Planet Fallout interviews Desslock

[Brother None]

Planet Fallout asks respected RPG journalist/Fallout fan Desslock about his thoughts on Fallout 3.<blockquote>PF:The “keep it dark and violent” tip sure seems to have been taken into account. Is the violence satisfying or does it goes over the top, as a few others are complaining?

Desslock: Both? It’s definitely over the top – there are far too many decapitations and dismemberments to be realistic, but as I said previously, I really enjoyed that violence. I wouldn’t say the violence is “dark”, but it’s also not sanitized and rated-G, which was a bigger concern.

PF:And the atmosphere, is it really dark? Less space for humor this time, as Bethsoft seems to imply in their interviews?

Desslock: Definitely less humor, and the setting is darker. It’s still Fallout, and there’s some goofiness like the rock-it launcher, but for the most part it’s played straighter. Bethesda’s strength has always been world-building, and this is the first Fallout where the world/setting actually seems remotely plausible as well – you learn more about the pre-war culture, the actual war and the Chinese opponents, the different Fallout factions are all well development and interesting, etc.</blockquote>

 

[Matt K]

PF:And the atmosphere, is it really dark? Less space for humor this time, as Bethsoft seems to imply in their interviews?

Desslock: Definitely less humor, and the setting is darker. It’s still Fallout, and there’s some goofiness like the rock-it launcher, but for the most part it’s played straighter. Bethesda’s strength has always been world-building, and this is the first Fallout where the world/setting actually seems remotely plausible as well – you learn more about the pre-war culture, the actual war and the Chinese opponents, the different Fallout factions are all well development and interesting, etc.</blockquote>

Is he serious? Half the stuff I hear about sounds silly. I mean Robo Butlers, Super Hero fights, Ant Powers, etc. Very little of what I heard sounds plausible or dark.

 

[bonustime]

and this is the first Fallout where the world/setting actually seems remotely plausible as well

I don't even know where to begin on this quote. What about how Washington DC, America's capital and probably THE largest target in the country hasn't been completely demolished? I mean the fucking Washington Monument is still standing! And of course it makes perfect sense that people would make and be able to use(without dying) tiny nuke launchers? Could go on for ages.

 

[Josein]

PF:Could you create really unique characters in your walks within the game? Character creation is closer to games like Oblivion, was that a big departure from the older games or not really?

Desslock: I don’t agree character creation is closer to Oblivion (unless you’re referring to some of the trial choices in the tutorial). The development system is SPECIAL through and through. Unlike Oblivion, you can’t create a jack of all trades character, although you can get closer to that than you could in the older games, primarily because you can take one perk 10 times that allows you to bump your attributes. I actually think that was a mistake by Bethesda, as characters should have been forced down more distinct paths, and instead you can get reasonably good at a whole bunch (but not all) of skills. But there’s no shortage of meaningful choices in Fallout 3, unlike Oblivion, including in character development.

Well, one of the horrible things of oblivion was the character creator and the way leveling up worked. I'm not sure bethesda really knows the SPECIAL System and the infinite possibilities of it. It seems to me the perks are no longer that thing we could use to further custom the PC.

I'm sorry but oblivion character creator is the worst creator I've seen in a cRPG and the SPECIAL system is utterly the opposite. Now, thanks to bethesda, the SPECIAL has mutated horribly and is no longer special.

 

[Texas Renegade]

Desslock is generally pretty on the level about things in my experience. He has ripped games in the past.

If he is being his ussual self, I would have no issue taking him at his word.

And btw, why on earth would Washington DC be the primary target in a nuke attack?

If I remember correctly, the rockie mountains is where the majority of Russia's nukes were targeted(Take out NORAD) and there was only one targeted at DC--centered on the hot dog stand in the center of the Pentagon.

DC itself would have very little military value. Chances of Catching the President, joint chiefs, or VP there would be remote in the case of a missle launch.

 

[Sicblades]

These guys are seriously delusional...

