Bethesda's Fan Interview #2

Whatever happend to a RPG that was a lot like a choose your own adventure childrens book ?

Whereas bethesdas games are a lot more like 'heres our adventure, feel free to pick un-important details to flesh out the weak story'
 
The older Fallouts had effectively invincible quest characters too. Either sitting in a literally invincible robo command chair/toilet and never moving until the game was over or simply booting you directly to a game over if you killed em. It's simply a matter of how many alternates can you plan for before the amount of content it requires becomes impratical. I seem to recall playing a really awesome game a long time ago that literally planned for every possible contingency but only lasted for 3 hours. I'll see if I can't remember what it was.
 
Todd said:
We never wanted the game to offer any incentive or desire to be blowing kids away...
Uh... it's not about offering incentive. It's about the fact that if you point a gun at a kid and shoot him between the eyes, dying is a rather more believable response than the kid screaming and running off while the adults get up and attempt to kill you for daring to shoot at their immortal children. Getting a bad reputation and a bounty on your head (as you did in the Fallouts) is also a sensible consequence, and not an "incentive" (unless you're playing an "evil" character of course).
In regards to essential NPCs... when they "die" they get knocked "unconscious" and get up a little while later. It worked well in Oblivion, so we kept that system...
It worked well? Really? So the system where I could sneak up to a plot-essential NPC, stealth kill her while in the middle of supper with 5 others at the table and a guard nearby, have her slump over unconscious, then pick herself back up a little while later and continue on as though nothing unusual had happened (and apparently none of the others present or even her personal guard noticed anything odd either) is a system that worked well?

I think it's safe to say Bethesda has... "different" standards than most lucid people.
... mechanic's coveralls that boost your repair skill, that kind of thing... There's a merchant's outfit that ups your Barter skill for instance.
Uh huh. I put on mechanic's coveralls and suddenly it comes to me how to fix that broken power generator! And when I put on a "merchant's outfit" (merchants in a post-apocalyptic environment have uniforms?) I suddenly know secrets to wheedle people for more money? You're joking right? The tools in Fallout that helped out your Repair skill at least made sense...
You use the right mouse button, or left trigger on a console, and your character aims at the target. You can't run while you are aiming, but it negates most of the skill wobble. Not all of it, but enough to compensate for a really bad skill. What you find is, as your skill raises, you don't have to rely on aiming as much, so it's a good balance.
Wow. I can't believe he could actually say that without realizing just what a crap system that is.
Traits have been rolled into Perks.
Oh mother of god... :seriouslyno:
Take "Bloody Mess" for example, probably the most famous trait. Is the game really more fun if that can only be taken at the very start? Why can't you pick it at level 6? What's so important about having it only at the start?
Are you serious? This is some of the most brain dead reasoning I have ever seen.
The perk choice is probably one of the most fun parts of the game, and to relegate certain ones to only be chosen when you first start, before you've even played the game and know how any of it feels, just didn't prove as fun to us.
Here's a clue: they weren't perks, they were traits! No perks were ever relegated to only being chosen at the start. Duh!
Anyway, trust me when I say this one was a debate, a long one, and a decision we're not naive enough to think will be understood or applauded by everyone.
I guess when retards debate among themselves, not much gets accomplished (explains politics too). And nice attempt at a cop-out with the "oh you people just won't understand our brilliant reasoning."
...we found the level-up-pick-a-perk experience to be so enjoyable, it was actually confusing people why they couldn't do it every level.
I just can't comprehend how brain-dead you or your target audience has to be to find the concept confusing. You only get a perk every three levels because that's how the perk system works. It makes picking perks meaningful instead of just another stat you barely give any consideration. In the original Fallouts I often sat for a while considering which perk I wanted (if I hadn't thought out my perk progression in advance of course).

Also, the ghoul in the bar screenshot looks hideous. And I don't mean in the way a ghoul should look hideous. I mean the whole look of him is just poorly done.

Edit: DoktorVivi, your picture is way too big and is kinda breaking the borders. I don't like having to scroll horizontally to read posts.

Edit2: Damn, Per is fast.
 
Seymour the spore plant said:
Todd Howard said:
Different outfits also come with different stat boosts sometimes, and do more then basic "damage resistance". Like mechanic's coveralls that boost your repair skill, that kind of thing.

