Platform nation audio interview with Todd Howard

[aronsearle]

And as for the accusation that I'm not professional because I didn't play FO1/2, == SNIP==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?

You don’t have to have played it, you should do some research however.

You present a valid excuse, they just turned up (though that seems abit fishy). But many previewers had the time to plan and do some reading up on the subject, and just don’t do it (or appear to).

Generalisations start getting made, and you start getting lumped in with such journalists.

You should know that many games have “stupid & Abusive” fans, but they also have reasonable ones, what is not acceptable is that a professional should make the same mistake as a forumite and generalise

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.

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"

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?

Again, if you had done you’re research you should have formulated these points, that fact that it is a sequel does not make it a bad game, but do you not think that fans will want an answer to this?

 

[TheWesDude]

to be honest, i dont care that you didnt PLAY 1/2, but how much RESEARCH on 1/2 did you do?

being a journalist is knowing what you are "reporting" on. if you havent either read or played 1/2, then on what basis do you speak about 3?

because its not being portrayed as a spinoff, but a sequel.

did you read any of the guides to see what went through during a play-through? did you read up on any sites detailing FO 1/2?

if you did neither play or research for this, then im highly dissapointed in you as a journalist.

speaking from an informed position is your job.

now if it was titled like a spin-off, then i would expect you to have some experience in the genre of what type of spinoff it is.

and how many RPGs and what type have you played?

 

[Slymanx]

Geesh, you guys are a little too hard on her. She honestly didn't know that Todd Howard was coming on, it was all last minute, so I can understand not preparing questions. Oh and she isn't a professional, it's all part-time. Edie works at an airport loading baggage, (I hope you don't mind me telling them.) So she doesn't exactly have the time, or money to really play every game.

I kinda wish I was in the chat room, I could have asked questions. Edie is a good journalist if she knows what she's talking about. Trust me guys, if she had time to research, she probably would have asked him questions no one in their right mind would. (Like, why doesn't Bethesda communicate with NoMutantsAllowed.)

 

[Public]

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 when we don't want to use VATS, this game's combat is going to be the same as any other FPS game on the market. Fallout wasn't FPS.
Power points? You mean "Action Points" maybe?

So basically VATS is like a "bonus" for the player- sometimes you can use it, if the combat is too hard for you.

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.

Hurray!! Even that we have so many FPS games on the market, we will have another one. And now, we have one named "Fallout 3", a sequel to the most RPG and the most less FPS like game in the gaming history. That's right, RPG evolved into FPS.
This is how Beth see "new generation"? Turning everything upside down?

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.

In Fallout 1/2 you could even change the difficult level of game and combat seperatly, and also an amount of blood in the game's settings. Wonder what Bethesda did.

Don't get me wrong... I never played FO1/2

That's okay, seriously, nobody is forcing you to play it, everyone else has different tastes.
But if you're doing an interview about a sequel to the game, which you have never actually played before...that's showing how unprofessional you are.
Frankly, you're not the only one, so you shouldn't feel alone. Most of jurnalists who were reviewing FO3 (giving this game 10/10 score straight away) have never played previous Fallout too. And all of them are blaming Fallout fans being so "harcore" about it. But the only thing what we were waiting for, is a proper Fallout sequel, and if we fans, who played this game the most (one fallout "hadcore" fan equals the whole Beth's crew), complain about Bethesda so much, it means there is something wrong with Beth, not us! You want to say that thousands of Fallout fans are all wrong, and 20-30 member Beth's crew is right?
Give me a break!

Edit: thanks for popping in. We are very appreciate and happy, when jurnalists want to discuss their opinion on our forums.

 

[aronsearle]

I kinda wish I was in the chat room, I could have asked questions. Edie is a good journalist if she knows what she's talking about. Trust me guys, if she had time to research, she probably would have asked him questions no one in their right mind would. (Like, why doesn't Bethesda communicate with NoMutantsAllowed.)

Yea, sure.

she's the only gaming journalist with any integrity left, a lone candle in the wind, and it's just a set of coincidences, blablabla.

If it really was an unfortunate set of circumstances that lead to such a conlusion, then fine, but the proof is in the pudding as they say.

 

[Sam Ecorners]

I have yet to have one person to offer me a question we should have asked and didn't.

OK, here are the questions I'd ask(keep in mind, I didn't listen to it, so let men know if any of these has been covered)
)


The general questions, not franchise related:

1) What's with animations? You've improved everything else since Oblivion, but animations still look stiff and unnatural. More so, the facial animations during dialogs are non existent.

2) Obviously you don't have infinite resources to create huge number of distinctive models. What do you do to make sure it is not as noticeable.

3) Do you feel that your style of highly restrictive PR is as effective, as, for example, Blizzard's?

4) Bethesda has a history of alienating fans(Morrowind fans, now fallout fans) How does that make you feel personally?

