Meet the devs - Meet Todd Howard

[Vault 69er]

Because he said what he liked about RPGs. If he'd put TB combat, SPECIAL and 50's retrofuture in that sentence it would change the meaning to mean that he was saying he didn't like games like Planescape, Arcanum, Ultima, etc.

What the hell are you going on about? Saying you prefer or admire something means you put down other stuff?
Look at me. I ADORE Arcanum. But I'm also in love with Fallout's retro-future setting and pure turn based combat. And I'm not afraid to say it.
If Todd Howard had even a shred of honesty in him, neither would he.

Edit: What's irritating is that his definition of a great RPG is so generic, he could be describing Oblivion. In fact, it's closer to describing Oblivion than Fallout.
It's going to annoy the hell out of me if Fallout 3 not only turns out to be an Oblivion clone, but that Bethesda will have the gall to say it's just like Fallout 1!

 

[Autoduel76]

What the hell are you going on about? Saying you prefer or admire something means you put down other stuff?
.
!

Of course not. But if you say, "It had all the things I like in RPGs, like turn based combat, SPECIAL and retro future", then you are saying that RPGs like Ultima, Planescape and Arcanum don't have "all the things you like in RPGs"


The point is that his statement wasn't one that was specific to Fallout, most likely because of their agreement not to talk about specifics of it until they are ready.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

But if you want to look at the RPG spectrum, you have games like Arcanum, PS:T and Fallout on the deep, sophisticated end, and Morrowind and Oblivion on the shallow, Mickey Mouse end.

What FO, PST and Arcanum do have in common is that they share some fundamental RPG elements that clearly distinguish them from MW and OB - choice & consequence, deep dialogue trees, PnP fundamentals, sophisticated themes and setting.

In comparison, MW and OB are RPG-lite, I suppose "adventure RPG" is the prefered euphamism. Streamlined skills (but more superficial character elements - chose your hair color, face etc.), vapid wiki-dialogue. Comparatively no consequence for your actions (join and rise to leader of opposing guilds and factions). Continued dumbing down - no 'to-hit' roles, leveled loot and enemies. And promised features that were never delivered. See any of a number of threads on the Codex* for reference.


Anyway, when someone says they like and admire the elements of a MW or OB, with vague evasive responses about RPG elements. He mentions FO's superficial commonalities with MW and OB "player freedom, big world, go do what you want type of stuff". With no insight into the PnP fundamentals behind FO, the themes of the PA setting, or any other of the hardcore elements that distinguish one end of the RPG spectrum from the other. He's essentially looking at Fallout as if it were ESF. This does not bode well.

Can a leopard change it's spots? I don't see any indication that Todd would do an about-face and start doing hard-core RPGs. It's not what he does best.

*In case you don't know, in an act of petty Gestapoism, the RPGCodex is blacklisted on the Bethesda Forums, and any mention of 'RPGCodex' is filtered and replaced with 'I Love Oblivion' (kind of like Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast). In light of the StarTrek fiasco and subsequent blacklisting one gets a sense of how criticism is handled at Bethesda.

 

[TheVaultKeeper]

Jesus guys.... stop beeing such @$$-holes.... (not all of you but some) he didn't have to write this letter and yet he spent probably around 2 hours writing it just to say hello and make us feel a little better about the development.

He mentioned a lot of sources of influence and talked about his background, what makes him tick and so on. All so that you would understand him better and know where he's comming from.

And most importantly he just wanted to say that all the guys working on the game treat it with the outmost respect, and passion, and are doing the best job they know how to do.

I don't know about you but when someone tells you that they're going to do their best I tend to cut them some slack and let em run with it. And If you can't give ballanced and constructive feedback I suggest that you keep quiet, because you won't be making anything better. Rant over.

 

[Ausir]

Chuck Cuevas also said he treated the game with utmost respect and passion and was doing the best job he knew how to do.

 

[Sander]

Yeah, Toddy also tried his utmost best with Oblivion. Look what that got us.

 

[Vault 69er]

I don't know about you but when someone tells you that they're going to do their best I tend to cut them some slack and let em run with it. And If you can't give ballanced and constructive feedback I suggest that you keep quiet, because you won't be making anything better. Rant over.

Uh yeah. They don't want feedback.
Todd & co. are telling us things. They are not asking. They're not working with the fans.
In the end, all Bethesda wants is for people to tell them how omg awesome Fallout 3 is. That's it. Anybody who doesn't like it will be dismissed as a hardcore fanatic who'll never be happy.

 

[TheVaultKeeper]

Chuck Cuevas also said he treated the game with utmost respect and passion and was doing the best job he knew how to do.

Maybe he did, I don't know that. But it sounds probable.

