Gamasutra interviews Todd Howard

Brother None

This ghoul has seen it all
Orderite
Gamasutra has a big, 5-page interview with Todd Howard.<blockquote>As a game director -- and it's not like this is the first time you've done this -- how do you even approach something like this? It seems like such a fairly monumental task, on two fronts: one, it's just the issue of making a game this big, but you guys have done that before. But then there's also the issue of inheriting that IP. Not that you're doing it alone, but it seems like a pretty substantial undertaking. How do you approach that?

TH: The good thing with Fallout is that... from a workflow standpoint -- I mean how we go about what we do -- it's similar to what we do with Elder Scrolls, where it's very big, and it's an established world -- whether or not we've established it, or somebody else. The Elder Scrolls [world] is so big that no one person can remember it all, so when we think up stuff, we have to go research it. Like, "What did it say in this book in Daggerfall?" It's so much stuff. So we go through the same work with Fallout.

And frankly, it was a very nice change of pace for us. We were really excited to do the project. So, I think we're kind of used to doing it; I don't know that there's something specific I could point to, and go, "Here's how we go about it."

The one thing we do is we lay out the world. One of the first things we do is draw the map, and come up with the people and places. And the rest of it comes out of that. I mean, in Fallout, we knew we wanted to have vaults.

I usually come up with -- this is bizarre -- the first thing I always come up with is the beginning of the game, and the interface. I don't know why. Like, how does it start, and what's the interface. There's no reason for that; it's just what goes on.

And we knew we wanted to start in the vault, and play through. I've always been interested in games that just start, and you play them; the character generation is part of the game. An early influence is Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis.</blockquote>
 
Ha, not even in Todd's more hot wet dreams, he couldn't come up with a game resembling the wit of Fallout and The Fate of Atlantis.

And he says now that isometric turn-based games are 'still a very viable game type'?
 
Brother None said:
... it's an established world -- whether or not we've established it, or somebody else ... so when we think up stuff, we have to go research it. Like, "What did it say in this book in Daggerfall?" It's so much stuff. So we go through the same work with Fallout.

Really now? I mean.. I'm going to buy the game. Really, I'm giving them a 2nd chance with this game, but does he have to lie like that? I know I've heard that they are not true to TES lore either.

I can't say for sure about Fallout 3 until I've played the game, but I very much doubt it has stuck to the canon of past Fallout games. I've come to terms with that, so really there's no need for him to blatantly lie about it.
 
He reminds of the type of car salesman that will sell you a shined up car that's in "perfect condition" but will break down on you 100kms after you start driving it.
 
Did they ever say flat out that isometric turn based wasn't viable?
My impression was that they just didn't know anything else but to make an Oblivion with guns (not their words, I admit), which is what they do best. Now that sucks, but that's a different story.
 
They never said TB was dead. They said they don't do it and wanted to use a platform they were both familiar with and that would bring a different 'perspective' (no pun intended) to the series.
 
The interview was kinda meh, but

"CR:Yep. I wrote that down. [flips pages] "Emerging from vault: gorgeous."

TH: Okay, so imagine that in isometric. Different league. And that's my opinion;"

I agree with this. And it is the reason why I am okay with fpp.Of course it would be nice if they could make it even better, like hiring better animators...but still.
 
Couldn't you achieve the same "shock and awe" effect via a cinematic?

I think this is just an excuse.
 
Or, hey, howsabout some sort of actual hybrid game that employed a first person perspective but kept turn-based combat?

For a long time that was what I hoped that BS was going to try to do with Fallout 3...mix the best of TES with the best of the first two Fallouts (or, at least, what I consider the best of both)...but, well, that's hope for ya I guess.
 
You forget, that's not what the do "best".

They already had the engine,why not get some additional mileage out of it?
 
I don't get all that hoopla about emerging from the Vault... it's the same effect as at the beginning of COD4 when you're the doomed president.

And I think a lot of people assume that we're doing things to meet some sort of demographic; they're like, "Oh, why is it first person?" I love first person. And I'll ask your opinion: When you step out of the vault, in first person, and see the [HDR light effect on your] eyes come in... Dude, that is a real moment.

