GameInformer has published a brief video segment with Feargus Urquhart on the way Obsidian and Bethesda view the Fallout universe, and how the differences in their views played out in the development of Fallout: New Vegas.
Feargus Urquhart on how Obsidian and Bethesda view Fallout
- Thread starter WorstUsernameEver
- Start date
How snake-y of you to namedrop Tim Cain when he wasn't even at Obsidian at the time, Fearg. 
aboniks
Still Mildly Glowing
Hm. That was singularly unenlightening. (No offense, OP.)
Might be otherwise if they made the whole interview available.
I wonder if he actually believed what he was saying, or if he was having to play PR games.
Might be otherwise if they made the whole interview available.
I wonder if he actually believed what he was saying, or if he was having to play PR games.
TheWesDude
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
not sure this guy was paying much attention. just because he never experienced the bugs in FO3 does not mean they were not there.
plus, you must keep in mind that bethesda set a record. FO3 was the first game to garner over 100,000 crash bugs within the first 24 hrs of launch prompting MS to require bethesda to fix it.
He didn't even say anything. I thought he was going to point out the differences. All he said 'Fallout 3 was awesome', or, in other words, what the audience expected to hear anyways.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
TheWesDude said:
That comment annoyed me the most. I had less problems with New Vegas than Fallout 3, but that doesn't mean New Vegas wasn't buggy. These rabid Fallout 3 fans piss me off sometimes. Fallout: New Vegas is a better game in every way. I had fewer problems with New Vegas than I did with Fallout 3. It depends on what platform you play it on I think too......
I was able to look past the bugs in New Vegas because the game was so good. Fallout 3 not so much. FNV didn't have level scaling for starts. That alone made the game better. I abhorred Fallout 3 because of the level scaling. The Capitol Wasteland didn't feel as dangerous as the Mojave either.
The Dlc in Fallout 3 was pretty lame to me as well. The Pitt was my favorite I think, but Point Lookout was pretty good too. In comparison, FNV's Dlc OWB, and Lonesome Blues, along with the Gun Runners Arsenal, added TONS of stuff to the game.
Seeing some of those comments makes me realize how much I hate mainstream gamers. I would like to see more of these interviews if they have more.
donperkan
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
In the end it all comes down to your personal experience with the game.
My NV was crashing every hour of gameplay, i did enjoy the game but it was also very frustrating.
My NV was crashing every hour of gameplay, i did enjoy the game but it was also very frustrating.
Paul_cz
Mildly Dipped
I would classify both games as awesome, although New Vegas is awesomer due to its much superior quality of writing and believebility and consistency of the world and setting...but Fallout 3 wins in "entertainability" of its world. Exploring Fallout 3 world itself was more fun for me, but everything else was better in NV.
As for bugs, both games crashed few times for me over 100 of hours I spent with them, but that is about it.
As for bugs, both games crashed few times for me over 100 of hours I spent with them, but that is about it.
Independent George
First time out of the vault
It seems like we're re-hashing an old argument. FO3 and FNV were two completely different games that appealed to different audiences which just coincidentally shared the same engine and were in the same universe.
FO3 was a sandbox shooter set in a post-apocalyptic environment. If it didn't have the 'Fallout' moniker, I think most of us would have enjoyed it quite a bit. It was geared towards new players unfamiliar with the Fallout mythology, who don't need to know how things fit into the existing canon. The best way to view FO3 is to ignore the previous games, and pretend it's 40 years since the bombs fell, instead of 200. Forget everything you know about the Brotherhood or the Enclave; these are completely new guys with different names and agendas. The writing is still bad, but it's bad in a way completely unrelated to Fallout.
FONV was a role-playing game set in a resurrected American Southwest. It's geared towards experienced Fallout players who've already explored post-apocalyptic America. FO 1 & 2 have occurred, and you're living in the aftermath. It's no longer post-apocalyptic (FO1), or post-post-apocalyptic (FO2). It's a Western - or, rather, an Eastern. Civilization (NCR) is in the west, and Manifest Destiny is spreading east into Indian territory.
