Pete Hines on negativity

[sai | GLYPH]

EDIT: Whoops. Sry BN.

 

[Xenophile]

Ok... let me put it another way...

Fallout is made of many pieces..

It is an RPG... (albeit based on GURPS mechanics originally)

So can an RPG evolve (or re-invent) mechanics and still be an RPG. My opinion is yes..

Even if you listen to the opinion of Leonard Boyarsky, Fallout 3 looks to retain that which is the core of an RPG and therefor in my view is not a "spin-off".

Here is what was in his interview on this very site:

In your opinion, what are the key ingredients that every RPG should have?

I think the heart of every great RPG is to let the player make choices and to have those choices matter in how the game plays out and how NPCs react to the player. Also, the player should be able to approach the game from a number of different angles, as a stealth character, a diplomat, a fighter, whether he wants to be good or evil, etc. Different endings depending on player choices is always a big plus for me as well.

I also am heavily in favour of letting the player create his character with a wide variety of options as opposed to giving the player a specific character to play.

So the dropping of tabletop mechanics is not in my opinion a blow to the core of fallout. Fallout originally was crafted in the framework of a tabletop roleplaying game and to me that was a side effect of it's nature because it grew from the GURPS licence.. it in the beginning could be none other.

I think the fiction was stronger than the mechanics.. so as long as it maintians what I see as cores of the genre, then it will maintain continuity as a sequal.

 

[Aero]

subjectivity

I'll probably like it. I'v seen some things so far that makes me go "hmmm, Why would they do that?" Not gonna stop me from buying it.

Then again I like Weird Al.(he parodies all types of music) In fact Saw him live last Monday. Best Show I'v been to. I don't just like his parodies. Some of the originals are pretty good too. I also like most types of music. Whats this got to do with it? I'll Explain.

I am not a fan of FPS games. In fact Fallout 1 and 2 pretty much sums up exactly what I like in a game. RPG, Open, good dialog, great characters, tons of crap to pick up, easter eggs....You get the idea. You have all played them. (Daggerfall was pretty open as well. Still have the box with everything in it.)

So Bethesda has gone and purchased the rights to all things Fallout. (minus any online game) Spent 4 years in production. Made a decent world. Some humourous settings, dialog, weapons, death animations, It is an open world, Still has SPECIAL, Can make/mod your own weapons ( i did this even if some of them are kinda over the top).......

Basically I'm just glad someone did it. Rather than seeing the franchise sit locked up in some bankrupt developers basement. May not be what I really wanted but its something at least. I like the Story mostly anyway. Thats why I liked Final Fantasy. Now those changed all the time. But it hasn't hurt the franchise to much. Guess maybe thats why this dosn't bother me so much.

Hopefully there will be a Fallout 4 that brings back some more elements from the originals while getting rid of some of the over the top weapons, (maybe make them only available after the main storyline has been finished on a restart or continuation.)

I can't wait to play the onmodified Developers kit they have people playing now. The Death animations seem to frequent, Even with 3 levels of gun nut.

 

[FeelTheRads]

so as long as it maintians what I see as cores of the genre, then it will maintain continuity as a sequal.

What if it doesn't maintain what I see as the core? Does it then stops being a sequel? Or only what YOU think matters?

According to your posts there are no facts, only opinions. Therefore, if I think the sky is green, then it's green. Que?

Also, Fallout 3 can hardly be even called a spinoff given the departures from the setting and so on.

 

[Brother None]

Fallout is made of many pieces..

Yes.

So who are you to determine what pieces are vital and what pieces can be dropped? Seriously, who are you determine what is the core of the franchise?

Or, to pull it back just a little farther, why do you keep saying this as if it would mean anything to us? Do you think it's an argument or point when you say "for me the franchise is..."?

Even if you listen to the opinion of Leonard Boyarsky, Fallout 3 looks to retain that which is the core of an RPG and therefor in my view is not a "spin-off".

Leonard Boyarsky?

Would you have made Fallout 3 isometric and with Turn Based combat or would you have followed the same principle that you're using on this PA title ?

I don’t know how I would have felt about making FO3 anything but isometric and turn based. We did have an extremely high budget idea for another approach, but even in that scenario combat was isometric and turn based. Of course, it’s easy for me to say I wouldn’t have done a paused real time FO3 now, but I don’t know what I would have said if the offer was made.

 

[Xenophile]

So who are you to determine what pieces are vital and what pieces can be dropped? Seriously, who are you determine what is the core of the franchise?

