Bit-tech interviews Pete

[aenemic]

Good memory broseph. But I guess hype can only exist before something comes out though, then it's, actually I dunno what it is after, fact I guess?

I dunno I just came to this site hoping to find some people who loved the first two Fallouts as much as I did and could converse about how much we are looking forward to this game but I guess that can't happen because it seems that there is not another sole on this site that wants to actually play this game.

By all means if it ends up sucking the gigantic level of balls that you have all already labeled it doing than I will come back here and personally accept every single one of the "I told you so"s and lick your boots while I am at it. But until the next 55 days are over I have nothing but high hopes for Fallout 3.

Edit: Did I really put "to"? Damn you definitely have me there.

while I might not be as positive about the game as you I'm still having high hopes that it will be a good game. I'm pretty sure I often come across as a Beth fanboy around here, but that's definitely not true. there's still a reason why I mainly go to NMA for news and discussion rather than the official boards or any other place.

I try to keep a totally open mind until the game is installed on my computer. I don't believe the hype from either camp - neither the Beth one nor the NMA one. I'm looking forward to the game because I love Fallout above most other things on this planet and the thought of the series being revived and given another chance still excites me. it's unfortunate that Beth of all people got their hands on it, but I think their version can work. I liked Morrowind a lot, I enjoyed Oblivion for a little while until I realised it's impossible to feel like you're getting anywhere in that game... and the thought of Fallout in such a setting sounds great.

I just hope they do what they claim to do. so far they have my support, but I'm prepared to switch sides in the blink of an eye if they let me down.

 

[Zeld]

I enjoyed Oblivion for a little while until I realised it's impossible to feel like you're getting anywhere in that game... and the thought of Fallout in such a setting sounds great.

?

 

[quetzilla]

Pete: Uh, no, I think we moved it because we thought that would make the best game. Like, what we’re able to do from a first and third person point of view that we can’t do from an isometric view is put the player in the world so that you aren’t always looking down and detached from the world. You’re really experiencing all this destruction around you.

I think that's a clear a statement as any of where exactly this whole thing is going wrong. They saw fallout in all it's glory (which is pretty glorious even 10 years later) and their first thought was, sadly:

"Let's make it immersive!"

(cue audience groaning)

Hello! When were either of the Fallout games immersive? Was there every any effort to make people feel like they were 'experiencing all this destruction around you'? God no. If anything playing fallout is a commentary on the sheer idiocy of humanity, which just happens to be (not coincidentally) hilariously entertaining. Actually trying to get people to 'experience' it would make the whole thing so depressing.

Second, now that I'm on this thread.. what is this BS with making the story about your missing father and how much we're supposed to (cry me a river) care that he's gone? The first two fallouts had, if anything, the most impersonal McGuffins to drive the plot as could be possible: some random gadget. (I'm not an expert so I don't actually know this, but) this was not unintentional. The part in F2 (it was F2 right?) where you find all the extra water chips drives the point home: whatever Bethesda thinks Fallout is about, they've got it wrong.

I haven't played the story yet though, so I'll reserve final judgment until then, because maybe they'll have something cool in the end. That said, my hopes aren't high. I still haven't finished the MQ in Oblivion, despite the umpteen times I've tried to help it keep my attention, and that's with a million mods trying to address all the issues that make the gameplay itself less than fun. Stories just don't seem to be their thing. WTF are they doing making RPGs? Sigh. </rant>

 

[shorrtybearr]

Stories just don't seem to be their thing. WTF are they doing making RPGs? Sigh.

I dont know if stories arent their "thing". I think its more of the type of story, i mean no matter how good a love story is, i'm just not gonna like it. It simple doesnt appeal to me.

Kinda like with demons/underworlds and the like. It really takes a very very strong story to keep me entertained with that plot line.

