Platform nation audio interview with Todd Howard

Hey.

So I'm the annoying interviewer in the Platform Nation podcast.

To start, you have to believe me when I say I have no disrespect for the hardcore Fallout fans. You have to understand that for the last year-plus we have been barraged with complaints by... let's not call them hardcore, let's call them "f4nbois"... who have sent two hours of constant IMs, messages, voicemails and emails complaining at a fevered pitch about how Bethesda was changing "their" game. I'm sure you guys have heard it and seen it. You all seem pretty reasonable and open to the idea that a new developer was picking up an older franchise and working with its own vision of games to breathe new life into it.

Put it this way: If you haven't actually whined -- and I do mean WHINED -- about change, it wasn't directed at you. If you used a basso voice, then it's not you.

But I do have a question for all of you: What did we miss? We only found out about Todd being live with us moments before we started streaming, so we kinda locked up. If you've listened, you know we peppered him with questions, and Todd was very gracious to answer them all as best he could (his handler was standing right beside him the whole time).

But in the interest of responding to the needs of the gaming community, I'd like to know if there were any questions you wish we'd asked?

And what's with the bunny hate? Seriously, you've got to like the idea of spattering an enemy with a bunny gun!
 
thanks for registering and welcome! ill listen to the podcast in a few minutes and will be back on topic then.

so, ok. it sounds much more like a coffetable talk. i guess i could say my overall rating is "no harm done". 6/10
 
GamerEdie said:
But in the interest of responding to the needs of the gaming community, I'd like to know if there were any questions you wish we'd asked?

And what's with the bunny hate? Seriously, you've got to like the idea of spattering an enemy with a bunny gun!
Click to expand...

Will I fall through the map like Driver 2.

As for the bunnies. I need naught a reason for said Bunnies. Bunnies on the brain I suppose. Came to me and said "Hey Dave(Name is not Dave FTR), those damn Teddies get all the attention. Say something about Bunnies" I had to give in before they tore up my garden.

But I don't have a garden.
 
Well I was going to copy/paste that same post here from the Bethsoft forums, but seems you've got here before me, GamerEdie.

One thing, as it's too late to post, that was *very* unprofessional of you the way you laughed and mocked at the fans.
 
Admirable of you to step up. Welcome. :)
GamerEdie said:
You all seem pretty reasonable and open to the idea that a new developer was picking up an older franchise and working with its own vision of games
Click to expand...
That idea is fine with me, but calling it Fallout 3 doesn't sit so well. With the amount of changes, it just seems like the same as calling Redguard and Battlespire TES III and IV.
to breathe new life into it.
Click to expand...
This feels more like making an animatronic puppet from someone's corpse and calling it 'new life'.
Put it this way: If you haven't actually whined -- and I do mean WHINED -- about change
Click to expand...
And consider the other point of view: Any dissenting opinion about the changes for this 'next-gen' darling seems to get dismissed and labeled as 'whining'.

It's not really about the change, anyway. It's about the upheaval. I don't mind them putting in a new window, but they seem to be tearing down the wall and calling it a window.
(his handler was standing right beside him the whole time)
Click to expand...
It's a good safety measure. They really don't want him climbing all over people or biting anyone.
But, really, I'm sure Todd is well-behaved. ;)
Seriously, you've got to like the idea of spattering an enemy with a bunny gun!
Click to expand...
Seriously?
In a very silly game, sure.
In a game about which the devs have repeatedly made claims of wanting to make it dark and gritty and not silly... not so much.
 
thefalloutfan said:
Well I was going to copy/paste that same post here from the Bethsoft forums, but seems you've got here before me, GamerEdie.

One thing, as it's too late to post, that was *very* unprofessional of you the way you laughed and mocked at the fans.
Click to expand...

Trust me, I wasn't mocking the fans. There's a distinct difference between fans and those so afraid and upset about any kind of change that they lose their ever loving minds and refuse to even give a game a chance. There's a surprising amount of people who think that way, and sometimes it seems they all have my email address.

But thank you for pointing out that a large group of reasonable, enthusiastic gamers were offended by my comments. When mocking the whiners I'll do better next time to make sure that the general listener realizes I'm talking about the small, vocal and angry population of people who cannot be reasoned with. That's obviously not you guys. You guys kinda rock.
 
