GameBanshee interviews Gavin Carter

Brother None

This ghoul has seen it all
Orderite
GameBanshee's Jon "Buck" Birnbaum and Thomas "Brother None" ßеекers have interviewed Fallout 3 lead producer Gavin Carter.<blockquote>GB: The storylines of Fallout 1 and 2 are fairly basic, non-linear, and remain in the background of the game itself. Have you stuck with this approach with Fallout 3? Or have you chosen a more linear, narrative style for the main storyline?

Gavin: We want all of our games to have a compelling central narrative to drives the events of the gameworld along. To that end, the central storyline is a bit more structured than the rest of the game. The more linear structure allows us to build in drama and character elements, which suffer in a more non-linear arrangement. That said, we took great pains to make sure that the player is minimally constrained in their exploration of the world and pursuit of the plot. There are very few places that are off-limits until specific sections of the story.

GB: In Fallout 1 and 2, certain dialogue choices could potentially close off or open quests and dialogue paths. Will we be seeing this sort of thing in Fallout 3? If so, how often does it occur?

Gavin: Yes, we tried to implement choice as much as possible. Virtually all quests in the game have some branching aspect to them, and you can and will lock off certain quests and their rewards depending on the choices you make.
(...)
GB: You've talked about giving players "second chances" for a lot of choices. Other than game-changers like blowing up Megaton, does this mean the player can diligently move between good/neutral/evil during the course of the game without reprecussions? Additionally, can a player leave a faction to join another without consequence, or will the player wind up being alienated by either faction?

Gavin: The player is not locked into any course of action, so a good player can commit an evil act whenever they choose, or vice versa. It is up to the player to decide how their characters would react to certain situations. Each individual good, evil, or neutral decision can carry its own rewards or consequences. These all add into your karma level, which is an overall value that can also affect people’s reactions.

There’s no Oblivion-like factions in Fallout 3 that the player can join. The player is free to take quests and tasks from anyone they choose, though many choices (blowing up Megaton for instance) can cause repercussions down the line, locking you out of certain quests or rewards, while opening ones you may not have been able to obtain otherwise. </blockquote>
 
I ninja'd him.

Nah just kidding, this is a GB interview that went through Buck, I provided about half the questions to the chief, he added 4-5 more and sent it in to Bethesda.
 
I guess there's just different meanings of the word "non-linear" to different people. he really makes it sound like the fact that you can explore pretty much anything right away makes the game non-linear. sure, it means you don't have to stick to the main quest from start to finish, but it's a whole different thing to have a non-linear main quest. this seems to be a very common misconception.
 
I'd like to think that the game offers choice/consequence on a major scale in many of it's quests. When questioned, however, the developers seem hesitant to fall back on anything but the tried and tested 'blowing up Megaton' example. Makes me wonder...
 
aenemic said:
I guess there's just different meanings of the word "non-linear" to different people. he really makes it sound like the fact that you can explore pretty much anything right away makes the game non-linear. sure, it means you don't have to stick to the main quest from start to finish, but it's a whole different thing to have a non-linear main quest. this seems to be a very common misconception.

True. I'd call what Bethsoft is doing more Freeroaming. Which has it's nice points, pity then to clash with what I see as good in a cRPG.
 
Gavin: The player is not locked into any course of action, so a good player can commit an evil act whenever they choose, or vice versa.

So the game still uses a good/evil dichotomy. I guess that much was obvious by listening to Mr. Burke...

A more natural approach would seem to be measured as "good for US" or 'evil for US" in the eyes of each individual faction, with the player not being "good or evil" as a global whole.

And if you kill some people of a faction, the faction shouldn't even let you approach close enough to go anything "good".

However, if you're "good" to the faction, and therefore trusted by them, then you're free to commit evil because they won't see it coming.
 
CxBxW said:
I'd like to think that the game offers choice/consequence on a major scale in many of it's quests. When questioned, however, the developers seem hesitant to fall back on anything but the tried and tested 'blowing up Megaton' example. Makes me wonder...

It should be taken into consideration that the developers don't want to reveal too much about the game before We The People have a chance to play it. They (along with various game reviewers/previewers) may be falling back on the 'blowing up Megaton' example over and over to keep other major choice/consequence moments surprises.

