Play.tm interviews Pete Hines

Brother None

This ghoul has seen it all
Orderite
Play.tm has a pretty good interview with Pete Hines.<blockquote>Reading feedback on our last Fallout 3 preview, fans seem concerned that the story will take a hit with this new RPG. What would you say to convince them that this isn't the case?

I don't know if anything I'm going to say is going to convince them of that. The story and characters and dialog and quests of the original Fallout games are a big part of what made them so memorable. We're fully aware of that and have spent years working on that aspect of the game to make it as good as possible. I imagine that if you need convincing then you probably won't be until the game comes out and enough people tell you that the story is really good, or you try it for yourself and decide.
(...)
What have you learned from Oblivion and how important a release was this, in relation to Fallout 3?


Every game we make always helps us learn how to make these types of games better. There are lots of things we're doing differently in terms of quests and gameplay balance based on our experiences with Oblivion, but also realize that Fallout 3 is a different game in terms of scope. There are fewer people living in this post-nuclear world, and so that change alone makes it a lot easier to give everything more depth and meaning that when you make a game like Oblivion that has so many more characters living in this one place, and all these big, thriving cities to account for.

Another one based on community feedback. Why a first-person perspective? Is this game going to be a first-person action title, first and foremost?

We simply felt that first-person was the best way to totally immerse the player in the world of Fallout. Not looking down on it from above, but getting you right in there where everything is big and real and in your face.

Fallout 3 is true to the Fallout series; it's an RPG. That doesn't mean that we don't spend a lot of time on the combat and making it as fun and as good as possible. Most people spend a lot of time in RPGs exploring around and killing things. We want to make that as much fun as it can be. But just because that's important to us doesn't mean that's all there is to the game.</blockquote>Link: Peter Hines chats about Fallout 3 on Play.tm.

Spotted on Blue's News.
 
Brother None said:
<blockquote>Reading feedback on our last Fallout 3 preview, fans seem concerned that the story will take a hit with this new RPG. What would you say to convince them that this isn't the case?</blockquote>
What kind of cocksucking question is that?! Holy... I don't need to read the rest...
 
The phrasing is unfortunate.

It's easy to get bogged down on phrasing. But people sometimes take form over content, which isn't good in interviews. How you ask something can well be secondary to the fact that you ask it. Play.tm might very well be the first to state/relay any doubts about the story.
 
Pete Hines said:
a game like Oblivion that has so many more characters living in this one place, and all these big, thriving cities to account for.

Which explains why all cities in Oblivion, and especially the Imperial City felt so deserted and lifeless.
 
Fallout 3 is true to the Fallout series; it's an RPG. That doesn't mean that we don't spend a lot of time on the combat and making it as fun and as good as possible. Most people spend a lot of time in RPGs exploring around and killing things.

Why do all interviews with Pete Hines or Todd Howard always fill me up with bile and disgust?

As for Fallout 3 being true to the Fallout series, I myself would definitely like to differ, there have been many differences between this and the other Fallouts and I am not meaning just the perspective, the changes in gameplay (dammit, REAL TIME WITH PAUSE IS NOT TURN BASED!), changes to organizations etc.
Just don't go there okay? You simply got it wrong.

As for the killing of things, well perhaps because that pretty much the most you give us to do, a clever developer would come up with other approaches or things to do to make a RPG feel like a roleplaying game and less like a generic slaying game.

You know, for example doing stuff involving diplomacy, in the original idea of Van Buren you could even rebuild a part of a freaking city, turning it into a slum or a real nice place to live.

The story and characters and dialog and quests of the original Fallout games are a big part of what made them so memorable.

So that is why Emil is ripping it off.
 
Morbus said:
Brother None said:
<blockquote>Reading feedback on our last Fallout 3 preview, fans seem concerned that the story will take a hit with this new RPG. What would you say to convince them that this isn't the case?</blockquote>
What kind of cocksucking question is that?! Holy... I don't need to read the rest...

What's wrong with the question, exactly?
 
What would you say to convince them that this isn't the case?
Say what you will about the phrasing--the question is out there, a fastball over the plate. And Hines dodges it! That's the issue I take with this interview. It's your typical argument from authority (a popular GW Bush defense): refuse to answer the question because the answer is irrelevant to the audience.


I don't know if anything I'm going to say is going to convince them of that ... I imagine that if you need convincing then you probably won't be [convinced] until the game comes out.

Wrong! Give me an example, some evidence, anything I can wrap my mind around and I'll give it consideration. This is really crafty. He's dodging the question BUT blaming the audience (for not being willing to listen). Usually when someone does this, that person doesn't have an answer. Points to Hines for being rhetorically competent, penalty for blaming me, penalty for not answering the question.

I really wish he had answered the question. I really do.

EDIT: RE: Bodybag - I think it was that the question was a soft pitch.
 
Bodybag said:
What's wrong with the question, exactly?

What?

Journalist to George Bush: There are some that say the Iraq war was a mistake. Explain to me how they are wrong.

Yah, good journalism. The journalist is not asking him to defend the point, the journalist is already convinced, the journalist is asking the interviewee to explain how the malcontents are wrong.
 
Brother None said:
Play.tm might very well be the first to state/relay any doubts about the story.

And that, combined with how they actually expressed the doubts, is sad as fuck. :/
 
Brother None said:
Bodybag said:
What's wrong with the question, exactly?

