
Yes but does he "know" WHY people have not been happy about the ending?

I hear mainly "cause they could not contiune to play", but nothing that even hints about the bad plot, cheesy dialogues and other huge plot holes that even King Kong might walk trough ...
 
TychoXI said:
Frankly, I'm sure that's the exact reason he "agreed" to that question. He considers the game a full fledged RPG, and so it's alright for the game to suck as a FPS, simply because, in his mind the game is not supposed to be played like a shooter but like a first person view awesome RPG.
Click to expand...

Oh that's right, and RPGs are all 'bout asploding heads, as in criticism #3 answer? Honestly :roll:
 
Exactly. That's why I hated Arcanum. Where were the asploding heads? That game was awful, choice and consequences be damned!

Edit: I appear to have mispelled asploding as exploding. My apologies.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Yes but does he "know" WHY people have not been happy about the ending?
Click to expand...
Yes. That's what I was saying. They definitely know about at least one issue (the fact that a number of rad-resistant companions can't help you at the end).
 
yes but the worst thing of all is their answer to that issue "we KNOW about it. and we are O.K. about it"

thats really kinda absoultely depressing when you think about it as a RPG. Now bad dialogues are not something I complain about in shooters if developes come out with such comments ... but with a RPG no developer should feel "ok" or "fine" with bad dialogues and rather chessy plot decisions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top