Ron Burke answers Fallout 3 questions

[Black]

Isn't "mod it out" just another way for saying "if you don't like it make your own game"?
Of course depends on how much things you'll have to mod in/out but looking at FO3... meh.

 

[quasimodo]

Yep that my opinion. It is good that Dragon Age and Jagged Alliance 3 are going to town

JA3 was pretty hideous looking at E3. Jagged is right. Looks like you'll get your isometric turn based title though. I wonder if JA3 will clear 100k copies....[/quote]


Thanks for your efforts in answering questions here and on Beths forums.

Despite the awesome grafix, immershun and next gen goodness of FO3 I am actually looking forward to JA3 far more than FO3, because it will be TB/3rd person game. I know the game is probably being developed on a shoestring budget, but I feel it stands a much better chance of having what I want out of a sequel.

I can certainly see both of these games failing to live up to my expectations.

With JA3 I feel they are trying to make the game I want.

With FO3 I feel I am trying to want the game they are making.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Yes, that and some other things.

My case is closed.
If we're gonna say that if something retarded maybe won't be in doesn't sounds bad, the future is bright for Fallout 3.

Not everyone wants to wander aimlessly.

Ever heard about exploration? Ever heard of actually playing for yourself instead of the game playing for you?
If the game tells you where to go each time, why wouldn't it solve the quests for you too? If you have say a quest "bring x to y" and y is always pointed on the map to you, then what is the point of the quest?

you don't want it? Mod it out.

That solves everything, doesn't it? What about an option to turn it off? What about not adding it at all? Yeah, hard to do when their target audience wants interactive movies where they have to press Enter a couple of times to make the story go on.

JA3 was pretty hideous looking at E3. Jagged is right. Looks like you'll get your isometric turn based title though. I wonder if JA3 will clear 100k copies...

Looking hideous=bad game?
Not selling a lot=bad game?
If that's what you think, congratulations, you are a true gaming journalist.


Also, you still have to answer to some questions in the other topic, but you don't seem to want to. Are they too stingy maybe?

 

[Kyuu]

They said minor scaling. We won't know what that really means until later.

I'm fairly certain I read somewhere that they do plan on implementing level scaling to a certain degree, which doesn't really make sense at all since they're planning on capping the player's level at 20. With a traditional experience point system and a level cap, it's just unnecessary. In my mind, it just speaks to Bethesda's unfortunate philosophy of using "dynamic" content to replace good game design, which didn't end up working out too well in Oblivion.

BG 1/2 was pretty much on rails, so I don't know quite what your point was there. F1 and 2 could allow you to roam where you wanted to, yes, as will F3. So many games get dogged for NOT having a compass - you don't want it? Mod it out.

Baldur's Gate 1/2 were on rails? You must've played a different version of those games than I did. They weren't 100% free-form, but they certainly weren't on rails.

I, personally, don't know of any games that were dogged for not having a compass. Were they RPGs? In any case, an actual compass is not a problem (as in, a compass that points north and helps people orient themselves and find their way). The problem is Bethesda's implementation of the compass, where a convenient little arrow holds your hand so that the poor little kiddies won't start crying about having to actually, you know, find their own damn way. It's another design philosophy that seems to be trying to attract people who don't like RPGs by making their RPG a little less RPG and little more FPS. "Just mod it out" isn't really a viable argument either. You can't judge a game by thinking "well if someone comes out with a mod that does this, and another that does this, and another that toally changes this and this... woohoo! Now we have a good game!" Plus, the ability to mod a feature out doesn't invalidate the point that the feature sucks to begin with. Plus I thought it was still up in the air whether or not there'll even be the ability to mod FO3?

No, its not 100% turn based, but they've integrated a turn based system into the world. You, who haven't seen it, don't like it. I'm not changing your mind.