Todd has a handler? But he's basically PR staff himself, why does he need a handler?

I'm surprised you don't attribute the stream of malcontent to NMA, Edie. It's what usually happens, although we discourage people haunting others with their opinion and certainly discourage people using NMA as a platform for said annoying.

But I'm not sure if we're as reasonable as you portray us, seen from your angle. Fallout 3 in "someone else's" hands was never much of a problem (as long as it wasn't EA or the like), nor is Fallout 3 changing a lot of stuff from the original - Van Buren did that too. But our attitude towards Fallout 3 abandoning some of Fallout 1's core ideas, the fact that we consider this to mean Fallout 3 is not much of a sequel to Fallout 1/2, is often just written off as unreasonable and "not giving Bethesda chance". Which is odd, since if I put up my Custom for maintenance and the mechanic says he'll turn it into a Chopper, nobody would say I'm "not giving him a chance" if I politely say no thanks you and take my business elsewhere.

As for questions asked, I dunno, I didn't listen to it, but even without going into all of the Fallout-old-school questions, there's one thing I find odd: Fallout 3's graphics are mostly fine, especially in environmentals, but the animations are choppy and the facial animations look laughably bad nowadays. And what about VATS, how well will it work on the long term and can we turn that damned cinematic mode off. These are the kind of worries not just expressed by forumgoers but even by previewers (and that's a big even, previewers tend to be a lot kinder than the average internetter) and yet no one is confronting Bethesda with it, 'cept for one Polish previewer asking Pete about the somewhat confusing repeating damage models, a question he dodged effectively.
 
Brother None said:
Todd has a handler? But he's basically PR staff himself, why does he need a handler?

I'm surprised you don't attribute the stream of malcontent to NMA, Edie. It's what usually happens, although we discourage people haunting others with their opinion and certainly discourage people using NMA as a platform for said annoying.

But I'm not sure if we're as reasonable as you portray us, seen from your angle. Fallout 3 in "someone else's" hands was never much of a problem (as long as it wasn't EA or the like), nor is Fallout 3 changing a lot of stuff from the original - Van Buren did that too. But our attitude towards Fallout 3 abandoning some of Fallout 1's core ideas, the fact that we consider this to mean Fallout 3 is not much of a sequel to Fallout 1/2, is often just written off as unreasonable and "not giving Bethesda chance". Which is odd, since if I put up my Custom for maintenance and the mechanic says he'll turn it into a Chopper, nobody would say I'm "not giving him a chance" if I politely say no thanks you and take my business elsewhere.

As for questions asked, I dunno, I didn't listen to it, but even without going into all of the Fallout-old-school questions, there's one thing I find odd: Fallout 3's graphics are mostly fine, especially in environmentals, but the animations are choppy and the facial animations look laughably bad nowadays. And what about VATS, how well will it work on the long term and can we turn that damned cinematic mode off. These are the kind of worries not just expressed by forumgoers but even by previewers (and that's a big even, previewers tend to be a lot kinder than the average internetter) and yet no one is confronting Bethesda with it, 'cept for one Polish previewer asking Pete about the somewhat confusing repeating damage models, a question he dodged effectively.
Click to expand...

Well, to answer one of your question to the best of my ability, VATS can be turned off. You don't need it, as you can just hold the left trigger and it will go into free-targeting mode. VATS can't be used for EVERY shot, because you use power points to fire using VATS, and points deduct per shot. So you go into VATS, instruct it to fire off, say, three rounds from your 10 mm pistol into the enemy's head, and then the cinematic takes over. That also takes all your power points, so you have to wait for them to recharge. Meanwhile, you'll free-target shoot the thing as they recharge.

However, if you choose NOT to use VATS, you can just pull the left trigger and fire with the right trigger, much like an FPS. You can still kill the enemy. It seems, however, you will not be "rewarded" with a gruesome cinematic when you kill without using VATS.

So, technically, you can avoid the cinematic by not using VATS. I don't know if you can actually turn them all off in preferences or something.