I'd be sorely disappointed if that is the pinnacle of choice/consequence in the game, but I'm not worried that it's the primary one that's been talked about (and also glad they haven't talked about more).
 
Wow, I can't believe they didn't go with factions - does that mean the only "reputation" tracking variable is karma? That's so.... primitive. Even Daggerfall was leaps and bounds ahead. :?

Edit:

We’ve also created an entirely separate base head for females so that we can build in more feminine features from the start.

Ahahahahahahahahahaha! Oblivion didn't have unique geometry for gender? And I thought some of the other production decisions were laughable.
 
The 3 day thing is weird. I think it should be more like a month. 3 days is good for respawning plants in Oblivion. For everything else it's just stupid...
 
I guess there's just different meanings of the word "non-linear" to different people. he really makes it sound like the fact that you can explore pretty much anything right away makes the game non-linear. sure, it means you don't have to stick to the main quest from start to finish, but it's a whole different thing to have a non-linear main quest. this seems to be a very common misconception.


That's probably one of the biggest problems with bringing RPGs to the mainstream crowd. So many people confuse 'sand-box' with 'non-linear' and think that just because you can choose to go off and do a different quest to the main quest it makes the game non0linear. It's why people call games like Morrowind and Oblivion non-linear despite the fact that they have linear plot-lines.
 
Lingwei said:
That's probably one of the biggest problems with bringing RPGs to the mainstream crowd. So many people confuse 'sand-box' with 'non-linear' and think that just because you can choose to go off and do a different quest to the main quest it makes the game non0linear. It's why people call games like Morrowind and Oblivion non-linear despite the fact that they have linear plot-lines.

I can't remember where it is quoted, but it has been stated before that sections of the main storyline can be bypassed.
 
Gavin Carter said:
We want all of our games to have a compelling central narrative to drives the events of the gameworld along. To that end, the central storyline is a bit more structured than the rest of the game. The more linear structure allows us to build in drama and character elements, which suffer in a more non-linear arrangement. That said, we took great pains to make sure that the player is minimally constrained in their exploration of the world and pursuit of the plot. There are very few places that are off-limits until specific sections of the story.
It's funny. When someone from Bethesda is asked about particular game they usually start answering with: „We want all of our games...”

Gavin Carter said:
Yes, we tried to implement choice as much as possible. Virtually all quests in the game have some branching aspect to them, and you can and will lock off certain quests and their rewards depending on the choices you make.
All? It is never too late for hype, isn't it?

Gavin Carter said:
The player is not locked into any course of action, so a good player can commit an evil act whenever they choose, or vice versa. It is up to the player to decide how their characters would react to certain situations. Each individual good, evil, or neutral decision can carry its own rewards or consequences. These all add into your karma level, which is an overall value that can also affect people’s reactions.
I do not like the idea of one overall karma. For example bunch of people met in the middle of nowhere miraculously know if PC is bad or good although he/she did bad or good deed in town that is far away. And how is that? Radio news [that would be rather ridiculous]? And they accept PC or cast out just because of this karma value, even though it is the first time they've met?

I generally like the concept of reputation in Gothic 3. One can have great reputation in some town but in the other he is complete stranger. There is also reputation among members of some group like rebels for instance. They are aware of PC reputation within their ranks but do not know what PC means to other factions/groups. Nothing like: everyone knows the hero [from Kvatch :D]. It may not be perfectly made but seems a bit more realistic.
What I read about FO3 give me idea of Oblivion's guards who arrest PC in one city for crimes committed in other place [they even know that bread in PC's inventory is stolen even though it is stolen from some lonely, forgotten farm situated really far, far away].
But since they forgot bad deeds in three days who cares about karma?

Will there be some opportunities for gravediggers?

Gavin Carter said:
There’s no Oblivion-like factions in Fallout 3 that the player can join. The player is free to take quests and tasks from anyone they choose, though many choices (blowing up Megaton for instance) can cause repercussions down the line, locking you out of certain quests or rewards, while opening ones you may not have been able to obtain otherwise.
I wonder... are there many situations like 'Megaton case'? Or is Megaton just convenient example but one and only?
 
