Tim Cain interview on Matt Chat, part 2

[Cimmerian Nights]

Fallout 3, as much as I didn't care for it as a fallout game, or as an rpg but won't go into those reasons here, still has another 11 years left on it to survive as long as fallout 1 has to date.
So we can revisit it in 2021 and perhaps determine a bit better how "good" it was.

When the appeal of the game is predicated on trendy game mechanics and flashy graphics which lose their luster as standards move forward, you're not really left with much. There's no sustain there like you would find with the solid PnP RPG foundation that Fallout 1 was build upon.

Besides, that's not what Bethesda wants. Why would they want to build a game that you'd still want to play in 10 years? They have to sell you TES 5, 6, & 7 and Fallout 4, 5 and 6 and all their wonderful DLC in that time.

Bethesda wants to make a RPG with sustained appeal like ACDelco wants to make life-time brake pads. That's not their business model.

 

[mor]

obviously they guys who dont like FP wont like FO3 in any time soon but that doesnt make it bad game, i actually think its way better than FO1/2, in every aspect (if FO1/2 had been given subjected to the same production quality we wouldn't have the need in RP mod) the strongest feature of FO3 is modablity and community.

i didnt like FO3 when it came out but the amount of quality mods that was released since is just amazing, its feels like a different game and allows everyone to play it the way they like, i might even give it a second chance some time although at the moment my attention is to FO NV better game mechanics and more mature theme and hopefully that the moders will fill in the rest.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

obviously they guys who dont like FP wont like FO3 in any time soon but that doesnt make it bad game, i actually think its way better than FO1/2, in every aspect

Can you elaborate on what aspects, particularly RPG elements you found this to be the case? Or are you just talking about it being a better FPShooter than FO1 and 2?

 

[Moester]

I'm glad Bethesda got it, they made a damn good game. So what, they changed the formula a bit. Change is the life force of society. Most of the changes they made were beneficial to the series, as is clearly evidenced by the thousands more people who enjoyed the game.

While I didn't hate Fallout 3, and I don't see a problem with the whole FPS RPG tilt, I really think that its about as much a true fallout game as I am a donkey. They took a lot of things from the original, but when you change the setting, plot, gameplay mechanics, important gameplay aspects and established lore you are not making a true sequel. taken in those aspects, Fallout was more of a sequel to Wasteland (even though I know it wasn't meant as such) than Fallout 3 was a sequel to Fallout 1 or 2.

So no matter how many people liked the game, I think Bethesda did a horrible job with the IP and probably would have been better making a new setting and stealing things from Fallout rather than acquiring an existing IP and throwing out a lot of things which made the games what they were.

 

[Moester]

I agree, while MW2 can be enjoyable, the earlier titles were much better. For their time, anyway. But the major video game consuming demographic is the kind of people who like games with action, explosions, guns, and guts. Stuff you guys probably find juvenile or something.
However, I can guarantee you that if you took a random group of a million people, the vast majority of them would rank F3 as better than F1 and F2. I think that is what constitutes a "better" or "good" game, is a game that appeals to a lot of people. And almost all major video game reviews for F3 and MW2 were positive, i.e. above 85% score. But those games still suck, right?
I admit, there are a few exceptions, where underground games can be quite good, but these come far and few between. Any game has detractors, people who don't like it, and while they may think it is a bad game, that don't mean it is bad. While goodness and badness is mostly opinion, when most people agree on a certain side, then one can accurately state that it is "good" or "bad". Y'all are on the opposition against F3, so while you are entitled to your opinion, you have to remember that it is just that, an opinion. A fact about the game perceived by the mind, which in everyone is full of bias.

Come on! If you want to talk about bias all you have to do is look at game reviews. Most games get reviewed on things like graphics and how things blow up...not to mention budget. Take Mass Effect 2 for example, I will agree that its a great game, but it was being called revolutionary and exiting...and to be honest its none of those things. Awarded a full grade more than it deserved. Most reviewers found GTA IV to be the next best thing to an art form, while most people I know found it to be a truly flawed game that eventually ended up being boring and having next to no replay value. I always read reviews with a big grain of salt especially nowadays where companies live in fear of reviewing a game poorly and getting the shaft from a publisher...Don't believe me? Look up what happened to Jeff Gerstmann after giving Kane and Lynch a score of "fair" which it was still more than what it deserved in my opinion it was a boring game that had very little to it other than graphics and gratuitous swearing. (It was like saying Mother F***er a hundred times was supposed to make a game good.)

I think that on a fair scale Fallout 3 could be rated a good...no game that ships with such horrible voice acting and dialogue choices should ever be in consideration for game of the year.

 

[mor]

obviously they guys who dont like FP wont like FO3 in any time soon but that doesnt make it bad game, i actually think its way better than FO1/2, in every aspect

Can you elaborate on what aspects, particularly RPG elements you found this to be the case? Or are you just talking about it being a better FPShooter than FO1 and 2?

before you go into FPS frenzy, i'll just point out that comparing games that meant for different target audience is stupid, for us FO1/2 is better for them FO3 is better, thus the comparison is obviously about the production values (as i stated in the part of my post you didnt quoted) which in FO3 case was better and the modality/community part which expended Fo3 narrative well beyond its release, multiplying the amount of content and make it more accessible for different target audience.

