Brian Fargo on Fallout 4 and Wasteland 2. Post in news section?

[The_Proletarian]

"[Fallout 4]'s more action-oriented, so that makes it different than what I would have done, but that being said, it looks great," Fargo said during a recent chat. "They've captured a lot of the essence of what made the Fallout universe, and they really pour a lot of effort into little things, whether it's the crafting, or the personality or how many names the robot can speak. I tip my hat to the craftsmanship they've brought to the franchise."

"With Wasteland, we kind of bent over backwards to ensure that everybody can be killed in that game. And you know what, it's a pain in the ass to design for that, because from beginning to end, there's all those NPCs and all those characters, and every single one of them can be killed," he continued. "And they're not fodder, they're people that have conversations and plot and reasons to be there. So when you account for being able to shoot and kill everything, it makes your design multiply."

It also potentially exposes game makers to backlash from over-excited parents and tut-tutting Fox News commentators if they take things too far. Fargo said game makers "ride this line" between immersion and caution, and reminded me that this isn't the first time Bethesda has opted for the latter: In the first two Fallouts, players who killed children were tagged with the "Childkiller" reputation, penalizing their NPC reactions and exposing them to bounty hunters. In Fallout 3 and beyond, Bethesda opted to simply make kids invulnerable.

"There was always this discussion [for Interplay's Fallouts] of, well, you want to make everyone killable because otherwise the world doesn't feel real, because you're fully immersed. When you're playing these games, it's like, for a moment there, you're in this alternate reality, and it's real for you. You are there. So when something suddenly doesn't work that works everywhere else, it breaks you out of it for a moment," he said. "But then you have to contrast that with, you don't want to be the sound bite that says, 'Here's a game that allows the killing of kids.' Because that's not what it's about. So there's always that friction between those two things."

I asked Fargo if he felt Bethesda's take on the setting had become more parodic than he'd envisioned."Ours were quite grim in some ways, but we always had levity also. We always had that dark sense of humor, and I love a dark sense of humor, more than just about anything, so I don't know if I'd use the word 'parody'," he said. "These things take on a different tone depending on who's in charge of them. I think with any creative endeavor, you can take a franchise and put in a [different] director, and it's going to have a different beat to it."

Wasteland 2 has helped put Fargo and inXile at the forefront of a cRPG renaissance. Even so, he didn't hesitate when I asked if he'd be interested in making a new Fallout someday. But time has passed and attitudes have changed, he added, and so while the opportunity to add a new chapter to the story would be “a treat,” the reality is that an inXile-built Fallout wouldn’t be the sort of direct, note-for-note follow-up that Van Buren adherents dream of. And really, that's what Wasteland 2 is all about anyway: Making the kind of post-apocalyptic RPG he really wants, for the people who want that kind of experience.

The point is that, in spite of its lineage, The Bard's Tale IV isn't just a nostalgia project. The series predates Wasteland and hasn't had the benefit of a Fallout-like spinoff to keep it at the forefront of gamer consciousness. Because of that, Bard's Tale IV may well diverge further from its predecessor, perhaps even evolving into something with echoes of Bethesda's Fallout resurrection. That would be quite a reversal of roles—and a lot of fun to watch.

http://www.pcgamer.com/two-paths-through-the-wasteland-brian-fargo-on-wasteland-2-and-fallout-4/

 

[ZigzagPX4]

Why is no one responding on this thread? This seems like a pretty enlightening article.

"[Fallout 4]'s more action-oriented, so that makes it different than what I would have done, but that being said, it looks great," Fargo said during a recent chat. "They've captured a lot of the essence of what made the Fallout universe, and they really pour a lot of effort into little things, whether it's the crafting, or the personality or how many names the robot can speak. I tip my hat to the craftsmanship they've brought to the franchise."

Sure, but was what they sacrificed in favour of such craftsmanship worth it? Many here don't believe so, I assume.