Franchise related questions:

1) Why go through all of the trouble of tying in old factions, instead of creating new ones on the east cost?

2) Some of the best known weapons got a complete redesign. Why? Has there been an effort to incorporate classic design into 3D? What happened?

I'll keep on adding more, as I come up with them

 

[Public]

I think one day we should make like a big, hardcore review about FO3, with lots of quastions to Beth, hopefully with their answers under them. A proper rieview by fans, saying how FO3 stayed with the originals, and how it didn't. And which new parts were possitive and which were negative.

And send it to every game jurnalist and Bethesda all together!!!

 

[Brother None]

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?

I don't think this has a general answer, but consider this: people are here because they either love Fallout's setting, Fallout's gameplay concept or both.

People who love both have a simple consideration to make, does the good outweigh the bad? A lot of them answer this with yes, a lot of them answer it with no.

People who love the gameplay way more than the setting, who see Fallout primarily for what it was: an attempt to bring GURPS to the computer with the setting almost literally as an afterthought: they'll probably say no.

People who love the setting more than gameplay might dislike the changes too much, but I think they'll generally embrace this game.

Me, I like both, but for me you're asking the wrong question: Fallout 3 is an FPSRPG, a genre I generally don't like because they rarely manage to fully exploit either one of their genre halves and instead end up being watered down (Deus Ex is the exception, obviously, and the System Shocks). So the question for me is: am I going to buy this game just because Bethesda paid 6 million to be able to slap the name Fallout on it?

Answer: no. I love what Fallout 1 and 2 are, the name "Fallout" alone means nothing to me. I never bought or played Tactics or BoS, and have no intention of changing that approach here.

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.

A Niner huh? You must've had it tough lately

I like the Niners, I'm hoping for you J.T. O'Sullivan works out. I wouldn't be surprised if he did, like Kurt Warner he was great in the European NFL.

Also, as I once wrote in the Glittering Gems article, when it comes to feelings of entitlement I think we're comparable to the Raiders (as opposed to say the Packers, who actually own their franchise). We don't own dick, but on the other hand would the franchise have been worth this much so many years later without its fanatical, long-lasting fanbase?

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.

I'd ignore it, it's a ridiculous argument. I work for GameBanshee without having played every one of the featured titles the site contains, and cover MMO news without being an MMO gamer. Does that make me unprofessional? Heck no, you can't demand of journalists (especially freelance ones like myself) to have played everything they have to cover.

Just realise your own limits if you did not play the originals, be wary of how you approach the questions and fans. Something I like doing myself if I'm not too familiar with the title I'm covering is sniff out a fan who sounds reasonable (not one of the rabid ones) and spend some time talking to him, to understand the common fan angle.

Should I have not asked the question about existing fans at all and ignored something I know upsets people?

The question was fine, plenty of game journalists talk to Bethesda about the rabid fans.

But there is something that shocks me out of my boots every time. Before working as a game journalists I spent some time as a coffee boy (not literally, but any journalist will know what position I mean by that) in the editorial office of a "real" paper. One of the things that we considered to be absolutely important, amongst the most basic standards of journalism, is audi alteram partem

This is such a basic concept I'm still shocked at how little it gets applied. In the years since Fallout 3's announcement, only the Escapist and Games For Windows ever approached us to hear out our opinion. It's mind-boggling how a simple fansite manages to implement this basic professional requirement better than most gaming journos. But basically, things like your podcast or people like GameSpy's staff condemn the Fallout fans without giving them "a fair hearing". An absolute journalist nono.

We all like to think that we represent the majority.

No, we don't, and we don't really care. Fallout 1/2 was made for us, the fact that Fallout 3 is made for a much wider lowest common denominator won't impress us much.

I'm wondering what you would have had me do, other than a different pitch of my voice, to have made that interview better?

Considering the circumstances, probably very little. But as I said, with more preparation work I think it'd have been good to include some of the most common untended questions: why are the animations in Fallout 3 laughably bad? What is with the lazy use of repeated damage models? What is the point of the mix of wide draw distance and lo-poly models? Why is Fallout 3 set 200 years after the war if Bethesda wanted to keep up all the ruins and wooden shacks? Why are all the factions from Fallout 2 back when it's set on a different coast? Is Megaton really the best example of dark irony and choice and consequence Bethesda has to offer? Why did Bethesda chose to buy Fallout if they have no interest in the game's core pen and paper emulating philosophy? VATS won't appease people of turn-based heritage, so why implement it, won't it annoy FPS fans? Also, why call it VATS and not just RTwP since that's what it is?

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!

The Primacy of Fun argument has always been a hard sell, and I wonder if Todd Howard realises how inadequate an argument it is for us.

