CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
I think it's kind of funny the interviewer kept asking about Fallout and Obsidian. He didn't ask, "Would you work for Bethesda on a new Fallout game?"
Carbon Dated and Proud
I think it's kind of funny the interviewer kept asking about Fallout and Obsidian. He didn't ask, "Would you work for Bethesda on a new Fallout game?"
CaptJ
The Rival of Roquefort Hall
I think that you know the reason why. It is like when a TV host only get letters from fans about when the guest host is coming back.
Without being too mean, FO:NV gave a lot of Bethesda fans some semblance of taste.
CerberusGate
I should save my game in a whole new slot
One sentiment that appeared on r/Fallout is that it seems as though the interviewer was trying to bait Avellone into badmouthing or criticizing Bethesda's Fallout 4 (since the sentiment among actual modern Fallout fans on that site is that New Vegas and Obsidian are superior to Bethesda's 4). From what I read, that sentiment may be somewhat accurate with references in the questions on the negative reception to Bethesda and their latest Fallout game.
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
Yeah, but I think Chris Avellone has been forward he isn't adverse to working with Bethesda on Fallout.
Which is better than just the company of Obsidian.
eissa
Artanis "Altáriel" Nerwen Nos Finwe
Guys, i would love to just see obsidian turn out to be good. Tyranny is closer to release; so there's still hope.
I doubt Obsidian will turn overnight, but it's going to be a long road. When big names drop out of it, that's when we should be concerned. Anyway, I'm still convinced that we will see Chris's name attached to a future Fallout, which both has me a little excited and a little nervous.
Just came on to offer the unpopular opinion about my own tastes and feelings.
As a long time player of Fallout 1/2, I enjoyed the transfer to an explorable world with Fallout 3, it was a fun new experience albeit lacking in some of the presentable features. I pumped a couple hundred hours into it to be sure. The modding definitely opened that up in a big way and made it more enjoyable in many many respects. When NV came out I was excited because I thought it would feel like Fallout 1/2, the atmosphere, the writing, the music. But, what I really felt was that the world was bland, put together quickly and poorly, the flavour of the fallout universe seemed to be largely missing in many places. The game was rushed which was obvious, it wasnt crafted the way it should have been to fill it up with that flavour I was hoping to get. I put about 50 hours into it before putting it down without looking back. Maybe I was just burned out from Fallout 3 and a game based on the same engine without much improvement couldn't hold my interest at that point.
Now when Fallout 4 came out, all I could think was "Finally". The detail put into all the presentable elements were finally there and all I could think was "This was how Fallout 3 SHOULD have been". F4 to me is Bethesdas first real entry into the Fallout Universe, and in my own opinion it gets to stand with Fallout 1 and 2 where 3 and NV can't. The tone, even though it is not as dark(market testing causes this I think), is quite true to Fallout in many ways. Having a voiced protagonist only removes the superficial nature of the voice I would have heard when reading the lines like in older games. Building settlements just puts the game on the path that players have always wanted for these types of games, affecting real change in the game world. Sure, superficial settlements in F4, but in Fallout 6, how much more influence does the player have to walk into a premade settlement, wreak havoc on the population and dismantle it piece by piece, or spread goodwill among the NPCs and start building it up narrative by narrative into something much more than what you initially find.
Bethesda draws a great deal of ire from players of the older games and fans, etc. But really, I think they are on the absolutely right path with their game design decisions and they are moving the series forward in a good way. Yes, alot of RPGness of the stats were removed in F4, but now they have a much more solid platform to start readding some of those designs and implementing even better features for future games.
In the end though I will definitely say that their DLC was lacking in a lot of ways and their ask on the season pass price was too high for too little. It likely made sense from their position, which is one of profit of a lot for the few at the expense of the many(nice world we live in). I am hopeful for their next game in anycase and I will likely pre-order it like I did Fallout 4, although I didnt buy the season pass for 4 when it was cheap, so I am waiting for a 50% off during xmas sales to get it at the cheap price again anyways, lol.
About the interview with CA. I think he is just burned out answering the same questions over and over and trying to placate other peoples feelings that he likely doesnt share for a great many number of reasons and when people say things like "Bethesda" he probably scratches his head thinking "Are you referring to someone in specific at that company, or are you trying to create a persona for it?"
Fallout isn't dead, its just beginning.