I am arguing at the core it is an RPG. A true RPG.. it may have action elements (and I understand they are prominent). But unlike games like Diablo, or the Baulders Gate Console games, it does retain the core concepts that even Leonard advicated as an RPG. It is fine and justifiable for you to argue that that doesn't mean it is a "Fallout", but I disagree. So again as I said "In my eyes, it is a sequal". But I totaly understand why you don't agree with me.. it is entirely my opinion.

Would you have made Fallout 3 isometric and with Turn Based combat or would you have followed the same principle that you're using on this PA title ?

I don’t know how I would have felt about making FO3 anything but isometric and turn based. We did have an extremely high budget idea for another approach, but even in that scenario combat was isometric and turn based. Of course, it’s easy for me to say I wouldn’t have done a paused real time FO3 now, but I don’t know what I would have said if the offer was made.

Ok.. not sure what you are trying to say with that quote.. he says.. he doesn't know how he would feel. If it were a "core" concept to him don't you think he would be more decisive.

Edit:
He certainly DOESN'T say, "If it weren't TB and ISO it wouldn't be a 'Fallout'."

 

[Brother None]

It is fine and justifiable for you to argue that that doesn't mean it is a "Fallout", but I disagree.

You're kind of starting to test my patience here.

The point about it being an RPG and how Leonard defines RPGs in general is peripheral. I ask again: who are you to determine what elements of Fallout a sequel needs to retain and still be a sequel? Why do you get to say Fallout can drop the mechanics and keep the setting and still be faithful?

And please, if you say "it's just my opinion" on more time I think my head is going to implode. Do you seriously, honestly, fail to see how that is simply not a relevant remark to make?

Ok.. not sure what you are trying to say with that quote.. he says.. he doesn't know how he would feel. If it were a "core" concept to him don't you think he would be more decisive.

"I don't know how I'd feel about" is a conditional statement based on the status quo being what you're denying. "I don't know how I'd feel about this if I hadn't read Foucault" means you've read Foucault, "I don't know how I'd feel about doing anything else" means that normally you'd not do anything else.

For Frith's sake, he even says "anything but". He's literally saying "I wouldn't have liked to make Fallout 3 anything but TB/isometric"

Are you ESL?

 

[Xenophile]

For Frith's sake, he even says "anything but". He's literally saying "I wouldn't have liked to make Fallout 3 anything but TB/isometric"

haha.. but he quite specificly ISN'T saying that.

As long as we are on the "What right do you have!" arguement. What makes you think you really understand what the developers intended.. sure you have some interviews with quotes about recreating "tabletop" games. But I bet if you got them all in a room and asked them together there would even be disagreements about what that means between them. So I think it is presumptuous to speak for the primary creators yourself.

I'll even bet that the views of the primary creators are signifigantly less homogenous than that which you put forward as gospel.

And really for someone that has given me a hard time for insulting other people, you are quick to pull them out.

 

[Brother None]

haha.. but he quite specificly ISN'T saying that.

Uh...arguments? Facts? Back that argument up, please?

What makes you think you really understand what the developers intended..

I think so because I take a critical view and accept arguments of it. We argue on the basis of facts, what you can prove and what you can reason. I think I understand what they intended, but I don't assume I understand what they intended, I am open to arguments. Factual, rational arguments.

That said, you are dodging the argument. For the third time, I ask you: who are you to determine what elements of Fallout a sequel needs to retain and still be a sequel? I would like an answer by this point, because your whole argument seems to hinge on there being some justification for you thinking "my opinion is that this bit matters more" is relevant to the discussion. Why is it?

And really for someone that has given my a hard time for insulting other people, you are quick to pull them out.

Where did I insult you?

 

[PaladinHeart]

It's best not to get in a discussion about why Fallout 3 is Fallouty. It's not being made with the original design in mind. It's not spiritually Fallout 3, but it is Fallout 3 because it IS Fallout 3, because Bethesda has the $$$ and they say so.

I'm sure a lot of Resident Evil fans are just as upset over the new direction of RE4 and 5 as some Fallout fans are over Fallout 3. But just because we don't like it doesn't mean we, as the fans, have any say so in whether or not it's actually a true sequel. The best thing to do is simply tell them you disagree with their new direction, liked the old style better, etc.. Discussing amongst ourselves whether it is or isn't something, isn't going to accomplish anything short of a spam war (or a warning/strike from BN when you fail to meet his discussionary expectations).

IMO, if someone wants to make the true sequel to Fallout, then they should do so. So what if you can't call it Fallout 3? If your game is good enough then it will sell on its own merits. The name usually only helps to guide the fans from the previous games to the new sequel, but you can't really rely on names these days, whether it be numerical sequels, the titles themselves, or even the company's name that produced it.

Edit2: On that note, there's a HUGE market that someone could steal right now in the zombie survival horror crowd. You could easily design a game with many of the same mechanics used in the previous RE games and the fans would eat it up.

