Brian Fargo on Wasteland 2 and Fallout 4

  • Thread starter Thread starter TorontoReign
  • Start date Start date
T

TorontoReign

Guest
PC Gamer posted this interview today with Brian Fargo, who I'm sure we all know created Wasteland, the major inspiration to the Fallout series. In it he talks about what he thinks about Fallout 4 and how it differs from Wasteland 2, which has recently been updated with Wasteland 2: Directors Cut. A small portion can be viewed below.

"[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."


Fargo’s Wasteland 2 is more akin to the first two Fallout games than to its namesake, but Fallout under the auspices of Bethesda isn't what it once was either. The first two Fallouts were isometric RPGs with turn-based combat. Fallout 3, New Vegas, and soon Fallout 4 are powerfully immersive first-person experiences that are as much open-world shooters as anything else.


The differences in perspective and scale notwithstanding—and let's be fair, a multi-million-dollar Kickstarter doesn't even begin to approach the budget a big-time studio like Bethesda can bring to bear—the most meaningful difference between the modern-era Fallout and Wasteland lies in the storytelling. It's probably best typified by the decision to make Fallout 4's dog companion unkillable as a sop to delicate feelings. InXile, on the other hand, included a dog the 2004 edition of The Bard's Tale, "and we just made you love that dog," Fargo said. And then they killed it stone dead. Something similar happened to a vital NPC, as I was shocked to discover, at a critical juncture in Wasteland 2.


"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.


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."
 
I kinda wonder where this writer got some of the dubious info behind their claims.

kinda like this one: "let's be fair, a multi-million-dollar Kickstarter doesn't even begin to approach the budget a big-time studio like Bethesda can bring to bear"

Skyrims budget was about 85 million US dollars according to any source I can find.

A current early access game (Dayz SA) has sold 3 million copies at 30 bucks each, is still selling, and all this before even providing a beta (its barely at the level of a tech demo after 2 years). 90+ million dollars for something that's effectively a kickstarter, it just used steam to get people's money.


"Fallout 3, New Vegas, and soon Fallout 4 are powerfully immersive first-person experiences that are as much open-world shooters as anything else."

that one tho.. lol. "powerfully immersive" in the same piece that mentions their unexplainable unkillable NPCs and now instead of games they are "experiences"

It gets harder for me to actually believe these people are journalists every year.
 
I can think of only three games off the top of my head where you could kill children and they were Fallout/Fallout 2 and Jagged Alliance 2.

Pillar of Eternity. Every The Sims game. Deus Ex. The Walking Dead. Bioshock.

Ehh Sims...Kinda counts sorta...the kids usually died from neglect, not by putting a shotgun in their mouth and pulling the trigger. Bioshock I'm not sure about, you were removing the ADAM from them which caused them to die. But hey I'm no expert at killing children so everything's just an opinion. :P
 
I really do think that publicly he will praise it. However, Nothing Bethesda has honestly shown makes me think from a story telling side, or someone who cares about an RPG, That this holds some kind of merit. This game honestly almost is a shooter. (Fallout 4) More than it is an RPG.
 
You can Kill Emily at the end of Dishonored.

Edit: Sorry about the spoiler...
 
Last edited:
Despite all the stupid shit we keep hearing about Fallout 4, I can't help but get excited about it. I certainly won't buy it at release (maybe in few years, when it's 20$ with all DLCs), but I know I will have my fun watching walkthroughs by people like Manyatruenerd and such. Hell, even Tim Cain himself is excited.
12072601_10207723534183637_2100634416280330661_n.jpg


12107845_10207725850761550_3673625997891823548_n.jpg
 
Dishonoured is actually a really good game, that knows what it wants and gets it really well. The story isn't anything to brag about but the gameplay mechanics are balanced and fun.
 
To summarize:

PC Gamer: "How much do you hate Fallout 3/4?"

Brian Fargo: "Ermm.. i don't?"

PC Gamer: "Brian Fargo, why u do dis?"

I kinda wonder where this writer got some of the dubious info behind their claims.

kinda like this one: "let's be fair, a multi-million-dollar Kickstarter doesn't even begin to approach the budget a big-time studio like Bethesda can bring to bear"

Skyrims budget was about 85 million US dollars according to any source I can find.

A current early access game (Dayz SA) has sold 3 million copies at 30 bucks each, is still selling, and all this before even providing a beta (its barely at the level of a tech demo after 2 years). 90+ million dollars for something that's effectively a kickstarter, it just used steam to get people's money.


"Fallout 3, New Vegas, and soon Fallout 4 are powerfully immersive first-person experiences that are as much open-world shooters as anything else."

that one tho.. lol. "powerfully immersive" in the same piece that mentions their unexplainable unkillable NPCs and now instead of games they are "experiences"

It gets harder for me to actually believe these people are journalists every year.

Well Skyrim's budget was equal to what DAY-Z earned in years and Skyrim made 1.390.000.000$ and this doesn't include digital copies. Considering that game was at top 10 seller for years and still sells on Steam this number is much more higher(Skyrim may have sold more on PC than X-BOX for all we know [though not likely]).

Fallout Shelter alone earned few millions and may even exceed all those Kickstarters in a year.

These are just numbers so this doesn't prove they're better games or anything but fact is there is a big gap between AAA games and kickstarters.
 
Last edited:
Ehh Sims...Kinda counts sorta...the kids usually died from neglect, not by putting a shotgun in their mouth and pulling the trigger. Bioshock I'm not sure about, you were removing the ADAM from them which caused them to die. But hey I'm no expert at killing children so everything's just an opinion. :P

The main way to kill kids in The Sims is with fire, you can also starve teens. Also it counts as child killing in Bioshock, if you remove something vital for life you are killing that thing.
 
Ehh Sims...Kinda counts sorta...the kids usually died from neglect, not by putting a shotgun in their mouth and pulling the trigger. Bioshock I'm not sure about, you were removing the ADAM from them which caused them to die. But hey I'm no expert at killing children so everything's just an opinion. :P

The main way to kill kids in The Sims is with fire, you can also starve teens. Also it counts as child killing in Bioshock, if you remove something vital for life you are killing that thing.


Kilus....are you secretly Josef Mengele?
 
Another noteworthy quote from the article:

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well the question there is then; If the original creator wants his/her series to evolve into a different direction because that's what they feel would be best for it; Is it bad for them to do it? I mean, the difference between this and Fallout would be that Fallout was altered by people who did not create it. Same could be said for Elder Scrolls really as from what I've heard most of the people behind it have left the company so while it may have originated from Bethesda the creator(s) behind it are no longer there.

It also depends on what direction it is they want to take it into. See, if Fallout 3 was still real-time and first person but everything else was completely true to what a Fallout game ought to be then I wouldn't have had as many issues with it. But the reason why I loathe Bethesda's direction with Fallout is because it abandons everything that the original project strived for.

It's too early for me to get all paranoid about it. I'm going to need to know more about what Fargo means before I can judge his take on it. But I do not think it will be equatable to Bethesda's take on Fallout.
 
I would still not consider it a true Sequel though. That doesn't mean the game has to be bad. It's just not true to the spirit of the original game if it is to different. See Wasteland 1 and Wasteland 2.
 
He probably just means he wants to make it a BIT more accessible whilst not compromising the quality all too much or what made the originals great.
 
Back
Top