The Next Level Interviews Bethesdas Emil Pagliarulo

[The Vault Dweller]

The Next Level has done an interview of Bethesdas Fallout 3 lead designer Emil Pagliarulo. Many questions are asked including the complaint of "Oblivion with guns" and status on the new Fallout 3 pack which includes all the DLC.<blockquote>TNL: A simple one right out of the gate. Mothership Zeta has been cited as the last DLC for Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas is being developed by Obsidian. Can you give us some clues as to what's next for Bethesda? Can we expect a new Elder Scrolls game, another Fallout or something entirely different?

Emil: Well, in the short term we’ve got the Fallout 3 Game of the Year, which is the base Fallout 3 game with all five DLCs rolled into it. So we’re still actively working on Fallout 3 stuff. Beyond that, everything is super exciting and super top secret, and if I told you what it was, I’d be amongst America’s unemployed tomorrow. So I’ll leave it at that.

TNL: When it was first announced that Bethesda would be making Fallout 3, many gamers were convinced it would just be Oblivion with guns. I'm curious as to what you thought of that. Also, with the success Fallout 3 has enjoyed what, in your opinion, did it do better then Oblivion?

Emil: Yeah, the whole “Oblivion with Guns” criticism was hurled our way so long ago. But it’s funny, because in order for that to resonate with you, you have to sort of feel that Oblivion isn’t a good game, and “Oblivion with Guns” would be a bad thing. Well… we think Oblivion is a damn good game. And so did millions of people who bought it. And scores of reviewers. So, you know, we started to realize, “Hey, that’s more a compliment than an insult, isn’t it?” So for us, Fallout 3 is “Oblivion with guns” in all the right ways. Meaning, you wander around a huge world, and talk to lots of interesting characters, and get lots of quests. But instead of killing them with a magic sword, you kill them with a gun that shoots teddy bears.</blockquote>You can find the full article here.

Thanks once again to Ausir one of our own forum moderators and keeper of The Vault wiki for relaying this.

 

[Davis962]

Dear God . . . he just doesn't get it . . .

 

[cronicler]

And you shout at me when I say they will make another DLC, saying thet they said "Zeta Will Be Last DLC!".

 

[Lord Danath]

Fallout 3 is “Oblivion with guns” in all the right ways. Meaning, you wander around a huge world, and talk to lots of interesting characters, and get lots of quests. But instead of killing them with a magic sword, you kill them with a gun that shoots teddy bears.

 

[Ravager69]

But instead of killing them with a magic sword, you kill them with a gun that shoots teddy bears.

That sums up the article, I think. Yes, I know he's probably trying to be witty, but there's a deeper meaning to it.

 

[warsaw]

Emil: Yeah, the whole “Oblivion with Guns” criticism was hurled our way so long ago. But it’s funny, because in order for that to resonate with you, you have to sort of feel that Oblivion isn’t a good game, and “Oblivion with Guns” would be a bad thing. Well… we think Oblivion is a damn good game. And so did millions of people who bought it. And scores of reviewers. So, you know, we started to realize, “Hey, that’s more a compliment than an insult, isn’t it?” So for us, Fallout 3 is “Oblivion with guns” in all the right ways. Meaning, you wander around a huge world, and talk to lots of interesting characters, and get lots of quests. But instead of killing them with a magic sword, you kill them with a gun that shoots teddy bears.

this seems like the exact "comment" we would use in order to make fun of you.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

So for us, Fallout 3 is “Oblivion with guns” in all the right ways.

Now both Todd and Emil have said this and it admission that it is not a proper Fallout sequel.

Our tech on Fallout was far beyond what we had on Oblivion – the game looks better, load times are faster, etc.

Well computers were faster so those things would come regardless but the fact that so many bugs remained unfixed from Oblivion indicates that the technology really hadn't moved very far at all.

I actually think there are a lot of lessons to be learned from MMOs. In a lot of ways, Bethesda’s games are "massively single-player" – I think the appeal is very similar.

MMOs are generally bad to horrible games. They may be addicting but the gameplay is almost always pretty terrible and it's interesting to see that they have realized that their games are similar to them in many ways.

I mean, you’re on a straight path, and that’s really what a narrative is – a straight fictional path.

Not at all. Most narratives are linear but a story doesn't have to be linear to be a narrative.

But just because not a lot of large, open-world games have successfully pulled off strong narratives doesn’t mean it isn’t possible, or even better, in an open-world game.

