Fallout 3 interview on Eurogamer

[ManiO]

SNIP

4. You forgot to mention comic books.
8. Nothing against having it set elsewhere.
9. Although that would be most logical it's not necesary, both Fallouts had weapons which are more related to modern weapons than pre-60's.
13. & 16. No need to mention this twice. But yes aimed shots are a big part of the Fallout combat system.

 

[Forhekset]

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.

This easily has to be one of the most infuriating things I've read so far in any Fallout 3 preview/interview. If you owe the fans nothing, why the hell are you making the game in the first place? Oh yeah, to cash in on the popularity of Oblivion with retards who think that Halo is the greatest FPS ever created.

This interview was very informative, so I liked it for that, but at the same time I hated just about everything I read. Nothing earth-shattering, but it did confirm a lot of suspicions. I mean, I knew this game wasn't being created with me in mind, as someone who generally dislikes real-time with pause and doesn't particularly care for the FPS genre. But I didn't think one of the developers would actually come out and say "we owe the Fallout fans nothing". Well, fuck you too, Bethesda. I certainly don't owe you my hard-earned money, and you won't be getting any of it.

I doubt it will happen, but I'd really enjoy it if this game flopped worse than Daikatana.

 

[Bluto]

Your list is wrong, most of the items are not crucial to gameplay referred to as p&p tabletop rpg simulation. They help to establish consistency, though.

Turn-based combat, SPECIAL, an ISO-like perspective and choice and consequences are most important.

"My List" is not my list of preferences or requirements, but a list of those I've seen posted in NMA forums. As for it's acuracy, suppose I could go through the trouble of linking a post to every item listed, but I'm pretty comfortable with it. On the order of the list, it wasn't meant to be prioritized, the first two were put first because they were the first to come to mind, and seem to have the most universal support.

I just like to poke sticks in holes and see what tries to bite me. I see tons of posts here about what must not be messed with, and the list seemed pretty long to me and didn't leave much left to work with.

To be frank, the idea of F3 being F2 with a bigger world, more NPCs, slightly better graphics with a "cool new plot" thats only allowed to go down very narrow pre-defined paths has fair appeal to me at best.

As for creating new products from existing outlines, I've been doing creative work for quite a while, and when someone tells me to be creative and lavish my imagination on a project, just don't deviate more than 2cm left or right from the outline, I give them exactly what they want, then hope no one I know see's it, because I know it's phoned in suck work. I do it because it pays bills, but it's not my best work by far, nor does it show my strengths. But if I'm given broad general outlines and allowed to explore possiblilities, then I have fun with it and my work shines.

Does Beth "owe" anything to a defunct game company they paid millions to for a franchise that was ruined? Kinda hard for me to see that. The fans, well, that's a tougher one, but to think all wishes will be granted, whether they play to a developers strenghts or not, that's kinda hard for me to see too. It's like telling Michael Jordan he better start playing better baseball or else, or trying to explain to Troika that if they don't stop making buggy games they will go out of business.

 

[Karak]

Your list is wrong, most of the items are not crucial to gameplay referred to as p&p tabletop rpg simulation. They help to establish consistency, though.

Turn-based combat, SPECIAL, an ISO-like perspective and choice and consequences are most important.

"My List" is not my list of preferences or requirements, but a list of those I've seen posted in NMA forums. As for it's acuracy, suppose I could go through the trouble of linking a post to every item listed, but I'm pretty comfortable with it. On the order of the list, it wasn't meant to be prioritized, the first two were put first because they were the first to come to mind, and seem to have the most universal support.

I would be interested in seeing those posts referring to every item on your list as part of the core design, since that is what you claimed. I doubt that.

It's like telling Michael Jordan he better start playing better baseball or else, or trying to explain to Troika that if they don't stop making buggy games they will go out of business.

It is not entirely the same, the success of this game does not hinge on one person's abilities...Bethesda had the chance to hire at least one of the original developers (probably more, had they approached them) if they intended to continue this game series, not reimagine it completely.

 

[Vault 69er]

"My List" is not my list of preferences or requirements, but a list of those I've seen posted in NMA forums. As for it's acuracy, suppose I could go through the trouble of linking a post to every item listed, but I'm pretty comfortable with it. On the order of the list, it wasn't meant to be prioritized, the first two were put first because they were the first to come to mind, and seem to have the most universal support.

No, that's your list compiled from many different sources into one giant strawman.

To be frank, the idea of F3 being F2 with a bigger world, more NPCs, slightly better graphics with a "cool new plot" thats only allowed to go down very narrow pre-defined paths has fair appeal to me at best.

The only people who have ever mentioned F3 in the context of being a clone of F2 are strawmanning trolls.

Does Beth "owe" anything to a defunct game company they paid millions to for a franchise that was ruined? Kinda hard for me to see that.

If they like Fallout as much as they say they do, then they do owe a *lot* to the original creators.
Saying they don't and rejecting Leon Boyarsky's application is crass and arrogant.

