Fallout 3 interview on Eurogamer

Brother None

This ghoul has seen it all
Orderite
Eurogamer put up a pretty good interview with Fallout 3's lead designer Emil Pagiarulo and lead producer Gavin Carter.<blockquote>Eurogamer: What about the moral dimension of Looking Glass games? Does that permeate into the Fallout development?

Emil Pagliarulo: It does. One of the mantras of the Thief games is a big grey area. Garrett is the ultimate anti-hero. That's really important you know. If you want to play like that, we want to support that. As Todd [Howard, executive producer] mentioned, we originally started supporting good, and supporting evil, and we realised how important neutral was, and how viable of a gameplay path it is, and how many great games like the original Thief supported that. That's really important to me.

Eurogamer: With a background developing the Elder Scrolls games, but taking on an Interplay title, which legacy do you think Fallout 3 follows?

Emil Pagliarulo: Me personally, I really feel like we're making a game in the legacy of the Fallout games. It's so different than working with the Elder Scrolls stuff. It's first-person, and that's it. Actually it's interesting for me - it harkens back for me to some of the most enjoyable first-person games I've ever played, the Terminator games Bethesda made. Fallout 3 is Bethesda's triumphant return to gunplay games, after swords and sorcery for so long. For me it's about bringing back /that/ legacy.

Gavin Carter: I feel like when people see it's first-person they're going to say, "Oh, there's Oblivion. It's Oblivion with guns." But honestly there's not a single thing we didn't look at and think, how are we going to do this for Fallout? We stripped out our entire character system. It's all Fallout now, with specials and experience, it's not skill based. The whole questing system is Fallout. There are different paths to all the quests, you can lock yourself out of quests. It's not like Oblivion where you can say, "I've just started in the Fighter's Guild, but I'm the Grey Fox." There's nothing in the game that we haven't looked at as its own thing.

Eurogamer: Do you feel like you owe Interplay anything?

Emil Pagliarulo: You can't. You can't proceed feeling that way. It's like, you also can't proceed feeling like you owe the fans of Fallout anything, you can't feel bad that you're not making a turn-based isometric game. When I first started I think did feel like that, and there was a period of coming to terms with it, and just saying, "I'm going to make the best game I can make, it is what it is, and we have the skills to make an excellent game, so that's what we're going to do."

Gavin Carter: Each of the older games had a different team on it. Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 had many different people working on them. We have a great deal of respect for those guys, but what we don't want to do is open up our entire design to someone outside the company who doesn't really get the culture here. For better or worse it's been ten years since the last game came out. We're very strict on authorial control. We don't want to bring someone in from outside and then only implement their ideas in a half-assed way. We have a vision for the game and we're taking it all the way through.

Eurogamer: How do you go about beginning to create a new story for an established world?

Emil Pagliarulo: It's funny. Setting it in DC - it meant we knew what we needed to do. Originally we had it set on the West coast, but it just didn't work. Eventually I said, "Write what you know." So we have a location that doesn't appear all over the place in videogames. It's such a great place for a game. As for the story, I really like stories that are character-based, so how do those characters change throughout the game? So take the relationship with "my" father. He's my moral compass, a good guy, a noble character, so if I'm an evil bastard how does he react to me? If I blow up a town, what does he think?

Eurogamer: Does that relationship impact on the moral dimensions of the game?

Gavin Carter: To an extent. A large part of the game is spent with him absent, so a lot of stuff happens outside of that relationship. We wanted the relationship as a central point of the plot, so we don't want you to be able to say, piss off your dad and ruin the plot. To have a narrative you have to have some parts that are more strict. We definitely want you to feel like he is a central character in your life. When he leaves it is the biggest climactic moment in your life. No one ever leaves the vault - it is entirely self-contained.

Eurogamer: You've mentioned the good/neutral/evil options. Can you elaborate on that choice?

Gavin Carter: It was something we knew we needed - it was one of the key tenants of Fallout that we needed to do. Right at the top was, "choice and consequence in every quest line", as much as we possibly can. Every aspect of the game should have choice and consequence. Even choices like picking your character's stats. Those /don't change/ throughout the course of the game. You're stuck with your Special stats pretty much for the rest of the game. Every little bit from what equipment you pick up to whether you're going to shoot this guy in the head, is going to have that choice, and there are going to be consequences.</blockquote>I'd quote more but that'd be rude. It's a really good interview, so go and read it. Also, for some reason it has a concept art of Intoxicate Interactive's Afterfall on page 2.

