Feargus Urquhart Interviewed by Gamasutra

13pm

Water Chip? Been There, Done That
It looks like Obsidian Entertainment is in the spotlight these days. Gamasutra has made an interview with Feargus Urquhart about the development of RPGs today. The beginning is rather pompous and disputable:<blockquote>The Western RPG is in a renaissance of popularity and creative richness right now, thanks to titles like BioWare's Mass Effect and Bethesda's Fallout 3.</blockquote>Whatever. Despite that, it's a quite an interesting read, though the answers are mostly vague. Of course, there's a a question about Fallout 3:<blockquote>Q: If you look at the sort of pretty mainstream success of Fallout 3, do you think that they found a way to make a hardcore RPG much more mainstream than has been done in the past? Or when you look at how Fallout 3 is suceeding compared to what you've done on Fallout 2 or other RPGs that you've done...

FU: I think Bethesda did two things, and I'll start with that sort of thing. Any great game, it's beyond how exactly you play it. It's how you play it, and a specific "Are there numbers? and "Are there not numbers?" and all that kind of stuff. It's more of a feeling.

What really was great about the original Fallout, Fallout 1 and Fallout 2, was the feeling of being in this world. And that was attractive. Well, attractive is maybe the wrong word. It was compelling. (laughs) That's a better word.

I think what Bethesda did an incredible job at is making you feel like you are in this Fallout world. And that's what we did back at Black Isle, to make you really feel like you were in this Fallout world. The whole thing -- from the loading screens to the main menu to the Pip-Boy to all that kind of stuff -- it really felt like it was a whole cohesive unit of feeling like you're in this world. And they did that.

When you do that, it is instantly more compelling to any kind of gamer. As long as they feel like they're not being hindered by something or that something is annoying in the game, then they're probably going to enjoy it. And I guess part of that is also taking it, obviously, from a turn-based PC game to using the Oblivion engine and learning how to use their Oblivion engine and make it Fallout. And that's not to say that it's just Oblivion: Fallout.

I think the second thing that Bethesda did an incredible job at -- and this is what they do really well -- is they are just behind their games. I think a lot of the success of Fallout 3 in particular -- because there are people probably at Bethesda that Fallout 3 is not the kind of game that they play -- but they jumped in with both feet, like, "This is the game. We believe in this game." And I think that is why you see a success, too. It's almost catching.

In other words, you have a publisher who's like, "Well, we have these seven games. What do you think?" Bethesda is, "No, you're buying this damn game." So, I think that the success was from both ways. They were able to get the feeling of Fallout, and they really believed in their game. And that belief in the game came through in how they were talking to everybody and pimping it and all that kind of stuff. </blockquote>
Link: RPGs, Moving Forward: An Interview With Feargus Urquhart at Gamasutra

Thanks to Lexx and Ausir
 
from a turn-based PC game to using the Oblivion engine and learning how to use their Oblivion engine and make it Fallout. And that's not to say that it's just Oblivion: Fallout.

I think that is really a matter of opinion, Fallout 3 felt pointless and empty and I never had that with Fallout 1 and 2.
 
Not to mention that Fallout 3 felt artificial and un-beliavable.

Has any old fallout dev given negative feedback about fallout 3?
Or have they all "liked" it?
 
The Western RPG is in a renaissance of popularity and creative richness right now

JRPGs- you click on something, and you watch how the game plays for itself.

W[estern]RPGs- you shoot a lot, see explosions oh yeah and you have some dialogue and character development...


What really was great about the original Fallout, Fallout 1 and Fallout 2, was the feeling of being in this world. And that was attractive. Well, attractive is maybe the wrong word. It was compelling. (laughs) That's a better word.

It's a matter of opinion. Some people liked those games because of the immersive world, the story, dialogues, death animations (volence), TB combat, the setting, or for being a PnP emulation, a pure cRPG. But the main beauty of the game are all of these aspects, not just one.
If you take one of them, there'll be less in it. If you focuse on only one aspect- it'll be a poor game.

It might sell a lot, but it doesn't automaticaly make McDonald restaurants selling healthy food.

Edit: I have a bad feeling about Fallout:New Vegas now.
 
Hm.... I don't really understand what he's talking about, it just seems like random rambling to me :scratch:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Western RPG is in a renaissance of popularity and creative richness right now, thanks to titles like BioWare's Mass Effect and Bethesda's Fallout 3.

Let's see

The Western FPS with RPG elements is in a renaissance of popularity right now, thanks to titles like BioWare's Mass Effect and Bethesda's Fallout 3

Much better :deal:
 
Viliny said:
Has any old fallout dev given negative feedback about fallout 3?
Or have they all "liked" it?
None of them have come close to the effusiveness that Bethesda devs themselves have slathered on FO3. So don't blame them, they're not close enough to truly appreciate the depth of Bethesda's phenomenal design acumen as well as Bethesda themselves can.

edit: DaC posted this last week, get on the ball NMA - :P
 
Yes. Suddenly, I'm rather pessimistic about Fallout: New Vegas, myself.