Some good questions there, interesting and to the point without being provoking. Good work BN (and the other guy).
 
Lingwei said:
I guess there's just different meanings of the word "non-linear" to different people. he really makes it sound like the fact that you can explore pretty much anything right away makes the game non-linear. sure, it means you don't have to stick to the main quest from start to finish, but it's a whole different thing to have a non-linear main quest. this seems to be a very common misconception.


That's probably one of the biggest problems with bringing RPGs to the mainstream crowd. So many people confuse 'sand-box' with 'non-linear' and think that just because you can choose to go off and do a different quest to the main quest it makes the game non0linear. It's why people call games like Morrowind and Oblivion non-linear despite the fact that they have linear plot-lines.

Actually, what you described as "sand box" is still non-linear, just in a different manner of speaking. I see your distinction, but I disagree that a sand-box game couldn't be considered "non linear" in how one choses to structure a play session.

I'm in the camp that doesn't really want to see Bethesda try a truly non-linear main plot arc, mainly due to my suspicions they'd muck it up. It takes a pretty brilliant developer to make a narrative resonate with dramatic gravitas whilst simultaneously allowing for a a non-linear development to said story. Last game that really approach this, in my memory, may have been Arcanum... Though my memory of the quests aren't fresh enough to make a firm distinction between main quest and side quest elements anymore (so I could be wrong).

Double Fine could probably do it (Tim Schaffer's company). Valve might be capable of it too, but they've never even remotely approached it.
 
Way to slip some NMA questions in there BN, though it looks like he brought his note cards with only 10 answers to choose from that we have heard repeatably for the last 4 months.

Scenario: You must choose 1 answer from these 10 answers the answer that best fits the questions. And if you don't know the answer just say "Megaton"
 
I am still disappointed that they don't allow you to join factions. One of the greatest decisions you could make in fallout 2 was to join the slavers guild. That was fantastic. Later on you could join the rangers and fight the slavers if you chose not to become a slaver in the den. It was great. I was really hoping(5 months ago) that they would allow you to join the brotherhood and the enclave. One or the other and you would end up fighting the opposing one.

The things they could have done. So many missed opportunities.
 
Yeah, but one can assume they aren't good in making factions as more complex net of connections, with choices that close career here but allow to join there... etc.

If Bethesda would make joinable factions in Oblivion's fashion they'd probably have very linear quest-line based on stiff "do-quest-come-back-fore-new-one" pattern, and until one quest is done, PC cannot get another and in fact cannot do anything else within faction. And possibly it would go with advancement through some set of ranks. Such way of advancing in ranks would look acceptable in paramilitary organizations like Rangers or BoS but slavers? Slaver's Associate, Young Slaver, Slaver, Senior Slaver, Archslaver...
And it all could also lead to Oblivion-like nonsense [which was kinda useful if someone wanted to play game only once ;)] like PC being head of all factions: Archslaver and head of Rangers at the same time; High Elder/Head Paladin in BoS and leader of Enclave [president?] at the same time. Suddenly organizations could become detached from world [like guilds in Oblivion vs Main Quest - Fighters Guild chases their own agendas and do not care at all about evil invasion that should attract skillfull fighters, shouldn't it?] and from each other [like Thieves Guild vs Dark Brotherhood - totally different principles and attitude towards killing yet PC can be head of both factions and nobody gives a damn]. Quest-lines/advancement seems to go only vertically: from lowest rank to highest top and from easy tasks to harder but that's about it. It doesn't seem very appealing.

And I think that they'd do it that way simply because it was that way in Oblivion [and in Morrowind before it; not so completelly as in Oblivion since Great Houses and Vampires forced to choose only one option, but still in most part], and they think that they made it quite good there, and they say something like "they do what they do best"...
Since Oblivion doesn't provide any conflicts of interests between factions or any meaninful choices forcing to take sides it's still yet to determined whether Bethesda is nowadays capable of creating anything good, deep and interesting in this matter. Capable - probably yes, willing? I strongly doubt it.
 
Back
Top