*runs away and hides in a vault to avoid nukes*
As a long time player of Fallout 1/2, I enjoyed the transfer to an explorable world with Fallout 3, it was a fun new experience albeit lacking in some of the presentable features. I pumped a couple hundred hours into it to be sure. The modding definitely opened that up in a big way and made it more enjoyable in many many respects. When NV came out I was excited because I thought it would feel like Fallout 1/2, the atmosphere, the writing, the music. But, what I really felt was that the world was bland, put together quickly and poorly, the flavour of the fallout universe seemed to be largely missing in many places. The game was rushed which was obvious, it wasnt crafted the way it should have been to fill it up with that flavour I was hoping to get. I put about 50 hours into it before putting it down without looking back. Maybe I was just burned out from Fallout 3 and a game based on the same engine without much improvement couldn't hold my interest at that point.
Now when Fallout 4 came out, all I could think was "Finally". The detail put into all the presentable elements were finally there and all I could think was "This was how Fallout 3 SHOULD have been". F4 to me is Bethesdas first real entry into the Fallout Universe, and in my own opinion it gets to stand with Fallout 1 and 2 where 3 and NV can't. The tone, even though it is not as dark(market testing causes this I think), is quite true to Fallout in many ways. Having a voiced protagonist only removes the superficial nature of the voice I would have heard when reading the lines like in older games. Building settlements just puts the game on the path that players have always wanted for these types of games, affecting real change in the game world. Sure, superficial settlements in F4, but in Fallout 6, how much more influence does the player have to walk into a premade settlement, wreak havoc on the population and dismantle it piece by piece, or spread goodwill among the NPCs and start building it up narrative by narrative into something much more than what you initially find.
Bethesda draws a great deal of ire from players of the older games and fans, etc. But really, I think they are on the absolutely right path with their game design decisions and they are moving the series forward in a good way. Yes, alot of RPGness of the stats were removed in F4, but now they have a much more solid platform to start readding some of those designs and implementing even better features for future games.
In the end though I will definitely say that their DLC was lacking in a lot of ways and their ask on the season pass price was too high for too little. It likely made sense from their position, which is one of profit of a lot for the few at the expense of the many(nice world we live in). I am hopeful for their next game in anycase and I will likely pre-order it like I did Fallout 4, although I didnt buy the season pass for 4 when it was cheap, so I am waiting for a 50% off during xmas sales to get it at the cheap price again anyways, lol.
About the interview with CA. I think he is just burned out answering the same questions over and over and trying to placate other peoples feelings that he likely doesnt share for a great many number of reasons and when people say things like "Bethesda" he probably scratches his head thinking "Are you referring to someone in specific at that company, or are you trying to create a persona for it?"
Fallout isn't dead, its just beginning.
*runs away and hides in a vault to avoid nukes*
Dr Fallout
Centurion
Hahahaha, have a like before you're either ignored as a troll or ripped into shreds.
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
Fallout 3 blows Fallout 4 away. Sorry man.
Dr Fallout
Centurion
And Fallout New Vegas blows both of them away.
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
But yes, Obsidian is something I've never supported so much as the developers IN Obsidian.
Obsidian is basically Image comics.
It started out as a place for super-talented developers to have more freedom and money then ended up every bit as bad as the rest with less resources.
Obsidian is basically Image comics.
It started out as a place for super-talented developers to have more freedom and money then ended up every bit as bad as the rest with less resources.
Jabberwok
Mildly Dipped
Seems like the interviewer needed to ask less hardball questions if they wanted real answers. Trying to get him to badmouth Bethesda on record is clearly not going to work. I'd rather see an interviewer mining for real information than going in with some sort of political agenda. We already know the ways in which Bethesda has failed the franchise, regardless of what Avellone has to say.
A bit sad to sense the iciness with Obsidian, though. But as long as Tyranny is good, I'm willing to keep liking them. Wouldn't mind if Paradox bought them. They're one of the few publishers I actually respect, at least based on their track record.
A bit sad to sense the iciness with Obsidian, though. But as long as Tyranny is good, I'm willing to keep liking them. Wouldn't mind if Paradox bought them. They're one of the few publishers I actually respect, at least based on their track record.
Jabberwok
Mildly Dipped
You had me until this. One hundred percent disagree. Rushed product? Maybe. Less of Fallout's character than 3? Absolutely not. I cannot be a relativisit on this. You are just wrong about Fallout.
