Is Fallout 3 Too Complex?

Morbus

Morbus

Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Next Generation has put up an interview with Emil Pagliarulo, Fallout 3's Lead Designer, and that's what he asks himself:<blockquote>”I look at Fallout when I play it every day, and I sometimes think that there's a lot of old-school hardcore PC stuff in there too, and part of me thinks, 'God, is this too inaccessible for console players?'”</blockquote>Although this is a bit of a certificate of incompetence for console players, I don't think that was his intention:<blockquote>People like myself and some people that work here actually grew up as hardcore PC guys, and now we're older, we have kids, we don't have that much time, so we've transitioned. We're console players now.</blockquote>So his certificate of incompetence would actually apply... to himself... Thankfully, that's not the case:<blockquote>(...) we still have those PC game sensibilities. Those are the games we like. So I think BioShock has a little bit of that too. You can definitely feel the old System Shock roots in that game. So hopefully there's a trend there.</blockquote>Right.

The interview is a partial transcription of a podcast. To fully transcribe a bit the Next Gen only covered partially (this bit is going to be hard to swallow):<blockquote>It's funny too...I kind of feel the same way because I'm not in the circle of the people that might be close to No Mutants Allowed or very hardcore-into-the-Elder-Scrolls franchise. I played Morrowind, but Oblivion is the one I played most extensively. As a guy that didn't play these PC RPGs, I agree, for the average person it actually was a little overwhelming and good for you guys for selling that many copies of what I would almost consider a hardcore PC RPG on the console.

I think we're starting to find now that there is a market for that on console. People like myself and people who work [here] kind of grew up as hardcore PC guys and now we're older, we have kids, we don't have that much time so we're in transition, we're console players now. But we still have those PC game sensibilities. Y'know, those are the games that we liked, so I think BioShock has a little bit of that too. You can definitely feel the old System Shock roots in that game. So hopefully there's a trend there.</blockquote>Link: Fallout 3 and the Console Masses @ Next Generation.
Link: Game Theory podcast, where the interview is from.
Spotted at Kotaku and Fallout 3: APNB.

Thanks Mungrul.
 
Also, I find it funny whenever Pete or Emil claims that Fallout obviously influenced Bioshock when Ken Levine himself has never claimed as such when stating the game's influences.
In fact, he's almost gone as far as denying any connection between the two.
 
I dont know, i think that its not so smart to start now pissing in the direction of console players if theyre really aiming their product for them. Suprisingly haphazard pr really, but i believe thats what he really might think so what am i really complaining about here now...

On the risk seeming like total forum newbie(well thats me) i have to ask what does that "snip" mean actually.
 
:shock:

Is there any truth to some peoples' opinion--and this is a lot of the hardcore Fallout fans that are saying this--that games like Oblivion and Fallout 3 that are targeted towards a very large console audience have been, put most cynically, "dumbed down," or more positively, "made more accessible"? Is there any truth to that?
Click to expand...

after reading this question in the interview, I repeatedly went over Emil's answer and as far as I can tell, he said "yesno".

I don't get why he can't just give a straight answer and stick to it.

The question was phrased in such a way that he already had the implied support of the interviewer to back him up if he lied and said "No we haven't dumbed down the incredible level of intricacy that made Fallout what it was, for the sake of a market full of players who are either too lazy or too stupid to figure out how to run a far superior game with much more depth, on a far superior machine."

as it is, he pretty much said "Sometimes I think we have dumbed it down substantially and other times I say that I have an entirely opposite opinion about it so that I can keep my job"

BTW, "dumbed down" and "more accesible" are not synonymous.

You'd have to change the second one to say "more accesible to less intelligent and less capable players who don't want a game that makes them have a thought a few times a minute" for those terms to be interchangeable, regardless of the negative or positive spin you put on them.
 
Mutoes said:
On the risk seeming like total forum newbie(well thats me) i have to ask what does that "snip" mean actually.
Click to expand...
"Snip" denotes where someone has deleted text, either from a quote, or their own post, etc.

On topic, I don't quite get the whole "we're older now, we have kids and no time so we play consoles" line of thinking. There are casual, quick fix, pick-up-and-play games on both PC and console, just as there are 50+ hour, massive timesink RPGs on both PC and console.
 
Forhekset said:
On topic, I don't quite get the whole "we're older now, we have kids and no time so we play consoles" line of thinking. There are casual, quick fix, pick-up-and-play games on both PC and console, just as there are 50+ hour, massive timesink RPGs on both PC and console.
Click to expand...