Magic Suit of the Mechanic confirmed in. Shame they botched this whole concept up, had it been handled differently it could have ended up okay.

Are you saying you don't feel more mechanically inlcined when you're wearing coveralls? I know it's tempting to spin this into fantasy derision, but to me it's honestly just video-gamey. I wouldn't say it's any more outlandish than putting on a leather jacket and fooling some bloodthirsty goon into believing you're his father's ghost, for example.

Todd Howard said:
Traits have been rolled into Perks.

Wow. This one's so damn retarded and has such a piss-poor explanation that even the most adamant Bethesda hater would not have seen it coming. Traits and perks similar? Only if you're one of those developers who dislike frustrating their players with drawbacks to anything and so uncerimoniously removes them.

People liked picking them, you say? They didn't get that choosing them were important decisions? Far be it from Bethesda to actually impose any consequences to fucking up your character by picking the wrong trait or perk, what would the fun in that be?

If there were indeed such things as "wrong perks" in Fallout then it sounds like Fallout 3 will have even more ways to "fuck up your character." I agree that there should be some continuance of the original's advantage/disadvantage system, because it's like GURPS and GURPS got that totally right, but I don't blame them for moving away from the idea of having to reroll your character, while simultaneously offering additional incentive for you to want to replay the whole thing when your done. Nobody's making the Diablo 3 parallel here? Man THAT tempest died quickly :)

Even I would really have to play it myself before being convinced, though.
 
Fallout 1 and 2 weren't perfect. Arcanum already had no immortal npcs. That's evolution.
In that regard, yes. But Arcanum still had major flaws Fallout didn't.
 
Mungrul said:
hailtotheking said:
I´m thinking more along the lines of artistic vision, big shots like Moebius/Giger, hell even J.J Abrams and his kin. Why aren´t these people attracted to the medium? Hopefully it won´t be that long before we will see a Werner Herzog, or a Kurosawa, emerge in the game-industry. There is absolutely no reason for VG´s to be limited to dumbed down entertainment for console-cattle. :clap:

I think you can qualify someone like Miyamoto as having grand artistic vision. I think it's just that because his games have spawned countless spin-offs, people forget how innovative he's really been.

I think people are also looking to compare videogaming quite naturally to the only other artforms out there that use moving images: movies and video/TV.

But videogames should be approached differently.
(SNIP)

I couldn´t agree more! My point was exactly that what the game-industry need is people of the Kurosawa and Herzog caliber, and of course working within the specific framework of VG´s you describe so very well. Though I do tend to get very similar feelings of immersion/getting sucked in whether it is a really good film or VG. What I´m trying to say is that great talent is needed to get this effect, but of course it must be within the right framework. I wouldn´t put it so much as to the game-industry needing to "grow up" as is sometimes said, I believe it´s more a question of attracting competent and visionary people.

And to Miyamoto having talent, yes of course. But when it comes to seeing through someting visionary and groundbreaking/revolutionary I think he´s more the exception than the the rule for this industry.
 
Well here's my opinion over the several points stated on the interview:

Anyway, when attacked, all children flee and any regular NPCs friendly to the children will instantly attack you, so it feels good in the game, in that there is an appropriate response.

Nice, and what happens if I kill the NPC's friendly to child? what will be the appropriate response then? some kind of damage absorving skin that suddenly every child earned due to radiation? :roll:

In regards to essential NPCs, it works like Oblivion, in that when they "die" they get knocked "unconscious" and get up a little while later. It worked well in Oblivion, so we kept that system, as you can still attack everyone that you want, and get at least a small benefit (being able to avoid them while they are down). I will say that the number of essential characters is minute compared to Oblivion and we've gone to pretty big lengths to cover a lot of people's deaths, but sometimes that's just not possible.

As I said before, I seem to recall a couple of games where you could complete the main quest and still kill every single npc (except for the overseer, thanks Ausir :)), I think they were named... oh yes, fallout 1 and 2.

Most are hostile, but not all. Yes, some can be reasoned with and even hired.

Finally something good, at least not every ghoul and super mutant is a retarded killer!

I don't have enough space to really do that. They are big. If you look at Fallout 1, it's deeper than that. To give you the scale, we have over 40,000 lines of dialogue, compared to a few thousand in Fallout 1.