"With Wasteland, we kind of bent over backwards to ensure that everybody can be killed in that game. And you know what, it's a pain in the ass to design for that, because from beginning to end, there's all those NPCs and all those characters, and every single one of them can be killed," he continued. "And they're not fodder, they're people that have conversations and plot and reasons to be there. So when you account for being able to shoot and kill everything, it makes your design multiply."

It also potentially exposes game makers to backlash from over-excited parents and tut-tutting Fox News commentators if they take things too far. Fargo said game makers "ride this line" between immersion and caution, and reminded me that this isn't the first time Bethesda has opted for the latter: In the first two Fallouts, players who killed children were tagged with the "Childkiller" reputation, penalizing their NPC reactions and exposing them to bounty hunters. In Fallout 3 and beyond, Bethesda opted to simply make kids invulnerable.

The first part here, I sort of see the point. Fallout 4 goes a little too far with this, though. If the limit stops at resources and game design, that's understandable, but there are parts of Fallout 4 NPC design that just reeks of laziness. From what I've seen of the random encounters list, Bethesda is clearly capable of having the effect of your choices show up later. They should've shoved this effort into the consequences of NPC deaths itself rather than cameo appearances of earlier characters from completed quests in random spots of the wasteland.

The second part is sadly normal in today's society. I don't believe that Fallout would allow children to be killed again even if the game returned to Obsidian and became an isometric game.

"There was always this discussion [for Interplay's Fallouts] of, well, you want to make everyone killable because otherwise the world doesn't feel real, because you're fully immersed. When you're playing these games, it's like, for a moment there, you're in this alternate reality, and it's real for you. You are there. So when something suddenly doesn't work that works everywhere else, it breaks you out of it for a moment," he said. "But then you have to contrast that with, you don't want to be the sound bite that says, 'Here's a game that allows the killing of kids.' Because that's not what it's about. So there's always that friction between those two things."

Grand Theft Auto is supposed to be a satirical reflection of whatever era it is released in, but the game's seen as a massacre simulator anyways. This isn't unusual in video games, is it?

I asked Fargo if he felt Bethesda's take on the setting had become more parodic than he'd envisioned."Ours were quite grim in some ways, but we always had levity also. We always had that dark sense of humor, and I love a dark sense of humor, more than just about anything, so I don't know if I'd use the word 'parody'," he said. "These things take on a different tone depending on who's in charge of them. I think with any creative endeavor, you can take a franchise and put in a [different] director, and it's going to have a different beat to it."

Sure. Change of tone is nice, from time to time.

Wasteland 2 has helped put Fargo and inXile at the forefront of a cRPG renaissance. Even so, he didn't hesitate when I asked if he'd be interested in making a new Fallout someday. But time has passed and attitudes have changed, he added, and so while the opportunity to add a new chapter to the story would be “a treat,” the reality is that an inXile-built Fallout wouldn’t be the sort of direct, note-for-note follow-up that Van Buren adherents dream of. And really, that's what Wasteland 2 is all about anyway: Making the kind of post-apocalyptic RPG he really wants, for the people who want that kind of experience.

At this point, I'm pretty confident the only people capable of making what this forum considers a true Fallout sequel is the people from this forum itself. Indie development once Bethesda ditches the franchise, if they ever. Niches this specific just don't exist in the mainstream game industry anymore.

The point is that, in spite of its lineage, The Bard's Tale IV isn't just a nostalgia project. The series predates Wasteland and hasn't had the benefit of a Fallout-like spinoff to keep it at the forefront of gamer consciousness. Because of that, Bard's Tale IV may well diverge further from its predecessor, perhaps even evolving into something with echoes of Bethesda's Fallout resurrection. That would be quite a reversal of roles—and a lot of fun to watch.

I'm not very familiar with the Bard's Tale series. I think I'm a little more interested in finding out a little more, now.

 

[ElderMaxson]

No one is replying because it probably already is in the news section, check there because no one ever checks here