As for abandoning the FO1/2 ethos and story, I kinda have to concede that. It really does abandon the story and mindset of former FOs. The Enclave being destroyed in FO2. The Brotherhood of Steel being on the East Coast. The comparatively "casual" use of nuclear weapons.

Don't get me wrong... I never played FO1/2 (okay... let the flames begin again) but talking to other FO fans, I know now these are issues. I think I'd be kinda pissy about that happening too. But I also realize that Bethesda took a dead IP (developmentally, not fanbase) and decided to rewrite the book, and that's their prerogative. I guess my sense is that if it turns into a wicked-good game, does it really matter that they rewrote Star Wars with Darth Vadar not being Luke's father?

And, while I can see calling it Fallout 3 is a bit disingenuous, would you really be so pissed as to not buy the game because they used a number?

I see that -- not so much as Bethesda pissing on the FO story but as a declaration that they are owning this title, embracing it as it's been rewritten, and intend to create a new world with their own rules.

For better or for worse.
 
ok eddie let me ask you a question
(before i do i will say that i like the way they are making fallout and i cant wait for them to release it.fallout 2 was my favorite game of all time)
how would you feel if your favorite rpg game that you loved became a fps?seriously
the fact that we can play it as a pure fps without vats sucks...i mean fallout was always about the strategy in battles.if i want a fps i can play resistance(my favorite)
plus sadly the game looks really easy
and you can turn off vats?you mean the cinematic camera or turn it off and then press the button and shoot WITHOUT using ap in free mode?
 
It's great to see a journalist who I thought (because of things said in the interview) at first would just make ad hominem attacks come across in a moderate and understanding manner, it's really nice to be completely wrong sometimes.
 
GamerEdie said:
Don't get me wrong... I never played FO1/2 (okay... let the flames begin again) but talking to other FO fans, I know now these are issues. I think I'd be kinda pissy about that happening too.
Click to expand...

And that is the problem. You have no idea about the games you comment on. Your exposure to the community was a guy sending you hate e-mail. Yet you feel able to comment on a game series and community you know nothing about. You are epitome of the modern game journalist. And you are why we Gamers more and more dislike and distrust anything you write or say.

But I also realize that Bethesda took a dead IP (developmentally, not fanbase) and decided to rewrite the book, and that's their prerogative. I guess my sense is that if it turns into a wicked-good game, does it really matter that they rewrote Star Wars with Darth Vadar not being Luke's father?
Click to expand...

That was the worst example you could have used. Yes it would matter. The whole story would then be pointless. Just because they made the move with bigger fights, or more explosions would not matter. If they ruin the story then whats the point? It's the same with fallout, bigger fights more nukes, but you ruin the core game and what do you have left? is it really Fallout anymore?

It was only a dead franchise, because an idiot ruined one of the biggest gaming companies in history in a few years. It was only sold to Bethesda to save that mans ass from prison due to violation of Labor laws. There were others looking for the name, but they did not have the resources to pay as much for it. Developmentally dead? Maybe. Forgotten? not by a long shot.

And, while I can see calling it Fallout 3 is a bit disingenuous, would you really be so pissed as to not buy the game because they used a number?
Click to expand...

3 Denotes a continuation of the story from 1 and 2. All other spinoffs have had a subtitle. You yourself have said this does not follow 1 and 2's story. So why should it have the number 3 behind it? And the name won't be the only reason I won't buy this game, just one of many.

I see that -- not so much as Bethesda pissing on the FO story but as a declaration that they are owning this title, embracing it as it's been rewritten, and intend to create a new world with their own rules.

For better or for worse.
Click to expand...

You are right, they do own the title. But they are pissing all over the name nonetheless. This is not Fallout they have made, This is a sequel to Oblivion.
 
Bethesda´s attitude toward everything from the very beggining it´s what really bugs me. They make promises they know they won´t keep, they say they will stay true to the old fallout when they don´t understand the IP at all it seens.

I don´t trust them at all, i made this clear in several posts already, they are dodgy with information about the game, they might have lied like they did with Oblivion RAI (only time will tell), they feed the press with bullshit like ISO is dead (and then get slammed in the face with Diablo 3), all these attitudes made me sure they would screw this up, at least for those who cared about the old games.