But that's not the point, the point is that he tried his best. Chuck tried his best and made "tactics". It wasn't a "bad" game in itself, but it wasn't like the previous fallout games and it was not what the fan community expected.

Now Bethesda are going to try their best, they may succeed or they may fail to create a great game (I believe they will succeed) and they may fail or succeed to please "the most hard pleased fan base that ever graced the face of the earth" (this is somewhat more uncertain).

But all that is beside the point. The point is that now it's in bethesdas hands (which is a great great studio) and all we can do is to support them in their quest. So I repeat again; if you can't do anything but hack on bethesda and tell them how bad the game will be when you haven't even played one minute of it - please shut that hole. It's embarassingly immature and not at all constructive.

Yeah, Toddy also tried his utmost best with Oblivion. Look what that got us.

Yes - look what that got us. It got us one of the best games ever made and the winner of numerous game of the year awards. Buhu - unlucky us. Have it ever occured to you that maybe, just maybe, you are the one that is wrong here and that oblivion actually is a great game?

Sure - I don't like the levelling system either, it's not perfect. But it *IS* a landmark game. It's probably the single most ambituous 3d game ever made and that it actually turned out to be so polished that it was, when you consider the scale of it, is a small miracle in itself. This is a game that has pushed boundaries when it comes to amount and quality of content and will for some time to come be the game that all other RPGs will have to be measured against. I think you will find that most respectable game sites (like gamespot etc) agree with me.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Chuck tried his best and made "tactics".

No, Chuck tried his best and made a POS.

'the fuck will people inform themselves before talking and making complete fools of themselves?

 

[Mick1965]

Hey, I just got my new bike... 1000cc of pure pleasure! So for a short time at least FO3 is the furthest thing from my mind.

Having said that, this diatribe is the usual Todd-speak, but strangely I don't find it offensive. Maybe it's my current state of euphoria, or maybe it's just that I'm fed up with all the conjecture and just want to see the finished product.

I've said before that I don't think Bethesda have it in them to produce a decent RPG. They don't do RPGs, they do first person action/adventure games. I'm sure they're trying their best, and I'm sure they really want to produce something good. I'm also prepared for disappointment, and the likelyhood that it will cost $9.90 to download the tinted windows option for the car.

Mick

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Todd's passion is admirable and all, and I don't see anyone here begrudging Todd because of it, so it's kind of pointless to defend that. I'd say it's irrelevant and detrimental even if his passion directs him to design a FO3 that is antithetical to the PnP fundamentals that the original developers had intended for FO to emulate.

 

[Vault 69er]

But that's not the point, the point is that he tried his best. Chuck tried his best and made "tactics". It wasn't a "bad" game in itself, but it wasn't like the previous fallout games and it was not what the fan community expected.

PoS is not Tactics. It is PoS. If you don't know what PoS is.. go and learn before talking about this again.

Yes - look what that got us. It got us one of the best games ever made and the winner of numerous game of the year awards. Buhu - unlucky us. Have it ever occured to you that maybe, just maybe, you are the one that is wrong here and that oblivion actually is a great game?

Sure - I don't like the levelling system either, it's not perfect. But it *IS* a landmark game. It's probably the single most ambituous 3d game ever made and that it actually turned out to be so polished that it was, when you consider the scale of it, is a small miracle in itself. This is a game that has pushed boundaries when it comes to amount and quality of content and will for some time to come be the game that all other RPGs will have to be measured against. I think you will find that most respectable game sites (like gamespot etc) agree with me.

And none of that - true or not - changes the fact that Oblivion is an incredibly shallow RPG.
It may not be an abominable blight on humanity like PoS is, but it's still not what RPG players want and certainly not what Fallout fans in general want.

Oh and by the way, I'd rather have future RPGs measured against the likes of Fallout 1 + 2, Arcanum, PS:T, hell even Neverwinter Nights. Not holds-your-hand-twitch-gaming-omg-teh-grafficks!!-Oblivion.

 

[Sander]

Maybe he did, I don't know that. But it sounds probable.

But that's not the point, the point is that he tried his best. Chuck tried his best and made "tactics". It wasn't a "bad" game in itself, but it wasn't like the previous fallout games and it was not what the fan community expected.

...
No he didn't. First of all, he made FO:BOS, not FO:T. Secondly, he never paid any attention to anything regarding canon. At all. To suggest that he actually tried his best is a poor troll at best.

Now Bethesda are going to try their best, they may succeed or they may fail to create a great game (I believe they will succeed) and they may fail or succeed to please "the most hard pleased fan base that ever graced the face of the earth" (this is somewhat more uncertain).

But all that is beside the point. The point is that now it's bethesdas hands (which is a great great studio) and all we can do is to support them in their quest. So I repeat again; if you can't do anything but hack on bethesda and tell them how bad the game will be when you haven't even played one minute of it - please shut that hole. It's embarassingly immature and not at all constructive.