As somebody who is older, has kids, and has migrated from primarily PCs to primarily consoles I believe he's refferring more to the plug in and playability of the console vs. the computer itself, rather than the individual games.

The more games that have been released on consoles vs. PCs in recent years has left me without having upgraded in about 3 years and I don't play new games on my PC anymore. I'm not so much opposed to it, but there hasn't been anything I wanted to play on a PC that I couldn't get on a console recently so I haven't bothered.

But, I'd rather not deal with compatability issues, copy protection spyware...er...software, or video cards, in my free time, anyway. It is quicker to get into a game on a console, for me, and with kids under the age of 3 every minute saved is worth it to me.
 
I have kids and I find Emil's argument silly. Since I have less time now, I spend it more discerningly. That is, if I actually find time to play, I'll play something especially engaging or interesting to me. That's why I still play PC and the Wii is mostly for the kids.

Do I want some easily picked up and digested console titles? No, age and parenting haven't dulled my tastes. Why would they? Why aren't gamers' tastes getting richer and more complex as their average age increases, like people's taste in films generally does? They are instead opting for easily accessible and instant gratification "because we have less time", and I don't get it.

Regardless, it's harder to find a two hour stretch to play a PC RTS or RPG than it is to find 4 half-hour stretches on a console, but it's worth it. I haven't given up arty films for reality TV either.

And the cost argument is just silly. My $90 video card plays nearly everything at moderate detail.
 
pnutz said:
I have kids and I find Emil's argument silly. Since I have less time now, I spend it more discerningly...Why aren't gamers' tastes getting richer and more complex as their average age increases, like people's taste in films generally does? They are instead opting for easily accessible and instant gratification "because we have less time", and I don't get it.
Click to expand...

Herzie hearzie! As time's gone on my tastes keep moving away from simplistic gameplay (and from slower music and most TV, but those are seperate and related issues) and I keep wondering to myself "Why are there so few complex and deep games these days?"

I have go back into my older games and dig up some stuff at least ten years old to get anything that can hold my attention for more than a grand total of 6 hours (Morrowind, I'm looking at you; EPIC FAIL)

My gaming time's precious now. I don't want to be spending it playing Halo and thinking I'm the greatest FPS player of all time because I can bunny-hop better than some jackass on Xbox Live. *Note: I'm not saying I don't like some FPS'. Just that Halo's so freaking easy that my seven-year-old cousins can roll right through every single Halo game on the planet, and that definitely says something about Halo's quality.*

Nor do I want to go onto WoW and level grind, getting jabbered at in the cell phone text shorthand that passes for communication on the servers. *Note: I don't....eh fuck it.... WoW sucks.*

The point of this rambling message is that I agree. We shouldn't waste our time on things that aren't going to enrich us. And if the software companies keep making garbage, we all should just do our best to ignore them until they make something worth buying.
 
pnutz said:
And the cost argument is just silly. My $90 video card plays nearly everything at moderate detail.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with Autoduel76 here. I also have young kids so time, money and space are important issues. We have a laptop and a desktop, but the desktop is average spec. I don't have the time or money to put into upgrading the desktop whenever I want to buy a new game. The last game I tried on the PC was Bioshock, which I ended up returning for the console version.

With regards to time, sure there are sometimes I sit down to play CIV or a console FPS and end up spending 3 or 4 hours, but I don't usually plan to spend that amount of time. The more complex a game is the more painful it is when you're called away at a moments notice.

Still, having said all that, if something really special (such as FO3) was released on the PC only I'd make sure I was able to run it.

Michael
 
Complexity in the sense of how Bethesda use the word isn't really daunting, because you never need to understand it or make anything of it. If it mattered what skills you chose or what stats you invest in then that complexity becomes daunting.

As it stands, every character in Oblivion and even Morrowind can try their hand at everything, if not be exceedingly successful at everything. From the get-go you can fight, shoot, cast damage spells, cast healing spells, pick locks, brew potions, etc. The only time player choice becomes problematic is due to the broken-by-design character and world progression.

We're not talking about the sort of challenging complexity driving games such as Championship/Football Manager, but even then, it's available on consoles, and sells to an audience the extends far beyond stereotypical gamers.

But anyway, I don't think Emil actually means what he said. It seems like calculated lip service to me:

"Oh, woe is me! It looks like we've made Fallout 3 too hardcore and complex for console gamers! O, traditionally-PC-owning-original-Fallout-old-school-fanbase, whatever are we to do?!"

