Feargus Urquhart talks New Vegas, bugs and Fallout Online

WorstUsernameEver

WorstUsernameEver

But best title ever!
Recently, gamesTM has put online an interview with Obsidian CEO Feargus Urquhart, and while that per se wouldn't be news-worthy, it goes without saying that he'd tackle some Fallout-related subjects.

Here's what Feargus had to say on New Vegas' bugs and deadlines:<blockquote>Do you agree that maybe your end ship date was too ambitious for New Vegas, and that was the reason that it shipped with so many bugs?

You know, it’s hard to say. I think, as a developer, it’s not the end date that matters; it’s the dates prior to that. So, if we hit our vertical slice then it makes us really ready for production and then production goes more smoothly. If we then hit our alpha date, then everything after that is pretty much just bug polish, tuning and things like that, then it just guarantees that we hit our end dates and I think that is something that we as a developer, and others out there, all have to get better at. Because there are some dates that can’t be missed, you know.</blockquote>And on Fallout Online:<blockquote>Having previously worked at Interplay, and across the Fallout series, what’s your opinion of Interplay’s claim to the Fallout MMO?

To be honest, I have no idea. I had left Interplay before that deal and so I just don’t know anything. It was kind of one of those things where I wanted to stick my fingers in my ears and go ‘la-la-la’, just because I didn’t want to know.

How well suited do you think the series is to online play in general?

Actually, I think it’s really well suited, I mean that’s the biggest thing. Ultimately, if you think about it, when you’re playing Fallout, it’s like you are playing in a big open world where you are going after mobs, playing Player-Versus-Environment. So it’s almost like you’re playing a PVE game but by yourself, so I think that the game really lends itself to having this big world. And, of course, how the IP works, crazy is normal, so you can have crazy stuff. Like when there is just some weird-ass guy researching Mole Rats in some corner of the world and he’s made Mole Rat Land, so I think that helps it as well. It’s a world where people expect to find the unexpected around the corner and so it just fits.</blockquote>Feargus also goes on subjects like how it was to work on a new Fallout game, the dumbing down of RPGs in recent years and various Obsidian-related stuff in the full interview, making it a worthy read all around.
 
It was great to get to make another Fallout, the team really enjoyed it. I mean, making Fallout games is just fun and I think in the end, everyone is really happy with the core of the game, the changes we made – it’s a lot more fun to play as an FPS(...)
Click to expand...

:roll:
 
You're really ignoring the context. Point is, as bad as the thing is, Fallout uses a first person perspective and action mechanics since Fallout 3, so you may as well make the gunplay actually, you know, good.

I don't think Obsidian succeeded, btw, but it's certainly better than Fallout 3 (and the game also feels a lot more like an RPG, so I'm not really seeing the problem there).
 
Actually, I think it’s really well suited, I mean that’s the biggest thing.
Click to expand...

I thought so as well, once. By now not anymore. The world can be used somehow, yes. But never ever the gameplay.

Ultimately, if you think about it, when you’re playing Fallout, it’s like you are playing in a big open world where you are going after mobs, playing Player-Versus-Environment. So it’s almost like you’re playing a PVE game but by yourself
Click to expand...

Ultimately, if you think about it, when you play any singleplayer game, isn't it like you are playing PVE, but by yourself?

It just isn't the same, never. You have totally different quest design, You can't do lots of cool things because of abuse everywhere, you have to think about so many damn things that you never have to care about in a singleplayer game and it all leads to the point that an MMO Fallout just is never like a singleplayer Fallout, regardless of how good the MMO might be.
 
WorstUsernameEver said:
You're really ignoring the context. Point is, as bad as the thing is, Fallout uses a first person perspective and action mechanics since Fallout 3, so you may as well make the gunplay actually, you know, good.
Click to expand...

The gunplay isn't even remotively fun even if they improved it a bit. It is no challenge whatsoever and a joke compared to the original fallouts. I don't blame Obsidian for this for we all know who pulled Fallout into this clusterfuck of engine, but I wouldn't say that NV made it anything particular good aswell.