Deeper than in Fallout? I'm going to love to see that :roll:

You can also use your Speech skill to persuade, and sometimes special dialogue options come up based on other stats, whether that is strength when talking to a tough guy, or options that come from perks you may have.

I hope that by persuade they don't mean the persuading minigame like in Oblivion...

If and when one is available, it will be a free download. I wish I could promise that an editor will be coming and when, but I can't.

Nice, now we're not even sure if the game can be modded... :?

Like Oblivion, we use our Radiant AI system, so most of the NPCs eat, sleep, work, etc. I think we take it for granted now, but it's pretty great to have that level of control. We've also done a lot to the conversation system, which makes them seem a lot smarter, but again, that's better data, not a new system.

Here we go again! :roll:

They are common, and play a part throughout the game, whether that's the main quest, side quests or just exploring. To even get to downtown DC you're going to have to go through some metro tunnels. And then when you are downtown, the whole thing is like one giant "dungeon". Any structure of size, an office building, destroyed factory, school, hospital, you name it – we use all of these as "dungeons".

Wow... I'm glad Bethesda already said that this wasn't oblivion with guns, or I'd be extremly worried and crying in a corner right now!

What will the map travel look like? Is it a dotted line that slowly crawls towards the destination on the map, or Oblivion-type fast travel? And will there be random encounters during said map travel?

It works like Oblivion, it's a system we got great feedback on from that game and while we tossed other ideas around, it works best for us.

And yet, here we go again! :roll:

Keep in mind the guns have condition too, which affects how much damage they do as well. The gun condition used to also affect rate-of-fire as well as the spread of bullets, but we took those elements out, it was just too much going on, and you usually started the game with a bad skill and a bad gun and it just felt "broken", with bullets shooting off in all kinds of crazy directions. Now the gun condition affects damage and how much the gun jams when you reload it, which ultimately equates to a rate-of-fire, but feels better when playing.

Well this doesn't sound too bad, yet I think they were in the right direction and then screwed up... I mean, if a bullet hits me it's the same if it comes from the best or worst rifle in terms of aim, as a bullet is always a bullet. However, if they had kept the first idea, with the bullet spread and rate of fire, it would be way better. I just hope that weapons dont start needing to be repaired after shooting 4 or 5 rounds..

Ok, time for some, perhaps, bad news. Traits have been rolled into Perks.

Excuse me? :shock:

Anyway, many traits from Fallout return, but as perks. And many perks return, as perks. Another change over the last year is that you now pick a perk every time you level, and the perks have been balanced accordingly. Like I said before, we found the level-up-pick-a-perk experience to be so enjoyable, it was actually confusing people why they couldn't do it every level.

What?! "It was confusing people why they couldn't do it every level"?! are you kidding me?! No one was confused! It was a way to keep the game ballanced and to not make it too easy, something that you don't seem to understand, as you showed us in oblivion where you could kill everything with only level one!!
Fallout gives you an already perfectly balanced leveling system, and you completely changed it to keep it balanced?? That doesn't make any sense!! :crazy:

You get to create your face, but not your body style. You choose your race (Caucasian, African American, Hispanic, or Asian) and sex (Male or Female). You can manipulate your face any way you want, shaping it to your liking. We also have a number of "preset" faces, so you can start with a decent looking face. You can also pick your hair style and color. There are not scars or tattoos you can pick. But, there are beards.

Well a few good news again. I'm quite happy in being able to create my own character :)

You can crouch, this is good for taking cover and also acts as "sneaking".

Wow, and again, here we go again!! I'm starting to be uncertain about the not being oblivion with guns thing...

You can only have one follower at a time, you have to "fire" the one you have to get a new one.

Why can't we have as many followers as we want?

I've never really viewed Fallout 2 as a direct continuation

Well no one's asking for a direct continuation, but both fallout 1 and 2 had something to do with eachother...

It's most like the Oblivion compass, and "ticks" appear on it when you "perceive" other NPCs or creatures.

Yet again! And Bethesda still says that this isn't oblivion with guns?

They'll even pickup weapons lying around. Super Mutants can do the same. You think you've played it great when you take out the arm of one Super Mutant and he drops his mini-gun, only to see another one pick it up and use it on you.

