IGN AU interviews Pete Hines

Brother None

This ghoul has seen it all
Orderite
IGN AU has interviewed Pete Hines about Fallout 3 and asked quite a few interesting questions.<blockquote>IGN AU: What did you learn from making Oblivion? What didn't work?

Pete Hines: There's no giant 'we can't ever do that again' stuff. It's more how do we design quests, what kind of choices do we let the player make, how do we account for things we think the player might try and do and anticipate those? So that they're like 'Oh, I wonder what happens when I do this?' And then there's actually something in the game that acknowledges it and takes it into account. And they go 'that's really cool that I got to finish this quest in a really unique way and the game recognised that and gave me a satisfying response.'

In Oblivion the most extreme example is the bandits, who's armour keeps going up and up as you're playing through the game. Suddenly they've got glass armour and amazing weapons. It was an obvious thing that didn't feel right. So we've spent a lot of time on making sure that the player has the ability to go where they want and do what they want, but to also provide them with situations where they're getting in over their head – so they've got to leave and come back. Or they're getting into situations where they're further through the game and their character is really tough and they get in there and they kick ass and feel like a bad ass for a while because they've spent a lot of time buffing up their character.

We've certainly tried to put more stuff on the screen in front of the player to make the world more believable. The dialogue is much more specific to those characters, as opposed to generic lists of things they can talk about. A lot of it is just tweaking and refining stuff that the player won't even notice. Stuff that we're doing behind the scenes to improve the way the game performs. A lot of it is taking those lessons and learning how to apply them better.

You know, Fallout is a very different game [to Oblivion]. You've gone from swords and melee weapons and one ranged weapon to now where you've got lots and lots of ranged weapons. It almost flips the gameplay balance stuff.
(...)
IGN AU: How do the choices you make about whether you play as a good guy or a bad guy affect the game?

Pete Hines: I don't think there are enormous differences. It's more the choices you make on a quest by quest basis. Whether or not you want to play them as a good guy or a bad guy and what the end result of that choice is. So it's not so much about people not talking to you because you're a bad guy with bad karma, as much as it is about using the karma to keep track and keep score on the kind of character you're playing. We want that reward and that payoff to be more in the choices you make and have it be more immediate. 'I'm playing this quest. I chose this path to try and finish the quest this way and how fun or interesting or rewarding was that experience based on the choices I made.' Or if you're playing as an evil bastard we want you to feel like the quest played out in a really satisfying way for me trying to be an evil bastard…

IGN AU: Tell us a little about how health system being tied to water levels has evolved in Fallout 3.

Pete Hines: It certainly plays off the original games where water was a big focal point - a theme. We've continued on that legacy. Water is a big, important resource in this world. Where you get it and what kind of radiation you take from it and what kind of health you draw from it.

We're playing up this idea that you're in this post apocalyptic world with all this radiation around and how it is affecting you as a player and what sort of impact is it having on you and what you're able to do. It gives you something else to manage and keep an eye on as you move through the world.

IGN AU: On the radiation point, if you're choosing to carry the Fatman gun (a mini nuclear bomb slingshot) and use it heavily, will that add to your radiation level?

Pete Hines: The Fatman itself doesn't but if you go into any of the locations where one of its nukes has gone off then that will give you radiation. So if you shoot an enemy over there and an explosion goes off and you wander into it, then there will be radiation in that area for a period of time that you will take damage from.

IGN AU: Was it tough balancing the RPG and FPS elements so that both felt right?

Pete Hines: We certainly spent a lot of time on that because we felt that the shooter element, what you're doing minute-to-minute, has to look good and feel fun. If that's all you do for ten minutes it has to feel good. There is all this other stuff you can do behind the scenes. It's not just a shooter. It's not that limited. But the shooting has to be good. Because 99 per cent of people at some point are going to pick up a gun and start shooting stuff and if it doesn't feel right and doesn't look right then we have a big problem. We did spend a lot of time on that because we felt it was important to get it right.

I think from our internal play-testing, and from some folks who've been able to play it recently, the feedback is that it feels pretty good. It's clearly not just a shooter but it holds up well when you're just running around shooting stuff.
</blockquote>Be sure to read all of it, it's a good interview.