What?

Journalist to George Bush: There are some that say the Iraq war was a mistake. Explain to me how they are wrong.

Yah, good journalism. The journalist is not asking him to defend the point, the journalist is already convinced, the journalist is asking the interviewee to explain how the malcontents are wrong.

The journalist is not rendering a judgement at all, he's simply maintaining neutrality, politely. It's generally considered professional conduct among people without an axe to grind, though the further people lean on either side of the issue the more bias they tend to see in more centrist engagements of it.

And your analogy (JESUS is this incongruent)... is this based on an actual invterview quote? Name the reporter and I'll tell you if it was felatio, but it's not uncommon for American mediaheads to ask lawmakers to make their case in that specific manner. These types of similarly framed questions are asked of Hillary and Obama all the time, regardless of the outlets responsible(and their insidious, implied agendas). And it's worth noting that this is sonewhat of a trap question, that the slicker politicians sidestep by answering "I don't think they're wrong, just that they're misinformed." Then they lay out their case.


---


I think your (and Morbus') glass is half-empty here. The guy did mention that fan response to their last preview brought up concerns about the story, which the preveiwer then relayed to Pete. They did their readers a service there, not Bethesda, especially when you consider Petes answer wasn't exactly a knock out of the park.

I really can't see the harm in that quote :|
 
Bodybag said:
The journalist is not rendering a judgement at all, he's simply maintaining neutrality, politely. It's generally considered professional conduct among people without an axe to grind, though the further people lean on either side of the issue the more bias they tend to see in more centrist engagements of it.

Possibly, but then the phrasing is still unfortunate. If his position is one of neutrality, the best way to state this is by saying "how would you reply to this", not "what would you say to convince them this isn't the case", because the latter is a conditional phrase that assumes that indeed...this isn't the case.

Bodybag said:
I think your (and Morbus') glass is half-empty here.

What? I told Morbus he's wrong in reacting like he did, I called this interview "pretty good" and noted I consider the content of this question more important than the phrasing.

Jeesh, BB, got an axe to grind much? Wash your eyes out.
 
Brother None said:
Bodybag said:
I think your (and Morbus') glass is half-empty here.

What? I told Morbus he's wrong in reacting like he did, I called this interview "pretty good" and noted I consider the content of this question more important than the phrasing.

Jeesh, BB, got an axe to grind much? Wash your eyes out.

But you answered my question (to him) about that specific quote, which you were (apparently) conflating with a much more leading question asked of GWB, which suggested to me that's what you found wrong with it. That it was somehow an overly sympathetic leading question. And if that's the case, yeah, glass=½E.

Believe it or not, it's about the subject at hand, not the subjects involved. Protip* when I'm grinding axes, I usually reference past events, discussions, and quotes as supporting data.
 
Bodybag said:
But you answered my question (to him) about that specific quote.

Yes, because it's pretty easy to figure what his problem with it is. And there's some validity to it, as I said, the phrasing is unfortunate, and could have been better. But as I also said, the content is good even if the phrasing is unfortunate, it was a good interview.

Notice how I'm just repeating myself here?
 
Bodybag said:
That it was somehow an overly sympathetic leading question.

Well, it is, isn't it? I mean, it may not be really wrong, and Morbus is definitely over-reacting, but still, this could, and should, have been better worded.

Whatever the case, however, this one question doesn't really warrant so much attention. It's just semantics, for Satan's sake.
 
What can I say? Besides that I disagree that the question was phrased unfortunately, I mean. I think it was totally innocuous, and nothing like the GWB analogue. The cocksucking part was just a bonus.

Whatever the case, however, this one question doesn't really warrant so much attention. It's just semantics, for Satan's sake.

Well, if I had an axe to grind I'd point out that this fits into a larger pattern of blah blah blah... :wink:

but yeah, Pete sounds pretty confident in that interview, with the "Fallout 3 is true to the Fallout series; it's an RPG." comment. I guess we'll see.
 
Bodybag said:
Pete sounds pretty confident in that interview, with the "Fallout 3 is true to the Fallout series; it's an RPG."

Which is pretty silly. I mean, "RPG" is a pretty wide genre. Fallout is an RPG, sure, but so is Baldur's Gate, so is Neverwinter Nights, so is Mass Effect...hell, so is friggin' Fable. But just because Fable is an RPG doesn't mean that mechanic-wise it'd be true to the Fallout series. Fallout 3 could be all the RPG it wants to be and yet not be true to the Fallout series, for Fallout is a very specific type of RPG.

(Codex-anal retentiveness regarding the term "RPG" nonwithstanding)
 
Yeah, but who do you think he's targeting with that comment? Not Fable players.

I know we seem to read things differently, but I read this as he's confident enough with the story, character management, C&C, ect* of Fallout 3 to say it's true to the series, and he's saying this to Fallout fans. He's also anticipating a significant number of those fans to adopt a "wait and see" approach, which he seems comfortable with.

It doesn't sound like the typical PR bluff, it sounds more like what KG was saying in the EuroGamer preview - that they felt like they had something to prove. To me, at least. Like I said, We'll see.

*we all know Bethesda doesn't share the strict constructionist view of Fallout=PnP emulation, and I have no desire to argue about that. PLAYED OUT, YO.
 
Back
Top