IGN. Interview.<blockquote>IGN: Was anyone from the original game's developer Black Isle Studios consulted?
Pete Hines: We've talked to some of the guys from the original – there's pretty much two different teams – we have talked to some of those folks from a casual standpoint.</blockquote>I should note here, as I always do, that NMA is still in contact with most of the important original developers of Fallout 1 and 2, and we can't for the life of us figure out who Bethesda talked to.<blockquote>IGN: Fallout's got a massive following and quite a vocal community. Have you at any point consulted the fan-base to see what they want from a Fallout game?
Pete Hines: Back when we first announced we were doing it in 2004, there was tons of feedback with people saying here's what we want and here's what we don't want. We're not really into consulting, in that we've got 75 people who spend all day every day working on this game, so we look for information and feedback for the kinds of things the fans are looking for, and feedback from the last game that we made. Even though it's an Elder Scroll game, we've looked at the things they liked or didn't like from that, and we have our own opinions about what we liked and didn't like, and look at what things may be applicable to Fallout. Whether its how fast travel works, or for example how we've changed the way leveling works, so it's very different from Oblivion.</blockquote>Fair enough.<blockquote>IGN: Has it been restrictive working with a canon as well defined as Fallout's?
Pete Hines: It's more just a pleasure to be able to work in that fantastic universe, and the canon is not that restrictive to work with. We obviously took it to a different coast for a number of reasons, but the canon itself is a lot of fun and there's still a lot of opportunity to play and we're pretty used to that with the Elder Scrolls, with the canon that we ourselves have created.</blockquote>Created? I'm sorry, but last time I checked Christopher Weaver and his compatriots created the Elder Scrolls lore, and none of them are around anymore. Hell, I know some Elder Scrolls fans who aren't happy at all with how ZeniMax-owned Bethesda has treated the canon.
And once again, Pete Hines tries to clear up the 500 endings thing.<blockquote>IGN: How's that going to work? Is it going to be permutations of different elements?
Pete Hines: It'll be like in the original games, where the ending that you got was a compilation of different things that you would have done along the way, main quest related or not main quest related, you piece it all together so it's custom tailored to what you did. We want player choice to be meaningful, so anything that you get will be based upon what you chose to do – did you save this town, did you blow it up – and taking what you did and retelling it back to you so that it's meaningful to you as opposed to having one generic ending. </blockquote>To repeat what Per Jorner said, Fallout had 360 permutations, Fallout 2 has 1,105,920. 500 is nice, but it's not "a lot".
Now, honesty bids me to say I like this answer:<blockquote>IGN: Moral choices play a large part of the Fallout experience – how does this compare to games such as BioShock?
Pete Hines: I thought BioShock was terrific. It obviously draws some amount from Fallout, which is part of the reason why I like it, in that they borrowed the holo-tapes and stuff like that. I think the thing about Fallout that's unique is that is very much open-ended and up to the player in that there's moral choices and they're not in linear fashion, so you feel you have a lot more choice in terms of where you're going to go and what you're going to do. BioShock is very much a linear experience, you can harvest the little ones or you can save them, but still at each point you're going point to point and making that decision. To that end, that's where the difference in ending comes about. If you harvest the first little sister but save the rest of them, you still get the bad guy ending, and there's no ending for the guy who started harvesting little sisters but then had a change of heart and decided to save them as the story went on – where's that ending? That's where the 500 endings of Fallout come into play, we want to take into account if you started playing the game really evil and then turn into a good guy, then the story that you told is very different. Those endings are all different flavours to how you played the game, as opposed to whether you were good or you were evil.</blockquote>Link: Fallout 3 Q&A on IGN.
Thanks Specialist and Lingwei.
Pete Hines: We've talked to some of the guys from the original – there's pretty much two different teams – we have talked to some of those folks from a casual standpoint.</blockquote>I should note here, as I always do, that NMA is still in contact with most of the important original developers of Fallout 1 and 2, and we can't for the life of us figure out who Bethesda talked to.<blockquote>IGN: Fallout's got a massive following and quite a vocal community. Have you at any point consulted the fan-base to see what they want from a Fallout game?
Pete Hines: Back when we first announced we were doing it in 2004, there was tons of feedback with people saying here's what we want and here's what we don't want. We're not really into consulting, in that we've got 75 people who spend all day every day working on this game, so we look for information and feedback for the kinds of things the fans are looking for, and feedback from the last game that we made. Even though it's an Elder Scroll game, we've looked at the things they liked or didn't like from that, and we have our own opinions about what we liked and didn't like, and look at what things may be applicable to Fallout. Whether its how fast travel works, or for example how we've changed the way leveling works, so it's very different from Oblivion.</blockquote>Fair enough.<blockquote>IGN: Has it been restrictive working with a canon as well defined as Fallout's?
Pete Hines: It's more just a pleasure to be able to work in that fantastic universe, and the canon is not that restrictive to work with. We obviously took it to a different coast for a number of reasons, but the canon itself is a lot of fun and there's still a lot of opportunity to play and we're pretty used to that with the Elder Scrolls, with the canon that we ourselves have created.</blockquote>Created? I'm sorry, but last time I checked Christopher Weaver and his compatriots created the Elder Scrolls lore, and none of them are around anymore. Hell, I know some Elder Scrolls fans who aren't happy at all with how ZeniMax-owned Bethesda has treated the canon.
And once again, Pete Hines tries to clear up the 500 endings thing.<blockquote>IGN: How's that going to work? Is it going to be permutations of different elements?
Pete Hines: It'll be like in the original games, where the ending that you got was a compilation of different things that you would have done along the way, main quest related or not main quest related, you piece it all together so it's custom tailored to what you did. We want player choice to be meaningful, so anything that you get will be based upon what you chose to do – did you save this town, did you blow it up – and taking what you did and retelling it back to you so that it's meaningful to you as opposed to having one generic ending. </blockquote>To repeat what Per Jorner said, Fallout had 360 permutations, Fallout 2 has 1,105,920. 500 is nice, but it's not "a lot".
Now, honesty bids me to say I like this answer:<blockquote>IGN: Moral choices play a large part of the Fallout experience – how does this compare to games such as BioShock?
Pete Hines: I thought BioShock was terrific. It obviously draws some amount from Fallout, which is part of the reason why I like it, in that they borrowed the holo-tapes and stuff like that. I think the thing about Fallout that's unique is that is very much open-ended and up to the player in that there's moral choices and they're not in linear fashion, so you feel you have a lot more choice in terms of where you're going to go and what you're going to do. BioShock is very much a linear experience, you can harvest the little ones or you can save them, but still at each point you're going point to point and making that decision. To that end, that's where the difference in ending comes about. If you harvest the first little sister but save the rest of them, you still get the bad guy ending, and there's no ending for the guy who started harvesting little sisters but then had a change of heart and decided to save them as the story went on – where's that ending? That's where the 500 endings of Fallout come into play, we want to take into account if you started playing the game really evil and then turn into a good guy, then the story that you told is very different. Those endings are all different flavours to how you played the game, as opposed to whether you were good or you were evil.</blockquote>Link: Fallout 3 Q&A on IGN.
Thanks Specialist and Lingwei.