If he does mean it, then he's more of a cunt than I previously thought. Console players aren't fucking idiots. Some are, but so are some PC gamers.
 
well, since this has turned into the "older gamers w/ pc vs. console issues" thread - I might as well break rank and post.

I have about 3 hours a day where I can spend my time how I choose now (this is subtracting work, sleep, helping cook/clean, pay bills, etc) - Those 3 hours are divided up between preventing divorce, raising a 7 year old girl who confuses me to no end, playing guitar, maintaining a semblance of a social life, and playing video whenever I can possibly squeeze them in. (This 3 hours has lessened even more now that I am searching for Fallout news) - I find myself less and less interested by every new game that comes out. The first time I plan to play GTA 4 is going to be this coming weekend when I visit my mom about 2 hours away, and swing by my best friend's house for a few hours to "visit" (read: play video games non-stop)
A game *really* has to interest me for me to spend a considerable amount of time on it, which includes finishing it. My wife even beat Mass Effect (because of the story) and I have not. I find myself spending time playing PC games only if they're older - because PC games for me usually means great RPG's like KOTOR 1 and 2, Empire Earth, Dungeon Lords, Sacred RPG, Seal of Evil, etc - or 1 of the 1,000 old NES, SNES, Genesis ROMs, or something abandonware.
If it's on console - I'll usually be playing it on console - because I know I don't have to screw around with any settings beyond volume and level of twitch desired. No more "Hey, will my graphics card handle this?" - it's "Oh look, it's for xbox360 - it'll work" or for my kid "Hey look, it's a Wii game, it'll work for Wii."
Call it lazy, mock it, whatever you wish, but my free time is worth it's weight in gold to me, and the less I have to spend figuring out if Game X that's coming out in Fall 2008 will work on my PC, or if it'll be outdated already - the better off I am.

The *ONE* thing I truly miss however, is the mods and messing with programming. Most games it doesn't matter, but once in a while.....
 
Bioshock took a few elements from system shock (psy powers, talking vending machines, hacking) then dumbed down/removed everything else for the console crowd, and slapped pretty graphics on it.

The fact that they're comparing FO3 to Bioshock is even more evidence on how they plan on further raping this franchise (FO:BOS anyone?).
 
I'm not in the age, where I'm married, have kids, blah blah blah-still too young for this (born in 1987). Although, I respect every post here by those who already have their life sorted that way. But it doesn't mean I still have time for gameing. My age is and age when people starting their first steps of adult life.

I am a gamer, think so. PS is my favourite console, and the first one I had, but I haven't been playing it and any consoles (except playing games at my friend's house) since I sold my first PS (years ago). Didn't find consoles games as much exciting and complexed like on PC's. Fallout, Planescape, KOTOR, aahhh I even forgot all these games' names.

Anyway, to go back to topic, I also find it very silly saying that someone doesn't have time for PC games so he/she chosses conslos. It's like going "backwards". So maybe that's why FO3 will be like for kids, not for adult, fallout-fans? Many of the fallout fans are in most Bethsoft members' age! they think we are just a bunch of kids? I don't know what about you guys, but I don't want to play games "only" for exploring and having some fun (I've done it 10 years ago)
Sorry, I don't want to imagining during the game "Oh My God, my dad is missing. Why did he leave me here, alone! Daddy! Daddy, where are you?! I'm coming for you!!"- that's just childish. I finally want to play a kick ass game, where I can think, focus on the plot and feel like it's a game for "oldies", not for "consoldies".

Last time I played Bioshock- I got bored of it after 2 days of playing :/ Can't even focus on the story, because when that MF is talking to me by radio, I'm at the moment shooting that Big Daddy and I can't hear what he's saying :evil:
The Witcher- that's the game I'd buy!

As far as I can hear, for the consols, I've heard only games, where you just shoot stuff, or play baseball/golf/swimming/racing with your favourite Mario characters...
[sarcasm on]YEY!!! How fun!</sarcasm off]

I don't see a difference between consols and PC's, I only see differences between their games. For consols- most of them are dump and uncreative, and PC- well, classics! If the FO1 and 2 would be for consoles, I wouldn't mind. Only would need to get a keyboard and a mouse for it- with a pad you can't do shit, but for Fallout you don't need to have such a controll- it's an RPG not FPS.

BTW: to buy a game, just to explore their pretty graphics, it's a waste of my time. I'd rather go back and play Fallout:Tactics.
 
Autoduel76 said:
Forhekset said:
On topic, I don't quite get the whole "we're older now, we have kids and no time so we play consoles" line of thinking. There are casual, quick fix, pick-up-and-play games on both PC and console, just as there are 50+ hour, massive timesink RPGs on both PC and console.
Click to expand...

