GameSpot interviews Todd Howard

[Vault 69er]

<snippety>

Hey that's great, chuckles.
You keep on trolling and flame baiting there, and when they finally hit you with the banhammer you'll no doubt go off and cry "They banned me for my opinion!!!"

 

[Zaptoman]

In the end, all three versions (PC, 360, PS3) should look the same.

So Betsy won`t make special UI for PC version ;( Very sad news.

Wrong. They already said they were.

As for Todd Howard and his comments, and Bethsoft's general stance on Fallout fans - I don't get it. Why are you making the game if you aren't making it for the fans? It doesn't make any sense. Take a look at what John Favreau is doing with the Iron Man movie - he's stated multiple times he's making it for the fans - trying to get it right by them, because really, they're the ultimate judge. So? How is this any different? Shouldn't the game have to be 'right' by the fans standards? If not them, then who?

 

[DrKissinger1]

Alright all rigth, simmer the hell down before you two get the thread locked.

The way I see it you guys are reading to much hostility into this statement. It's not like Todd is an all knowing demon who seeks to destroy Fallout fandom. He's like most people, not totally informed and speaking in broad generalizations (and you guys don't?). From his perspective, he's speaking the truth. The fan community (even if there threads are deleted at NMA or other sites) have been fairly negative since Beth acquired the license. Every bit of info that has come out has been torn apart, and it's mostly the potentially unfavourable stuff thats been discussed. Combined with the Bethsoft board trolling that some fans have been doing (whos sig goes "I've got 50% warn level of Beth forums, beat that"?) I don't blame them for feeling put upon.

Now I've got my reservations about Fallout 3, and I'll be the first to say Todd Howard has said some pretty stupid things, but if we want them to be communicative, we have to be willing. It's not like we've been friendly Ghandi/ET here, there has been alot of hostility on both sides. There hesitant to extend the hand to the dog that has bitten them (or is so perceived), and I for one don't blame them. I don't believe they should let a few angry trolls taint the reputation of the whole community, but Fallout fans have a long standing reputation.

I say, if you want them to communicate with us, make the effort to communicate with them. Get the emails of the devs, or something, and send them a friendly message about yourself and the fan community and how most of us want to have friendly and constructive dialog, like which existed with the old Fallout devs.

I was going to make a post similar to this one, but you've expressed my feelings on the issue perfectly. The fear of Fallblivion is legitimate, but at the same time, the paranoia and viciousness directed towards any scrap of information Bethesda releases is at least a bit irrational. I think the reaction to the supermutant best summarizes this. A large green humanoid dressed in post-apocalyptic metal scraps and swinging a lead pipe was lambasted as a daedric mace-wielding orc warrior.

That said, I'm extremely disappointed with the fact that primary development is on the X360. I've had a bad experience with ports lately (SC: Double Agent, downright defective).

 

[Sander]

snip

Strike for trolling.

 

[quietfanatic]

It is sad, but just as in 2004, I still think that Bethesda is trying hard but manage to appear like they aren't. I believe that if they discussed things with people from NMA, and DAC or the Codex, they could have massively reduced the level of hostility and negative perception. Yes, I might nitpick at times, but I care about the potential Fallout sequel's quality, not trying to make Bethesda look bad. Their paranoia, closed-mindedness and need for control causes much of the problem, flaws they might apply to us in their minds.

 

[Jiggly McNerdington]

In Reply To ivpiter

They aren't describing you as a fan, he said his GENERAL impression. Yes it's a generalization. He said as much. The truth behind it doesn't matter, because it's an impression. When he says his impression is that, it's true. That's his impression. The truth about what he has an impression of could be entirely different obviously. He's not saying that it is a fact that all Fallout fans were foaming at the mouth in 2004, he just says that's how it felt to him, probably because people typically are sensitive to negative comments, so you're more inclined to feel the negatives than the people saying "Huh, that might be good".

In Reply To people saying Nuka Cola was trolling

What's trolling about that? Weren't you guys complaining somewhere about being called trolls for saying you don't like the look of Fallout 3 on the Something Awful forums?

 

[Kyuu]

In Reply To people saying Nuka Cola was trolling

What's trolling about that? Weren't you guys complaining somewhere about being called trolls for saying you don't like the look of Fallout 3 on the Something Awful forums?