Well let's end this with some good news, at least this shows a bit of improvement in the fighting system.

I know this might be a bit long, but I tried to include every aspect of the interview here. Thanks for reading, please tell me what you think :)
 
Heh... the main difference perhaps is that earlier Fallouts where made like computer GURPS systems, which was always nice to play even on the table.
Fallout 3 is no computer - GURPS project. Sometimes D&D... but.... all in all it's Action-Thriller FPS with RPG elements. Just like oblivion.

And now for a singalong:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_hlWl1PKfo
 
Ausir said:
Fallout 1 and 2 weren't perfect. Arcanum already had no immortal npcs. That's evolution.
In that regard, yes. But Arcanum still had major flaws Fallout didn't.
That's why I was talking about immortal npcs, not about something else! God! Go back to your translation and stop nitpicking.
 
As I said before, I seem to recall a couple of games where you could complete the main quest and still kill every single npc (except for the overseer, thanks Ausir), I think they were named... oh yes, fallout 1 and 2.

You also can't kill or even attack Horrigan when you first meet him.

Why can't we have as many followers as we want?

Or as many as our Charisma allows, like in FO2?
 
yes, but you can in the end, and when you first see him he'd be way too powerful anyway to be killed. When bethesda talks about immortal characters they really mean it, you can never kill them, as oblivion showed us.
 
But still, wouldn't it make sense if the player were able to at least try to attack Horrigan?
 
Yeah, it would hehe :) but still, I prefer to, as in fallout, see him in a "cutscene" than in real time and to be able to attack, and yet when he reached 0 health points he'd just faint
 
Bodybag said:
I wouldn't say it's any more outlandish than putting on a leather jacket and fooling some bloodthirsty goon into believing you're his father's ghost, for example.

Oh, but it is, by far. Which would you say requires a greater suspension of disbelief, wearing clothes to actually increase your ability on some field of knowledge or to fool a character who might himself be stupid, half-blind or whatever?

It is indeed a video-game thing, but one that simply does not fit the setting Bethesda has said time and again they are keeping intact, hence they get "fantasy derision". Hardly surprising, really.

Bodybag said:
If there were indeed such things as "wrong perks" in Fallout then it sounds like Fallout 3 will have even more ways to "fuck up your character."

Not necessarily, since you can choose 20 of them. My point was that when they increased the number of perks that you get to pick, they also necessarily diluted their importance.
 
Glowing Ghouls said:
Yet more confirmation that this wont be worth buying.

EDIT: and as far as their whole trait/perk issue, yet more proof that they dont grasp the concept of the type of RPG Fallout is.

Yeah... but fallout "traits" was ultimately a bastardization of the original GURPS traits. In gurps they made more sense.. you had a total number of points to use on a character and traits had a positive or negative point value. So you could choose to be have a disability and use the points you gain towards a skill or a stat.

In fallout I think because they moved from the GURPS system and simplified charater creation into the more simple SPECIAL system, they didn't have a "point pool" persay.. so they ended up making traits "value nuetral", and while that was interesting in the tradeoffs, it really lost alot of utility. In GURPS they tended to make character that were more realistic, that had weaknesses and felt more realistic. In fallout it really was mostly a waste.
 
Ausir said:
But still, wouldn't it make sense if the player were able to at least try to attack Horrigan?

Yes it would.

But I would have hoped Bethesda could improve on that type of thing. Instead, they've gone backwards.

I mean. Think about it. They've made nukes, a viable weapon. You can nuke someone.....and they don't die.
 
Seymour the spore plant said:
Oh, but it is, by far.

Oh well. Incidentally, I feel more mechancially inclined in coveralls.

Bodybag said:
If there were indeed such things as "wrong perks" in Fallout then it sounds like Fallout 3 will have even more ways to "fuck up your character."

Not necessarily, since you can choose 20 of them. My point was that when they increased the number of perks that you get to pick, they also necessarily diluted their importance.

No, not not necessarily. If they let you pick all 100 or whatever in one playthrough, then yes, but the man clearly said you'd have to play it at least 5 times to see them all. I guess it boils down to how differently each perk affects your character; if there's like a bunch of "samey" perks I might change my mind, but I don't see any inherent drawback from this news.
 
Back
Top