Link: Fallout 3 interview on Eurogamer.

Thanks moocow.
 
Ok, 3 things:

1. Thanks for admitting you don't care about us.
2. Jesus Fucking Christ how many producers does one game need? From personal experience, I know producers, if designated as producer only, don't do any work. We have producer Ashley Cheng to check on timelines, producer Gavin Carter to be lead producer, and Todd Howard to supersede all decisions as Executive Producer. Sounds like one of those top-heavy corporations that screw everything up.
3. On a scale from 1-10, the "father" main plot just went in stupidity from about a 6 to a 3.
 
This pissed me off the most.

You can't proceed feeling that way. It's like, you also can't proceed feeling like you owe the fans of Fallout anything, you can't feel bad that you're not making a turn-based isometric game

If it wasn't for the fans, you idiots, you wouldn't have been interested in the IP to begin with.

Asses.


EDIT


Loved this bit too:

Each of the older games had a different team on it. Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 had many different people working on them. We have a great deal of respect for those guys, but what we don't want to do is open up our entire design to someone outside the company who doesn't really get the culture here. For better or worse it's been ten years since the last game came out. We're very strict on authorial control
 
It's a good interview.

Another fuckup that many people feared is that it seems that the dad character will indeed be imposing limitations on the player. A "tighter" narrative doesn't have to be bad (Arcanum does it wonderfully I think), but I just can't understand why it should be in Fallout.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if this will greatly railroad the player, and seriously damage the roleplaying.
 
Emil Pagliarulo: Me personally, I really feel like we're making a game in the legacy of the Fallout games. It's so different than working with the Elder Scrolls stuff. It's first-person, and that's it. Actually it's interesting for me - it harkens back for me to some of the most enjoyable first-person games I've ever played, the Terminator games Bethesda made. Fallout 3 is Bethesda's triumphant return to gunplay games, after swords and sorcery for so long. For me it's about bringing back /that/ legacy.

So wait, this is about bringing back Beth's long-forgotten first person gunplay game legacy? I thought it was about Fallout? Well....seems we now know where their priorities lie.
 
I guess they were too unimaginative to create their own IP, and couldn't afford the Terminator license this time ?

Future Shock was quite enjoyable back then, but it shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as Fallout, let alone as an inspiration for the lead designer....

That really is a classic :/
 
Wohoooooooooo :dance: !
I just love when people show their worst side
newcutegrin3zs.gif
!


Brother None said:
Emil Pagliarulo: Me personally, I really feel like we're making a game in the legacy of the Fallout games. It's so different than working with the Elder Scrolls stuff. It's first-person, and that's it. Actually it's interesting for me - it harkens back for me to some of the most enjoyable first-person games I've ever played, the Terminator games Bethesda made. Fallout 3 is Bethesda's triumphant return to gunplay games, after swords and sorcery for so long. For me it's about bringing back /that/ legacy.
So, basically instead of creating Fallout 3 they are creating Fallout: Future Shock :roll: ?

Brother None said:
Eurogamer: Do you feel like you owe Interplay anything?

Emil Pagliarulo: You can't. You can't proceed feeling that way. It's like, you also can't proceed feeling like you owe the fans of Fallout anything, you can't feel bad that you're not making a turn-based isometric game. When I first started I think did feel like that, and there was a period of coming to terms with it, and just saying, "I'm going to make the best game I can make, it is what it is, and we have the skills to make an excellent game, so that's what we're going to do."
i.e. you can't rape a franchise feeling that you owe something to it's fans. Great :clap: .
 
Well...this is much more informative, than any of the overhyped previews.

Go ahead and make the best game you can, Emil...I guess I can't feel bad about not buying it though...
 
Fallout 3 is Bethesda's triumphant return to gunplay games, after swords and sorcery for so long.

Oh man, am i the only one who fears for the playability or even inclusion of my beloved Sledgehammers, Power Fists, Rippers, and other melee weapons?


When I first started I think did feel like that, and there was a period of coming to terms with it, and just saying, "I'm going to make the best game I can make, it is what it is, and we have the skills to make an excellent game, so that's what we're going to do.

*beep* Captain, my sensors indicate bullshit.
 
Sorrow said:
Wohoooooooooo :dance: !

To be honest, the "we don't care about fans" isn't even the bit that bothers me most, personally.

