Fallout 3 interview on Eurogamer

[Sander]

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.

I'm sorry, Emil, I can't hear what you're saying when you have your face so far up Bethesda's butt.

Seriously, what the fuck?

Also, why the hell are they comparing Fallout 3 with a pure run-and-gun first person shooter?

 

[SuAside]

Couldn't resist

hehe, nice one dude

i remember playing that game & really, it was quit enjoyable, although shallow.

 

[Vault 69er]

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.

Oh they thought about it. Their thoughts being "Our stuff is soooo much cooler than what's in the old antiquated Fallouts. Now back to designing my nucular catapult!"

 

[stormcrow]

This Emil bloke's an ass. His comments about putting the game on the East Coast rather then the West sound like "fuck this canon storyline, it sucks, I'll just put it on the East Coast and the fans that care can fill the gaps between the storylines themselves".
And the Fallout: System Shock like game he seems to want to make...hem that sucks! It would have been okay if he had said "I would like to do Fallout with a new perspective, do something new with the trustworthy story of Fallout" but basicly I feel he's saying "I loved Terminator, but I'm good at making sword first player games....hmmm....hey lets make a post apocalyptic game...lets call it Fallout!"

 

[Vault 69er]

The thing is, Bethesda have often complained that they wouldn't set it on the west coast because they're not familiar with it and didn't make it iso/turn based because they've never done it before, they don't know how and must stick to what they do best.. like TES and Future Shock.

So.. how are their claims of making an open-ended plot with moral ambiguity and good dialogue at all credible? They've never done that either! What about VATS? It must be crap, because they've never done RTwP before. One minute they're saying "We can't do that, we've never done it." and the next it's "Look at this brand new thing we've never done before!"

 

[Tannhauser]

So.. how are their claims of making an open-ended plot with moral ambiguity and good dialogue at all credible?

What happened to him? That's one of the central themes of the game. 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.

 

[Maphusio]

it harkens back for me to some of the most enjoyable first-person games I've ever played, the Terminator games Bethesda made.

...*cough* ...

 

[Vault 69er]

Hmm.. isn't Todd Howard credited as Executive Producer of both Terminator Future Shock and SkyNET?

Somebody's buttering up the boss..

 

[The Duke]

So Liam Neeson is the dad! and he will bug you for all of the game no matter what you do (he might spank you if you blow up megaton).

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.

Heh, somebody would have to whip Cain and Boyarsky after they would throw up seeing the "nuke-a-pult" concept. Todd is the one and only boss, make no mistake.

Best and most important interview so far. Now I know for sure , Fallout 3 is a joke.

 

[Goweigus]

Am i the only one who finds it hilarious that a picture from Afterfall made it into the article?

 

[Slicerdicer]

Hmm.. isn't Todd Howard credited as Executive Producer of both Terminator Future Shock and SkyNET?

Somebody's buttering up the boss..

Buttering? Please it's more like flat out blowing him. Cock in his mouth all the way down to his nut sack and wagging tongue on his balls.

 

[Brother None]

Am i the only one who finds it hilarious that a picture from Afterfall made it into the article?

I was waiting for more people to comment on that. I think Intoxicate should sue.

PS: they seem to have removed it now

 

[skyway]

I feel like when people see it's first-person they're going to say, "Oh, there's Oblivion. It's Oblivion with guns."

No, Mr. Carter, people say that it's Oblivion with Guns not only because it's first person. You should read people's posts at your own forum more carefully.

you also can't proceed feeling like you owe the fans of Fallout anything

however you can proceed like you owe the fans of Oblivion and xbox360 everything.

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

Whoever needs your culture... drinking water from toilets, eating corpses. Nice culture you've got there.

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?

You know, I don't care what he think. And I don't want to go and look for him.

However...

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.

What the fuck?!?!?! Just what the fuck?!?!?!?!

 

[wolfsrain]

The triumphant return of Bethesda at gunplay.
Just an approximate quote.
Well, like someone said: " The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
So as I've suspected, F3 goes away from my wishlist. I'd rather stick to the mods mad by F2 fans.
First person! Weeee!
And we don't call that a FPS. No sireee....It has VATS. And it's made for Bethesda, not for the fans or the possible fans. With inside Bethesda humour, so only the people who worked on F3 can understand. And the game itself is a moral ambiguity, so don't look any further.