Edit: Leonard did say, "Of course, it’s easy for me to say I wouldn’t have done a paused real time FO3 now, but I don’t know what I would have said if the offer was made." Which is possibly saying that if Bethesda had said, "You want to help us make Fallout 3 like we're making it?" then he is kiiiinda saying he might have entertained the idea, but not really saying whether he would have or not. Verisimilitude.. Hah!.. :ninja:

 

[Brother None]

It's best not to get in a discussion about why Fallout 3 is Fallouty.

Not really. I have had many fruitful debates on the subject, and not just with people who agree with me.

Fallout 3 as a Fallout sequel is a fine topic to discuss. Its degradation into nonsense comes from people failing to accept different premises. Traditional fans who spam other forums calling anyone who doesn't agree with their "retaining core principles"-viewpoint stupid, or people joining NMA and not even bothering to familiarize themselves with our debating formats, principles and premises and just lazily slapping in a "but my opinion is" or "setting is most important anyway".

The problem isn't debating Fallout 3 at all. The problem is people failing to respect differences in each other's basics views.

It's a tribute to NMA's hospitality that a lot of the aforementioned rude visitors are still allowed to post, to be honest.

But just because we don't like it doesn't mean we, as the fans, have any say so in whether or not it's actually a true sequel.

We have to roll over for the cash? Accept Fallout 3 as a sequel simply because it has a 3 behind it?

No thanks.

'fraid Fallout 3's status as a "true sequel" (not a term I like) is an integral part of our criticism of it. It's not really something you can just ignore.

Discussing amongst ourselves whether it is isn't something isn't going to accomplish anything short of a spam war (or a warning/strike from BN when you fail to meet his discussionary expectations).

Subtle. You actually mention these debates degrade a lot and then disapprove of me interjecting in an attempt to keep debates from degrading to the level they tend to get on the internet. This is a forum with a pretty strict tradition of fact-based debates and a pretty aggressive stance towards false arguments. Our house, our rules, all this indignant behaviour at being told how to behave when visiting someone else's house is nothing short of stupid.

Which is possibly saying that if Bethesda had said, "You want to help us make Fallout 3 like we're making it?"

I wish I could explain why this is such a funny thing to say.

You do realise Bethesda actually turned down applications from (at least one) original Fallout developer, right?

 

[Cow]

who are you to determine what elements of Fallout a sequel needs to retain and still be a sequel?

To answer on Paul's behalf:

I'm the consumer. I buy the game. I keep the business IN business. I want Fallout 3 to have different mechanics and I am in the majority of people who want the game changed thus my opinion matters the most.

Nowhere close to my stance on the game's design decisions, but the consumer IS GOD and to not pander to the consumer spells out death for any company. It may be viewed as reaching out to the lowest common denominator, but there's a price you have to pay for popularity. I applaud and openly support small business and indie developers because they're the people who have the resources (or lack thereof) to make games that they like and not soulless games intended for millions of casual people to like.

 

[Xenophile]

That said, you are dodging the argument. For the third time, I ask you: who are you to determine what elements of Fallout a sequel needs to retain and still be a sequel? I would like an answer by this point, because your whole argument seems to hinge on there being some justification for you thinking "my opinion is that this bit matters more" is relevant to the discussion. Why is it?

This is an retarded arguement.. I was saying and will say again.. that "for me" it retains that which is required to be a sequal. I don't think you or I have either have the right to declare it worthy or unworthy. So I have "100%" the right to say what matters to me.

This desire portray my comments as anything other than to statement of my opinion is quite daft and borderline crazy.

 

[Brother None]

I'm the consumer. I buy the game. I keep the business IN business. I want Fallout 3 to have different mechanics and I am in the majority of people who want the game changed thus my opinion matters the most.

This is a part of Bethesda's consideration, granted, but notice that in the context here, Cow, we're talking about making arguments that have merits in other people's eyes. I know the internet is not the best place for rational debates, but I've been convinced on several points pertaining to the Fallout franchise on this very forum, and I like to think we prefer (other than spammy/flammy newstopics) to have rational debates here.

That's what my question pertains to: how is Xenophile's perception of what makes a franchise relevant to the Fallout 3-as-a-sequel debate.

Also, check your private messages already, Cow.

This is an retarded arguement..

Going to get personal?

I was saying and will say again.. that "for me" it retains that which is required to be a sequal. I don't think you or I have either have the right to declare it worthy or unworthy. So I have "100%" the right to say what matters to me.

No one has any 100% rights here, this is a private forum.