Not that video games aren't about fun, yes they are, but fun shouldn't mean sacrificing every significant gameplay element to make the game as easy to play as possible, which is Bethesda's approach. That's the Primacy of Fun, the concept that video game developers should stare blindly at this goal of fun for the lowest common denominator to the exclusion of everything else.

The really special RPGs, like Realms of Arkania, Darklands, Fallout, Planescape: Torment or the Troika games, are so special exactly because they did not utilize the Primacy of Fun argument, but had an overarching goal that superseded such considerations. Obviously that will sometimes be to the game's detriment, like PS:T's wonky gameplay being a result of it, but it'll also produce unique games that Primacy of Fun never can, whether it be Fallout's approach to pen and paper emulation or Planescape: Torments Kicking Down the Cliches design philosophy.

I really wonder if Todd gets that, sometimes. But I suspect he does get it, he just doesn't care.

Geesh, you guys are a little too hard on her. She honestly didn't know that Todd Howard was coming on, it was all last minute, so I can understand not preparing questions. Oh and she isn't a professional, it's all part-time.

The preparation time is a valid excuse, but I wouldn't bring up being part-time. Part-time just means you have less games to cover, and that in turns means you shouldn't do anything on games that you never had time to prepare properly. I'm freelance for GameBanshee, and if I feel I can't do a review or interview because I don't have time to prepare properly I just don't do it, I certainly don't do a hack job of it.

Just saying. The preparation time point is valid, but being freelance just isn't significant to the topic.

 

[squinty]

Look on the bright side

I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't matter who developed Fallout 3 or what direction they took with the series, most hardcore fans would just rip it to pieces anyway. There never will be a Fallout game like the old ones. They were unique. Maybe a little optimism is in order. Maybe we should be grateful that the franchise is still going. We may not like various aspects of Fallout 3 (decided once we have played the full game of course and not before, because that would just be foolish) but then we have the opportunity to voice our concerns and indirectly craft a better Fallout 4. We could after all just be sat here, moaning that there isn't ever going to be a Fallout 3 and recounting the same old 'my favorite bit in Fallout 2 had to be when...' stories. Surely everyone is bored of that by now?

 

[Brother None]

Re: Look on the bright side

Oh wow, such original arguments, squinty :sarcasm:

I'm a patient guy, but even I sometimes get a bit tired of people who don't bother to lurk before posting. You don't think maybe your points have already been considered and discarded, squinty?

I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't matter who developed Fallout 3 or what direction they took with the series, most hardcore fans would just rip it to pieces anyway.

Not really. Van Buren got it about right in new direction without deviating too much.

We may not like various aspects of Fallout 3 (decided once we have played the full game of course and not before, because that would just be foolish) but then we have the opportunity to voice our concerns and indirectly craft a better Fallout 4.

They completely ignored us for Fallout 3 and you seriously think they'll listen to us for 4?

Fallout 4 will be even worse than Fallout 3, just like Oblivion was worse than Morrowind.

 

[Ausir]

Not really. Van Buren got it about right in new direction without deviating too much.

Well, we kinda did rip it to pieces back then, though.

 

[squinty]

Without wanting to sound like some pervert, I've actually been 'lurking' for some time. The air of pessimism towards a franchise that we all supposedly hold in the highest esteem is just getting dull now. Brother None has already condemned Fallout 4 to a worse fate than 3. Tell me, where did you buy this crystal ball? Maybe you don't want the new games to be any good. That way everything is as it was and as it should be right? That too was sarcasm friend. So easy to use

Most games are modded nowadays. NMA often posts updates on mods for the original Fallout that tweak and change things here and there in the game mechanics. The first two games were far from perfect. Im sure it will be no different with FO3. The community will make 'their sequel'. It may not be the straight out of the box instant gratification we all want (a very unrealistic wish for any game) but the possibility is there for something to be made that may even put a smile on the most hardcore of fan's face. . . . . .

 

[Brother None]

Brother None has already condemned Fallout 4 to a worse fate than 3. Tell me, where did you buy this crystal ball?

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

I was all for giving Bethesda their chance when they just bought the license. Anyone who still has any thoughts of them ever doing a Fallout sequel that would fit with the design philosophy of the originals is ignoring not just their actions but also their words, their clear intention to abandon what the originals were about.

What exactly in Bethesda's attitude towards the franchise or towards us makes you think Fallout 4 will be better? Did you not see the steps taken from Arena/Daggerfall to Morrowind and from Morrowind to Oblivion?

The community will make 'their sequel'.

For someone who has lurked for a long time, you sure are apt to repeat points that have been clubbed to death.

1. Bethesda isn't even releasing a mod kit on release day

2. Modding is no excuse for professional incompetence.

Well, we kinda did rip it to pieces back then, though.

You mean the Codex and DaC wafted their negativity over it while 4too, DarkUnderlord and Rosh kept stabbing at it.