I suppose you don't see what's trolling about your post that consists entirely of "Your mother appreciates me" in one of the other threads, either.

 

[Brother None]

What's trolling about that? Weren't you guys complaining somewhere about being called trolls for saying you don't like the look of Fallout 3 on the Something Awful forums?

He wasn't talking about Fallout 3, he was insulting us, and only that. That's trolling.

 

[Jiggly McNerdington]

In Reply To people saying Nuka Cola was trolling

What's trolling about that? Weren't you guys complaining somewhere about being called trolls for saying you don't like the look of Fallout 3 on the Something Awful forums?

I suppose you don't see what's trolling about your post that consists entirely of "Your mother appreciates me" in one of the other threads, either.

Actually I saw a guy being a dick and I was a dick in return.

What's trolling about that? Weren't you guys complaining somewhere about being called trolls for saying you don't like the look of Fallout 3 on the Something Awful forums?

He wasn't talking about Fallout 3, he was insulting us, and only that. That's trolling.

Didn't seem like much of an insult, and was related to Fallout 3. While it's fine to complain about things that have been solidly shown/talked about such as it being FPS-like, there seems to be a good amount of speculative complaining too. Hell, Nuka quoted Tora earlier in the thread with speculative complaining.

The impression (Oh god not impressions again) I got from the picture is he was saying speculative complaining is pretty silly when, on the whole, we still don't know much about how the game will be. We've seen a few pictures, read interviews and previews, but as far as I know none of us have seen it in action, so we don't know if nuclear slingshots will be on every corner or in a rare random encounter (Though I remember in some interview someone said it was hidden and hard to get), don't know if dialogue will involve rad-crabs or urns of ashes, don't know if all the music will be dramatic over the top or 40's-50's over the radio or Fallout-esque, don't know if there'll be child killing (Though unlikely, especially since Bioshock wimped out on that apparently), don't know if there'll be Cheesy Poofs, don't know if there'll be tongs and calipers.

Though I could just be an optimist.

 

[Sander]

Actually I saw a guy being a dick and I was a dick in return.

Yes, don't do that. Either post with some substance, or don't post at all.

Didn't seem like much of an insult, and was related to Fallout 3. While it's fine to complain about things that have been solidly shown/talked about such as it being FPS-like, there seems to be a good amount of speculative complaining too. Hell, Nuka quoted Tora earlier in the thread with speculative complaining.

The impression (Oh god not impressions again) I got from the picture is he was saying speculative complaining is pretty silly when, on the whole, we still don't know much about how the game will be.

So, instead of saying 'we still don't know much' (which is not the point, since we are not judging the game but the information we *have* abotu the game), he decides to generalise and insult everyone with a silly picture that can't with any seriousness be called a full-fledged argument. All it is is a one-liner that's just there to get some reactions, hence trolling. If he wanted to actually discuss that, he should not have posted like that.

 

[Jiggly McNerdington]

(which is not the point, since we are not judging the game but the information we *have* abotu the game)

Seems to me to be judging the game, but ok.

he decides to generalise and insult everyone with a silly picture that can't with any seriousness be called a full-fledged argument. All it is is a one-liner that's just there to get some reactions, hence trolling. If he wanted to actually discuss that, he should not have posted like that.

It obviously isn't an argument, he's expressing his opinion in a quick way. Much like someone might yell "Fuck!" if they stub their toe, he posted that picture as he stubbed his brain on the forum. And as for reactions, I see 4, possibly 5 posts of people who are so defensive that apparently they can't let a picture slide without raving how wrong it is. If he was posting it and rubbing his hands together with glee and thinking "Oh boy, this'll really stir up those dastardly Fallout fans!" he accomplished it because people here apparently can't ignore a simple fucking picture.

I guess in addendum, am I free to bitch about every picture I see in anyone's signature? 'cause there are some silly pictures here that I do not agree with and feel an overwhelming urge to write about.

 

[Per]

The impression (Oh god not impressions again) I got from the picture is /.../

What the image is is just another variation on the very old and very tiresome "you haven't seen the finished game so you can't complain on the things revealed about the unfinished game (but feel free to praise)" twaddle, although with a little more effort put into it. It's skirting the line, sure, which you and NukaColaClassic have both done and got away with it before.

(I do like image macros, though.)

I guess in addendum, am I free to bitch about every picture I see in anyone's signature? 'cause there are some silly pictures here that I do not agree with and feel an overwhelming urge to write about.

