Fallout 3 local community chats

Brother None

Brother None

This ghoul has seen it all
Orderite
I figured these were fake at first glance but they appear to be real; Pete Hines talked to Italian community Evereye.it and Spanish community Meristation. English Meristation answers.<blockquote>Staff: Peter Molyneux rated Fable 2 with 9/10 and for the reviews so far, it seems he was pretty honest. What rate would you give to Fallout 3 if you have to write a review?

I would never even think of giving a score publically. Not my job. That's for the press and folks like you to decide and debate.

After all this time, I still enjoy playing it. I took a break from work and played for a couple hours last night and had a lot of fun. That's all that matters to me.

I think that's all the time I have for today. Thanks very much for the chat and for your interest in Fallout 3. Only a little over a week to go before it's here. Hope you have a chance to try it and enjoy playing it as much as we enjoyed making it.</blockquote>English Evereye.it answers.<blockquote>leaving the decisive influence of Ultima Underworld apart, what were the reasons and the first ideas that you had back then that pushed you toward this direction?

We don't think the things you're talking about are mutually exclusive. First of all, Fallout wasn't a game about precise party management. You could have companions, but the focus of the game was still on you and your character since you had limited controls over your companions. We felt the heart and soul of the game was about going where you wanted and being whatever kind of character you wanted to be in this world and having to make some tough choices.

Yes, we wanted to create a really amazing visual world, but that has nothing to do with characters or story. The people who make the art and graphics aren't the same people writing the dialog or stories. We wanted one to compliment the other, to have the visuals held immerse you in this world, to help you suspend belief and place yourself in the game. So we focused on keeping as much of the original games alive as possible, while adding some new ideas...1st or 3rd person to really put you in the world, a mix of real-time combat and a paused-mode that is similar to the turn-based combat of the originals, but which allows the player to choose when to pause the game instead of stopping the action every time you see a rat, etc.</blockquote>Spotted on Planet Fallout.
 
I guess they were conducted at the request of Ubisoft, the western European publisher.
 
chente1983: Using autolevel was one of the critic features of the Bethesda games. ¿Why did you start using it? ¿And why did you decide to remove it in fallout 3? ¿which differences did you find when designing the different quests and adjusting the difficult level?
Click to expand...

Because auto leveling enemies sucked in oblivion!!!!!!

Great I just said "sucked" again bah

Brother None said:
Texas Renegade said:
Thats only way I could figure out to read his entire response.
Click to expand...

Eh? Click through to the post link, right after "Asunto:"
Click to expand...

yeah that is what I did and it took me to the actual thread, so I just started reading it that way.


And good job Pettey, on running out of time when you were asked why the 360 gets exclusive content.
 
Peter Molyneux rated Fable 2 with 9/10 and for the reviews so far, it seems he was pretty honest.
Click to expand...

Ahahahaha. Ahahahahaha... ahaha.. aha...

If he would've rated it 10/10 and the reviewers would've done the same I bet they'd still say he was honest.
 
FeelTheRads said:
If he would've rated it 10/10 and the reviewers would've done the same I bet they'd still say he was honest.
Click to expand...

I agree that their reasoning is off but at the same time, I think any dev is going to think their game is pretty good. I actually give the guy credit for giving it a 9/10 meaning he knows there room to improve. What I found funny is that BS Team (whoever that is) couldn't actually answer the question. I mean the correct answer is 9/10 (although 8/10 is correct but only with an explanation about how it's so different or something). You can't give it a 10/10 since that makes you look like an ass for thinking your game is the best ever but no one will fault a dev for thinking he did a great job (even if all evidence is to the contrary).
 
I don't really see a problem in rating your own game if you get asked to do so. doing it before the game is released will come across as a bit arrogant and as an attempt to just sell your game. but after all, isn't that exactly what making pr for your game is all about?

and what developer would make a game they're not proud of and would give a high score? obviously they're creating something they think is good and want to play themselves. I can even see developers giving their games a lower score, if it was pushed for release and was bugridden or they had to cut a lot of content to meet the deadline.

the best time to rate your own game would definitely be a year or so after its release, of course.
 
aenemic said:
I don't really see a problem in rating your own game if you get asked to do so. doing it before the game is released will come across as a bit arrogant and as an attempt to just sell your game. but after all, isn't that exactly what making pr for your game is all about?

and what developer would make a game they're not proud of and would give a high score? obviously they're creating something they think is good and want to play themselves. I can even see developers giving their games a lower score, if it was pushed for release and was bugridden or they had to cut a lot of content to meet the deadline.

the best time to rate your own game would definitely be a year or so after its release, of course.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I'm saying. The odd thing is that this Team BS (whoever that was) avoided the question. I mean why avoid such a simple question especially since it's designed such that the answer is to gush over the game.
 