Case in point. Really, everything in that paragraph was a travesty, but this is by far the worst part. Next you'll tell me that every Zelda fan secretly wanted a microtransaction clicker, or that I liked The Terminator for all the ways it was like The Hangover 2.
Fallout was an RPG about wandering a reactive, morally bankrupt wasteland. Bethesda's Fallout is a middling FPS about trying to fit Minecraft and The Sims into a buggy, poorly written themepark with high fantasy sensibilities. I disagree with you in every possible way.
Except this. Totally agree.
*breaks down your door with a super sledge to feed you to the mutants*
Shit.
@Jabberwok is savage.
@Jabberwok is savage.
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
Chris Avellone: Eh, Bethesda's an okay bunch.
*Interview explodes*
*Interview explodes*
Tiny Tim
Still Mildly Glowing
I'm kind of new to the gaming world , so i guess this kind of attitude is common , but i can't say that i like it . Actually , it is frustrating .
Chris Avellone is a bethesda apologist now ? And why is he talking like a politician or something ?
Avoiding to reply directly , saying stuff like " i don't know , it doesn't matter " and then plainly attacking fallout 1 , 2 , new vegas instead of replying to valid points against fallout 4.
" Personally, have you enjoyed Fallout 4, and is there anything as a fan and developer of the Fallout series that you wish they did differently?
CA: I only played a little of Fallout 4, so I couldn't say."
yeah right !
"
What do you think Fallout 2/New Vegas do better than Fallout 3-4 and vice versa?
CA: That's difficult to say from the internal perspective of then and now - and it depends on what design element you're talking about. Story-wise, I can definitely say Fallout 2 did a worse job on many fronts than Fallout 1, for example, and New Vegas did a lot of things even worse than Fallout 2... "
wow ! So let's just ignore fallout 4's story and just focus on how fallout 1 had a better story than 2 .
"...but did better on the world exploration front than F2 could hope to do based on tech alone (but which F3 and F4 did better, imo). Bethesda definitely has a better design-exploration-aesthetic than any game I've worked on"
yeah , suddently talking about fallout 4 again now that we're on what it did nice
" SB: The older Fallout games, especially 2, seemed much more willing to explore darker subject matter such as rape, child killing, sex etc than Bethesda’s games do. Was there any line that you guys didn’t want to cross, and why do you think Bethesda shies away somewhat from this kind of content?
CA: Even if I knew, I couldn’t speak to Black Isle's and Bethesda's decisions. I really doubt there was much creative restrictions on F2 because no one was really at the wheel checking the content or managing the production. It doesn't matter, though, as most treatments I've seen of those subjects is for shock value, so I'm not sure anything narratively significant has been lost if they are reined in or passed over."
yeah , it doesn't matter at all . Let's just ignore the creative restrictions of bethesda . Anyway , i don't know ( did i mention that ? )
" SB: Tim Cain, one of the other fathers of Fallout that you have worked with in the past, once famously said that “My idea is to explore more of the world and more of the ethics of a post-nuclear world, not to make a better plasma gun” Todd Howard and bethesda on the other hand, seemed to dedicate a lot more of their time and resources into allowing the player to create a better plasma gun (among other Minecraft-esque features) than they do exploring the ethics of a post nuclear world. Does this bother you at all? And how fine do you think the line between focusing too much on things like combat and customization, rather than not enough on them, is?
CA: I don't know, I wasn't there during the development of Fallout 1 and Fallout 3/4 and can't speak to the internal design choices made.
That said, previous games both Tim and I have worked on have definitely focused on combat to the extent of damaging the storyline, especially enforced/mandatory violent path options, and ones that had obsessive weapon design schemes that had a priority over narrative aspects."
That's just insulting and makes no sense at all . What doesn't he know again ? That fallout 4 focuses more to combat than the classics , that had 15 times more dialogue ? And what's with the freaking ad-hominem crap ? Is he seriously suggesting that it was the classics that put combat over story ?
"Does it bother you that Bethesda seems almost unwilling to acknowledge New Vegas’ existence, and do you think the fact that many prefer it to their version(s) of the series has something to do with that?
CA: It's their license..."
wow . just wow .
"Bethesda did reference San Francisco in Kellog's memory dungeon in F4, though, and it was clearly a Fallout 2 reference."
big deal . Also , suddently he seems to know fallout 4 well , even though he said previously that he hadn't really played the game enough to even say if he liked it or not
" I still think it was weird to do a Vegas when we already had a New Reno, it felt like the record was skipping. Still, it's likely because Vegas is more a key (and recognizable) signature city than Reno was, but I don't know why the decision was made."
again ad hominem crap . Suddently it's new vegas that doesn't care about the originals?
