Fallout: New Vegas developer diary: Chris Avellone

Sam Ecorners

Sam Ecorners

Vault Senior Citizen
Orderite
Great MCA has graced official F:NV site with his majestic words in form of a developer diary<blockquote>As hard as building a new world can be, it's an equally hard task to figure out what elements to draw from the past that you want to resurrect in the present. In many respects, it's a challenge that one of the leading figures in New Vegas is still dealing with. And, the pluses and negatives of this should be apparent when you travel to the city of New Vegas. Maybe not all at once, but over time... it'll sink in.

There are issues with domesticating tribals and forcing them into one view of the world, there are issues with treating a wonder of the old world as nothing more than a bloody battleground, there are issues with propping old flags from Rome and California without a clear understanding of what those flags represent, and the long-range perspectives of many characters you'll encounter in the world have strong opinions about what's going on in the present, all born from the elements above. The question of the Old World making itself heard in the present - in the Mojave - is a core theme in Fallout: New Vegas, and whether overt or not, we hope it sinks in with the player as well.</blockquote><center></center>
 
This "Bethesda saved it all" intro sounded like ass and could have been scrapped.
 
Lexx said:
This "Bethesda saved it all" intro sounded like ass and could have been scrapped.
Click to expand...

Man, A) he is just sayin' Bethsoft brought FO to the a new generation, whether we could have done without it is another matter and B) Beth's FO3 is were FNV comes from, so it makes sense to start by talking about it.

MCA said:
We hope you enjoy experiencing what's new in New Vegas as much we enjoyed developing it, and for my generation of gamers, we hope you see the history of Fallout 1 and 2 reflected in the title and appreciate the nods you see to the world some of us thought we'd left behind.
Click to expand...

We're holding on that hope.
 
The Bethesda intro is just fluff. MCA wrote a lot without actually saying anything. I think he simply considers Fallout 3 to be a very poor substitute for Van Buren, but he's too connected to Bethesda to say it openly.
 
Mr Avallone seams to be speaking about ''building a new world from an old'' in both aspects of game-making, and in-game, that is for the characters that populate F:NV.
For me it makes reading his words like reading a holy script. What to take literally, and were to use imagination?

...No matter how familiar you are with innards of the franchise, it is hard work to carve out and shape a small slice of a world that's been ruined by war.
Click to expand...

In a way he refers to the fallout universe as a 'franchise that has been destroyed.''
 
Returning to a franchise like Fallout isn't easy. It's not where you left it.
Click to expand...

Translation: its going to be tough to figure out how to unfuck the storyline thanks to someone else taking over the franchise.

Once you track it down and cripple it in the leg so it can't get away, then you have dissect it. No matter how familiar you are with innards of the franchise, it is hard work to carve out and shape a small slice of a world that's been ruined by war.
Click to expand...

Translation: Bethesda purchased Fallout in an attempt to understand how to make a good game. They then turned that game into something more to their design philosophy.
 
Actually I'm pretty sure that he truly is grateful to Bethesda for making Fallout 3, because without Fallout 3 there wouldn't be anymore Fallout at all.

As long as Fallout was an isometric turn-based game it would be of interest only to a niche audience, especially once you had games like Half-Life in 1998. Interplay tried to get around this by making a Fallout-inspired tactical squad game, and then a console hack-and-slash game. Making Fallout into a first-person game was exactly the right thing to do. In 2000 Deus Ex proved that a first person RPG can work.

And when STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl came out, lots of people described it as Half-Life crossed with Deus Ex crossed with Fallout. It was a Fallout-esque setting and did the atmosphere of a radioactive wasteland very well, but it lacked story and dialogue and only a couple of minor RPG elements. But the setting, the item management, the multiple endings, the possibilities for stealth, all said "If this had an interesting story and great writing it would be Fallout."