Both? It’s definitely over the top – there are far too many decapitations and dismemberments to be realistic, but as I said previously, I really enjoyed that violence. I wouldn’t say the violence is “dark”, but it’s also not sanitized and rated-G, which was a bigger concern.

What the hell... what part of that keeps the original atmosphere of fallout? Ok, so playing with Bloody mess was fun the first couple of times but it wasn't a must to capture the spirit.

Definitely less humor, and the setting is darker

Well fallout was "darker" and still managed to make me laugh out loud a few times. And the silliness of all their weapons/magic armor/magic mutants.

When the hell are they going to get their heads out of their ass?

 

[Matt K]

@Texas Renegade, The point of Nuking DC is to destroy the US power base. It's a morale attack as much as a military attack (taking out the Pentagon and the surrounding federal infrastructure).

Also, to me a lot of Desslock's answers seem odd, like the one Jengo quoted. He laid out some valid criticism but then backpedaled quickly. I'm not saying he's paid to be nice or anything but the tone of his answers sounds more like a BS PR piece.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

Definitely less humor, and the setting is darker

Well fallout was "darker" and still managed to make me laugh out loud a few times. And the silliness of all their weapons/magic armor/magic mutants.

When the hell are they going to get their heads out of their ass?

That is probably an anatomically impossible act for them.

 

[Texas Renegade]

@Texas Renegade, The point of Nuking DC is to destroy the US power base. It's a morale attack as much as a military attack (taking out the Pentagon and the surrounding federal infrastructure).

Also, to me a lot of Desslock's answers seem odd, like the one Jengo quoted. He laid out some valid criticism but then backpedaled quickly. I'm not saying he's paid to be nice or anything but the tone of his answers sounds more like a BS PR piece.

I will grant you the morale part of nuking DC. As for affecting the power base...not likely, there really isn't a lot in DC besides federal offices and military infrastructure. But there isn't anything on file in the pentagon that isn't also in NORAD.

I wouldnt say his answers were odd- more along the lines of how he tends to do things. He likes to point out both sides of the issue the good and the bad.

I don't know, maybe me and desslock just look at games the same way, but I have pretty much been able to use him as a pretty accurate barometer for a while.

 

[Matt K]

I will grant you the morale part of nuking DC. As for affecting the power base...not likely, there really isn't a lot in DC besides federal offices and military infrastructure. But there isn't anything on file in the pentagon that isn't also in NORAD.

Which is why you hit them both. Either way given an attack, not all the bombs had to target military installations, it just makes sense (and is back up in Fallout Lore) to drop a few in DC. Actually nuking DC makes sense because you also get the NSA, CIA, FBI plus a bunch of military contractors are located around DC. That's an awful lot of good targets.

As for his answers, the name sounds familiar but otherwise I don't know him from Adam. I only brought it up because I was curious if others found his replies oddly worded. They just didn't have the tone I would have expected from a 3rd party, especially one who is apparently a big fan of the originals (which isn't to say I expected tons of bashing, but the backpedaling on his answers came off weird).

EDIT: I think that's all I'll say about the strategic value of nuking DC. Every time I write about it, I feel like I'm going to be flagged by Homeland Security and possibly detained.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Also, to me a lot of Desslock's answers seem odd, like the one Jengo quoted. He laid out some valid criticism but then backpedaled quickly. I'm not saying he's paid to be nice or anything but the tone of his answers sounds more like a BS PR piece.

I wouldnt say his answers were odd- more along the lines of how he tends to do things. He likes to point out both sides of the issue the good and the bad.

Yes, the combat is great, in my opinion – it’s repetitive, and over-the-top violent (necks are apparently very brittle after the apocalypse), but it’s consistently rewarding. I’m very pleased with VATS.

This is fishy. He's contradicting himself.

I really question the sustain that ultra-violent slo-mo deaths can have over the course of a game. I see the shock wearing off fast, and then the gimmick is laid bare. It's not like this game can fall back on it solid RPG foundation once all the shiny stuff has been played with.