I like more of a scientific based "realistic" story (FO1, FO2, MGS Seires ect). Although when i come accross games like FFVII, FFVIII, and FFX i can still enjoy them because i think they have very strong stories that do a good job of roping the player in.

although it had a tad too much of an impact on this guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5keXN5UCQgQ

 

[TheWesDude]

the whole point of the fo1+2 was not to be an immersive experience, it was to be a turn based top-down / 3/4 view RPG that was supposed to give the player the feeling they were playing a RPG based on a PNP RPG.

so what does beth do?

turn the game into an "immersive" action/adventure game with RPG elements.

great way to treat the liscence imo.

 

[quetzilla]

Stories just don't seem to be their thing. WTF are they doing making RPGs? Sigh.

I dont know if stories arent their "thing". I think its more of the type of story, i mean no matter how good a love story is, i'm just not gonna like it. It simple doesnt appeal to me.

Kinda like with demons/underworlds and the like. It really takes a very very strong story to keep me entertained with that plot line.

I disagree that their issue has to do with the type of story. Even for people who like demons/underworld stories, Oblivion's main story was awful. Or at least the parts of it that I've played are awful. Bad dialogue and bad plotting. We'll see what they come up with for F3 tho.

 

[Per]

although it had a tad too much of an impact on this guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5keXN5UCQgQ

In case you didn't know, that's a joke.

 

[EnglishMuffin]

Someone should take all these terrible pete hines statements and make a post in the bethesda fallout 3 forum. I am sure that bethesda doesn't read this forum, but maybe they would see what a terrible PR guy pete is and fire him. Or maybe he is just being honest and he represents bethesda perfectly.

 

[rcorporon]

Someone should take all these terrible pete hines statements and make a post in the bethesda fallout 3 forum. I am sure that bethesda doesn't read this forum, but maybe they would see what a terrible PR guy pete is and fire him. Or maybe he is just being honest and he represents bethesda perfectly.

The thread would be trashed and your account would get banned... no real point really.

 

[Paul_cz]

the whole point of the fo1+2 was not to be an immersive experience, it was to be a turn based top-down / 3/4 view RPG that was supposed to give the player the feeling they were playing a RPG based on a PNP RPG.

Maybe for them, me, all my friends who are Fallout fans and a shitload of other people the whole point of Fallout was NOT TB ISO RPG giving the feeling of playing PNP RPG?
For us the "point" was somewhere else entirely.

I disagree that their issue has to do with the type of story. Even for people who like demons/underworld stories, Oblivion's main story was awful. Or at least the parts of it that I've played are awful. Bad dialogue and bad plotting. We'll see what they come up with for F3 tho.

The lead designer on FO3 is Pagliarulo, who is probably one of the more capable people on Bethesda team.I don't know who wrote the main story of Oblivion, but it was not him (Rolston maybe?).
I am willing to give Emil benefit of the doubt..

 

[recombined]

If anything playing fallout is a commentary on the sheer idiocy of humanity, which just happens to be (not coincidentally) hilariously entertaining.
...
The part in F2 (it was F2 right?) where you find all the extra water chips drives the point home: whatever Bethesda thinks Fallout is about, they've got it wrong.

Exactly. Thank you.

 

[Johnny Angel]

Hello! When were either of the Fallout games immersive?

Immersion is what happens when you identify with your character. You fear for them when they're in trouble. You feel joy when they accomplish something. If you never had the experience of forgetting in a dream-like way that you were merely playing a game, then for you the game failed as a storytelling medium. It never invoked the lucid dream that fiction aspires to.

the whole point of the fo1+2 was not to be an immersive experience, it was to be a turn based top-down / 3/4 view RPG that was supposed to give the player the feeling they were playing a RPG based on a PNP RPG.

Seriously? Another vote for intentional detatchment? Because immersion is also a goal in table-top RPGs. But now in your mind immersion is a fault in a game, one of which Fallout was innocent?

