PC Gamer interviews Todd & Emil

Brother None said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I wanted to say. It's not so much about LITERALLY having a non-violent path through the ENTIRE game, but about having many options for non-violence. From the "not a goal" reply it seemed that they weren't really onboard with the general principle of it.
 
This is by far the best interview I have seen so far... Great job, GamesRadar... And thanks to NMA for letting us know about this :)

The people in Megaton decide to give you a house. We have no info if it their best house - which just could happen to be a run down shack. Also, rhe butler robot makes sense. It would make even more sense if you have to do a quest for batteries or some sort of power cell to make the robot butler work again. Or at least have enough repair and science skill to make the robot work.

To me, it seems that Todd and sometimes Emil, thinks that playing Fallout 3 should be all about leveling up...and killing people, Todd probably more than Emil (from what I can gather). The point of leveling up is NOT to get a perk every level or every other level, the point of level is to become stronger so that you can survive the more tougher battles later on in the game.

I don't like they removed the negative implications? (if that's the correct word?) of traits, though. I sort of liked it when I read that 'fast shot' made you faster with a weapon but at the price of aiming. Very cool. And a great reason to play the game again.

I have no bigger quarrel with the house that you're getting as a reward for saving the people of Megaton. It seems a little odd, maybe, but didn't the Vault Dweller (at the end of Fallout 1) have a shack of his own?

Oh, and some of you should should totally do what Emil is suggesting: hacking into the super-duper-mart and hacking the Protectron just to see if it can be done.

Yes, I bet you there are people, not many, but some that actually might just put 19 levels of perks into Strong Back or maybe only 16-18 or so. You might not do it; someone might, though.

I would have liked a non-combat option as goal, too - and I do think that I have seen Todd or Emil mention (maybe in the Fan Interview2 ? ) that you can talk your way out of the final encounter if your speech skill is high enough. [I'll see if I go dig up a quote...].
 
shihonage said:
Yeah, that's what I wanted to say. It's not so much about LITERALLY having a non-violent path through the ENTIRE game, but about having many options for non-violence. From the "not a goal" reply it seemed that they weren't really onboard with the general principle of it.
Click to expand...

Except that they actually did say that in designing the quests they tried to include non combat options with quotes like this:

"We realized during playthroughs, you know what, there’s no talking path through this quest, or there’s no stealth path, so we went back and added that in."

They just said that they didn't set out to make it a goal to get through the whole game without firing a shot.

Whether or not it was better design in the original was not really any point that I was trying to make. Personally, I think the original team probably went about it in the same way. Trying to include as many different options to get through the quests as made sense, but not setting out with the specific goal to create a game in which no shots would be fired, or no attacks made.

Again, I just don't think a significant number of people ever even did that in the originals. And most of those that have done so, did so years later. You could probably count on one hand the number of people that did so on their first playthrough. Maybe nobody. I have trouble imagining anybody playing the game for the first time getting out of the Vault 13 cave without knifing a few rats.

Being able to complete Fallout completely nonviolently is cool, but its a novelty. I don't see any issue with them not setting out with that goal in mind in creating Fallout 3.
 
Autoduel76 said:
Being able to complete Fallout completely nonviolently is cool, but its a novelty. I don't see any issue with them not setting out with that goal in mind in creating Fallout 3.
Click to expand...

You are confusing two things.

The fact that you can finish Fallout 1 without firing a shot is a novelty, but it's a novelty made possible because you can finish the main quest without firing a shot.

You can't finish Fallout 3 without firing a shot, which leads me to believe either you can't keep running away from encounters (I don't see why not) or you need to go into combat inevitably for the main quest. And that sucks.
 
Autoduel76 said:
Again, I just don't think a significant number of people ever even did that in the originals. And most of those that have done so, did so years later. You could probably count on one hand the number of people that did so on their first playthrough. Maybe nobody. I have trouble imagining anybody playing the game for the first time getting out of the Vault 13 cave without knifing a few rats.

Being able to complete Fallout completely nonviolently is cool, but its a novelty. I don't see any issue with them not setting out with that goal in mind in creating Fallout 3.
Click to expand...

Isn't it neat how a game is so compelling that it woos you into trying to beat it in every way possible? That's what a lot of us wanted in Fallout 3. Sure, many of us weren't ever going to beat it without blowing something away, but it would have been nice to know that we could.