As somebody who is older, has kids, and has migrated from primarily PCs to primarily consoles I believe he's refferring more to the plug in and playability of the console vs. the computer itself, rather than the individual games.

The more games that have been released on consoles vs. PCs in recent years has left me without having upgraded in about 3 years and I don't play new games on my PC anymore. I'm not so much opposed to it, but there hasn't been anything I wanted to play on a PC that I couldn't get on a console recently so I haven't bothered.

But, I'd rather not deal with compatability issues, copy protection spyware...er...software, or video cards, in my free time, anyway. It is quicker to get into a game on a console, for me, and with kids under the age of 3 every minute saved is worth it to me.
Click to expand...
I get the plug and play point. Now that I own all of the "current generation" consoles, I too find myself simply buying or renting console versions of games rather than the PC versions, for the sole reason of not having to worry about whether or not my PC can handle the game. Even if I have to put up with dual analog controls in a FPS [shudder].

I'm someone who grew up on both consoles and PCs. I've always split my time pretty evenly between both platforms, but nowadays I play more handheld and console games than anything, aside from World of Warcraft. I think a lack of must-buy PC-exclusive games is the main reason I do most of my gaming on consoles. As I said, I also buy console versions over PC versions for simplicity's sake, but if there were any PC games I was just dying to play, I'd upgrade my rig in a heartbeat if I needed to. But then I don't have kids, and my wife is an avid gamer as well, so maybe I've got it easier than most people.
 
Forhekset said:
I think a lack of must-buy PC-exclusive games is the main reason I do most of my gaming on consoles. As I said, I also buy console versions over PC versions for simplicity's sake, but if there were any PC games I was just dying to play, I'd upgrade my rig in a heartbeat if I needed to.
Click to expand...

Honestly, this is pretty close to the same for me. As I said, I'm not opposed to playing a game on the PC, but there hasn't been anything out in years that I really wanted to play, that I couldn't get on a console.

If Fallout 3, for instance, was PC only I'd upgrade (probably buy a new PC at this point). But, honestly, I'd rather not have to for one game like that. Now, if there was a huge PC game revival, that might be a different story, but that's unlikely to happen anytime soon with consoles becoming more PC-like.

Another point is that its easier for me to have more time to game on a console, as well. After we put the baby to bed is when I have my most time to game. Of course, after we put the baby to bed is when we both (my wife and I) have more time for everything. That also means, that sometimes my wife needs to use the computer. We both bring work home sometimes, in order to get out of work earlier and spend more time at home.

So, its just easier for me to game on a console. Even though I monopolize the TV, we have TVs in multiple rooms and only one PC. I can always play the xbox 360 when I have free time. I can't always garauntee the same for the PC. Just one of the downsides of PCs being for more than just gaming.

Right now, I just need a more streamlined gaming experience, or I simply won't have enough time to fit in my #1 hobby.

I'm with you on handhelds, by the way, which have some pretty fun RPGs and Strategy games. Some of my best gaming can come laying in bed these days.
 
well, isn't that just pathetic?

again says a lot about the state of the industry, bethesda itself AND their view of console gamers.
 
Autoduel76 said:
Another point is that its easier for me to have more time to game on a console, as well. After we put the baby to bed is when I have my most time to game. Of course, after we put the baby to bed is when we both (my wife and I) have more time for everything. That also means, that sometimes my wife needs to use the computer. We both bring work home sometimes, in order to get out of work earlier and spend more time at home.

So, its just easier for me to game on a console. Even though I monopolize the TV, we have TVs in multiple rooms and only one PC. I can always play the xbox 360 when I have free time. I can't always garauntee the same for the PC. Just one of the downsides of PCs being for more than just gaming.
Click to expand...

Wow, reading that is look looking in the mirror. My wife also brings a lot of work home, and she has first rights to the desktop if she needs it.

When I first bought the console I thought there would always be conflict issues with the TV, but my wife is on the PC so often that the TV is almost always free for me to use.

Also, as mentioned by others, there isn't a great range of PC games at the moment, so there's not a lot of incentive to keep our PC up to the latest gaming spec.

Mick
 
SuAside said:
well, isn't that just pathetic?

again says a lot about the state of the industry, bethesda itself AND their view of console gamers.
Click to expand...

please remember this was Emil, and not all of Bethesda, unless you can point me to a couple more interns that said something like this?

quick edit - Autoduel, that screenshot is incredibly familiar - what game is it??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top