Bzzt, wrong on this one. VATS is not a turn-based system in any way, shape, or form. It's real-time with pause, combined with what seems to me to be a feeble attempt to integrate the AP and body-part targeting systems from FO 1/2. No, we haven't seen it for ourselves, but that's what gaming journalists like you are supposed to be here for right? We've read plenty of your guys' impressions on it, including yours, and are making judgments based on those impressions, which is perfectly valid. Could the whole system play differently in the final version? Sure. Does it really matter? No. We have to base our opinions on what we have access to right now, and it's pretty absurd to insist that we have to withhold absolutely all judgements until closer to the launch or until after the actual launch itself... when I'm sure some people will still say we're not allowed to make judgements. They've shown a demo, they've released details on some features. If they didn't want people making judgments about the game based on those, why did they show the demo and release the information?

JA3 was pretty hideous looking at E3. Jagged is right. Looks like you'll get your isometric turn based title though. I wonder if JA3 will clear 100k copies....

So you're judging a game that isn't out yet based on how it looked at E3? Isn't that premature, Mr. Burke? Also, good to see that your concerns lie more with how many copies you guesstimate a game will sell rather than the quality of the game itself.

Oh, and thanks for taking the time to post here. Hope some people's (I'm including me here) harshness on this topic doesn't scare you off. I was actually very excited about this game when I first heard it was announced, up through the Game Informer article. I'd be very happy for Bethesda to release an awesome Fallout sequel, but too many things revealed about the game so far just seem to point to Bethesda doing a very poor job of capturing anything that made the originals great. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

 

[lisac2k]

OK, here's one simple question from me (just don't get insulted):

...So many games get dogged for NOT having a compass - you don't want it? Mod it out.

So, you know for certain there will be a possibility for something like that? If yes, then - what's more important - what technical parts of the game will be possible to mod?

 

[Ausir]

No, its not 100% turn based, but they've integrated a turn based system into the world. You, who haven't seen it, don't like it. I'm not changing your mind.

It's not turn based, it's real time with pause.

 

[Briosafreak]

Yep, what Ausir said. Regarding level scaling here's Desslock explanation of how it is going to be:

Fortunately, Fallout 3 will not use Oblivion's level-scaling, but contrary to what you may have read elsewhere, scaling isn't completely discarded. The first important change is that creatures never scale up in abilities to match your level, so each Deathclaw in F3 will always have the same attributes, regardless of your character's level when you have the misfortune of encountering it. Second, each territory in the game is now assigned an encounter level that determines the level and equipment of critters when you discover that area, so a first-level character that wanders into an area designated as "encounter level 5" will be badly outmatched by the inhabitants. Loot is also generally scaled to the area's encounter level, but some item items will be hand-placed, which is similar to how Morrowind handled loot.
An area's level doesn't remain static, but it gets locked as soon as you enter it. If you enter a city block designated as a level 5 area, it will remain a level 5 area and never scale up in difficulty. Areas you haven't yet encountered do "tether up" in difficulty level, but the tethering level doesn't linearly scale with your level, so there's still an advantage to gaining experience levels. The city block that's initially designated as a level 5 area will tether up and be designated as a level8 area if you don't wander into it until you're a level 15 character. But since an area's level is locked once you enter it, you'll still get the satisfaction of returning to a previously difficult area and annihilating its residents once you have a more powerful character.
Bethesda's still tweaking these systems, but they should make exploration more interesting and not diminish the regard for advancement by making you feel like you can never really get ahead. I'd still prefer a static world like Gothic's, where encounters are always consistent regardless of your character level, but this toned-down scaling system sounds like a huge improvement over Oblivions.

 

[Vault 69er]

OK, here's one simple question from me (just don't get insulted):

...So many games get dogged for NOT having a compass - you don't want it? Mod it out.

So, you know for certain there will be a possibility for something like that? If yes, then - what's more important - what technical parts of the game will be possible to mod?

Even if it were possible technically, it doesn't change the fact that quest compasses are used by lazy developers to replace verbose quest dialogue.
In Oblivion, you have little actual dialogue and little journal info. You're simply told to follow the arrow. So modding it out is a poor solution.

 

[Sander]

No, its not 100% turn based, but they've integrated a turn based system into the world. You, who haven't seen it, don't like it. I'm not changing your mind.

Calling VATS turn-based is ridiculous.

BG 1/2 was pretty much on rails, so I don't know quite what your point was there. F1 and 2 could allow you to roam where you wanted to, yes, as will F3. So many games get dogged for NOT having a compass - you don't want it? Mod it out.