That possibility also ensured that they developers cared enough for a pacifist route that even the main quest was able to be completed that way. In Fallout 3, I'm sure there will be some quests you can complete without violence, but it won't be to the scope at which Fallout 1 and 2 gave you freedom.
 
It will make it all the more impressive when someone accomplishes it regardless.
 
Brother None said:
You can't finish Fallout 3 without firing a shot, which leads me to believe either you can't keep running away from encounters (I don't see why not) or you need to go into combat inevitably for the main quest. And that sucks.
Click to expand...

Isn't the actual statement something like "No you can't. Well, maybe, but we didn't set out with that goal", followed with a debate between Todd and Emil about the viability of getting through a specific quest without combat?

That seems to suggest that you can get through most of the main quest without combat, and maybe even all of it, but that they just didn't set out intentionally trying to make it that way.
 
Brother None said:
You can't finish Fallout 3 without firing a shot
Click to expand...

Where are you getting this from?

Todd said:
I mean, you might be able to, I guess, but it’s not a goal.
Click to expand...

I just really don't know. It seems to me that if there were a specific area in the main quest where you had to kill something then this statement would be completely false. Trust Todd or not, this still seems highly ambiguous.
 
Hell, Pete has even mentioned that he is only 99.9% sure than you can complete the game with only unarmed combat. I remember them saying the game was not completable with a purely pacifist approach, but I don't feel like digging right now.

99.9%? Just like 99.9% of the NPCs are killable? There's not even 1,000 NPCs, you fuckwits.

Use 99% at least. There's a big difference.

I love nitpicking.
 
maka, I thought this entry was pretty fitting, given what we've seen of the game so far:

IGN said:
IGNPC: Fallout 3 as a sequel to the PC titles, as opposed to Interplay's action-RPG titles.

Pete Hines: Right. We're not doing a follow-up to Brotherhood of Steel.
Click to expand...

Does anyone else find it interesting that they managed to make it into an action-RPG that draws startling parallels with POS, regardless of their statement?
 
Pete Hines is a marketing guy. He's expertly trained in the fine craft of making shit up, especially when he doesn't really know what he's talking about. I really don't know why anyone would trust a marketing guy, or why any games site would go out of their way to interview one... but meh, best to treat everything he says like white noise.
 
Jesuit said:
or why any games site would go out of their way to interview one...
Click to expand...

If you want an interview about Fallout 3, you can only talk to people designated for that job at Bethesda. That means Todd Howard and Pete Hines, and on occasion Emil Pagliarulo and Gavin Carter.

It's the Bethesda way, the journalists have no say in the matter.
 
Game journalism is a funny industry. A real hard nose publisher would say send Todd or Emil but we're not just gonna reprint your marketing guy's spiel and call it news... we have advertising pages for that.

Come to think of it I'm not sure if any journalism works like that anymore. My main point still stands, don't trust the marketing guys.
 
whirlingdervish said:
Does anyone else find it interesting that they managed to make it into an action-RPG that draws startling parallels with POS, regardless of their statement?
Click to expand...

Really? "Startling" parallels? Please elaborate.
 
you get a brotherhood of steel bunker for your own in two
why not make the raiders camp your own decorating it with littered chain guns?
and while decorating a house to a theme is completely asinine i could always use a safely robotically guarded stash for my ak's and pipsh shotguns
these interviews have actually been some of the first good news in a long time!some of our extreme dread over things (enclave only radio)
lame vats etc have been put to semi rest
meanwhile dialouge and the negative aspects of choosing traits etc have been left with gaping !!! marks
i'm willing to fire a few shots to get from here to there but i like to be able to chat my way through things probably more than the next guy!

ps give me more than a freaking clock radio thing for 50 -70 bucks extra and i just might consider the purchase
 
terebikun said:
whirlingdervish said:
Does anyone else find it interesting that they managed to make it into an action-RPG that draws startling parallels with POS, regardless of their statement?
Click to expand...

Really? "Startling" parallels? Please elaborate.
Click to expand...

Why sure, just look at these concepts for female Brotherhood of Steel members.
ladiesofthebosvn0.jpg

Wait did I accidentally put the same image twice?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top