It's embarrassingly immature to suggest that we have to be supportive of Bethesda just because they own the license. There is nothing to suggest that they have the capabilities to create a good Fallout game, so why should we trust them?

Yes - look what that got us. It got us one of the best games ever made and the winner of numerous game of the year awards. Buhu - unlucky us. Have it ever occured to you that maybe, just maybe, you are the one that is wrong here and that oblivion actually is a great game?

That's not the point. The point is that while Oblivion might be a good *game*, it most certainly is not a game in keeping with the TES series. At all. And almost all TES fans agreed on that. Bethesda supposedly tried their utmost to be true to TES, but they mucked that up in almost every way.

If I were to take the Pro Evolution Soccer series, and instead of making the new installment a realistic football game, I make it an arcade football game where the players carry guns that might be a fun game, but it certainly isn't what you want from a PES game.

Sure - I don't like the levelling system either, it's not perfect. But it *IS* a landmark game. It's probably the single most ambituous 3d game ever made and that it actually turned out to be so polished that it was, when you consider the scale of it, is a small miracle in itself. This is a game that has pushed boundaries when it comes to amount and quality of content and will for some time to come be the game that all other RPGs will have to be measured against. I think you will find that most respectable game sites (like gamespot etc) agree with me.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Are you fucking serious? This game has not delivered in either quantity or quality - anywhere. The leveling system removed any consequences or basis of RPGs, hell almost everything removed choices, and their consequences. The quantity was much smaller than previous TES games (excluding Morrowind, I believe, although even Morrowind might be bigger) as well. The NPCs were generic, and their 'conversations' hilarious to say the least. The mini-games were hardly boundary-pushing and actually detrimental to the principle of an RPG, and again removed most of the consequences to increasing skills. The level-'balancing' again removed any point to increasing your character's skills.
The Gothic series was way ahead of them with most of this, except quantity.

The only thing it might be pushing boundaries with is graphics, and they were overshadowed in that department about two weeks later.

To put it simply: Oblivion was an unashamedly dumbed down game aimed explicitly at the mass-market. To suggest it was a boundary-pushing landmark game is fucking ludicrous.

 

[Vault 69er]

To put it simply: Oblivion was an unashamedly dumbed down game aimed explicitly at the mass-market. To suggest it was a boundary-pushing landmark game is fucking ludicrous.

It has unfortunately become a trend among Bethesda apologists, Bethesda themselves and pandering reviewers to call Oblivion a revolutionary, landmark game.
Which is only encouraging more Oblivion clones.

 

[Mick1965]

It has unfortunately become a trend among Bethesda apologists, Bethesda themselves and pandering reviewers to call Oblivion a revolutionary, landmark game.
Which is only encouraging more Oblivion clones.

They're all just following on from the trend set by Hollywood, where everthing is becoming generic, and everything is created to appeal to the widest audience possible to maximise profits. Problem when you target such a wide audience is that you never truly satisfy anyone.

Mick

 

[TheVaultKeeper]

Maybe he did, I don't know that. But it sounds probable.

But that's not the point, the point is that he tried his best. Chuck tried his best and made "tactics". It wasn't a "bad" game in itself, but it wasn't like the previous fallout games and it was not what the fan community expected.

...
No he didn't. First of all, he made FO:BOS, not FO:T. Secondly, he never paid any attention to anything regarding canon. At all. To suggest that he actually tried his best is a poor troll at best.

The title is I believe "fallout tactics: brotherhood of steel", so to me it's still another tactics game. Maybe I should have said tactics 2. It's not important.

But I wasn't the one to suggest that he tried his best - that was just my response to Ausir who claimed that chuck had said that he had tried his best. I don't know if he did - I never bothered much for the two tactics games, even if I (painfully) played through BoS.

EDIT: Ok - I remembered wrong here. It was tactics that I played and not BoS. Like I said - I never cared much for these two games and neither did you, so it's not important.

It's embarrassingly immature to suggest that we have to be supportive of Bethesda just because they own the license. There is nothing to suggest that they have the capabilities to create a good Fallout game, so why should we trust them?

Why shouldn't we be supportive? Now they HAVE the licence and we can either offer supportive feedback and in the best case help them make a great game, or we can bash on them and not have any influence other than to make the game less to our taste. The choice should be obvious. I'm not asking that you trust them, I'm asking that you believe in them.

That's not the point. The point is that while Oblivion might be a good *game*, it most certainly is not a game in keeping with the TES series. At all. And almost all TES fans agreed on that. Bethesda supposedly tried their utmost to be true to TES, but they mucked that up in almost every way.

If I were to take the Pro Evolution Soccer series, and instead of making the new installment a realistic football game, I make it an arcade football game where the players carry guns that might be a fun game, but it certainly isn't what you want from a PES game.