I'm sorry, did you just say 'Buy the game and just change what you don't like'?
I don't play or buy games to be able to fix the mistakes of developers.

 

[lisac2k]

<snipsy>

Thanks for that, I believe you expanded the modding issue with your answer.

However, I'd really love to hear Ron answering that question.

 

[GamingTrend]

I know the game is probably being developed on a shoestring budget, but I feel it stands a much better chance of having what I want out of a sequel.

I can certainly see both of these games failing to live up to my expectations.

With JA3 I feel they are trying to make the game I want.

With FO3 I feel I am trying to want the game they are making.

[/quote]

Don't get me wrong, I prefer gameplay over graphics any day - it is exactly why it is rated double in all of our reviews at Gaming Trend. I'm not sure what your expectations are, but on the surface they seem to be *only* for something that looks exactly like Van Buren. In that regard, prepared to be dissapointed.

 

[Bezimek]

ãåíïëàí ãîðîäà àðõàíãåëüñêà

Ñòðàííî êàêòî ïûòàòåñü ïîíÿòü ðàçíèöó âûêëàäûâàÿ ýòè ïðàêòè÷åñêèå ïîñîáèÿ Îòíþäü,ïî÷èòàéòå ìîè ëèòåðàòóðíûå èçûñêàíèÿ: ß ëåòàþ â ñûðîì íî÷íîì âîçäóõå, ÿ ÷óâñòâóþ åãî ñâåæåñòü, åãî íî÷íîé àðîìà
Ëó÷øèå ðåöåïòû ëèêåðîâ Âèíîãðàäíûé Íà ëèòð âîäêè äîáàâëÿåì ëèòð âèíîãðàäíîãî ñîêà, êèëîãðàìì ñàõàðà, ñòîëîâóþ ëîæêó ÷àÿ, 5 ëàâðîâûõ ëèñòüåâ, ïÿòü çåðåí ÷åðíîãî ïåðöà, ïîëîâèíó ÷àéíîé ëîæêè âàíèëèí

 

[GamingTrend]

Ever heard about exploration? Ever heard of actually playing for yourself instead of the game playing for you?
If the game tells you where to go each time, why wouldn't it solve the quests for you too? If you have say a quest "bring x to y" and y is always pointed on the map to you, then what is the point of the quest?

It's one thing to explore, it's another to be so frustrated with not being able to find whatever FedEx item you are supposed to collect that you quit the game. The fact remains that the vast majority of people don't finish the games they buy. If a compass gets people moving enough to actually finish the game, I'm ok with that.

That solves everything, doesn't it? What about an option to turn it off? What about not adding it at all? Yeah, hard to do when their target audience wants interactive movies where they have to press Enter a couple of times to make the story go on.

I'd rather have the option than not. You have a pretty narrow vision of what you want and a pretty low regard for Bethesda and their gaming conventions. I'm not sure if anything I can say would change that, so I'll just 'not add it all' and stop trying.

Looking hideous=bad game?
Not selling a lot=bad game?
If that's what you think, congratulations, you are a true gaming journalist.

You can try to stick me with that spear, but it won't stick. Looking hideous can have two meanings grasshopper - the visuals can be bad, or it can have major design issues and still be said to 'look bad'. See the above for how we rate gameplay at GT and tell me again which I weigh heavier.

Also, you still have to answer to some questions in the other topic, but you don't seem to want to. Are they too stingy maybe?

I've probably spent 3 to 4 hours on these two boards over the last two days. Sorry if that isn't enough for you sire. If they have questions that they'd like to ask, they can put them in the "Any questions?" thread. I think two places is plenty.

 

[Big T]

Ever heard about exploration? Ever heard of actually playing for yourself instead of the game playing for you?
If the game tells you where to go each time, why wouldn't it solve the quests for you too? If you have say a quest "bring x to y" and y is always pointed on the map to you, then what is the point of the quest?

It's one thing to explore, it's another to be so frustrated with not being able to find whatever FedEx item you are supposed to collect that you quit the game. The fact remains that the vast majority of people don't finish the games they buy. If a compass gets people moving enough to actually finish the game, I'm ok with that.