The fans, well, that's a tougher one, but to think all wishes will be granted, whether they play to a developers strenghts or not, that's kinda hard for me to see too.

The simple desire for Bethesda to either make their own PA series the way they want or make a true Fallout sequel is not very hard at all to do.

It's like telling Michael Jordan he better start playing better baseball or else, or trying to explain to Troika that if they don't stop making buggy games they will go out of business.

Troika went out of business because publishers treated them like crap and rushed their games at precisely the wrong time (like Vampire going up against Half-Life 2).
Buggy games? I'm sick of this tat. Bethesda make games that are easily twice as buggy as anything Troika made.

Bethesda survive because of their incredibly large hype machine and willingness to pander to Microsoft. Nothing more.

 

[yevinorion]

Bethesda survive because of their incredibly large hype machine and willingness to pander to Microsoft. Nothing more.

Boy isn't that the truth. I had a lot more respect for Bethesda before the Xbox came around...

 

[Joe Kremlin]

Eurogamer has always been a good game site that hasn't really gone with the general opinion. I remember they were one of the few reviewers to (correctly) shit on Age of Empires 3 when it came out.

Anyways, the thing that bothers me the most about Bethesda making this game is that I'm afraid it will just be bland and impersonal like the ES games. My favorite aspect of FO 1+2 was that it actually had character, it felt like it was a living world, and exploring that world was interesting. Bethesda hasn't given me an indication that they'll try and match that and these comments don't help.


side note: I've been lurking NMA for probably 2 years, and the exact instant I click Register after filling out my info I lose power.
Omen?

 

[Forhekset]

Eurogamer has always been a good game site that hasn't really gone with the general opinion. I remember they were one of the few reviewers to (correctly) shit on Age of Empires 3 when it came out.

Anyways, the thing that bothers me the most about Bethesda making this game is that I'm afraid it will just be bland and impersonal like the ES games. My favorite aspect of FO 1+2 was that it actually had character, it felt like it was a living world, and exploring that world was interesting. Bethesda hasn't given me an indication that they'll try and match that and these comments don't help.


side note: I've been lurking NMA for probably 2 years, and the exact instant I click Register after filling out my info I lose power.
Omen?

I dunno, supposedly they've cut way down on the number of NPCs compared to Oblivion, which I guess gives them a lot more time to flesh out the characters. Whether it happens or not remains to be seen.

 

[Araanor]

Someone care to explain? I'm really lost as to why they spent 5 million on the ip, even if it's a small sum for them. A lot has been said about it, but heck, putting myself in the place of bethesda's heads that did it, I can't accept none of them theories...

Here's my impression:

At some level in Zenimax/Bethesda, they came to the conclusion that they needed another franchise besides The Elder Scrolls. Cashing in on TES too many times in a row might reduce its value, and they needed more cash cows.

Then, one day, Interplay (Herve) was fishing around for takers of a Fallout license. The bethsuits saw the opportunity - here's a seemingly untapped RPG franchise which is considerably different from TES and is widely respected among PC gamers who've been waiting for a sequel for a long time. (Well, that's how I rationalize their thinking, at least. To be honest, I think they're utter morons for paying so much for Fallout when they could've made a generic post-apocalyptic setting instead. Of course, there's the possibility that this is all part of a grandiose plot they made with Herve to put us through as much pain as possible.)

Anyway, they dumped a lake of cash on Herve and went home with the license. One of the suits went down into the game developer basement and dumped the news on the unsuspecting Todd who went "Golly gosh, survival horror, goggles and riding around in the wasteland with a shotgun! I can barely contain my excitement!" At which point he promptly pulled out his whip, made a few lashes in the air and shrieked: "I'm meant to be playing Fallout 3! I want to see nucular explosions! Orcs--err--zom--mutants! Toilet-drinking! Circle-strafing! Mudscorpions... and Liam Neeson! Yes!" *Todd strokes pants empathically*


Okay, I embossed the details a little.

 

[Vault 69er]

Sadly enough, I do think toilet drinking, nucular catapults and Liam Neeson were the very first things they thought of when putting together Fallout 3.

 

[Makagulfazel]

*Snip*

I'm quite impressed. I'm sure this is exactly how it went down, but he asked for bobbleheads first and foremost. They increase stats, ya know?

 

[joora]

Gavin Carter: What we can do is provide different avenues for the player. A big thing with the original Fallout is you could talk your way out of certain situations. You could got to the Master and talk him to death. We wanted to provide a lot of different avenues. You have to decide for yourself. Is shooting mutants something my character is going to do? In some ways we'll provide non-lethal combat options, but a big part of this game is the incredible level of violence. It's something people find a lot of fun, so it's not something we're going to back off from. The old Fallout had a slider for violence, you could turn it down if you wanted. We joked that on our options we were going to have one, but it would be taped in place at the max.

I personally am affraid for this part.
I do want to be able to talk myself out most of the situations. That doesn't mean i will. But, i do want to know that there is a other-solution.