 

[Praetorian]

Fallout 3 is gone from my wishlist too. I honestly hope that the game fails in the market and that they never make another "Fallout" game again. I can't believe that all my hope was revived only to be dragged around, defiled and then buried by these corporate gamemakers...
I hesitated to declare a "R.I.P." on Fallout but this is too much.
hp.sa.
The lack of respect for the original authors is just unbelievable and it made me decide to boycott every past, present and future Bethesda game. I planned to buy Morrowind but there is no way I am going to support those assholes after all this.

 

[Juiced]

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.

Final Fantasy X and XII both ditched the ATB system, which has been the center of the game for a decade. Those shouldn't be called Final Fantasy either, then?

This argument doesn't make any sense.

 

[Sander]

Final Fantasy X and XII both ditched the ATB system, which has been the center of the game for a decade. Those shouldn't be called Final Fantasy either, then?

I'm not entirely sure to what point the combat mechanic in Final Fantasy was part of the core design. If the combat mechanics was part of the core design, and not create due to technical or design limitations, then no, that Final Fantasy should not be a full sequel.

This argument doesn't make any sense.

Yes it does. And here's why: any franchise carries expectations with it. Namely the expectation that the core design (ie. the type of game) is the same. If you're going to deviate from that core design (eg. C&C Renegade), then you call it a spin-off, not a full sequel. Mainly because it then isn't a game in the same vein, but rather a game in the same setting.

 

[Juiced]

Final Fantasy X and XII both ditched the ATB system, which has been the center of the game for a decade. Those shouldn't be called Final Fantasy either, then?

I'm not entirely sure to what point the combat mechanic in Final Fantasy was part of the core design. If the combat mechanics was part of the core design, and not create due to technical or design limitations, then no, that Final Fantasy should not be a full sequel.

This argument doesn't make any sense.

Yes it does. And here's why: any franchise carries expectations with it. Namely the expectation that the core design (ie. the type of game) is the same. If you're going to deviate from that core design (eg. C&C Renegade), then you call it a spin-off, not a full sequel. Mainly because it then isn't a game in the same vein, but rather a game in the same setting.

The Final Fantasy games, much like Fallout 1 2 and possibly 3, maybe (??) were all RPGs, but the FF games were more in the Japanese style with menu options and battles where enemies line up on one side of the screen and the heroes on the other and whatnot. Random battles and boss battles are pretty much all of the technical gameplay in these games since the plot is linear and the world map really only serves to allow you to get to one point from another.

X and XII took the battle system that had been used in all the previous games and replaced it with a different system, XII being the most drastic change. It still was an RPG though... On the other hand, C&C Renegade was an FPS or something, wasn't it, whereas C&C is an RTS, so the games are dramatically different.

If Bethesda makes a first person RPG instead of an Isometric RPG then its close enough. If Bethesda makes an FPS with RPG elements then maybe I'd agree with you. Considering there is SPECIAL in the game and stats and whatnot though, it looks like FO3 will still be an RPG so I don't see the problem with making it a full sequel. Time will tell just exactly how FO3 plays though

 

[PaladinHeart]

Final Fantasy X and XII both ditched the ATB system, which has been the center of the game for a decade. Those shouldn't be called Final Fantasy either, then?

This argument doesn't make any sense.

The Final Fantasy games are well known for being completely different from one game to the next. (I would even further explain that once you have a party in FF12 you don't actually do anything from that point on, but I don't want to go off topic).

Anyway. You can't completely change the perspective, the gameplay, etc.. in a game and expect it to be a true sequel. You know what happens? You alienate the fanbase and destroy the product name.

Let's say Half Life 3 is made as a third person action adventure game, like Zelda. Sure. Zelda fans would love it but all the original Half Life fans would be thinking, "Huh?.. This isn't Half Life."

Basically Bethesda does not want Fallout's fanbase. They just wanted the IP. They don't care about the fans, where the game has been or what it stands for. They're making something for Oblivion fans. Or perhaps for themselves.. who knows?

It doesn't make one bit of sense to me though. The only thing I can figure out is that they were nostalgic about the Fallout setting, wanted it, and yet at the same time wanted to make their own post apocalyptic game. If it was me I'd have saved the $5 million and made up my own post apoc setting. I guess a few million here and there is nothing to them though.

 

[Juiced]

Or perhaps for themselves.. who knows?

I should hope they are making something for themselves! If you dedicate years of your life laboring on something and you don't personally enjoy it, it will probably end up being a steaming pile.