Unfortunately Bethesda's Fallout 3 had inferior shooting mechanics to STALKER, and inferior story to the old Fallout games. It looks like New Vegas might get things right on the shootery aspects and the story aspects. That's essentially what needed fixing, and that's what will make Fallout New Vegas a worthy sequel to the classic Fallout games.
 
Actually I'm pretty sure that he truly is grateful to Bethesda for making Fallout 3, because without Fallout 3 there wouldn't be anymore Fallout at all.
Click to expand...

There would have been a Fallout 3 without Bethesda. They were not the only bidders for the license.
 
Oh, I was entirely unaware of that.

Fair enough then.

Although, it is possible that if someone else had gotten the license, they might have created a game that was worse. Or a game that was better but which lacked mass market appeal and thus no more Fallouts were made.

But yeah, I thought Bethesda were the guys that swooped in to grab an ignored, dead franchise. Didn't know there was a bidding war.
 
your evil twin said:
In 2000 Deus Ex proved that a first person RPG can work.
Click to expand...
Bethesda themselves know that First Person RPGs can work. Daggerfall and Morrowind were excellent RPGs and though the combat system lacked, both were still great.
The problem is that they discovered that you can make more money by producing games for the console crowd first and then (badly) porting them to PC. That ruined Oblivion and that ruined Fallout 3.
Simplifying the gameplay so everyone gets fast and easy success.
But whining won't get anyone anywhere. Bethesda bought Fallout 3. It sucks. Maybe NV will suck less. There are still the original games and excellent mod-projects like Mutant Rising and the Restoration Project.
 
your evil twin said:
Although, it is possible that if someone else had gotten the license, they might have created a game that was worse. Or a game that was better but which lacked mass market appeal and thus no more Fallouts were made.
Click to expand...

Or, a game with sufficient market appeal to pay for its own existence and was better than Fallout 3.

Hopefully, F:NV will prove that Fallout 3 could have been massively improved simply by introducing sensible RP mechanics and and coherent writing.
 
Yes, that is also my hope! And I am cautiously optimistic.

(My goodness, is there a possibility that people might in agreement about something? On the INTERNET?)
 
your evil twin said:
But yeah, I thought Bethesda were the guys that swooped in to grab an ignored, dead franchise. Didn't know there was a bidding war.
Click to expand...

The franchise was not really that dead, even if it might seem like that from today's perspective. Van Buren was canceled only a year before Bethesda licensed Fallout 3, and Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel, while horrible, was released just six months before the purchase. And Interplay actually had quite a few higher bidders for Fallout 3 even before that, but Herve only agreed to license it out when threatened with bankrupcy.
 
Ausir said:
The franchise was not really that dead, even if it might seem like that from today's perspective. Van Buren was canceled only a year before Bethesda licensed Fallout 3, and Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel, while horrible, was released just six months before the purchase. And Interplay actually had quite a few higher bidders for Fallout 3 even before that, but Herve only agreed to license it out when threatened with bankrupcy.
Click to expand...

Wow, I learn new stuff every day!

So Van Buren was cancelled BEFORE the release of Brotherhood of Steel?!

I thought it was Brotherhood of Steel not selling well that meant they were out of money and unable to continue on Van Buren. Pretty nuts that the game they'd choose to continue working on was Brotherhood of Steel.

Maybe they knew it could be finished in a few months while Van Buren would still take a few years?
 
They actually canceled Van Buren in order to divert more resources to Brotherhood of Steel, which they thought would sell great. That's Herve for you.
 
ManWithNoName said:
Kind of weird to think what Fallout would be today if they had caned BoS instead.
Click to expand...

Bethesda would have still took it. Interplay would have still gone and sell it

Best (possible) case scenario would have been if Obsidian got it from Day 1 and just continuned with Van Buren/took Sawyer right back into their team.

Best case scenario (for many I assume) in dream world would have been a successful Troika taking over again.
 
The only team I could trust with a proper Fallout sequel would have been Trokia...never mind, just looking at their demo brings tears to the eyes. :cry:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzYmQyHl2bc[/youtube]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top