So, basically i cannot fully understand what this guy is saying. Is he saying "yes, there will be multiple paths (non-violent) in most situations", or "we'll give you a few situations where you can actually use some of your non-combat skills, but majority of the time 'bad guys' will attack without introduction, and that's because violence is fun and we know that everybody loves violence like us" ?

 

[Joe Kremlin]

I dunno, supposedly they've cut way down on the number of NPCs compared to Oblivion, which I guess gives them a lot more time to flesh out the characters. Whether it happens or not remains to be seen.

Still, if everything is voice acted the conversations won't have the depth of FO 1+2 because it just takes too much effort. Besides, Bethesda has done nothing with characters in the past to show me that they have any sense of humor or anything interesting to say, regardless of how many there are.

 

[ManiO]

Gavin Carter: What we can do is provide different avenues for the player. A big thing with the original Fallout is you could talk your way out of certain situations. You could got to the Master and talk him to death. We wanted to provide a lot of different avenues. You have to decide for yourself. Is shooting mutants something my character is going to do? In some ways we'll provide non-lethal combat options, but a big part of this game is the incredible level of violence. It's something people find a lot of fun, so it's not something we're going to back off from. The old Fallout had a slider for violence, you could turn it down if you wanted. We joked that on our options we were going to have one, but it would be taped in place at the max.

Am I the only one afraid that talking yourself out of a sticky situation will be all too easy (low IN and CH with little or no speech required)?

And about the bolded sentences, we all know THE biggest part of Fallout was the brutality as Bethsoft is telling us.

 

[Forhekset]

I dunno, supposedly they've cut way down on the number of NPCs compared to Oblivion, which I guess gives them a lot more time to flesh out the characters. Whether it happens or not remains to be seen.

Still, if everything is voice acted the conversations won't have the depth of FO 1+2 because it just takes too much effort. Besides, Bethesda has done nothing with characters in the past to show me that they have any sense of humor or anything interesting to say, regardless of how many there are.

Can't really argue with you there, unless they're recording an absolute assload of VO, and this game is going to ship on 5 DVDs or something. I never really cared one way or the other about VO anyway. Now and then I think some games could benefit from it (the most recent Zelda game got complaints about a lack of speech), but I've honestly never felt like it was necessary in an RPG.

I kinda feel like people who demand VO are either lazy or can't read very well. In which case, you probably shouldn't be playing RPGs.

Regarding the violence...this was just one aspect of the spirit of Fallout, but yet again Bethesda has managed to latch onto one thing and completely blow it out of proportion. Comments like these are why we have Fallout 3 being described as a "fight for survival every waking minute" or whatever. Although the violence slider being taped at "max" does sound kinda funny.

 

[Kukident]

Gavin Carter: What we can do is provide different avenues for the player. A big thing with the original Fallout is you could talk your way out of certain situations. You could got to the Master and talk him to death. We wanted to provide a lot of different avenues. You have to decide for yourself. Is shooting mutants something my character is going to do? In some ways we'll provide non-lethal combat options, but a big part of this game is the incredible level of violence. It's something people find a lot of fun, so it's not something we're going to back off from. The old Fallout had a slider for violence, you could turn it down if you wanted. We joked that on our options we were going to have one, but it would be taped in place at the max.

Am I the only one afraid that talking yourself out of a sticky situation will be all too easy (low IN and CH with little or no speech required)?

And about the bolded sentences, we all know THE biggest part of Fallout was the brutality as Bethsoft is telling us.

this sentence with the "great" (RLY Gr8!11) joke shocked me, when i first read it

but i didn't comment on it

that sentence is just stupid and not funny at all and shows that they didn't get what fallout is about at all.
Come on, it's not a splatter game, you had the possibility to reduce the graphical violence for a reason
they make themselves look like idiots

but as long as they hail their grand emperor todd toddson, they will get the $$ and whores

 

[Sorrow]

I kinda feel like people who demand VO are either lazy or can't read very well. In which case, you probably shouldn't be playing RPGs.

I second that. Also I find listening to VO while I can read the text in one second or two a waste of time.

 

[yevinorion]

Also I find listening to VO while I can read the text in one second or two a waste of time.

This I wholeheartedly agree with. I find myself skipping the voice acting anyway, to progress to the next lines of text in most games.

The only time I really listen to it is in cut-scenes or things of that nature, or if it's very, very well done (ie Dragonquest VIII).

 

[whirlingdervish]

You mean you didn't pay attention to the millions of times that Sulik said:
"Whatcha be needin?"

wait.. I didn't either.

 

[Brother None]

You mean you didn't pay attention to the millions of times that Sulik said:
"Whatcha be needin?"

wait.. I didn't either.

Some VOs I could listen to ad infinitum. The Master and Lou Tenant, of course, but also Killian saying "That's a damn fine coincidence, that's what this store's here for!"

I can still remember the exhilaration first time Killian went "That's the first time I'm happy to hear his voice."