"For example, according to Fallout 4, jet was available pre-war and not created by Myron in Fallout 2. Also, there is an Enclave Power Armor suit at Nuka World that was also made pre-war (when it explicitly states in the game it was created post war), among other inconsistencies.How much is making sure all the lore in your games adds up and is consistent something you focus on in your games? And do you take issue with Bethesda at all for these lore inconsistencies?
CA: Do I take issue with them? No. (And considering what jet was originally made from, that lore point should make a lot of players happy.)"
no . Just no . Jet was invented by Myron . This is a key point of fallout 2 . There's just no denying it , even if myron used brahmin shit . 100 slaves were killed in the making of the drug , if i remember correctly . Also , no one else could produce the drug in New Reno other than that genius kid ( the dealers in the streets sold crap ) and Myron explains in detail how he created it . Myron was so important , that the control of all nearby cities depended on him and his drug and his boss was keeping him hidden and fortified like the goose with the golden eggs . So it is made absolutely clear that Myron and Myron alone could make the drug and that it did not exist before him, otherwise the whole plot of fallout 2 would make no sense .
It's never cool for artists to act like they're trying to be employees of the month . it's the reason why most of us hate guys like todd howard .
Chris Avellone is a bethesda apologist now ? And why is he talking like a politician or something ?
Avoiding to reply directly , saying stuff like " i don't know , it doesn't matter " and then plainly attacking fallout 1 , 2 , new vegas instead of replying to valid points against fallout 4.
" Personally, have you enjoyed Fallout 4, and is there anything as a fan and developer of the Fallout series that you wish they did differently?
CA: I only played a little of Fallout 4, so I couldn't say."
yeah right !
"
What do you think Fallout 2/New Vegas do better than Fallout 3-4 and vice versa?
CA: That's difficult to say from the internal perspective of then and now - and it depends on what design element you're talking about. Story-wise, I can definitely say Fallout 2 did a worse job on many fronts than Fallout 1, for example, and New Vegas did a lot of things even worse than Fallout 2... "
wow ! So let's just ignore fallout 4's story and just focus on how fallout 1 had a better story than 2 .
"...but did better on the world exploration front than F2 could hope to do based on tech alone (but which F3 and F4 did better, imo). Bethesda definitely has a better design-exploration-aesthetic than any game I've worked on"
yeah , suddently talking about fallout 4 again now that we're on what it did nice
" SB: The older Fallout games, especially 2, seemed much more willing to explore darker subject matter such as rape, child killing, sex etc than Bethesda’s games do. Was there any line that you guys didn’t want to cross, and why do you think Bethesda shies away somewhat from this kind of content?
CA: Even if I knew, I couldn’t speak to Black Isle's and Bethesda's decisions. I really doubt there was much creative restrictions on F2 because no one was really at the wheel checking the content or managing the production. It doesn't matter, though, as most treatments I've seen of those subjects is for shock value, so I'm not sure anything narratively significant has been lost if they are reined in or passed over."
yeah , it doesn't matter at all . Let's just ignore the creative restrictions of bethesda . Anyway , i don't know ( did i mention that ? )
" SB: Tim Cain, one of the other fathers of Fallout that you have worked with in the past, once famously said that “My idea is to explore more of the world and more of the ethics of a post-nuclear world, not to make a better plasma gun” Todd Howard and bethesda on the other hand, seemed to dedicate a lot more of their time and resources into allowing the player to create a better plasma gun (among other Minecraft-esque features) than they do exploring the ethics of a post nuclear world. Does this bother you at all? And how fine do you think the line between focusing too much on things like combat and customization, rather than not enough on them, is?
CA: I don't know, I wasn't there during the development of Fallout 1 and Fallout 3/4 and can't speak to the internal design choices made.
That said, previous games both Tim and I have worked on have definitely focused on combat to the extent of damaging the storyline, especially enforced/mandatory violent path options, and ones that had obsessive weapon design schemes that had a priority over narrative aspects."
That's just insulting and makes no sense at all . What doesn't he know again ? That fallout 4 focuses more to combat than the classics , that had 15 times more dialogue ? And what's with the freaking ad-hominem crap ? Is he seriously suggesting that it was the classics that put combat over story ?
