PC Gamer interviews Todd & Emil

[Grifman]

Dishing them out like cookies every level detracts from the value of perks, and leaves your character feeling a bit of a mish-mash rather than a well-focussed design.

No, not really. First off, there are multiple levels of a number of the perks (as has been indicated in other previews) as there were in the original Fallout so you can focus on those. In addition, you can focus on various combat or non-combat perks. I'm not clear as to why you think getting a perk every level means you can't have a focused character. That's your choice in how you build your character entirely.

 

[Mungrul]

I know there's multiple perks with multiple levels, but can you honestly see someone putting 19 levels in to something like Strong Back?
For me, the increased availability of perks trivialises them, encouraging a "Jack of all trades" style of play.
They lose that special charm this way.

 

[God is Dog backwards]

I like having a perk every level. Makes the levelling process more interesting, makes your character more interesting.

I don't like the loss of traits. Your character loses flavour.

But the interview was pretty good.

 

[kyle]

Modding will save this game.

unless its like:

 

[Ausir]

Also, both Todd and Emil seem to think you originally got a perk every other level:

No, it's just that's how it worked in early versions of FO3, as we were told in early previews.

 

[pkt-zer0]

Dishing them out like cookies every level detracts from the value of perks, and leaves your character feeling a bit of a mish-mash rather than a well-focussed design.

No, not really. First off, there are multiple levels of a number of the perks (as has been indicated in other previews) as there were in the original Fallout so you can focus on those. In addition, you can focus on various combat or non-combat perks. I'm not clear as to why you think getting a perk every level means you can't have a focused character. That's your choice in how you build your character entirely.

Not really? There are about as many perks as in FO1 (and since now traits are perks as well, that's actually less), and now you get to pick thrice as many, with lesser effects to keep things balanced. Both of those go towards making a less differentiated character.

You might argue that "thrice as samey as FO1" is still not too samey, though.

 

[13pm]

housing. armored vault suit. no way to continue the game after finishing. enough said.

 

[Ausir]

What's wrong with the armored vault suit? It's a reference to the FO1 ending.

 

[zioburosky13]

We get the question a lot, “Is there a non-violent path through the whole game?” No. I mean, you might be able to, I guess, but it’s not a goal.

Why.

Isn't.

It.

A.

Goal ?

Well, we can rule out the chances of talking out with the end game boss and convince him to suicide.

 

[13pm]

What's wrong with the armored vault suit? It's a reference to the FO1 ending.

I didn't get it right, it's ok then

 

[Pope Viper]

I wonder if you can choose to forgo a perk at each level, to make it more of an option.

I doubt it though, since they're forcing everything else down your throat.

 

[Paul_cz]

housing. armored vault suit. no way to continue the game after finishing. enough said.

I don't have problem with getting a house, its not like its gonna break the game for you, and many people enjoy having place to stay and sleep and being able to call it theirs.

Armored vault suit is reference to FO1, no problem here.
And not being able to continue the game? Good decision.It was meaningless in Oblivion, and it was meaningless in Fallout 2.When I finish the game, I like to have it finished, to have this feeling "okay, I did it" and watch credits.And maybe start the game sometime later with a different character.

Option to become a pornstar was funny, but not something I couldnt live without.The same with Tully's hintbook.

 

[SimpleMinded]

Todd: And the other answer to that question is that we don’t want players to have the expectation that they’ll be able to do every quest any style. Pretty much, Super-Duper Mart, there’s no way to talk your way through that. We get the question a lot, “Is there a non-violent path through the whole game?” No. I mean, you might be able to, I guess, but it’s not a goal.
Emil: I guess technically, because there’s a Stealth Boy, and because there’s a Protectron [security robot] in the back room of that Super-Duper Mart, if you could sneak in there and hack that computer, you could activate that Protectron, he’ll go and he’ll kick the s*** out of all of those raiders.
Todd: There are probably too many for him to kill every single one of them.
Emil: But enough to whittle them down so that science-boy could definitely get through there.

Wow, this made me really dislike Todd but gave Emil a few points. It sounds like Emil's really trying to think of ways to incorporate multiple options into the game whereas Todd is hell bent on having everything as murder murder murder, kill kill kill.

 

[kyle]

I don't have problem with getting a house, its not like its gonna break the game for you, and many people enjoy having place to stay and sleep and being able to call it theirs.

perhaps these guys should go play sims or something?
no, theres nothing strictly bad in having some place you could stay in (like rentable place in a hotel/sth like that), but a house with robot butler in the middle of the wastes? o_O
they must be really gratefull to PC for disarming that nuke no one bothered to take care of during last 200 years ...