No, the problem is that while a first-person view can theoretically be powerful in delivering a sense of immersion (a species of it is precisely what the talking head segments in the origiginal games was all about), it doesn't do so nearly as well as good story-telling. Your character in an RPG wants something other than just leveling up, and you must care what he or she wants. The POV doesn't supply that bonding with your character, your imagination does. Your interest level in what's going on, who prospers and who gets what's coming to them, these are the things that immerse you in the game. When you've got that working, issues like POV drop away, because the game itself becomes transparent just as much as the room you're in and the very act of turning pages become trivial details when you're immersed in a good book.

Immersion is an important goal, though apparently Fallout 1+2 never delivered it for at least two people here. As long as you had fun, what the hell? But what I object to is the insistence, not just from Bethesda, that somehow immersion requires an first-person point of view. I'm not saying that good graphics and an fps view don't contribute to immersion. I'm just saying that story, dialogue, and everything else that makes the game more than just chasing after a MacGuffin does so much more powerfully. Fallout 1+2 had it, but we have no way of knowing whether Fallout 3 will have it because all the hoopla is about graphics.

 

[Ar.Pi]

Bethesda didn't make FO3 in FP because of immersion. They made it because that's what they make!

And what they make is money! Oblivion made a lot of money in FP. 1+1 = Money!

They would never make FO3 Isometric even if in their opinion it would be more immersive. They just took the safe money making route. Can't blame em' there.

Sadly.

 

[Brother None]

Immersion is what happens when you identify with your character.

Aye, identifying with, not pretending to be. There's a difference.

Seriously? Another vote for intentional detatchment? Because immersion is also a goal in table-top RPGs. But now in your mind immersion is a fault in a game, one of which Fallout was innocent?

Dig it, Johnny, we're not talking about visual immersion. A separation of player and character is exactly the point of pen and paper emulation (which, I should note, is emulating what pen and paper is, not what pen and paper wants to be) as it is of RTS.

This is still immersive, it just isn't visually immersive, which...

Immersion is an important goal, though apparently Fallout 1+2 never delivered it for at least two people here.

I think it never delivered in the visual sense, I doubt you'll find many people here who weren't engrossed, which is what immersion actually means rather than the narrow, senseless PR definition that is tied to first-person. That is why people object to the use of the term here, because of the way the gaming industry uses it.

The lead designer on FO3 is Pagliarulo, who is probably one of the more capable people on Bethesda team.

Unless it is Brian Mitsoda or Chris Avellone, you're seriously deluded if you think the choice of lead designer significantly impacts quality of writing.

Yes! I LOVED Bloodlines.And if FO3 brings something similar in quality to Bloodlines in terms of dialogue, atmosphere and quests, but expands on it with this huge open world (Todd HowardTM) (while retaining good story), it will quite possibly be the best game since..Fallout 2 : ).

Don't count on it.

The thing about classifying it as a spinoff - for everyone, the important things about FO are different.Since for me those important things were not TB and ISO (and PnP roots), I will not have a problem saying its a true sequel (supposing its as good as we hope..)

That's a bit egocentric of you. We generally recognize a lot of Fallout's core elements; choice and consequence, good branching dialogue, retro-50's post-apocalyptic future and pen and paper emulation. If they cut out any of those, it makes less sense to call it a sequel.

But you deny this based on...personal preference? That's not a very convincing argument, and it is rather narrow compared to our point of view.

We say: "Here is what Fallout was meant to be according to its original design. Fallout 3 differs from this in key areas, hence it is more of a spinoff than a sequel." (especially since its key differences are in mechanics, not setting)
You say: "Oh well that doesn't matter because my personal preference does not go out to TB gameplay so it is a real sequel."
We say: "Huh?"

Our argument is about what the franchise objectively is rather than what our personal preferences regarding it are. For some reason people always forget this and bring in "but I like!" arguments, as if they mean anything.

It is not about like, it is what it is.

I haven't played Shivering Isles yet, but I enjoyed (please don't kill me) Oblivion.