See, for developers, the trick is being smart enough to recognize the player’s need to have a straight narrative, even if your game world is open and sprawling, and even if some of your fiction is open, and dynamic. Let the player get out there and experience your giant world, sure. Let them tell their own stories. But there’s really no reason why a developer shouldn’t also provide its players with a great story, and the direction they need to get back on track fictionally.

I disagree, there really is no need for a linear narrative. Fallout 1&2 did well with a mostly non-linear narrative.

And even though a lot of Fallout 3 is about exploring this huge, post-apocalyptic world, it’s also about a child coming to terms with the decisions of their father. It’s a pretty strong narrative – at least I hope it is – and, just as importantly, it’s easy for the player to get back to at any time.

You sir, need to read some books and play some games with decent narratives because Fallout 3 does not have a good narrative.

But for me, Call of Duty 4 is the crème de la crème of linear games with strong narratives.

I can't say that I've played through Call of Duty 4's single player campaign but I feel safe in saying that it does not have the best linear narrative in any game and thinking as much shows a total inability to identify strong narratives or a lack of understanding of the term.

More of the same garbage, if you're a Bethesda fan then you might enjoy it, otherwise it's useless.

 

[Hellion]

It really becomes more and more apparent how Bethesda "Gets it".

Modern Warfare 2 will be out soon, I guess it's a good preview of Bethesda's further plans regarding the Fallout license, what with it being "the crème de la crème" and all.

 

[terebikun]

COD4 has a pretty fucking great narrative. Finish playing through it.

 

[Ravager69]

COD4 has a pretty fucking great narrative. Finish playing through it.

I did twice and wasn't so impressed to want to make an RPG out of it.

 

[warsaw]

It really becomes more and more apparent how Bethesda "Gets it".

Modern Warfare 2 will be out soon, I guess it's a good preview of Bethesda's further plans regarding the Fallout license, what with it being "the crème de la crème" and all.

hey, if bethesda could pull off an action game on the same level as COD4 with a Fallout setting, i'd let them.

 

[Crni Vuk]

COD4 has a pretty fucking great narrative. Finish playing through it.

The issue is just that its comparing somewhat (not completely) apples with oranges. Both might be fruits. But the taste is very different. You can mix it and like the taste. But if you want pure "apples" or "oranges" you will not be satisfied with the mix. Though thats the issue with Bethesda games since they try very hard to "cover it all, yah know". Meaning to offer someome a mix when they want a "pure" experience (and its really not like anyone ever asked Bethesda to make a first person experience or to start even lower a "sand box game" out of Fallout but thats a issue for it self).

I get a shiver when one would compare "Fallout 3" with a "straight first person shooter".

Well ... heh ... why? Cause many times enough its "die hard fans" (the ones that would never let it happen that Bethesda gets a scratch) fighted vigorously against anything which even would just dare to "mention" "FPS" and "Fallout 3" in the same sentence. And even Todd tried somewhat to get away from and give the impression it would somewhat be the deep RPG experience, there (just like Oblivion was of course ...) even though Todd explained as well "if you want to play it as shooter, you can!". Duh! With the words of Brother None "well if you can PLAY it like one ..." imagine the rest by your self guys.

To me it seems at first certain things about the game get refused, that it would be similar to a "shooter", "Oblivion with guns" etc. And now Fallout 3 is not only in spirit a successor to Oblivion [with Bethesdas words, its the game it feels most close to], its a achievement even! Sure one asking for the known Fallout experience must be a purist with a pighead. But there is probably nothing wrong to recycle a system thats almost as old like Fallout itself from the Elder Scrols or if you want just mechanics directly copy pasted from Oblivion (like the armor values, animations, ... some bugs even).

Where is the true innovation in all of it I ask my self? I yet cant see any. Al I see is someome trying to sell burgers mixed with french fries (as like that was never present before ...) as filet mignon to the masses.

 

[bhlaab]

The problem is that Oblivion was a godawful game and you were supposed to be making FALLOUT

 

[archont]

I keep telling you guys. Bethesda's philosophy is simple.


What makes a game good? What makes a game a success? What's the difference between a proud achievement and a lousy failure?



[spoiler:896c2d871a]MONEY[/spoiler:896c2d871a]



It's that simple. That's the reason bethesda incorporates marketing into their game development process. That's the reason bethesda sticks to their proven formula. That's why they cram their stupid little bucket of post-nuclear sand into every orifice, hole, nook and cranny they can.

