Fallout 3: Bad to the Bone

[Moester]

I must say that I found it disturbing that he's the lead designer. But I've just watched the video again, and there's something off about it. It's almost like the designers were asked some leading questions and were trying to awnser as best as they could, but since they're not exactly PR guys, they came out wrong.

I think that what we're seeing is the result of seeing snippets of an interview pieced together to have a theme...but without context. After watching it more closely its clear that what Emil was talking about was taken after he had already begun and without hearing the question asked. He seems (after my original outrage has passed) to be responding directly to the question of the reporter rather than simply talking about his preferred gaming experience.

I was unimpressed with the IGN article which I thought was written from a munchkin's perspective, and I let that article colour my interpretation of the video.

Oh, so Ed "Gain" is actually Emil? Well, then it must be IGN's interview process, yeah that's what it was. He wasn't acting genuinely creepy like you said earlier, that's just IGN and its spin.

Talk about waffling, and all because you figured out who he was.

No, I was talking about the guy from IGN who wrote the article and basically acted like a serial killer the entire way through as the Ed Gain wannabe.

And you can call my deletion of previous post waffling if you wish; but I call it giving it a second look with a little perspective. At first I thought that the interviews were made to complement the article. But afterwards, it seemed a lot more like it was an interview taken at a different time, with several abrupt cut outs to isolate certain portions of the interview to match the tone they wanted to set.

As a matter of fact, if you look at the interview again, its pretty obvious that most of those guys seemed to be pretty uncomfortable through the process...not just Emil, but all the guys seemed to have a hard time awnsering the questions. I would have liked to see the interviews in their interity including the questions which were asked rather than a collection of snippets. It's a lot easier to misinterpret something when you don't have the whole picture. How can you truly evaluate the awnser when you don't know the question that was asked?

 

[Brother None]

As a matter of fact, if you look at the interview again, its pretty obvious that most of those guys seemed to be pretty uncomfortable through the process...not just Emil, but all the guys seemed to have a hard time awnsering the questions.

Look, uh, honestly, let me point something out here because this silliness has gone on long enough.

These aren't interviews. They're only called interviews because that's the nearest term to describe them. They're...video diaries, if you will.

How do I know this? Because this is a Bethesda feature, hosted on IGN. The preview text is IGN's, but Bethesda provides all the footage: new screenshots, new gameplay footage and - of course - IGN and Bethesda determine what each day deals with and then get the devs to talk about it.

There's a reason Emil is repeating the same thing he said earlier regarding decapitating old people: this is regurgitated PR stuff. If they look uncomfortable, it's because neither Istvan nor Emil is used to regurgitating PR spiels (Todd is).

I honestly doubt there was ever an interview at all. If there was, then it's still not IGN that does the cutting and selection of footage, it's Bethesda

It's just how the industry works, guys.

 

[gc051360]

I love how when they talk about "moral ambiguity" they bring up such cut and dry examples.

 

[Moester]

I love how when they talk about "moral ambiguity" they bring up such cut and dry examples.

Ambuguity doesn't provide hits to your website, slaughter does. Besides, it takes a lot longer to explain the moral choices of a character than saying "I just capped a bunch of fools and took all they had"

 

[Brother None]

Ambuguity doesn't provide hits to your website, slaughter does. Besides, it takes a lot longer to explain the moral choices of a character than saying "I just capped a bunch of fools and took all they had"

What?

They've now had 2 years (if not more) to come up with great examples of moral ambiguity. They never needed to make it their main selling point, but that's not it: it's never come up. Through Bethesda's entire PR campaign Megaton has been the biggest example of how Fallout 3 treats morality.

I'm sorry, but over that amount of time with that amount of PR generated, the "they prefer other topics right now" excuse long since failed.

 

[AskWazzup]

Now i understand that mostly all people have some weird fantasies that they can't carry out in real life thus sending them to the virtual life exile, but i think it's probably better to avoid giving these thoughts a verbal shape. Although, even after having said that, i would still prefer to hear Emils voice instead of the highly annoying, goblin like voice from Todd Howard.

It's also fun to listen how they are talking about crossing the line when it comes to mindless violence, but after a question about sex themes, or some other uncomfortable topics, quickly mutter something about how it would be wrong for such things to be in the game.

I don't know, it just seems like this game is being made for teenagers, but slapped with a big M to make it taste like a forbidden fruit which is always sweeter.

 

[Per]

the 24 hour thing [..] is a logical, player friendly decision, present in most CRPG´s. Yes, both Fallouts as well.

No, it wasn't.

Turning into a ghoul really fast is OK, universe rules are there for coherence, not for restricting dramatic development.

Agreed.

Actually, you can talk him down to just getting his "share of the loot"

Which, note, he never does.

What do you mean? He always carries a lot of stuff in my games. It's all "his".

 

[Ausir]

Turning into a ghoul really fast is OK, universe rules are there for coherence, not for restricting dramatic development.

Actually, neither Fallout nor Fallout 2 say exactly how fast the transformation is (and believe me, I did try to find proof that Beth is wrong), and even though it seems logical that the process is more gradual, the only source that actually confirms it is Van Buren.

 

[Deleted member 53669]

Turning into a ghoul really fast is OK, universe rules are there for coherence, not for restricting dramatic development.

Actually, neither Fallout nor Fallout 2 say exactly how fast the transformation is (and believe me, I did try to find proof that Beth is wrong), and even though it seems logical that the process is more gradual, the only source that actually confirms it is Van Buren.

Well, common sense still dictates after the canon of what happened at necropolis that nukes don't usually turn people into ghouls. Mutation occurs at specific variables genetically with exposure that usually kills about 75% of those exposed, and doesn't turn people into "Feral Zombies" immediately after a dose. Retardation is possible, but highly unlikely to any first-hand exposures. It usually shows up in future generations way afterwards.

But, Beth doesn't really have common sense, and probably assumed radiation = zombie.


It's all Will Smith's fault.


Where is the formor NRA spokesman when you need him?