I for one don´t mind they trying to resurrect the IP, but if someone took my favorite football team and turn them into a water polo one, just keeping the name, i would be pretty pissed off too.
 
GamerEdie,

Don't be lulled into the misconception that everyone agrees on the the "core" arguements either..

Quite a few people disagree with what others view as Fallout 1/2's "core features" were, and as such are not quite as hostile towards the direction it's development has taken. (or not hostile at all in my case, hell I got it pre-ordered.)
 
stingray420 said:
GamerEdie said:
Don't get me wrong... I never played FO1/2 (okay... let the flames begin again) but talking to other FO fans, I know now these are issues. I think I'd be kinda pissy about that happening too.
Click to expand...

And that is the problem. You have no idea about the games you comment on. Your exposure to the community was a guy sending you hate e-mail. Yet you feel able to comment on a game series and community you know nothing about. You are epitome of the modern game journalist. And you are why we Gamers more and more dislike and distrust anything you write or say.

But I also realize that Bethesda took a dead IP (developmentally, not fanbase) and decided to rewrite the book, and that's their prerogative. I guess my sense is that if it turns into a wicked-good game, does it really matter that they rewrote Star Wars with Darth Vadar not being Luke's father?
Click to expand...

That was the worst example you could have used. Yes it would matter. The whole story would then be pointless. Just because they made the move with bigger fights, or more explosions would not matter. If they ruin the story then whats the point? It's the same with fallout, bigger fights more nukes, but you ruin the core game and what do you have left? is it really Fallout anymore?

Etc...
Click to expand...

I know it was the worst example... best for you though. Threw ya a bone there.

But I'm curious, will you not buy the game or automatically put a hate-hex on it because it changes the story? I'm actually very interested in what your plans are about this game. Ignore it? Protest with your wallet? Try it anyway?

And as for the accusation that I'm not professional because I didn't play FO1/2, I had exactly the same conversation with a listener of ours via IM just today. He said I shouldn't have been on the panel because I didn't play FO1/2. So, I ask you: Should I have gotten up from the table because Todd Howard sat down? Should I have not asked him any questions because I had yet to earn the right to ask a question, despite the fact that I played the game that afternoon? Should I have not asked the question about existing fans at all and ignored something I know upsets people? Keep in mind, I had no idea he'd be there until literally MOMENTS before we started streaming.

And honestly, do you think that every gaming journalist should quit his job or every gaming podcaster should quit his podcast because he hasn't played EVERY SINGLE game EVER? Let's be honest: We can't possibly play everything. We'd like to, but it's just not physically or financially possible. We have jobs, and we pay for our own games. Does the fact that someone has never played a prequel to game mean that person shouldn't ever offer an opinion or conduct an interview about a current game that they've actually demoed? Or should they deem themselves unworthy and walk out of an interview with a developer?

This is a great example of the difficulties with doing enthusiast podcasts -- and I'm not making an accusation that there's something wrong with you. But you have to understand that, in a bell-curve world, the big part of that bell curve doesn't care as much as the skinny ends that Fallout 3 will be different or changed the story. We all like to think that we represent the majority. Sometimes we just have to realize that we're the skinny ends because we are fans.

I'm wondering what you would have had me do, other than a different pitch of my voice, to have made that interview better? Get into Fallout 3 minutiae and ignore the questions being asked in our chatroom by our listeners? I'm pretty satisfied with the questions we asked because, first, they were 90-percent asked by our listeners, and second, I have yet to have one person to offer me a question we should have asked and didn't.
 
JESUS said:
I for one don´t mind they trying to resurrect the IP, but if someone took my favorite football team and turn them into a water polo one, just keeping the name, i would be pretty pissed off too.
Click to expand...


Hey, you don't have to explain to me... I live in the San Francisco Bay Area... You know, where the San Francisco 49ers want to move to Santa Clara and keep the name SF 49ers. I understand. Believe me.
 
Xenophile said:
Quite a few people disagree with what others view as Fallout 1/2's "core features" were
Click to expand...
Since when are those subjective? Do you also disagree that the Earth revolves around Sun?
 
Looks to me that "hardcore fans" (who ever they are) are terrorists now, who don't like "fun" and are all retarded idiots.