Agreed with Lexx on the MMO issue, I thought that was a rather silly comparison Feargus dropped there.
 
You could really make a really great fallout mmo but it had to be a gigantic open world and in the end not enough would be interested enough so it would eventually die.

The only working Fallout MMO would be a wow clone, but then again it wouldn't be fallout anymore.
 
‘So what do role-playing gamers want now?’ The way that I see it is: I always look at accessibility. Accessibility does not necessarily mean ‘dumbing down’, it means that when the player starts the game it has to be accessible to them.
Click to expand...

A company I used to work for was Black Isle Studios and a PC game I worked on was Icewind Dale, which required you to roll six whole second-edition D&D characters before you could even start playing the game. No one would get through character creation nowadays.
Click to expand...

The thing is, accessibility doesn't mean dumbing down. It mean simplifying and giving instant gratification.

Y'know sort of like how a microwave dinner is just as difficult to make and just as delicious to eat as a slow pit roasted pig.

:roll:
 
It's amusing that he says that because I know a lot of people who enjoy making characters. That said, 2nd Edition D&D's recommended method of making characters with die rolls was bad for game balance and it was foolish for PC games to use it in favor of a point pool. Tangents about the problems of AD&D aside, it saddens me that he doesn't think that people are interested in spending the time building six characters in an interesting system. He either underestimates gamers' patience or is aiming for too broad of an audience, one which doesn't like RPGs in the first place.
 
Games today feel like they're made with the lowest common denominator in mind. :(
 
Very politically correct answer about dumbing down RPGs, but I can't blame him. It is a business and right now the customer base seems to be afflicted with ADD. I hate that it is that way, but if I were running a gaming company I'd be catering to the the largest audience I could too.
 
UncannyGarlic said:
It's amusing that he says that because I know a lot of people who enjoy making characters. That said, 2nd Edition D&D's recommended method of making characters with die rolls was bad for game balance and it was foolish for PC games to use it in favor of a point pool. Tangents about the problems of AD&D aside, it saddens me that he doesn't think that people are interested in spending the time building six characters in an interesting system. He either underestimates gamers' patience or is aiming for too broad of an audience, one which doesn't like RPGs in the first place.
Click to expand...
I think that hits the nail on the head. Not only regarding that comment here. But I remember someone saying about Bethesda once being a company which makes "RPGs for people which do not like them in the first place".

It was not rare in "good" RPGs that you would close chapters with your decisions. Kinda how it is done in Witcher 2 now where you decide for one side so you can not experience the story from a different angle. In Fallout this was even that you could "piss of characters" and thus completely block your self from quests. Or if you had not the required skill to even start the situation. Many RPGs today ignore the skills of the character and go usually with a skill system based on the player. Even if you have choices those are presented to you in a Mass Effect style where it is not important how intelligent the character is you have created but you simply get a pool of answer to chose from of which some are good and others bad/evil. - One reason why I NEVER EVER will see Dragon Age as spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate even if BG2 was sure not the peak of RPGs it had a few nice situations which required a "class" or certain intelligence to play right. Dragon Age not. Every Gray Warden you created could do everything (almost). To many times people forget that to have a low intelligence in Fallout 1/2 actually was not only for the lulz but also for role playing. To see how a character with the bare minimum of intelligence would survive!
 
I'd like to see Obsidian make lower budget games, so they can aim for a narrower more hardcore audience without the expectations of massive mainstream sales success and the compromises that go along with that. Making more original IP games would help as well, as certain series carry expectations that can stifle creativity as well.

Fallout itself has become a big bloated, fairly accessible big money series. While I was very happy Obsidian was finally able to get a lot of their Van Buren ideas out in the world, they also were obviously limited by both the game engine and expectations for the series established by Fallout 3. Also the more sequels that are piled onto the series, the ideas and concepts that can interesting become less fresh and more limited.

Big money sequels like KOTOR and New Vegas are obviously lucrative though, so makes sense they would consider taking similar projects in the future, but their real potential for making interesting games lies elsewhere I think, especially now that they have their own engine that seems to work well enough.
 