The ES series have taken HUGE leaps between each installment. When you take such enourmous leaps you are bound to end up with some changes. I call that evolution and I say that in the end it will work out fine because they are making enourmous progress in some way with every installment. Even if each installment may not be perfect in every way the overall direction of the series is towards greatness in my opinion.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Are you fucking serious? This game has not delivered in either quantity or quality - anywhere. The leveling system removed any consequences or basis of RPGs, hell almost everything removed choices, and their consequences. The quantity was much smaller than previous TES games (excluding Morrowind, I believe, although even Morrowind might be bigger) as well. The NPCs were generic, and their 'conversations' hilarious to say the least. The mini-games were hardly boundary-pushing and actually detrimental to the principle of an RPG, and again removed most of the consequences to increasing skills. The level-'balancing' again removed any point to increasing your character's skills.
The Gothic series was way ahead of them with most of this, except quantity.

The only thing it might be pushing boundaries with is graphics, and they were overshadowed in that department about two weeks later.

To put it simply: Oblivion was an unashamedly dumbed down game aimed explicitly at the mass-market. To suggest it was a boundary-pushing landmark game is fucking ludicrous.

It is undisputibly a landmark game. It doesn't come close to the deep storyline of say "planescape: torment", and it dosen't have the leveled feel of say Diablo 1 where you really could feel the fear of going down the dungeon if you weren't ready for it. But the sheer amount of effort that the development team spent is remarkable. For God's sake there are over 30000 voice recordings in that game! Not everyone will prefer voice over text but no one can deny that it's pushing bounderies! And that in itself is worthy of admiration.

 

[FeelTheRads]

The title is I believe "fallout tactics: brotherhood of steel", so to me it's still another tactics game. Maybe I should have said tactics 2. It's not important.

Are you a moron of some sort?

There is Fallout: Tactics and there is Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel

One a PC strategy game, one a shit console game.

They have nothing to do with each other, no matter that to you it's "still another tactics game".

For God's sake Ttere are over 30000 vocie recordings in that game! Not everyone will prefer voice over text but no one can deny that it's pushing bounderies! And that in itself is worthy of admiration.

Oh, the hard work that was done dor that. Hiring 5 actors to do them. Yes, a lot of hard work from the development team.

 

[TheVaultKeeper]

The title is I believe "fallout tactics: brotherhood of steel", so to me it's still another tactics game. Maybe I should have said tactics 2. It's not important.

Are you a moron of some sort?

There is Fallout: Tactics and there is Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel

One a PC strategy game, one a shit console game.

They have nothing to do with each other, no matter that to you it's "still another tactics game".

Ok - my bad. Then it was tactics that I played and not BoS. I only play PC games. Like I said, like most of you, I never cared much for either of those two games so I'm not that familar with them. Fallout 1&2 are the only ones that I've payed any real attention to.

Oh, the hard work that was done dor that. Hiring 5 actors to do them. Yes, a lot of hard work from the development team.

Yes - it does take a lot of hard work since you have to plan everything in advance and make sure everything fits. It would have been A LOT easier to simply have text. Anyway it was just an example of one of the areas in which oblivion pushed bounderies. I do not believe that oblivion is perfect, or that it's the best game that it could have been, but I don't think anyone can deny that it's a remarkable achievement for what it is.

 

[Vault 69er]

It is undisputibly a landmark game. It doesn't come close to the deep storyline of say "planescape: torment", and it dosen't have the leveled feel of say Diablo 1 where you really could feel the fear of going down the dungeon if you weren't ready for it. But the sheer amount of effort that the development team spent is remarkable. For God's sake there are over 30000 voice recordings in that game! Not everyone will prefer voice over text but no one can deny that it's pushing bounderies! And that in itself is worthy of admiration.

Now you're just being intentionally stupid.
First of all, how are voice recordings of true merit in an RPG?
Secondly, you do realise that Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines had more voice recordings, far more varied voices and far far far better dialogue than Oblivion, a full 2 years before!

Not to mention that fully voiced games were considered innovative in 1993, the era of Day of the Tentacle.

 

[FeelTheRads]

It would have been A LOT easier to simply have text.

I figure it actually requires much more time, work and talent to have GOOD writing that is a pleasure to read (like Fallout, Torment.. you know) than having piss-poor writing, no matter if it's spoken or not.

It would have been A LOT easier to simply have text.

Do I have to tell you about other games that had completely spoken dialogue? Like, you know.. Gothic? Or even older games.
Yeah, some boundaries it pushed. Of course uneducated monkeys like you will believe this is some "innovation", given the power of Bethesda's hype. They made people believe their games bring innovation to things that were already done for years.

So, cut the crap with the landmark game that you think Oblivion to be.