For a gamer new to the FO universe, and expecting a post-apocalyptic romp through the wasteland, that's a lot of backstory to swallow. It's familiar to us, but it's completely alien to anyone whose only knowledge of the series is FO3. It's jarring to go from exploring old ruins to balancing Great Power politics.
I understand what Bethesda was trying to do, but it would have been better if FO3 ran between FO1 & FO2, instead of afterwards. They should have created their own canon, maybe with a few occasional confluences (maybe encountering the remnants of the Master's army), and let the stories converge naturally as east meets west once again.
FO3 was a sandbox shooter set in a post-apocalyptic environment. If it didn't have the 'Fallout' moniker, I think most of us would have enjoyed it quite a bit. It was geared towards new players unfamiliar with the Fallout mythology, who don't need to know how things fit into the existing canon. The best way to view FO3 is to ignore the previous games, and pretend it's 40 years since the bombs fell, instead of 200. Forget everything you know about the Brotherhood or the Enclave; these are completely new guys with different names and agendas. The writing is still bad, but it's bad in a way completely unrelated to Fallout.
FONV was a role-playing game set in a resurrected American Southwest. It's geared towards experienced Fallout players who've already explored post-apocalyptic America. FO 1 & 2 have occurred, and you're living in the aftermath. It's no longer post-apocalyptic (FO1), or post-post-apocalyptic (FO2). It's a Western - or, rather, an Eastern. Civilization (NCR) is in the west, and Manifest Destiny is spreading east into Indian territory.
For a gamer new to the FO universe, and expecting a post-apocalyptic romp through the wasteland, that's a lot of backstory to swallow. It's familiar to us, but it's completely alien to anyone whose only knowledge of the series is FO3. It's jarring to go from exploring old ruins to balancing Great Power politics.
I understand what Bethesda was trying to do, but it would have been better if FO3 ran between FO1 & FO2, instead of afterwards. They should have created their own canon, maybe with a few occasional confluences (maybe encountering the remnants of the Master's army), and let the stories converge naturally as east meets west once again.
Independent George said:
Nah. I doubt Bethesda'd remove the 'RPG' and 'choices & consequences' tag from the game. Or the unrealistic characters (and dialogue). Or the stupid gun system.
I don't think I really have to imagine anything considering I bought the title Fallout so everything would be imagined for me (otherwise why would I be playing games?).
Or at least nearly everything.
lets say you remove all references of Fallout in Fallout 3. Just for a min.
It would still be a "shit" RPG in my book. how so ? Well Fallout or not Fallout. But a "good" RPG should have quality writing, memorable NPCs, not TO MUCH inconstancies (you know plot holes and such).
Fallout 3 was at the end of the day Oblivion with gunz. And if you take Fallout out of it, it will still stay a blunt and soulless Sandbox game which you play once for the exploration and never remember again for anything else then exploding heads and annoying voices of Moira Brown ...
I mean that freaking kid-town alone ... what the hell have they thought when they got the idea for that part. Seriously.
It would still be a "shit" RPG in my book. how so ? Well Fallout or not Fallout. But a "good" RPG should have quality writing, memorable NPCs, not TO MUCH inconstancies (you know plot holes and such).
Fallout 3 was at the end of the day Oblivion with gunz. And if you take Fallout out of it, it will still stay a blunt and soulless Sandbox game which you play once for the exploration and never remember again for anything else then exploding heads and annoying voices of Moira Brown ...
I mean that freaking kid-town alone ... what the hell have they thought when they got the idea for that part. Seriously.
[quote="TorontRayne"Fallout: New Vegas is a better game in every way.[/quote]
As a true Fallout fan, I disagree.
Also, as a gamer.
And as a human being.
And as a nerd.
There were plenty of points where New Vegas was worse than FOE. The biggest of all was probably driving the player to an end, the second biggest of all was probably nurturing the player on their way. FOE was bad, and it was worse than New Vegas, but there were a few things done right there that didn't carry over.