That said (and I love saying that), I already assumed you would say this and addressed it in a post above:
Or, to pull it back just a little farther, why do you keep saying this as if it would mean anything to us? Do you think it's an argument or point when you say "for me the franchise is..."?

Apparently, you don't think it's an argument. You might have said so at the beginning, since I - y'know - specifically asked if it was.

Since it's not an argument, don't bring it up in debates. Period. We don't care what your personal opinion is. We don't care what anyone's personal opinion is. We care about rational arguments built on a logical framework. Your saying it's your personal opinion simply does not mean anything to us, it's pretty distracting to plop it in the middle of a Fallout 3 debate.

 

[shorrtybearr]

Hines is an asshat. Plain and simple.

lovely constructive argument there.

As far as i'm concerned he has made alot of sense.

People that dont like the game will say "i dont like it, hines dont care that i dont like it, i dont like hines"

People that do like the game will say "i like the game, hines makes sense, i like hines"

Its basically all bullshit, what he says is true.

Didnt anyones mother teach them "Dont judge a book by its cover".

You can be leaning a certain way before you play it, but the point is play it then dislike it not the otherway around.

 

[sarfa]

who are you to determine what elements of Fallout a sequel needs to retain and still be a sequel?

To answer on Paul's behalf:

I'm the consumer. I buy the game. I keep the business IN business. I want Fallout 3 to have different mechanics and I am in the majority of people who want the game changed thus my opinion matters the most.

(Emphasis mine).

No you're not. Think about this, do you really believe the die hard fans of a PCRPG series that stopped (for all intends and purposes) ten years ago* outnumber the slavering fanboys of a highly succesful and comercial game released two years ago who just want a clone? This is what you said. By your logic, those fan boys are the consumer (or most of them) so Bethesda should in fact be making the game the way they are, in order to please their many fanboys.

(*Just like the Phantom Menace doesn't count as a Star Wars game, Tactics and BOS don't count as Fallout.)

 

[Brother None]

This is what you said.

No it wasn't, you're misinterpreting his post.

 

[Xenophile]

BN,

Actually.. now I am curious..

For the sake of arguement, let's say Fallout 3 follows the core tenents of an RPG (Consequences, character skill determinate in outcome, etc.), and it carries the world created from original Fallouts. (I understand you probably don't agree on the above points)

What specificly do you think it would still lack that would prevent it from being called a sequel?

 

[Brother None]

For the sake of arguement, let's say Fallout 3 follows the core tenents of an RPG (Consequences, character skill determinate in outcome, etc.), and it carries the world created from original Fallouts. (I understand you probably don't agree on the above points)

What specificly do you think it would still lack that would prevent it from being called a sequel?

This is a rather narrow view of RPGs you have.

RPG isn't this one, narrowly defined genre of which all games follow on specific design set. RPG is an umbrella term, ranging from action RPGs to traditional RPGs as you describe. One is not more RPG than the other, it's just a matter of preference.

Anyway, if Fallout remains true to the small, core definition of the originals, that is to say a retro-50s post-apocalyptic pen and paper emulation, then it'd be a true sequel. Details aside, all of the setting details emerge from the being retro-50s post-apocalyptic and all of the gameplay details (choice and consequence, turn-based combat) emerge from it being a pen and paper emulation.

Details would still be hammered on, as was the case for Van Buren, but its status of sequel would not be in much doubt. Interestingly enough, the status of Van Buren as a sequel to Fallout 3 was never in doubt, despite the fact that it had both TB and RT (hell to balance). Why? Because it was designed from the philosophy of pen and paper emulation outwards. If you start there, you can't help but pick up TB combat along the way, and RT combat being tagged on hurts the balance of your game but doesn't change the fact that your intention is like that of the originals.

It's a bit of an academic question tho', isn't it?

EDIT: also, you could seriously mess up and just make a shitty game despite having the right starting principles, I guess

 

[beverageleverage]

I do think it gets hairy as we have seen over and over and over when discussing the "features" that should have been carried over from the originals.

You know that's funny, I am in a similar situation. See my plan is to purchase the rights to the FIFA soccer video games, and update them for the next generation of gamers. I plan to keep the FIFA franchise "fresh" so to speak.

I really think these soccer games are works of art, I really dig the setting and the way the soccer ball looks, so cool. I'm not so concerned about the whole real time gameplay, official rules, or the third person viewpoint, those definitely aren't "core tenents" or anything. I think the only way to bring on the innovation is to take the consequences and choices you face when playing FIFA '08 and put them into a card battle game, sort of like pokemon.

I think it will work well, and if anyone doesn't like it, well that's just their opinion then isn't it? My game will be just as much if not MORE true to soccer than any of the FIFA games before it.