It's the "we don't feel we owe the original designers anything." That is arrogant and insulting. They should feel honoured and privileged that Tim Cain, Leonard Boyarsky, Jason D. Anderson, Christopher Taylor, Jason Taylor, Scott Campbell made this awesome franchise and that they now have an opportunity to make a sequel to it. This, coupled with the stupidity of some gaming press in going "you made this" when Bethesda didn't create anything so far and Bethesda turning away Leonard Boyarsky, is just smack-in-your-face God complex/heavy case of narcissism.

I know they have huge egos, what with Todd Howard's whole Oblivion-heals-baby-tears rant, but that's just out of this world ego. Honestly, how selfishly egotistical do you have to be to feel that you don't owe anything to the original creators? Hell, they probably honestly believe the game they're making is better than the originals. :barf:
 
Leon Boyarsky isn't good enough to be on the team making the spiritual successor to Bethesda's Terminator games.
 
I think they should rename it to Fallout: Something.

Without turn based combat, and full canon, it's not Fallout 3.

Maybe Fallout: Leaving the Vault? I dunno... Eh. If you have to eat and drink to survive (not just to heal) then I'll probably like it. I was always a big fan of the Ultima Underworld games. The Underworld games, and Fallout though?... They're not the same type of game.

Deviations should not be treated as true sequels.

Eh, it's probably all mostly hype anyway. I mean.. what am I thinking? I've been expecting that you could probably pick up and carry pretty much anything that's not too heavy. And if it is too heavy.. then you could take it apart and carry parts of it. Like parts of cars, people :twisted:, those arsenal inc mailboxes they keep mentioning.

I mean.. if you can't cut the mailbox off at the base, and then use said mailbox as a weapon, then I'm not as interested in it. I mean if you can pretty much design your own weapons.. I'd love to play a game like that. :D

Oh well. Too bad this is just Fallout 3: No Freedom, Only Hype.
 
Brother None said:
It's the "we don't feel we owe the original designers anything." That is arrogant and insulting. They should feel honoured and privileged that Tim Cain, Leonard Boyarsky, Jason D. Anderson, Christopher Taylor, Jason Taylor, Scott Campbell made this awesome franchise and that they now have an opportunity to make a sequel to it. This, coupled with the stupidity of some gaming press in going "you made this" when Bethesda didn't create anything so far and Bethesda turning away Leonard Boyarsky, is just smack-in-your-face God complex/heavy case of narcissism.
devs arent gods. not even the holy Troika. ;)

but for fucks sake... give credit where it is due.
 
Xombie said:
Oh man, am i the only one who fears for the playability or even inclusion of my beloved Sledgehammers, Power Fists, Rippers, and other melee weapons?

Don't worry, you're not the only one worried. I'm just hoping the melee combat isn't anything as clunky as Oblivion, and that the mysteriously ambiguous V.A.T.S. system will actually help, rather than hinder.

On the bright side, the physics engine may actually create some "memorable melee moments"©.
 
That's the interview I wanted to make one day. I'll never understand why they are calling the game Fallout 3, I pretty much gave up on trying to understand that, still I'm glad they are finally talking straight and being completely candid. About time.
 
So, basically instead of creating Fallout 3 they are creating Fallout: Future Shock Rolling Eyes ?
F3FShock.jpg

Couldn't resist :P

Having read it fully, good interview and some good answers for a change, as well.
 
The funniest thing is that the interviewer doesn't even mention the fans. Only Interplay. But they have to inject a line against the fans while they're at it!

So they don't care about the original creators. They don't care about the fans. They don't care about Fallout's past. They do care about their own past and bringing back their glory gun days? What?

Supreme arrogance, that's all it is. Basically, Fallout is theirs. They don't owe anything to anyone because damnit, they'll make a superior Fallout! And they won't correct idiots who think they created every concept in Fallout because after all, with their superior version they deserve all the credit!
 
But honestly there's not a single thing we didn't look at and think, how are we going to do this for Fallout?
Holy Wholy..!

Like:
  • - "Fatman-mini-nuke-launcher"
    - cars that go mushroom when you hit'em
    - contradictory looking orcs
    - bobbleheads which bump the stats
    - "toilets of youth"
    - behemoth, an ultimate mutated entity which can survive several direct mini nuclear attacks
    - ... do I have to continue?
People, you have looked at every frigging single thing, but I doubt you were thinking about it. No, really.
 
Back
Top