All in all though, both games sucked, and despite no being a complete waste of time, they were pretty fruitless.
To me, at least.
You know the game sucks when you turn a corner wishing "let there be no enemies", not because you want to win the game (whatever that means) but because you don't want to bear the PAIN of the combat system. My complete lack of interest for most sub-plots didn't help my enjoyment of New Vegas either (or FOE, for that matter).
Fortunately, since every Bethesda game is Morrowind on steroids, TGM and TCL work like a charm, and it's perfectly possible to fly by enemies on god mode straight to the end of the level. movetoqt was also pretty handy.
Seriously, the first level of Fallout (ONE, the one with the rats) is more enjoyable than 95% of the combat in FOE, and about 90% of the one from New Vegas.
But I rant.
As a true Fallout fan, I disagree.
Also, as a gamer.
And as a human being.
And as a nerd.
There were plenty of points where New Vegas was worse than FOE. The biggest of all was probably driving the player to an end, the second biggest of all was probably nurturing the player on their way. FOE was bad, and it was worse than New Vegas, but there were a few things done right there that didn't carry over.
All in all though, both games sucked, and despite no being a complete waste of time, they were pretty fruitless.
To me, at least.
You know the game sucks when you turn a corner wishing "let there be no enemies", not because you want to win the game (whatever that means) but because you don't want to bear the PAIN of the combat system. My complete lack of interest for most sub-plots didn't help my enjoyment of New Vegas either (or FOE, for that matter).
Fortunately, since every Bethesda game is Morrowind on steroids, TGM and TCL work like a charm, and it's perfectly possible to fly by enemies on god mode straight to the end of the level. movetoqt was also pretty handy.
Seriously, the first level of Fallout (ONE, the one with the rats) is more enjoyable than 95% of the combat in FOE, and about 90% of the one from New Vegas.
But I rant.
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
So I didn't care about anything in the game, and I am not even gonna give it an opportunity, so it sucks...
That's not what I said, but when it is, it's usually the other way around.Walpknut said:
And by that I mean:
It sucks, so I didn't care about anything in the game.
I don't know how I sounded though (didn't reread).
But you make me think if enduring FOE through to the very end (albeit admittedly skipping the bigger combat pits and flying through walls to get around the craptastic level design and the absurd amount of walking around - it still took me 35h+ to clear the game!) somehow harmed my enjoyment of New Vegas. I mean, I was already tired of death from the stupid ever present combat. There was stuff that I liked in New Vegas. But maybe I'd have liked the game better as a whole if I had played it before I played FOE.
I'll never know.
What I do know is that I have way more fun with Fallout and Fallout 2 than I have with FOE or New Vegas. And those games are outdated, I've played them countless times, and had plenty of flaws to begin with!
T
TorontoReign
Guest
Edit: Somehow I screwed that quote paste up. I just deleted it to save the trouble.
Good for you.TorontRayne said:
I didn't say it was superior, I said it's more enjoyable. For me, of course.TorontRayne said:
fo sho.TorontRayne said:
Monotonous is the entire FOE experience. Always the same combat, always the same enemies, always the same mechanics. Explosions don't make it exciting, it makes it a fad because they take time to happen. I want to skip the animations, if possible. Animations are monotonous, unless they are different each time, and even then, if they don't have meaning, they get boring pretty fast.
That's great, enjoy it while it lasts (your fandom).TorontRayne said:
Oh, I thought you had a point other than that. Yes, I suppose that's accurate.TorontRayne said:
But back to my initial point, New Vegas isn't superior to FOE in every way imaginable. It's just superior in most stuff.
Surf Solar
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Sorry for my stupidity, but what is "FOE" ?
It's probably not yours the biggest to be sorry about.Surf Solar said:
FOE is a silly abbreviation of FallOut3 I've come up with and use instead of the real name. It's not particularly good of witty, but it's better, I believe, than FellOutMyButt3 or SellOut, if much more convoluted.
In essence, the 3 is horizontally inverted, thus replaced by an E, which makes foe. Enemy.