Matt K said:
I don't really see a problem in rating your own game if you get asked to do so. doing it before the game is released will come across as a bit arrogant and as an attempt to just sell your game. but after all, isn't that exactly what making pr for your game is all about?

That's exactly what I'm saying. The odd thing is that this Team BS (whoever that was) avoided the question. I mean why avoid such a simple question especially since it's designed such that the answer is to gush over the game.
Click to expand...

Anyone…?fine I’ll say it….
Asking about how someone would rate their own game is just stupid, and at the same time hard to answer.
1.First of all the number system is a flawed system, and really isn’t a great way to rate a game anyways

2. Pete did answer it by saying he really enjoys it, and how he continues to play it even after developing it for as long as he has
that means:he thinks it’s a good game with great lasting appeal….that’s an answer in my book...it's hard to see when you've blinded yourself already, i know, but do try and look a tad harder

3.pete’s right, the dev’s aren’t the ones to decide, the players are and he might think he’d give a bias review because he worked on the game. When he gives the right answer he receves flak?

4.peter giving his game a 9/10, which matches the reviews mostly doesn’t mean he was honest, 9/10 is the cop-out/expected response

5.When asked to rate your game you have 3 choices:
a) say a 10/10 and look arrogant, or catch flak (quite often this happens) when it doesn’t meet what you said it is.
b) say an 8/10 and make it seem like why release it now when you think it’s only an 8, lower the interest gamers will have in it by not giving it atleast a 9, or make it seem like your releasing an unfinished project that you know needs work but think gamers will give you money to fill his pocket books with anyway
c) say 9/10 which makes it seem like you think it’s a really great game but know that it still isn’t perfect and could do with some improvement and polish, this answer not only keeps the game sounding amazing and fun but it makes you look modest and respectable and earns you both PR and Credibility points…
d) 7 or lower……no one says 1-7…they aren’t entirely stupid


on another note, the whole dodging the 360/ps3 exclusive content thing is not that surprising. I mean no dev would answer that question. The answer is obvious though, either:
A.Micosoft offered something and sony didn’t, or offered more
Or
B.because they got their start on xbox when it came to putting their games on consoles and just want to show loyality and gratitude

c.a little bit of A and B



regarding the rating thingy:
If pete did answer, you’d find a way to give him flak about it being wrong or him being arrogant
If pete don’t answer you give him flak for not answering a simple question or dodging it
If pete gives you the answer you want to hear, you say how stupid he is for admitting it and killing PR or that it's all an act to make him seem modest

Honestly, pete can’t win……
 
Yip, it's a bad question, and the kind avoided by real interviewers, but it happens in community interviews.

What that has to do with "Pete can't win" is beyond me. We didn't ask him the question, dude.
 
Brother None said:
What that has to do with "Pete can't win" is beyond me. We didn't ask him the question, dude.
Click to expand...

just a precaution so it doesn't happen, i've seen alot of stuff when reading an article on here, that people do bicker over any answer they could give....just saying it before it happens...i did word it badly though as if it had happened so i aplogize for that

i have to say having to wait for every single enemy/ally walk or attack is just as annoying as the mole rat thing.....especially since you can't skip peoples turns.....
 
Artisticspaz said:
Brother None said:
What that has to do with "Pete can't win" is beyond me. We didn't ask him the question, dude.
Click to expand...

just a precaution so it doesn't happen, i've seen alot of stuff when reading an article on here, that people do bicker over any answer they could give....just saying it before it happens...i did word it badly though as if it had happened so i aplogize for that
Click to expand...

I enjoy the fact that we bicker over any answer. It shows that there isn't any completely right answer & that the game developers should continue improving their games. Also that they should try to market to only 1 genre instead of merging them all as they presently seem to be doing.