And not being able to continue the game? Good decision. It was meaningless in Oblivion, and it was meaningless in Fallout 2.When I finish the game, I like to have it finished, to have this feeling "okay, I did it" and watch credits.And maybe start the game sometime later with a different character.

so who was forcing you to continue ?
i saw it only as a way to convey some more humor (instead of cramming it into credits), and rarely played after endgame (only to go, see new text, pretty funny, and prerhaps kill few enclaves with my oh so awsome character)

Option to become a pornstar was funny, but not something I couldnt live without.The same with Tully's hintbook.

except tullys hintbook was aftergame item, and becoming a pornstar was a legitemate way to get some advantages (cash) and recognition

 

[Paul_cz]

so who was forcing you to continue ?
i saw it only as a way to convey some more humor (instead of cramming it into credits), and rarely played after endgame (only to go, see new text, pretty funny, and prerhaps kill few enclaves with my oh so awsome character)

Oh no one forced me to continue, of course.You know, I am just saying, to me its a good decision and I prefer when the game ends, it just ends.

 

[Sam Ecorners]

Wow, this made me really dislike Todd but gave Emil a few points. It sounds like Emil's really trying to think of ways to incorporate multiple options into the game whereas Todd is hell bent on having everything as murder murder murder, kill kill kill.

Heh, I think Todd is just a tad... narrow minded. It seems he just can't comprehend any other way to play but by violence. Which is fine. He's not the designer, he's the exec, the designer understands multiple options.

 

[Autoduel76]

We get the question a lot, “Is there a non-violent path through the whole game?” No. I mean, you might be able to, I guess, but it’s not a goal.

Why.

Isn't.

It.

A.

Goal ?

I think the answer to that is pretty obvious.

How many people actually have played through Fallout 1 without firing a shot?

I certainly haven't and I've played through it dozens of times. I've played diplomats and Science Boys and Stealth Boys, lucky gamblers, or whatever other bizzare builds I could find. And I've played through it with minimal combat a few times, but never once without firing a shot. Never once coming all that close eve, really.

I've heard of it being done, but just like 10 minute speed runs, its more of a novelty and a rarity than anything else.

I doubt that more than 100 people have played through Fallout 1 without firing a shot.

 

[Autoduel76]

Well, we can rule out the chances of talking out with the end game boss and convince him to suicide.

Actually, I believe in an earlier interview they said you could talk your way through the final encounter.

whether or not that involves convincing him of suicide is another story.

 

[Brother None]

Don't double-post, A.

I certainly haven't and I've played through it dozens of times. I've played diplomats and Science Boys and Stealth Boys, lucky gamblers, or whatever other bizzare builds I could find. And I've played through it with minimal combat a few times, but never once without firing a shot. Never once coming all that close eve, really.

I've heard of it being done, but just like 10 minute speed runs, its more of a novelty and a rarity than anything else.

Not really. It's not that hard to do once you know the game, and I'm sure plenty of us have tried it.

That said, this is - once again - an area where improvements can be made. Fallout 1/2 made the path available, but it wasn't optimized, just like StealthBoy and ScienceBoy were crippled compare to SpeechBoy and CombatBoy. I look at the games and go "great idea, let's improve on it!", Bethesda looks at it and goes "Oh well".

'cor, Fallout isn't the ideal setting to explore this whole walkthrough-without-combat thing. It's kind of unnatural for the setting to be able to speak softly through everything. Perhaps that's why it shouldn't be easy. But impossible? Just because it wasn't easy on Fallout either? Feh.

See, I don't know if the Fallout devs sat down and said "let's take non-combat paths into account to the point where you can go through it without firing a bullet." Dunno. But I do know that whatever approach they took to multiple path ended up with a non-violent method being available for every major path you needed to tread. If that was coincidental, that just speaks more highly of the approach.

 

[Jesuit]

Actually, I believe in an earlier interview they said you could talk your way through the final encounter.

Is that confirmed?

Also, the nature of the available non-violent solutions in the game seems a bit vague right now. I believe the example of the super-duper mart that they gave is an optional quest? I think it's fine that your character choices are going to make certain quests off limits or out of your ability. I'd also not expect to be able to wander through the wastelands and not be forced into some type of combat, even if that means getting shot at and running away a lot.

It's really just important to me that there's a non-violent solution for the main quest line, and a healthy supply of side-quests that can be completed without violence. If you really CAN talk your way through the final encounter I would find it encouraging.