Just so I'm clear, you would rather have a game which everyone could finish than one with real dialogue and quests?
I appreciate that I may be inferring too much from this sentence, but, along with the rest of the tread, it's the only conclusion I can draw from it.

 

[GamingTrend]

I'm fairly certain I read somewhere that they do plan on implementing level scaling to a certain degree, which doesn't really make sense at all since they're planning on capping the player's level at 20. With a traditional experience point system and a level cap, it's just unnecessary. In my mind, it just speaks to Bethesda's unfortunate philosophy of using "dynamic" content to replace good game design, which didn't end up working out too well in Oblivion.

They like dynamic instead of static. I doubt any level of debate is going to change that core philosophy.

Baldur's Gate 1/2 were on rails? You must've played a different version of those games than I did. They weren't 100% free-form, but they certainly weren't on rails.

I, personally, don't know of any games that were dogged for not having a compass. Were they RPGs? In any case, an actual compass is not a problem (as in, a compass that points north and helps people orient themselves and find their way). The problem is Bethesda's implementation of the compass, where a convenient little arrow holds your hand so that the poor little kiddies won't start crying about having to actually, you know, find their own damn way. It's another design philosophy that seems to be trying to attract people who don't like RPGs by making their RPG a little less RPG and little more FPS. "Just mod it out" isn't really a viable argument either. You can't judge a game by thinking "well if someone comes out with a mod that does this, and another that does this, and another that toally changes this and this... woohoo! Now we have a good game!" Plus, the ability to mod a feature out doesn't invalidate the point that the feature sucks to begin with. Plus I thought it was still up in the air whether or not there'll even be the ability to mod FO3?

Again, with the vast majority of people not even finishing the games they buy (would you like it if you built 100 hours of gameplay and 95% of people never saw past 30 of it?) I can see their reasoning for putting in a compass. As for the 'mod it out' option - just because a game doesn't ship with the tools for anyone to do it doesn't mean it won't get modded. Look at KOTOR2 - fans are fixing what Obsidian left broken with no tools whatsoever.

Bzzt, wrong on this one. VATS is not a turn-based system in any way, shape, or form. It's real-time with pause, combined with what seems to me to be a feeble attempt to integrate the AP and body-part targeting systems from FO 1/2. No, we haven't seen it for ourselves, but that's what gaming journalists like you are supposed to be here for right? We've read plenty of your guys' impressions on it, including yours, and are making judgments based on those impressions, which is perfectly valid.

And here is where you are wrong. People aren't making judgements or gathering impressions off of what we say, they are drawing final and concrete conclusions. If people could see past the fact that Black Isle / Interplay isn't going to rise from the grave and release Van Buren long enough they might see that this isn't as bad as they think. Again, until we try it for ourselves, it is impossible to do anything more than speculate on how good / bad it is.

Could the whole system play differently in the final version? Sure. Does it really matter? No. We have to base our opinions on what we have access to right now, and it's pretty absurd to insist that we have to withhold absolutely all judgements until closer to the launch or until after the actual launch itself... when I'm sure some people will still say we're not allowed to make judgements.

Again, the difference between judgement and speculation versus concrete conclusions.

So you're judging a game that isn't out yet based on how it looked at E3? Isn't that premature, Mr. Burke? Also, good to see that your concerns lie more with how many copies you guesstimate a game will sell rather than the quality of the game itself.

Nice try. See the above.

Oh, and thanks for taking the time to post here. Hope some people's (I'm including me here) harshness on this topic doesn't scare you off. I was actually very excited about this game when I first heard it was announced, up through the Game Informer article. I'd be very happy for Bethesda to release an awesome Fallout sequel, but too many things revealed about the game so far just seem to point to Bethesda doing a very poor job of capturing anything that made the originals great. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

Till I can put the controller in my own hands, I doubt I'd have any chance of convincing you otherwise. I said I was cautiously optimistic based on what I saw - I'm just as nervous as the rest of you, I'm just not foaming at the mouth about it.