Okay, so imagine that in isometric. Different league.

Todd once again exposes himself as a purely visual dude. He compares the VISUALS of emerging from the vault in 3D to the VISUALS of emerging from the vault in isometric.

The significance of textual description is lost on him entirely. And that textual description from Fallout1 stuck with me for a lot longer than a whizbang Pixel Shader 3.0 screen deflash from Call of Duty 4.
 
PaladinHeart said:
Really now? I mean.. I'm going to buy the game. Really, I'm giving them a 2nd chance with this game, but does he have to lie like that? I know I've heard that they are not true to TES lore either.

Even if I had the money I know better than to give anyone a second chance to screw me over. As for the quote, you are right Oblivion pretty much ignored much of TES's lore. Apparently, if they followed the lore than the whole main quest would not have happened (the emperor was not from a long line of kings, dynasty breaks have occurred with no problem, so on and so on). The game world was supposed to be jungle not France and that's just the major changes.
 
Pope Viper said:
Couldn't you achieve the same "shock and awe" effect via a cinematic?

I think this is just an excuse.

You could, but its not just about "shock and awe", its about the whole gameplay...something about exploring post-apo fallout world through "my" eyes is so appealing to me (and millions others, including Beth), that it simply trumps advantages of isometric view.IMO at least : ).

But yeah, I wouldn't mind TB combat (where camera would pan out to semi-iso) + fps non-combat.I wouldn't even mind full-fledged isometrics - afterall, FO1&2 are my favourite games of all time.
 
Mane said:
And this is bizare.

When I start a game?

I start at the beginning.

I totally see now, where i have been going wrong all these years.

Thank you Todd.

You develop games? Sweet. Which ones, maybe I have played one.

Oh, I see. You took something out of context in order to get in a cheapshot. My bad.



It's actually a novel approach to developing a game.. too often games tend to tack on an intro that feels out of place to the rest of the game. See Temple of Trials for an example.
 
Fromage said:
Or, hey, howsabout some sort of actual hybrid game that employed a first person perspective but kept turn-based combat?

I've been saying this for years. I'm a big, big fan of adaptable cameras and 3D technology makes it very easy.

Think of Realms of Arkania: first-person in towns and dungeons, map view for travelling, talking heads for dialogue and isometric for combat. That's four different views.

Fallout also did it (map view for travelling, isometric for in-location movement and occasional talking heads) and it's a shame Fallout 3 pretty much abandons it.

I know a lot of other people here will disagree with me, but I wouldn't mind a Fallout with first-person view for exploration and bird's eye view for combat
 
Brother None said:
I know a lot of other people here will disagree with me, but I wouldn't mind a Fallout with first-person view for exploration and bird's eye view for combat

I would actually even prefer it to "pure" isometric because it makes it much easier to have more tactical rpg combat, as instead of fallout's sixth sense of everyones whereabouts you could keep enemies obscured from view ala JA2.

on topic:

Toddler said:
I mean, in Fallout, we knew we wanted to have vaults.

Whoever said bethesda didn't understand the licence should eat their words
 
Brother None said:
I've been saying this for years. I'm a big, big fan of adaptable cameras and 3D technology makes it very easy.
Funny then that most developers these days, even the really good ones, have problems getting even one camera working properly.

Hovercar Madness said:
I would actually even prefer it to "pure" isometric because it makes it much easier to have more tactical rpg combat, as instead of fallout's sixth sense of everyones whereabouts you could keep enemies obscured from view ala JA2.
Kind of defeats your point when the example you give of things done right was purely iso.
 
Brother None said:
I know a lot of other people here will disagree with me, but I wouldn't mind a Fallout with first-person view for exploration and bird's eye view for combat
I think that it would be a cool option but I prefer having a TPP camera for exploration in most games. Generally speaking, FPP usually feels a bit clumsy as where walls are is not always (or rather usually isn't) intuitive, and I play a fair number of FPSes. All in all, options are a good thing and doing both FPP and, at least, OTS seems like it'd be pretty simple. When you have a fully rotatable camera I'd also think that it wouldn't be hard to add in a FPP view but I really wouldn't know.
 
Back
Top