GameTap interviews Emil Pagliarulo

[Karak]

Well, the question refers to Fallout 3...

 

[iii]

Hmm what about Harold?

Bob should have some fruity apples by now. It would be nice to pick and eat them.

Harold isnt hireable...

read the question.

I read it, I don't were it is stated that they won't include Harold...

Ghuls aren't EXACTLY humans... well they are but I don't expect Beth to know the difference and yeah, I think Harold should stay out of the party too...

 

[God is Dog backwards]

First, Bioshock isn't heart wrenching. Why is it heart wrenching? You make a straight, easy, good or evil choice.

And making such a choice can't be heart wrenching? Okay that is an exageration but the game does generate an emotional response from you (or at least me) I played through and saved all the little sisters. Then when I finished I contemplated starting a new game and harvesting them this time, and felt really guilty for even thinking about it.

Well, it's not heart wrenching, because the hcoice for me is so easy to make. Do I want to play the bad guy or the good guy?

It'd be heart wrenching if, say, both my choices hurt someone. If, say, I no matter what I did, I'd have to see one of these sisters die by my own hands.

Bioshock's good and all, but I guess maybe I don't think computer games as a whole are anywhere near the emotional engaging nature of, say, books. Planescape has come the closest, some of Fallout, but Bioshock, with it's bioware-style good and evil isn't close, in my opinion.

 

[Autoduel76]

Well, it's not heart wrenching, because the hcoice for me is so easy to make. Do I want to play the bad guy or the good guy?

It'd be heart wrenching if, say, both my choices hurt someone. If, say, I no matter what I did, I'd have to see one of these sisters die by my own hands.

Bioshock's good and all, but I guess maybe I don't think computer games as a whole are anywhere near the emotional engaging nature of, say, books. Planescape has come the closest, some of Fallout, but Bioshock, with it's bioware-style good and evil isn't close, in my opinion.

Having to make a choice that hurts somebody isn't the only way for something to be heart wrenching or emotional. It was heart wrenching for me each time I saved a little sister, even though I rescued all of them, rather than harvesting them. Even playing "the good guy"

Just seeing what looks like a little girl and hearing them cry as you kill their big daddy is enough to evoke an emotional response in me. "Noooo! Mr. Bubbles!!" "Get up Mr. Bubbles!"

I felt bad, even though from a gameplay standpoint I had no choice but to kill the Big Daddies.

Just like you point to books, while reading them you certainly never have to make any choices. As the reader you can only move the story forward in one direction. Choice isn't necessary to make something emotionally felt. Books and movies are certainly more evolved mediums of storytelling with many years on videogames, but I do find Bioshock emotionally engaging and heart wrenching at times.

Choice and consequence actually has very little to do with emotion, in my opinion. If I make choices in a game that are said to effect one group of people, its not at all emotional to me if there is nothing to make me emotional about those people in the first place. I'd say 99% of games don't make me feel attatched enough to the imaginary people in the world to care that much.

Bioshock cheats a little, by making the characters look and sound like 5 year old little girls. It evokes a protective response in most people (particularly somebody with children of their own). But it evokes that response nonetheless.

 

[shift]

OK, let’s assume for a second that there is an end boss. And I’m a master of verbal manipulation. Will I be able to use these skills to my advantage, to maybe defeat my opponent without lifting a finger? You can count on it.

What the. That's a good thing, but I thought that's what he was talking about previously when he was saying they didn't want to reward or punish the player for having a conversation. People originally thought he meant for the entire game, then I thought he clarified it and said he was just talking about the end of the game.

Pretty good interview though.

Edit: Yeah, just went back and looked at it. Emil what are you doing you silly bastard?

I was specifically answering the question about whether or not dialogue affects the endgame. It doesn't -- not directly. The endgame itself doesn't change based upon things you may or may not have said in dialogue. The endgame is affected by your actions. So that's what I meant by, "We went back and forth with the impact of dialogue on the character, and ultimately decided we didn't want to penalize or reward the player for carrying on a conversation."

maybe he's talking about 'results of karma' - whether you're good or bad, that they don't want to changed results of your influence on the world based just upon what you say
however I'm not quite sure about that what he means

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Well, it's not heart wrenching, because the hcoice for me is so easy to make. Do I want to play the bad guy or the good guy?

The choice isn't so easy for me, in fact there is no choice for me I can not bring myself to harvest them. It feels so wrong, even though I know it's only a game. If that's not an heart wrenching response I don't know what is.

It'd be heart wrenching if, say, both my choices hurt someone. If, say, I no matter what I did, I'd have to see one of these sisters die by my own hands.

As Autoduel76 says even trying to save them you are hurting them, not physically maybe but then emotional cruelty can be even worse.

Spoiler:The only time I reloaded the game rather than used a vita chamber was in the proving grounds, when I realised the little sister died from my own tonic defences when I was hit by a splicer rather than from a direct attack. Even then I couldn't keep them all alive and that really made me feel like crap.

 

[SuAside]

giving so many interviews, Q&A's and presentation more than a year before release... i wonder how bad it'll be right before release...

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

Regarding the 'almost human hireable companion' and Ghouls.

Ghouls in Bethesda's Fallout 3 will most likely be like zombies, I am pretty sure that Bethesda doesn't see the difference between Fallout's ghouls and your generic walking dead.

The likelihood of the said NPC being a ghoul is probably very small.

 

[maximaz]

Can't be, they said there is no dialog with mutants in the game. I'm with the idea of a cyborg if they can give a good enough reason for that type of high-tech being available.

I believe it's SUPERmutants you can't have dialog with, not regular mutants. That would be absurd.

Good interview, I don't get one thing though, is he saying that if you make a dumbass, he won't sound like one? So a retard can have an intelligent conversation in F3?

 

[Sander]

I believe it's SUPERmutants you can't have dialog with, not regular mutants. That would be absurd.

Good interview, I don't get one thing though, is he saying that if you make a dumbass, he won't sound like one? So a retard can have an intelligent conversation in F3?

Yes, that's what he means. IN will have no effect on dialogue in Fallout 3.

 

[Silencer]

I guess incoherent babble is just not what Bethesda does best.

 

[Placid]

I guess incoherent babble is just not what Bethesda does best.

Now dont go and insult their int....oh wait..

 

[Blazerfrost]

What's the difference between a regular mutant and a supermutant? Were there any 'mutants' in the originals? I can;t remember now..

 

[SuAside]

ghouls, centaurs, floaters, molerats etc were all mutants.

 

[maximaz]

I believe it's SUPERmutants you can't have dialog with, not regular mutants. That would be absurd.

Good interview, I don't get one thing though, is he saying that if you make a dumbass, he won't sound like one? So a retard can have an intelligent conversation in F3?

Yes, that's what he means. IN will have no effect on dialogue in Fallout 3.

But that's dumb in itself!

 

[fallout ranger]

IN will have no effect on dialogue in Fallout 3.

FAIL.


Although I don't think playing with IN 2 was great, or important, I DO think that players that don't invest in INT should be penalized in their general skill with others.

Oh well...

 

[quietfanatic]

It is encouraging to see evidence of an awareness of moral ambiguity.

The cool, comic-relief ghoul is a possibility. Probably with some rock star vibe and annoying catch phrases. Not being able to talk to super mutants would be very disappointing and make a Marcus type unlikely.