The ones by people who stubbed their brains on Todd Howard? (Yes, the targeting screen one is offensive and stupid.)

 

[Jiggly McNerdington]

The impression (Oh god not impressions again) I got from the picture is /.../

What the image is is just another variation on the very old and very tiresome "you haven't seen the finished game so you can't complain on the things revealed about the unfinished game (but feel free to praise)" twaddle, although with a little more effort put into it. It's skirting the line, sure, which you and NukaColaClassic have both done and got away with it before.

(I do like image macros, though.)

Not just finished game, any game. At all. Maybe a dozen pictures of the game and that's it. There's a difference you see.

 

[Per]

Not just finished game, any game. At all. Maybe a dozen pictures of the game and that's it.

What? Are you now saying that all we know of the game amounts to what can be derived from screenshots? Because that would be an awfully blatant lie, or, I don't know, a humongous declaration of disbelief towards Bethesda and the "press" combined.

 

[Jiggly McNerdington]

Not just finished game, any game. At all. Maybe a dozen pictures of the game and that's it.

What? Are you now saying that all we know of the game amounts to what can be derived from screenshots? Because that would be an awfully blatant lie, or, I don't know, a humongous declaration of disbelief towards Bethesda and the "press" combined.

Obviously I'm not saying that, but when most of your information comes second hand from previews and a few interviews, you still don't see good examples of dialog, how the combat actually plays out (We know it's FPS with pausing and auto-aiming, but how does it actually feel in the game?), size of the game world/towns in the game world/depths of the NPCs/population of the NPCs in the towns, ect ect ect.

You can certainly get an opinion of the game from the previews/interviews/screenshots (Hell, you can get an opinion from "BETHSEDA MAKING FALLOUT 3"), but you have to admit that some good longish in-game movies would most likely showcase how the game looks and feels better than a couple static pictures and some guy on a webpage saying "AND IT WAS ACTION PACKED".

For the record (There's a record now?) I'm not a fan of the "PLAY DUR GAME TO JUDGE IT" either because I'm a cheapass and hate blowing money on games until I research the piss out of them. My version of that is there isn't enough piss to have a sufficient amount of research on Fallout 3 yet. Though on the grand scheme of things I'm out of a scale of at the moment.

 

[Karak]

(We know it's FPS with pausing and auto-aiming, but how does it actually feel in the game?)

All you people are ever arguing is how the game might turn out good and we shouldn't make premature judgements...but this is besides the point...the point is, Fallout 3 is shaping up to be a different kind of game, however good it may be, than the previous installments...

So your argument that it may still be a good game, is completely irrelevant...comprehend the root of the problem...and you may try to prove how we are wrong with that assessment...

 

[Sander]

You can certainly get an opinion of the game from the previews/interviews/screenshots (Hell, you can get an opinion from "BETHSEDA MAKING FALLOUT 3"), but you have to admit that some good longish in-game movies would most likely showcase how the game looks and feels better than a couple static pictures and some guy on a webpage saying "AND IT WAS ACTION PACKED".

Nice straw man. We have a shitload more information than that, including a lot about game mechanics, dialogue and story. That's quite a bit of information to judge.
And again note that we (or at least I, and I know most others here) are judging the information we have seen. We aren't judging anything we don't know anything about.

I guess in addendum, am I free to bitch about every picture I see in anyone's signature? 'cause there are some silly pictures here that I do not agree with and feel an overwhelming urge to write about.

Go ahead, but don't start a back and forth picture war to complain about those pictures. Actually make an argument.

 

[Bernard Bumner]

For the record (There's a record now?) I'm not a fan of the "PLAY DUR GAME TO JUDGE IT" either...

Well, you know, what do you want? Your cake, and to eat it, by the look of things.

Either people stay silent until the game is released, or else they can speculate on the details which have emerged thus far. There isn't really another option.

I'm as much of a wait-and-see man as anybody around here, but there has certainly been plenty of information to comment on. I'm not a fan of the crowd who simply write the game off, because there is much that can change between now and release, but there are some firm details about some items, quests, and gameplay elements which are enough to allow an informed discussion.

The people who are purely dismissive/defensive of Fallout 3/Bethesda without being discursive aren't the ones who drive these threads in a useful direction, but it would be grossly unfair to suggest that there weren't plenty of people here who back up their sentiment with argument.