Artisticspaz said:
i have to say having to wait for every single enemy/ally walk or attack is just as annoying as the mole rat thing.....especially since you can't skip peoples turns.....
Click to expand...

True, but you could speed up the monsters/NPCs turns. I take it you prefer Realtime over Turnbased?
 
Well the original Fable to me sucked collossal Donkey balls.

The story sucked, made very little to no sense, the advancement system was flawed to the point where since you aged and no one else did odds are you'd look older than you mom by the time you met her, had magician's choices which made largely no difference to anything, took the character out of your control at stupid times, had an arch enemy that pretty much just showed up holding an I'm the Bad Guy sign.

It was a great idea though, and I get that Moly-boy just couldn't implement all his ideas and it was just too late to fix it after a certain point.

Be nice if he actually managed to make Fable 2 into what he wanted the original to be but playing the original was just so painful it left me scarred and quite possibly emotionally traumitized from the the crap factor it inflicted upon me.
 
you do realize Fable is supposed to have a silly and obvious fantasy story, right? and that things like you aging but no one else doesn't really matter because it in no way attempts to be realistic?
 
Mane said:
Well the original Fable to me sucked collossal Donkey balls.

The story sucked, made very little to no sense, the advancement system was flawed to the point where since you aged and no one else did odds are you'd look older than you mom by the time you met her, had magician's choices which made largely no difference to anything, took the character out of your control at stupid times, had an arch enemy that pretty much just showed up holding an I'm the Bad Guy sign.

It was a great idea though, and I get that Moly-boy just couldn't implement all his ideas and it was just too late to fix it after a certain point.

Be nice if he actually managed to make Fable 2 into what he wanted the original to be but playing the original was just so painful it left me scarred and quite possibly emotionally traumitized from the the crap factor it inflicted upon me.
Click to expand...

I enjoyed fable 1, it was refreshingly different than what im used to... and im hard to suck into singleplayers anymore due to having been exposed too much to it all over time...

The aging part was a bit weird i admit, i was 70 or 80 when i got to the very endgame, and that made me think "wow, this guy just spent his whole lifetime trying to avenge something etc" -.

Was just weird that the pc would age that fast...


I liked the character advancement and armours and whatnot, even if they were on the simplistic side.

I liked the original so ill most likely enjoy Fable 2 since it seems to be pretty much the same game with improvements. Time will tell if thats enough.
 
aenemic said:
you do realize Fable is supposed to have a silly and obvious fantasy story, right? and that things like you aging but no one else doesn't really matter because it in no way attempts to be realistic?
Click to expand...

Nope.

Moly was trying to break new ground with a fantasy that grew with you, and it was a brilliant idea if you listened to him as he was building the game up.

Originally the whole game would age with you, including the trees that would grow as you did. He was trying to be VERY realistic and create a living world for you to craft a 'Fable' of yourself in and actually affect the world and people around you through how you played the game.

Unfortunately his desire overshot the technology of the time. He had to keep scaling back, and back, and remove more and more content and ideas. I remember reading an article long before release when he talked about the painful decision to make the trees static because what he initially wanted just took up too many system resources. Eventually the game was pretty unrecognizable from the game he initially envisioned and promised.

I wish him luck with the sequel, cause he truly did have some visionary ideas I hope he's able to deliver more of now, but what was released was pure unadulturated crap.

I believe I rather enjoyed the 'actual' gameplay, though I remember it being so mind-bogglingly easy I could just breeze though pretty much anything and still get the 'without a scratch' boast or whatever, but the story was just nauseatingly stupid. I'm sure quite a bit of it must have been cut, but that's very little excuse for it to be as nonsensical and bad as it was.

But, no, as to you assumption it was supposed to be silly and un-realistic it actually was supposed to be a rather mature and realistic game. One of the things he was most annoyed about was he had to make the children un-killable, I believe Fable was the first game to actually trigger that debate and the rules which later affected TES games having kids as well. Or maybe the other way around, don't really care regardless.
 
Mane said:
lots of information
Click to expand...

Didn't know all that... i guess i would have felt cheated by the game if i were expecting all that.

But as i played it uninformed about any of those plans i found it quite enjoyable...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top