Link: Fallout 3 interview on IGN AU.

Spotted on F3:APNB.
 
I don't recall water ever having been a "big focal point" in the first TWO games. Sure, that was the introductory quest, but come on.
 
In gameplay terms, no, but in narrative terms, hell yes, water and drought follows you through both games in one way or another, and the water quest is pretty focal.
 
I don't know. I guess it's a decent interview compared to the usual, but there really aren't all that many specifics. I'm not sure if you could really form any kind of solid opinion based on this stuff.

What I took from it:

1) No bandits with unbelievably good weapons....but level scaling is still in, somewhat. Not sure to what extent.

2) Radiation is an important gameplay element.

3) They want satisfying good and bad routes within quests....though it's non-specific about what kind of effects these types of routes would have on other things. And they seem to have forgotten about the whole "grey area" thing. Though I'll give them a break on that, based on how the question was phrased.

Basically. The answer "We want satisfying good and evil paths" doesn't tell me all that much.

4) They feel good about the shooting elements. Ok....but that doesn't really tell me anything either.
 
Howdy all, a long time lurker here!

Just HAD to comment on this one...

IGN AU: How do the choices you make about whether you play as a good guy or a bad guy affect the game?

Pete Hines: I don't think there are enormous differences. It's more the choices you make on a quest by quest basis.

So in other words, every quest is an independent entity with no ties to other quests and one can finish a quest anyway you want with no effect on other quests?

Now that's the way to make a REAL role playing game! :clap:
 
So in other words, every quest is an independent entity with no ties to other quests and one can finish a quest anyway you want with no effect on other quests?

Bethesda never answers a question, without causing you to have a bunch more questions.

They aren't good at clarifying things.
 
It was an obvious thing that didn't feel right

If it was so fucking obvious why didn't they pick it up earlier... like, before they released the game!?

By the way, bit slow here today with the news. Got trumped by Codex about Malcolm McDowell.
 
Having read through that, my first thought was "obfuscation". It seems like Pete deliberately avoids saying anything informative in keeping with their policy of preemptive damage control.

But then the truth dawned. The guy isn't hiding facts, they just flat out don't have them. I've heard this kind of waffle before. It's the talk of someone trying to sound as if they have a clue about what they're doing because they're supposedly a professional.

There's no giant 'we can't ever do that again' stuff.

I've read countless Oblivion user reviews and artiicle that beg to differ, though admittedly the game biggest flaw is mediocrity on all fronts.

It was an obvious thing that didn't feel right.

And nearly all players discovered this as soon as they levelled. This doesn't bode well for everything else Bethesda are doing "by feel", because they missed this completely last time around.

We've certainly tried to put more stuff on the screen in front of the player to make the world more believable.

What the fuck is this waffle? This isn't even the terrible "next gen" argument, it's just a nonspecific claim that says nothing about anything.

The dialogue is much more specific to those characters, as opposed to generic lists of things they can talk about.

Wait, wasn't this exact same claim made about Oblivion in comparison to Morrowind? How did that turn out exactly?

A lot of it is just tweaking and refining stuff that the player won't even notice. Stuff that we're doing behind the scenes to improve the way the game performs. A lot of it is taking those lessons and learning how to apply them better.

More absolute waffle. How about working on the flaws that are apparent to the player?

You know, Fallout is a very different game [to Oblivion]. You've gone from swords and melee weapons and one ranged weapon to now where you've got lots and lots of ranged weapons. It almost flips the gameplay balance stuff.

Again, what? "Flips the gameplay balance stuff"? Bitch, please.

I don't think there are enormous differences. It's more the choices you make on a quest by quest basis.

Sigh. I don't agree with the Bioware ideal of having light/dark side points, but it sounds as though none of this "stuff" [(c) Pete Hines] actually interrelates. Which just brings us back to the Oblivion choice without consequence ideal.

The Fatman itself doesn't but if you go into any of the locations where one of its nukes has gone off then that will give you radiation. So if you shoot an enemy over there and an explosion goes off and you wander into it, then there will be radiation in that area for a period of time that you will take damage from.

Take damage from, or increase your radiation level? Once again, this doesn't answer the question.