 

[Dougly]

about exploding cars:

Like an exploding barrel full of gasoline (large fireball, quick dissipation - let's not talk about why I know that. ehhehe) Again, I suspect that this was to demonstrate the new particle effects (and damn they are pretty) more than anything - I don't think the world of Fallout 3 is going to look like a used car lot with cars just waiting to explode.

Really doesn't sound to bad at all.

Yeah. I'd feel more comfertable with having an occasional car that explodes conventionally, rather than having cars that go up in a nuclear explosion when they're shot.

Of course, if the explosions aren't meant to be nuclear, why do they spread radiation?

I guess maybe since they run on nuclear fusion cells that even a conventional explosion could release a tiny amount of rads? Still, by spreading radiation in such explosions, the implication seemed to be that they were "little nuclear detonations." If memory serves, some of the previews even called them nuclear explosions.

To be honest, the idea of having "exploding items" in the background, when combined with using water for healing, and the real time combat, is something of a turn off for me. They make the game sound first person shooter-ish. At this point, though, I don't think most of those things are going to change. And, if the game is similar to Deus Ex - as many claim it is - it still might be a fun game, even if it's not everything I had been hoping for.

I've probably spent 3 to 4 hours on these two boards over the last two days. Sorry if that isn't enough for you sire. If they have questions that they'd like to ask, they can put them in the "Any questions?" thread. I think two places is plenty.

And thanks for taking the time and effort to do that. You've been very open and informative, and, I feel you've made a number of good points. I may not agree with every one of them, but at least you've made me think about some issues concerning the game.

I apologize if things on here got a little heated now and then, but people here obviously do care about Fallout a great deal.

 

[GamingTrend]

Calling VATS turn-based is ridiculous.

Some might say putting anything turn based in a 1st person / 3rd person world is rediculous. Until you guys see beyond the screenshots, you'll have to either take me at my word that it is *kinda* turn based, or not. *shrug* Not a lot I can do with that.

I'm sorry, did you just say 'Buy the game and just change what you don't like'?
I don't play or buy games to be able to fix the mistakes of developers

Nope, just pointing out one possible 'fix' for something that is in the game whether you like it or not. I didn't design it - I'm just here to answer questions based on what I saw.

 

[Black]

Jesus Christ, how is VATS turn-based? There are no turns, you pase game, plan actions and execute them, AP = mana.

 

[Bezimek]

íîâûé êóêóðóçíûé íàïîëíèòåëü

Ñòàáèëüíîñòü - ïðèçíàê êëàññà. Êàê ýòî íè óäèâèòåëüíî, ñáîðíàÿ Àíãëèè âûèãðàëà ñâîé ïÿòûé ìàò÷ ïîäðÿä ñ îäíèì è òåì æå ñ÷åòîì. Âíå çàâèñèìîñòè îò òîãî, ãäå èãðàåòñÿ îòáîðî÷íûé ìàò÷ è êòî ïðîòè
Íà ìàò÷å Ðîññèÿ - Àíãëèÿ áóäåò ðàñòÿíóò ñàìûé áîëüøîé â ìèðå ôëàã Íà îòáîðî÷íîì ìàò÷å ×åìïèîíàòà Åâðîïû 2008 ìåæäó ñáîðíûìè Ðîññèè è Àíãëèè áîëåëüùèêîâ îæèäàåò ñþðïðèç. Âî âðåìÿ èñïîëíåíèÿ ðîññèéñê

 

[Vault 69er]

And here is where you are wrong. People aren't making judgements or gathering impressions off of what we say, they are drawing final and concrete conclusions. If people could see past the fact that Black Isle / Interplay isn't going to rise from the grave and release Van Buren long enough they might see that this isn't as bad as they think. Again, until we try it for ourselves, it is impossible to do anything more than speculate on how good / bad it is.

Van Buren is a red herring. If people have to keep bringing that up to defend Bethesda then one has to wonder if you actually believe what you're typing.
Also, there have been no concrete conclusions on the gameplay quality of VATS, only that it *appears* fiddly. And to me, it appears damn fiddly.

The only concrete conclusions are that it's not turn based. Because it's not. It's not a form of turn based. It's not remotely similar to turn based. It's a real time combat pause. That is a fact based on what Bethesda have shown and told us.