 

[Brother None]

Also, to me a lot of Desslock's answers seem odd, like the one Jengo quoted. He laid out some valid criticism but then backpedaled quickly. I'm not saying he's paid to be nice or anything but the tone of his answers sounds more like a BS PR piece.

What a lot of people don't realise is that Desslock really, really like Bethesda. He loves them, in fact. And it's mutual, hence him being the first to see the game.

I have masses of respect for Desslock and expect his final look at the game to be honest and on the level, but do realise he is biased in favour of Bethesda.

 

[Public]

Also, to me a lot of Desslock's answers seem odd, like the one Jengo quoted. He laid out some valid criticism but then backpedaled quickly. I'm not saying he's paid to be nice or anything but the tone of his answers sounds more like a BS PR piece.

What a lot of people don't realise is that Desslock really, really like Bethesda. He loves them, in fact. And it's mutual, hence him being the first to see the game.

I have masses of respect for Desslock and expect his final look at the game to be honest and on the level, but do realise he is biased in favour of Bethesda.

Was any of the journalists a Fallout lover?

 

[moyogo]

Well fallout was "darker" and still managed to make me laugh out loud a few times.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. Dark humor (or gallows humor) requires a little ironic distance from life and death, and Bethesda doesn't think their audience has that distance. At least that's my impression. There was this part in The Road that I laughed out loud at-

[spoiler:a37f438a9b] After the man (on the brink of death) stumbles on a store of supplies, the next chapter starts like "He hadn't planned on being alive right now and needed to consider what steps to take next"... Okay it's funnier in context[/spoiler:a37f438a9b]

 

[entropyjesus]

Seems like Dess played a different game than I did, or maybe the PC version has some secret option that makes it fun, but the 360 version I played is pretty damn bland by any standard. When it comes to the atmosphere, Bethesda's artists almost hit the mark until you get those jarring, goofy Bethesdian additions like magic hats, moon-like gravity, enemies that run into your gun, caveman dialog, etc. I could go on and on about the stuff that Desslock glossed over about this game. I went into this game with objective cynicism and I REALLY wanted to like it or get something out of it (Fallout being my favorite series of all time), but it's really just a glorified Oblivion mod.

 

[Brother None]

Was any of the journalists a Fallout lover?

I'm not sure I understand the question, but nobody should question the Fallout fan credentials of people like Will Porter or Desslock. These guys have been doing coverage of Fallout forever - possibly as long as NMA.

 

[Public]

Was any of the journalists a Fallout lover?

I'm not sure I understand the question, but nobody should question the Fallout fan credentials of people like Will Porter or Desslock. These guys have been doing coverage of Fallout forever - possibly as long as NMA.

All the articles I have read were written by Bethesda/Oblivion lovers. So I'm wondering, because I haven't read all articles, was any article about FO3 written by a Fallout lover (Fallout fan)?

 

[Brother None]

Uh...article? Do you mean review? I dunno. Like I just said, Desslock is a Fallout 3 fan and I believe he's doing the review. Porter recently left PCZ, dunno where he's at now.

A lot of reviewers are fairly young, especially the ones on the console mags, and they simply don't know Fallout 1/2. It is what it is.

 

[Matt K]

What a lot of people don't realise is that Desslock really, really like Bethesda. He loves them, in fact. And it's mutual, hence him being the first to see the game.

I have masses of respect for Desslock and expect his final look at the game to be honest and on the level, but do realise he is biased in favour of Bethesda.

That does explain the tone. I kind of feel bad for him, he's kind of caught between a rock and a hard place in this game. Which I guess explains why he's bringing up flaws but then backpedaling quickly over them. I personally can't understand loving a company no matter what (a game though is different) especially since they tend to change over time. But I'm not really a brand loyalty kind of guy.

 

[Ausir]

All the articles I have read were written by Bethesda/Oblivion lovers. So I'm wondering, because I haven't read all articles, was any article about FO3 written by a Fallout lover (Fallout fan)?

Canard PC?