"Does it bother you that Bethesda seems almost unwilling to acknowledge New Vegas’ existence, and do you think the fact that many prefer it to their version(s) of the series has something to do with that?
CA: It's their license..."
wow . just wow .
"Bethesda did reference San Francisco in Kellog's memory dungeon in F4, though, and it was clearly a Fallout 2 reference."
big deal . Also , suddently he seems to know fallout 4 well , even though he said previously that he hadn't really played the game enough to even say if he liked it or not
" I still think it was weird to do a Vegas when we already had a New Reno, it felt like the record was skipping. Still, it's likely because Vegas is more a key (and recognizable) signature city than Reno was, but I don't know why the decision was made."
again ad hominem crap . Suddently it's new vegas that doesn't care about the originals?
"For example, according to Fallout 4, jet was available pre-war and not created by Myron in Fallout 2. Also, there is an Enclave Power Armor suit at Nuka World that was also made pre-war (when it explicitly states in the game it was created post war), among other inconsistencies.How much is making sure all the lore in your games adds up and is consistent something you focus on in your games? And do you take issue with Bethesda at all for these lore inconsistencies?
CA: Do I take issue with them? No. (And considering what jet was originally made from, that lore point should make a lot of players happy.)"
no . Just no . Jet was invented by Myron . This is a key point of fallout 2 . There's just no denying it , even if myron used brahmin shit . 100 slaves were killed in the making of the drug , if i remember correctly . Also , no one else could produce the drug in New Reno other than that genius kid ( the dealers in the streets sold crap ) and Myron explains in detail how he created it . Myron was so important , that the control of all nearby cities depended on him and his drug and his boss was keeping him hidden and fortified like the goose with the golden eggs . So it is made absolutely clear that Myron and Myron alone could make the drug and that it did not exist before him, otherwise the whole plot of fallout 2 would make no sense .
It's never cool for artists to act like they're trying to be employees of the month . it's the reason why most of us hate guys like todd howard .
Last edited:
While I do agree that Chris is being very open with his answers, we have to look at it from his point of view. If he starts to badmouth Bethesda (a company he is currently employed by) he could pretty much be kicked out of the industry. Very rarely does a developer get away with badmouthing their employees and getting away with it (the only exception is Kojima and even then, he didn't really go all out).
He hasn't even said anything bad about Obsidian besides problems with the higher ups.
Also, it should be stated it's easier to be critical over your own work than someone else's. He probably realises that most Fallout 4 fans aren't going to read the interview, so he can be a bit more critical of his own work which isn't uncommon.
He probably thinks Fallout 4 is shit, it's why he hasn't got much to say about it. Its time to just let his opinions go and allow that he is being nice for the sake of his job. Besides, this could lead to him working on a Fallout 5 or spin off which the series really needs... talent.
He hasn't even said anything bad about Obsidian besides problems with the higher ups.
Also, it should be stated it's easier to be critical over your own work than someone else's. He probably realises that most Fallout 4 fans aren't going to read the interview, so he can be a bit more critical of his own work which isn't uncommon.
He probably thinks Fallout 4 is shit, it's why he hasn't got much to say about it. Its time to just let his opinions go and allow that he is being nice for the sake of his job. Besides, this could lead to him working on a Fallout 5 or spin off which the series really needs... talent.
Tiny Tim
Still Mildly Glowing
I can understand that , but i still don't like it .
Also , i doubt he'll be able to make a good game under bethesda if he doesn't even have the freedom or the will to criticize certain elements of fallout 4 . This interview implies that fallout 4 cares about the writing in general and the fallout lore in particular at least as much as older games like fallout new vegas , while also having better better design-exploration-aesthetic .
I don't much like bosses anyway , the only reason one should ever defend his or her boss is if they're in need of them . Especially an artist .
Also , i doubt he'll be able to make a good game under bethesda if he doesn't even have the freedom or the will to criticize certain elements of fallout 4 . This interview implies that fallout 4 cares about the writing in general and the fallout lore in particular at least as much as older games like fallout new vegas , while also having better better design-exploration-aesthetic .
I don't much like bosses anyway , the only reason one should ever defend his or her boss is if they're in need of them . Especially an artist .
I'm pretty sure if he makes another Fallout, he'll be critical of fallout 4 in the 'I'm making my own game' kind of way.
A bit like New Vegas.
A bit like New Vegas.