I enjoyed Oblivion too. Somewhat. It's about pretty significantly far removed from Fallout's philosophy, tho', and giving Bethesda the benefit of the doubt on making Fallout 3 due to Oblivion would be like giving Larian the benefit of the doubt on making Baldur's Gate III because Divine Divinity is a cool Diablo spin-off.

It doesn't work that way. Bethesda have certain competencies, but they've proved time and again those competencies do not match the game they're working on.

But anyway, this is where our opinion differs.

I repeat, it is not a matter of opinion, which is why your question about "preference" on FPP is pointless.

I don't believe the hype from either camp - neither the Beth one nor the NMA one.

Don't try selling that one here.

Bethesda has a staff paid to produce hype and creative untruths regarding their game. NMA considers it its task to bring about the most accurate coverage of the game in response, to bring out as much truth as possible.

The concept of NMA producing "anti-hype" is nothing but a lazy smear job.

 

[Eyenixon]

Stories just don't seem to be their thing. WTF are they doing making RPGs? Sigh.

I dont know if stories arent their "thing". I think its more of the type of story, i mean no matter how good a love story is, i'm just not gonna like it. It simple doesnt appeal to me.

Kinda like with demons/underworlds and the like. It really takes a very very strong story to keep me entertained with that plot line.

I like more of a scientific based "realistic" story (FO1, FO2, MGS Seires ect). Although when i come accross games like FFVII, FFVIII, and FFX i can still enjoy them because i think they have very strong stories that do a good job of roping the player in.

although it had a tad too much of an impact on this guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5keXN5UCQgQ

Not that it really matters, but since when did it start being mandatory for RPGs to have good stories? You know this genre is prone to the same storytelling conventions and tired plotlines - people act as though it's the most important thing. It really isn't, story is at best an RPG developer's third priority, their first is a strong structured indepth roleplaying system, their second is giving a good playing area to use this system in with entertaining causes and effects, and their third priority is to fill it up with stuff that makes it a little more interesting, IE story.

 

[Paul_cz]

Unless it is Brian Mitsoda or Chris Avellone, you're seriously deluded if you think the choice of lead designer significantly impacts quality of writing.

I don't know who writes what, but maybe there is someone capable of good writing? maybe? Avellone and Mitsoda had to start somewhere sometime too..but its very meaningless to argue about it - we'll just have to wait and play.

That's a bit egocentric of you. We generally recognize a lot of Fallout's core elements; choice and consequence, good branching dialogue, retro-50's post-apocalyptic future and pen and paper emulation. If they cut out any of those, it makes less sense to call it a sequel.

But you deny this based on...personal preference? That's not a very convincing argument, and it is rather narrow compared to our point of view.

We say: "Here is what Fallout was meant to be according to its original design. Fallout 3 differs from this in key areas, hence it is more of a spinoff than a sequel." (especially since its key differences are in mechanics, not setting)
You say: "Oh well that doesn't matter because my personal preference does not go out to TB gameplay so it is a real sequel."
We say: "Huh?"

Our argument is about what the franchise objectively is rather than what our personal preferences regarding it are. For some reason people always forget this and bring in "but I like!" arguments, as if they mean anything.

It is not about like, it is what it is.

Hey, I never tried to be objective! I get your argument and agree with it - so yes, for me it might be a good sequel even with changed mechanics, even if "objectively" that is not so.But I guess Beth people have the same view on things as me, so I understand their decision to name it Fallout 3. Even if its "objectively" wrong.

I enjoyed Oblivion too. Somewhat. It's about pretty significantly far removed from Fallout's philosophy, tho', and giving Bethesda the benefit of the doubt on making Fallout 3 due to Oblivion would be like giving Larian the benefit of the doubt on making Baldur's Gate III because Divine Divinity is a cool Diablo spin-off.

It doesn't work that way. Bethesda have certain competencies, but they've proved time and again those competencies do not match the game they're working on.