They don't care about Fallout. They don't care about the spirit of Fallout. They don't care about a storyline or good writing. They intentionally take a big metaphorical dump on all that and on us. The game caters to idiots, and would idiots appreciate dialogue? No, damnit, they want cool screenshots, orcs, exploding heads - they want stuff that looks cool on trailers and screenshots. How can you see the storyline of a game before you buy it? You can't? Well, why waste money on things that WON'T make the customer buy the game?

They don't care about "getting it". I can bet that they even come here for amusement. They took what we considered the closest video game to art and turned it into profit, raping it in the process. Trust me, they do know what NMA thinks and understands the motivations. Maybe, even, they're making remarks right now about NMA -

"Do you think those guys will ever get it? I mean look at them, it's as if they all had some internet-borne learning-deficiency virus. It's as if they just couldn't get it all we want is money"

all while polishing their ferraris, which neither you nor I, people who appreciate Fallout for what it is, have.

</drama>

 

[JR Jansen]

But for me, Call of Duty 4 is the crème de la crème of linear games with strong narratives.

I can't say that I've played through Call of Duty 4's single player campaign but I feel safe in saying that it does not have the best linear narrative in any game and thinking as much shows a total inability to identify strong narratives or a lack of understanding of the term.

More of the same garbage, if you're a Bethesda fan then you might enjoy it, otherwise it's useless.

Have these people never played any of the older adventure games like the 'Monkey island' games ?

 

[jero cvmi]

Emil: Yeah, the whole “Oblivion with Guns” criticism was hurled our way so long ago. But it’s funny, because in order for that to resonate with you, you have to sort of feel that Oblivion isn’t a good game, and “Oblivion with Guns” would be a bad thing. Well… we think Oblivion is a damn good game. And so did millions of people who bought it. And scores of reviewers. So, you know, we started to realize, “Hey, that’s more a compliment than an insult, isn’t it?” So for us, Fallout 3 is “Oblivion with guns” in all the right ways. Meaning, you wander around a huge world, and talk to lots of interesting characters, and get lots of quests. But instead of killing them with a magic sword, you kill them with a gun that shoots teddy bears.</blockquote>

I've got an idea.
Bubble Bobble is a damn good game. Millions of people think so.
So why don't you make Fallout Bobble.
It will be like Bubble Bobble except you get to kill your enemies with mini nukes instead of bubbles. How cool is that?

In all seriousness, Emil sounds like a pretty intelligent person, how the fuck can he not tell the difference between "appropriate" and "kewl"?

(i <3 NMA word filter)

 

[UniversalWolf]

Meaning, you wander around a huge world, and talk to lots of interesting characters, and get lots of quests. But instead of killing them with a magic sword, you kill them with a gun that shoots teddy bears.

Fallout = dead.

 

[Ixyroth]

Meaning, you wander around a huge world, and talk to lots of interesting characters, and get lots of quests. But instead of killing them with a magic sword, you kill them with a gun that shoots teddy bears.

Fallout = dead.

Gaming = dead.

 

[Professor Danger!]

Meaning, you wander around a huge world, and talk to lots of interesting characters, and get lots of quests. But instead of killing them with a magic sword, you kill them with a gun that shoots teddy bears.

Fallout = dead.

Gaming = dead.

Hey, there's plenty of great new games...like uh...you know...those good ones. Like Halo 25 and Guitar Hero 10.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

COD4 has a pretty fucking great narrative. Finish playing through it.

Whether or not it has a good narrative for an action game isn't something I can dispute having not played it but I doubt it has a good narrative when compared to other video games, RPGs and adventure games in particular? I would play through it but I don't own it (my computer would probably struggle with it, a buddy has it for PS3). Half-Life 2 is another FPS that has had the exact same things said about it and it really isn't anything earth shattering. Yes, it has a good narrative (at least the episodes do) and what makes it a good narrative is that it services the rest of the game. It's not amazing writing and it's not innovative, it's merely a good supplement to the gameplay which enhances the game. He says:

I think CoD 4 marked something of an evolution in video game storytelling

and I am calling him out on it, I really doubt that it does. Is it in some way new or innovative? Has it changed how games tell stories? Hell, the only people I ever hear talking about how great CoD4 is in every aspect is Bethesda, everyone else I've ever talked to has simply praised it's multiplayer gameplay (which is quite enjoyable from what I've played). Reading the Wikipedia page on it I see that it has received critical acclaim for it's writing but the reviewers were pretty unanimous in saying that the game does nothing new.