All you people are ever arguing is how the game might turn out good and we shouldn't make premature judgements...but this is besides the point...the point is, Fallout 3 is shaping up to be a different kind of game, however good it may be, than the previous installments...

So your argument that it may still be a good game, is completely irrelevant...comprehend the root of the problem...and you may try to prove how we are wrong with that assessment...

Well, hang on, what's actually wrong with suggesting that the game might turn out to be good and worthy?

You cannot take the line that any game which is mechanically different is not good enough, without sounding like the neophobe that some people like to cast us as. (Although, I'm fairly sure that isn't what you're actually trying say, but it could be read that way.)

The problem can't simply be that changes are bad, because there are plenty of things that are wrong with Fallouts 1 and 2, in terms of some combat mechanics, some quest design, elements of setting and story, and so on. They are classic games, but there are certainly flaws - as in anything.

The problem has to be the changes which a) are incongruous with the Fallout myth, b) represent a backwards step in terms of gameplay (such as, compromised strategic combat), and c) are simply poor design elements (like, the Fatman).

 

[Kyuu]

The problem can't simply be that changes are bad, because there are plenty of things that are wrong with Fallouts 1 and 2, in terms of some combat mechanics, some quest design, elements of setting and story, and so on. They are classic games, but there are certainly flaws - as in anything.

This is true. However, I for one have seen zero indication that any of those points are being "fixed" in FO3. The combat mechanics, quest design, elements of setting and story -- they all seem to be either a major step backwards (from what's been revealed so far), or they're just not even in the same ball park as far as design goes.

you still don't [know]... how the combat actually plays out (We know it's FPS with pausing and auto-aiming, but how does it actually feel in the game?)...

Besides the fact of how much we've heard form reporters on the subject, it's not really to difficult to envision. Imagine Oblivion, add guns, add in a pause function, add in VATS (which has been described well enough to get a general idea of how it functions) with slo-mo cranial explosions, and viola. Might it play a bit differently than I imagine? Sure. Does it matter? No. I'm judging it based on what I know so far. If it turns out to be the greatest combat system ever devised in its final iteration, great. There's always that possibility. (Oh, and further, Emil has already said that, minus VATS, FO3's combat supposedly is very similar to what you'd find in Deus Ex, so, there ya go.)

... size of the game world/towns in the game world/depths of the NPCs/population of the NPCs in the towns, ect ect ect.

Well lets see, I do remember one of the members of Team Podd saying that there's somewhere around 300 NPCs in the world (can't remember exactly... I'll have to go and find that article), so that's a good indication of the population and size of the towns. As far as the rest, no, we only have a very vague idea, although even as far as the size of the game world I again believe that Team Podd made a mention of it in one article or another. I don't recall anyone making any serious quibbles about one of those points, though, so I don't really see the relevance.

Hell, you can get an opinion from "BETHSEDA MAKING FALLOUT 3"

That is actually very true. Bethesda's sole development experience revolves pretty much entirely around their TES franchise. We can see a general trend in what they believe good game design consists of by looking at those TES games. We can also see that they're completely incapable of doing anything other than FPP faux-RPGs, and people definitely aren't looking for a faux-RPG for their Fallout experience (nor an FPP real-time shooter, for that matter).

Oh, and it's etc., not ect. It's an abbreviation for et cetera, which is handy to keep in mind when you can't remember whether the T or the C comes first. Just sayin'...

Oh and Sander... for some reason, in your previous post, your second quote is attributed to Brother None even though it was actually posted by Jiggly. o_0

 

[Bernard Bumner]

This is true. However, I for one have seen zero indication that any of those points are being "fixed" in FO3.

In reality though, everything we've seen in any detail, in all of the various previews has effectively come from a single source (the demo) within a short space of time.

My hope - perhaps, dream - would be that they try to pick up the constructive criticism from fans and previewers, and try to respond to it through development. (Which would mean that their belligerent attitude would need to be just that, attitude, without any real arrogance behind it. Their treatment of other fanbases makes this seem unlikely...)

The combat mechanics, quest design, elements of setting and story -- they all seem to be either a major step backwards (from what's been revealed so far), or they're just not even in the same ball park as far as design goes.

They've got a huge amount of work to do, and do well, if they're going to create something that acceptably part of the Fallout universe for us older fans.