Yes, I said that designwise, Oblivion is perfect opposite of Fallout.But those were simply different design choices, they were trying to do a different things on those games than BIS did on Fallout.About Divine Divinity - you don't give Larian enough credit - DD was a lot more than just diablo clone/spinoff : ).It was actually really great rpg (I liked it even more than BG1 - never played second one).

 

[Scare]

So, Oblivion is the opposite of Fallout so it's good that they are combining them?

 

[PaladinHeart]

Are you referring to the real Baldur's Gate 1, or Dark Alliance?

If you mean Dark Alliance, then I'm sure there's a lot of games better than that, considering it's pretty much on par with FO: BoS.

However, if you mean the actual PC only Baldur's Gate, then that's kinda like saying you like Doom better than Sim City.

I really shouldn't defend Baldur's Gate 1 though, considering I fall asleep anytime I attempt to replay it, regardless of how much I want to replay it.

Basically, just because someone is good at making an action RPG does not mean they can also make something as in-depth as Fallout or PS: Torment.

Even if the story is good, if they don't know how to handle dialogue trees then you're either left with a silent, nameless Joe as the PC, or... Well that's usually what you get. Especially from a FPP style game.

 

[Brother None]

I don't know who writes what, but maybe there is someone capable of good writing? maybe? Avellone and Mitsoda had to start somewhere sometime too..but its very meaningless to argue about it - we'll just have to wait and play.

Yes. But Avellone was given almost total freedom on Planescape: Torment, and Mitsoda could massage his creative genius into Bloodlines because those around him were like-minded.

Whatever design decision Emil Pagliarulo takes, he has to check with the producers first, primarily Todd Howard, but also Pete Hines. Bethesda has a pretty rigid company structure compared to the likes of BIS and Troika, and that shows.

Hey, I never tried to be objective! I get your argument and agree with it - so yes, for me it might be a good sequel even with changed mechanics, even if "objectively" that is not so.But I guess Beth people have the same view on things as me, so I understand their decision to name it Fallout 3. Even if its "objectively" wrong.

Fair 'nough.

Yes, I said that designwise, Oblivion is perfect opposite of Fallout.But those were simply different design choices, they were trying to do a different things on those games than BIS did on Fallout.

Yes, I'd agree with this: Oblivion is certainly not proof that Bethesda can't do a Fallout game.

On the other hand, a lot of major decisions they've made on Fallout 3 so far were done because they worked for Oblivion (or based on mistakes in Oblivion) and Bethesda openly recognizes this: quest compass, level scaling, FP/RT combat, all based on Oblivion mechanics.

So how are they now trying to do things differently?

About Divine Divinity - you don't give Larian enough credit - DD was a lot more than just diablo clone/spinoff : ).It was actually really great rpg (I liked it even more than BG1 - never played second one).[/quote]

 

[shorrtybearr]

Not that it really matters, but since when did it start being mandatory for RPGs to have good stories? You know this genre is prone to the same storytelling conventions and tired plotlines - people act as though it's the most important thing. It really isn't, story is at best an RPG developer's third priority, their first is a strong structured indepth roleplaying system, their second is giving a good playing area to use this system in with entertaining causes and effects, and their third priority is to fill it up with stuff that makes it a little more interesting, IE story.

I disagree, a flashy game with great mechanics and great graphics doesnt make a good game.

Imagine MGS without the story line and you'll see my point. (its not techincally a "traditional" rpg but still makes my point)

If a story is weak and unbelievebale not to mention told badly then it doesnt matter what you jazz it up with its still gonna be a bad story told badly.

Also i never said it was "mandatory for RPGs to have good stories" although it should be. A game is built from story or plot upwards, you cannot pitch to a company

"i want to make a game, its gotta be flashy with great music, great effects, and great graphics but err.......i dunno what its about yet...might involve aliens or something gooey, maybe some other.....stuff"