The most part of NMA was positive about it, if critical about some bits. It was DU who stood out in his verbal fights with JE.

 

[whirlingdervish]

Re: Look on the bright side

We may not like various aspects of Fallout 3 (decided once we have played the full game of course and not before, because that would just be foolish) but then we have the opportunity to voice our concerns and indirectly craft a better Fallout 4.

Every time I hear this, I think that maybe the person who said it really does have to step in dog shit to know that it stinks.

We've voiced our concerns from the start and had them ignored outright (and mocked by half of the journalists and developers who've touched this game), and no amount of suffering through playing the game is going to change that we can see it for what it is, right this very second, and it doesn't make par.

There are now gameplay videos, screenshots and so many detailed accounts of gameplay from various sources that we are perfectly capable of deciding if this game is worth playing or not.

I don't know where you were lurking but we've been covering our concerns about Fallout 3, it's gameplay, it's setting, it's direction and even it's major differences and similarities with past games in the franchise, for over a year, and very few if any of those concerns were taken seriously in the production of Fallout 3.

We would be even more naive than a person who isn't sure if dog shit stinks, if we sat back and assumed that next time it will be different, and maybe they'll listen to what we (the people who actually know something about Fallout) have to say when they (many of whom admittedly haven't even played fallout) make a sequel to it, and call it 100% faithful to the original.

 

[squinty]

1. They may release one. Depends on your optimism........oh right.

2. No game is perfect. This one certainly won't be. It has too many critics with too many different ideas to be such. Terrible to think that maybe the community may have to put some effort into changing some things to make it the game they want......I don't think so. It happens with most moddable major releases. Thats the part some people love. Some might say, they are the true fans as they can actually be bothered to get involved and move the game forward.

For the record, I think that parts of the game do seem quite shoddy but I'm not going to let them detract from the good bits.

Oh and how do all the people who are not going to play the game on principle ever going to knowif it was any good? Take someone elses word for it? [/quote]

 

[Ausir]

1. They may release one. Depends on your optimism........oh right.

They have clearly stated that they have no current plans to do so, I see no reason not to believe them here.

 

[TheWesDude]

Re: Look on the bright side

There never will be a Fallout game like the old ones. They were unique.

the whole point was they were NOT uniqe. there were some things from different games combined into one, but they were not uniqe. they were a blend from other games. the ole "homage to 80s/90s RPGs" and thats why a lot of stylistic choices were made.

Maybe a little optimism is in order. Maybe we should be grateful that the franchise is still going. We may not like various aspects of Fallout 3 (decided once we have played the full game of course and not before, because that would just be foolish) but then we have the opportunity to voice our concerns and indirectly craft a better Fallout 4.

1) optimisim is great where there is hope. there will be nope:
2) beth has stated numerous times they are making the game for themselves and what they do best
3) they learn some things from previous games, but not enough. and the mindless masses still buy their worthless drivel.

im probably going to end up buying it, simply because it is a fallout game, but i wont be paying $50 for it.

 

[Brother None]

No game is perfect. This one certainly won't be. It has too many critics with too many different ideas to be such. Terrible to think that maybe the community may have to put some effort into changing some things to make it the game they want......I don't think so. It happens with most moddable major releases. Thats the part some people love. Some might say, they are the true fans as they can actually be bothered to get involved and move the game forward.

Way to miss my point. No game is perfect on release, and there's nothing wrong with letting modders at it. Though there is definitely something wrong here.

It's just that you're using it as if it excuses bad design in Fallout 3. It doesn't.

For the record, I think that parts of the game do seem quite shoddy but I'm not going to let them detract from the good bits.

How are you going to do that? They're there, regardless of you.

Oh and how do all the people who are not going to play the game on principle ever going to knowif it was any good?

Why would we care? There are thousands of games out there that might or might not be good, I'm not going to play them all to find out.

 

[quasimodo]

Oh and how do all the people who are not going to play the game on principle ever going to knowif it was any good? Take someone elses word for it?

[/quote]


Actually......Yes! You just have to know who to trust.

If someone who actually understands what I want from an RPG such as VD or BN reviews the game, and the review is discussed here and on the Codex I will know all I need to know.

This worked for Oblivion, NWN2, MOTB and The Witcher and it will work for FO3.

 

[Ad Astra]

Re: Look on the bright side

Oh wow, such original arguments, squinty :sarcasm:

If you ever spend some time in a forum dedicated to discussions about science, you'll notice a particular pattern when it comes to certain types of posters. Creationist A will barge in, declare evolution to be a giant fraud and promptly have all of his arguments shot down by people with actual knowledge of biology. Then, Creationist B will come along with the same arguments and perform the same song and dance, followed by Creationist C, D, E, and so on. The same behavior can be seen in moon hoaxers, Relativity deniers, and, well, Fallout 3 devotees.