Sounds to me more like this jurnalist is more retarded person :/

But Todd, even that you are a childish dicky duchebag, you have my respect for staying more professional than the jurnalist herself.

Unfortunately, we hear the same ol' bullcrap we heard before "It's more fun that way", "We're the fans ourselves...just like You!", "We care about the Fallout"- if you really, really cared about it as we do, you should be sitting here on NMA and not only read these forums, but also writing and discussing!

And we already know that "We're the fans ourselves..." is a lie! They showed us those interviews with their staff who work at FO3 and only like 10% of them played both games, or even less than that.

The jurnalists should be listening the both sides, not only one which can pay them money for good reviews.

Pathetic
 
And what's with the bunny hate? Seriously, you've got to like the idea of spattering an enemy with a bunny gun!
Click to expand...

And this is why you should have played the first games. Then you'd realize bunny/teddy weapons absolutely don't fit in Fallout. Hell, they hardly fit in anything. Postal maybe?
To extrapolate, how would you feel if a pogo-stick was a selectable vehicle in Need For Speed? You know, just for fun. Sure, as a cheat it would work. But selectable among the other vehicles? No, not ever.

I'm sorry, but you don't convince me. Nice of you to drop by and everything, but you don't convince me. This is not something a rational person would say.
 
GamerEdie said:
I'm wondering what you would have had me do, other than a different pitch of my voice, to have made that interview better? Get into Fallout 3 minutiae and ignore the questions being asked in our chatroom by our listeners? I'm pretty satisfied with the questions we asked because, first, they were 90-percent asked by our listeners, and second, I have yet to have one person to offer me a question we should have asked and didn't.
Click to expand...

ok, thats fine.

i would like to know your opinion of fallout 3 based on the core design theorems of FO 1/2

1) the game would emulate P&P RPGs
2) the game would harken back to RPGs in the 80s/early 90s (top down)
3) the game would have multiple ways of doing quests
4) the combat would be tactical rather than fast-paced (turn based)
5) design choices would be made to satisfy 1-4 rather than what would be the most "popular"
6) there would be consequences for every choice

so, based on your test gameplay, what is your opinion of FO 3 based on the above? and those theorems are based on statements of the original devs.

seeing as they are calling it "fallout 3" rather than a spinoff, how does it hold up to the ideals of the others? which does it satisfy? which does it not satisfy?



EDIT:

just to clarify, i am not a rabid fan of fallout 1/2, i am a rabid fan of ultima. but damnit, fallout 1/2 were great RPGs. and im more of a rabid fan on RPG more so than fallout 1/2. but i will say this, i absolutely HATE it when a company bastardizes a series/IP and beth has done that by destroying the core design of FO 1/2. my opinion of course.

and thats why im not a big fan of ultima 8/9. and that would be a whole nother thread. one in which roshambo and i have gotten into a while back when he was a regular.

EDIT2:

forgot actual choices and consequences
 
GamerEdie said:
And as for the accusation that I'm not professional because I didn't play FO1/2, I had exactly the same conversation with a listener of ours via IM just today. He said I shouldn't have been on the panel because I didn't play FO1/2. So, I ask you: Should I have gotten up from the table because Todd Howard sat down? Should I have not asked him any questions because I had yet to earn the right to ask a question, despite the fact that I played the game that afternoon? Should I have not asked the question about existing fans at all and ignored something I know upsets people? Keep in mind, I had no idea he'd be there until literally MOMENTS before we started streaming.

And honestly, do you think that every gaming journalist should quit his job or every gaming podcaster should quit his podcast because he hasn't played EVERY SINGLE game EVER? Let's be honest: We can't possibly play everything. We'd like to, but it's just not physically or financially possible. We have jobs, and we pay for our own games. Does the fact that someone has never played a prequel to game mean that person shouldn't ever offer an opinion or conduct an interview about a current game that they've actually demoed? Or should they deem themselves unworthy and walk out of an interview with a developer?
Click to expand...

I don't think that you should have gotten up from the table, but, perhaps, simply allowed the other people with you there to ask questions (assuming that they have some knowledge of the franchise).

For example, I've never played Halo II or III, so would I be capable of holding any form of coherent interview with people who are working on Halo IV? I don't think so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top