I think from our internal play-testing, and from some folks who've been able to play it recently, the feedback is that it feels pretty good. It's clearly not just a shooter but it holds up well when you're just running around shooting stuff.

Taking things on trust relies on a decent track record of getting things right before.
 
Pete Hines: We certainly spent a lot of time on that because we felt that the shooter element, what you're doing minute-to-minute, has to look good and feel fun. If that's all you do for ten minutes it has to feel good. It's just a shooter. It's that limited. But the shooting has to be good. Because 99 per cent of people at some point are going to pick up a gun and start shooting stuff and if it doesn't feel right and doesn't look right then we have a big problem. We did spend a lot of time on that because we felt it was important to get it right.

I'm guessing the shooting aspect is going to be good then? :lol:
 
gc051360 said:
So in other words, every quest is an independent entity with no ties to other quests and one can finish a quest anyway you want with no effect on other quests?

Bethesda never answers a question, without causing you to have a bunch more questions.

They aren't good at clarifying things.

No, Bethesda are awesome at clarifying things. Thats why they delibratly never do- they know how, they choose not to, but they're so good at clarifying stuff they know exactly what not to do. At least thats my theory, no one could be this good at obfuscation by accident.

Anyway Bethesda want you to only find out about the big things once the thing is installed and eating your hard drive.

I think if The Bethesda Hive Mind wanted us to know something we'd know it.
 
Why the hell did bethesda buy the fallout license just to make Oblivion 2? A lot of the improvements to Oblivion sound alright, maybe even interesting. But it makes no damn sense to use Fallout to update Oblivion. They could have advanced the Oblivion universe a hundred years and added guns and a steampunk, post apoc setting. Instead they buy fallout to evolve their stupid Oblivion engine. It makes sense that all the website journalists and console jockeys are excited about F3. All they really want is a better Oblivion. Hell, we all want a better Oblivion. Fallout just has nothing to do with it.
 
Why the hell did bethesda buy the fallout license just to make Oblivion 2?

To make more money. Another IP increases sales, income etc etc. Not sure why this is such a hard concept to grasp.
 
@bazola

Has there actually been an RPG featuring dwarfish style steam technology, it sounds slightly interesting?

(ref: Warhammer )

Maybe there are such things in wow, or other mmo's, don't really know, don't really play them.
 
tfp said:
Has there actually been an RPG featuring dwarfish style steam technology, it sounds slightly interesting?

Arcanum? One of the best RPG's ever. Right up there next to Fallout in my list.
 
tfp said:
Has there actually been an RPG featuring dwarfish style steam technology, it sounds slightly interesting?
like arcanum ?

tfp said:
Maybe there are such things in wow, or other mmo's, don't really know, don't really play them.
<shrug>, not much point in playing monster clicking 'rpgs' imo
 
Unillenium said:
I hope when they get lynched for Fallout 3 they sell the license to a company that knows how to make a good product.

Who's to say that they're going to get lynched? As it stands, it seems that the vast majority of reviewers are going to shower it with praises and the swarms of console-loving-bethesda-worshiping fanboys/girls are going to buy it and probably enjoy it.

You need to keep in mind that Bethesda is not aiming for the old school Fallout fans. As it stands, their target audience is going to enjoy F3 and most likely be looking forward to F4.
 
The best way to make oodles of dough is to do what customers love

Bullshit. The best way to make money is to make something the customers think they want. Most of the time customers don't know what they want, so some *gentle* marketing is required to prod them in the right direction.

Bethesda hasn't done anything wrong by purchasing the FO license. There aren't that many fans of the originals, and FO3 should be a sales success unless the game is totally fucked. Star Trek on the other hand was a disaster. The fan base was the sales base and Bethesda were too stupid to realise it.
 
With each passing day, with every new tidbit, I swear I hate them more.

Everything, from the way he purposely disarticulates his grammar, to the way he talks about non-scaled leveling as something innovative makes me want to hate the guy's guts more than anything else in the world.

Bethesda's PR department defies the very definition of douchebag.
 
i said this guy was an idiot and a bad PR man at best.

Sure he talks alot but he doesnt say anything of value, hes like that old homeless man that you see on the trains.

Talks loads, says nothing.
 
Back
Top