I think game companies are severely underestimating their modern gaming audience, even the consoletards aren't really as stupid and and short attention-spanned as we make them out to be.

Well, the ones that are are too immature to be playing 'M' rated games anyways so forget them, 'M' rated games aren't supposed to be marketed to children.
 
I never understood why people are are so anti 1st person for Fallout. Honestly nothing makes an RPG more immersive as far as im concerned then being First person, something i learned all the way back to that faithful day when i bought Ultima Underworld (and i still have the 5 1/4 floppies ;) )
Fallout was great for the writing and the story, the humor etc. Being Isometric didnt make it great. Sure Bethesida messed up to a degree with Fallout 3 but NV in large part fixed what was wrong and makes me hopeful for FO4
 
Felspawn said:
I never understood why people are are so anti 1st person for Fallout. Honestly nothing makes an RPG more immersive as far as im concerned then being First person, something i learned all the way back to that faithful day when i bought Ultima Underworld (and i still have the 5 1/4 floppies ;) )
Fallout was great for the writing and the story, the humor etc. Being Isometric didnt make it great. Sure Bethesida messed up to a degree with Fallout 3 but NV in large part fixed what was wrong and makes me hopeful for FO4
Click to expand...

The biggest issue with FPS Fallout is that it removes a large section of the Role Playing aspect of the game. Things that make an RPG more immersive than simply putting it in first person are: well written dialog, an interesting plot, a balanced and satisfying set of combat rules. These CAN be achieved in first person, but simply putting a game into first person doesn't make it more immersive if the game itself is bad (like FO3 was.) NV fixed alot of these issue that is true.

Here is the problem though. As I had stated earlier, it removes a large section of role playing. Because it relies on the USERS skills as a gamer more than the CHARACTERS skills. Ultimately this makes it so that you either have a very very unsatisfying shooter, or a very light RPG.

In Fallout 1 and 2, you could not only miss whole clips and get killed in 1 burst, but you might also jam a lock you didn't realize you were unable to pick, or you might attempt a lie not knowing that the person you are lying to is pretty smart and going to likely see through your attempts. Part of what was lost was the UNKNOWN, and part of what was lost was the LACK of efficacy. If you CAN pick a lock in FO3/NV, you will always. There is no lock jaming, and the game does it as a mini game, thus your skill as a player is more important than the skill of your character.
 
Eternal said:
The biggest issue with FPS Fallout is that it removes a large section of the Role Playing aspect of the game. Things that make an RPG more immersive than simply putting it in first person are: well written dialog, an interesting plot, a balanced and satisfying set of combat rules. These CAN be achieved in first person, but simply putting a game into first person doesn't make it more immersive if the game itself is bad (like FO3 was.) NV fixed alot of these issue that is true.

Here is the problem though. As I had stated earlier, it removes a large section of role playing. Because it relies on the USERS skills as a gamer more than the CHARACTERS skills. Ultimately this makes it so that you either have a very very unsatisfying shooter, or a very light RPG.
Click to expand...

Completely disagree, the first person perspective is the best way to get immersed in a game world. Bethesda did plenty of things wrong with FO3 but that wasnt one of them. I can agree that the way its setup now, in FO3 and NV, that a players skill make the game too easy. but a fix for that shouldnt involve switching perspective. it could be something as simple as higher weapon skills impacting spreed and not just damage, low gun skill? ucant hit the broad side of a barn. even if u perfectly line up that sniper shot u can still miss. sort of how Vats % work. it would make combat skills more meaningful. but dont take away the first person PoV

Other things would be to make other skills and mini games less forgiving. trying to pick a lock? well u cant just reset and try again. u break a pick and not the lock is jammed. same thing with the hacking mini game. if u try to hack a terminal thats way to hard for you maybe ALL the answers are wrong and your guranteed to fail. things like that would make skills more important, remove the player skill element from it and make perks like infiltrator actually worth while (when u dont want to just save and reload of course ;) ). All of those things can be done in a FP perspective though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top