Though I do agree with Feargus, "What really was great about the original Fallout, Fallout 1 and Fallout 2, was the feeling of being in this world." However, to say that Bethesda achieved that in Fallout 3 is . . . at best lacking. Yes, the various loading screens, the introduction video, and the pip-boy were reminisent of the past fallouts, but the world of Fallout 3 -- and the characters inhabiting that world -- were by no means cohesive. Well, other then in the sense that just about everything has the same gritty, monotone, poorly animated quality.

At least from what I've seen.

"As long as they feel like they're not being hindered by something or that something is annoying in the game."
-V.A.T.S.
-Super[Orcs]
-Cannibalistic Raiders (the only kind . . . )
-Voice Acting (thank Deity for subtitles)
-Animation that fails to rival even System Shock 2
-V.A.T.S.
. . . ect.

". . . Fallout 3 is not the kind of game that they play -- but they jumped in with both feet, like, 'This is the game. We believe in this game.'"

Blind faith is just that: Blind.



*Edit: "Josh is designing the game, not Feargus." Perhaps not so pessimestic after all . . .
 
Dont expect them to bash the company that allowed them to create a fallout game in first place.

I was pesimistic about new vegas right from the beginning. Atleast this time I won't be disappointed if the game will be a total failure like fallout 3.
 
Viliny said:
Has any old fallout dev given negative feedback about fallout 3?
Or have they all "liked" it?

No wonder if they actually liked it - it's so good for a dev to see his 2D world recreated in 3D, with so much details, having to roam it freely. They even made it possible to "manually" travel between locations (I hate that), feeling the atmosphere even more.

It's true, they created more of a 3D Oblivion world, filled with stupid things, like these junk items that serve no purpose, having still edible pre-war food, horrible combat and dialogs, and so on. But the wasteland looks like Fallout world's wasteland should look - though it would have much more satisfying look. And, if you forget this is being a Fallout game, the gameplay is not that bad, really.
 
Mikael Grizzly said:
Feargus said a lot without actually saying anything. His words are hollow.

Yea that's what I gathered, also I agree with AskWuzzup in that he makes very little sense, while saying nothing very much which does leave you with a bad taste in your mouth.

Disagree about the cohesive world bit. It felt more like a lot of small areas with no connection to each other linked by repetative dungeon crawling sections.
 
Either nobody is allowed to say anything meaningful anymore out of fear of the master's lash, or their heads are truly empty.

There's your Renaissance.
 
I never had that much hope for New Vegas. The most I ever thought to really hope for was Fallout 3 with better writing, plot, and a less farcical game world. While that should make the game less of a disgrace to the series than Fallout 3, it won't make it enjoyable enough for me to lay down 50$ for it.

Also, is anyone really surprised that Obsidian employees aren't bashing Fallout 3?
 
UncleSlappy said:
Also, is anyone really surprised that Obsidian employees aren't bashing Fallout 3?

Aside from here the game does not get bashed too much. I'm not saying it makes it a great game (I like it) but I dont see why we must assume that everyone out there hates it but is afraid to be the first one to come out and say it.
 
Well he was saying what he thought Fallout 3 did right, and those are two things that Fallout 3 did more or less well.

If you asked him what he thought Fallout 3 did wrong then... well, he'd probably try to diplomat his way out until you pull out your gun and then he'd probably give you a pretty good laundry list.
 
Well they're all professionals talking to the media, it's rare you'll ever see any of them bash any other's game. I don't assume they hate the game and just hiding it, I just don't count their praise as being the truth.
 
He sounds too much like an asskisser. Or like someone desperately searching for something good to say. I can´t decide.
 
Kashrlyyk said:
He sounds too much like an asskisser. Or like someone desperately searching for something good to say. I can´t decide.

Or desperately wanting to work on F:NW by being an asskisser.
No wonder if they actually liked it - it's so good for a dev to see his 2D world recreated in 3D

Yeah, because 10 years ago computers were in size of a room and devs could only dreamt of a game in 3D or even in FPP :D

Dont expect them to bash the company that allowed them to create a fallout game in first place.

Who does anymore?

If you asked him what he thought Fallout 3 did wrong then... well, he'd probably try to diplomat his way out until you pull out your gun and then he'd probably give you a pretty good laundry list.

We can arrange that...

But the wasteland looks like Fallout world's wasteland should look

With burnt out wooden houses 200 years ago and big piles of garbage laying around every step, which makes it look like a huge post-apo playground for kids to "explore".
 
Blackened said:
Viliny said:
Has any old fallout dev given negative feedback about fallout 3?
Or have they all "liked" it?

No wonder if they actually liked it - it's so good for a dev to see his 2D world recreated in 3D, with so much details, having to roam it freely. They even made it possible to "manually" travel between locations (I hate that), feeling the atmosphere even more.

It's true, they created more of a 3D Oblivion world, filled with stupid things, like these junk items that serve no purpose, having still edible pre-war food, horrible combat and dialogs, and so on. But the wasteland looks like Fallout world's wasteland should look - though it would have much more satisfying look. And, if you forget this is being a Fallout game, the gameplay is not that bad, really.

I would go postal if my work was redone to that abomination but thats just me.
 
Back
Top