 

[Crni Vuk]

the question though is not so much what a target audience want eventually but what Fallout was. And even if there might be many oppinions one can indeed brake Fallout 1 and 2 down to a few basics. But thats beside the point.

Thing is Fallout originaly never was meant to aim at the target audience which loved Fallout 3 so much. The Oblivion-sand-box players maybe. Or FPS-RPG players. No clue. And how much one might love Fallout 3 but it doesnt change the fact that the past game Fallout 1 had a different principle behind its desing then Fallout 3. It can be easily shown by comments from the developers regarding Fallout 1.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

According to them, Fallout was designed to emulate a turnbased tabletop pen and paper RPG as closely as possible. Twitchy, realtime/FP combat threw away the entire purpose of Fallout.

 

[mor]

the question though is not so much what a target audience want eventually but what Fallout was. And even if there might be many oppinions one can indeed brake Fallout 1 and 2 down to a few basics. But thats beside the point.

Thing is Fallout originally never was meant to aim at the target audience which loved Fallout 3 so much. The Oblivion-sand-box players maybe. Or FPS-RPG players. No clue. And how much one might love Fallout 3 but it doesnt change the fact that the past game Fallout 1 had a different principle behind its design then Fallout 3. It can be easily shown by comments from the developers regarding Fallout 1.

that a whole different topic that bare no relevance to the quality discussion.

but if you wish, considering all those changes that those developers where planing for van buren,(which by many here regarded as heresy as much as the real FO1 hardcore's regard to FO2 as heresy) then you are correct each fallout had different principle behind its design.

 

[Public]

I agree, while MW2 can be enjoyable, the earlier titles were much better. For their time, anyway. But the major video game consuming demographic is the kind of people who like games with action, explosions, guns, and guts. Stuff you guys probably find juvenile or something.

What do you mean by "You Guys"



I personally love that kind of shit for some time to time. Have a beer, and blow some shit up. It's like watching a crappy movie and laugh out of its crappyness.

But sometimes there are good games where gore, action and explosions are just there as an appetiser, which is what I like the most. It gives the game realism.

 

[Crni Vuk]

that a whole different topic that bare no relevance to the quality discussion.

but if you wish, considering all those changes that those developers where planing for van buren,(which by many here regarded as heresy as much as the real FO1 hardcore's regard to FO2 as heresy) then you are correct each fallout had different principle behind its design.

Of course it does, if we are discussing what quality a Fallout game should have.

How can it for a Sequel NOT be relevant what gameplay, story, design and concept previous games had behind it ?

I know many people see in Fallout only what Fallout 3 offered. Regardless how atrocious the quest design is sometimes and particularly how bad the writting is.

Without the intention to insult people but I see those as "tourists" of the Fallout franchise. They liked it for example for the post apocalytpic theme only with the uniquie touch of the 50s behind it maybe. Similar to Todd Howard which expressed his love for the franchise like a fan but dissliked the fact that you could potentialy block your self from quests or parts of the story with wrong decisions and that he feelt a isometric-tourn-based gameplay was outdated. The only difference here is that Todd was in charge over the project later and thus could change Fallout to his liking. But in my oppinion not in a way how it would suit the game eventually.

But for many which love the old games Fallout 1 was more the summation of its qualities. The idea for tourn based combat for example was choose long before they even had the idea for a post apoc RPG. The first tech-demo for example showing the engine featured a knight with sword and armor on a green landscape.

The 50s theme was something that Fallout 3 did not that bad. But the NPCs and content feelt still very bland. It was hard to believe that this was a post apoc world which has seen a nuclear war 200 years ago. And one of the things I feared was that the setting would be reduced by Bethesda to a simple black vs white scenario which they did in my eyes. And probably cause they dont want to block people out from quests you had always the chance to change your karma. Regardless if you have killed many people. Donating money to the church or simply water to homeless people made you the saint of the wasteland.

I am really trying to see it objectively and compare Fallout 1 with Fallout 3. But even if I forget about Bethesda I still can see much more similiarties in Oblivion with Fallout 3 then really with Fallout 1. Not just from gameplay but quest design, NPCs and the content of the story. Which is no surprise if you think about who have been the writters behind Oblivion AND Fallout 3 ...

 

[mor]

quality as in production quality or the reason Fo2 was so buged or the reason for RP mod...

as for the rest, not this again

 

[Crni Vuk]

I think F3 has more bugs then F2. But thats just my oppinion.

Also whats up with Bethesdas DLCs ?

At least I never had to see something like this in previous Fallouts

But as we all know it was only Microsofts fault ... something with Windows Life. Regardless the fact that most other games there are released without such issues.

 

[mor]

ok.


btw speaking of Isometric vs "FP"(first or third person), obviously i was always a fan of iso which brought us some of the classics i still play today.

but lets not get over ourselves trying to make of it more than it is, iso, first person or third person is just a perspectives.

today most game use a 3d engine because, its allows all the above and cheaper production (btw today most iso games are not done through pixel art grind but the same way with 3d models and simple export routine, its easier and cheaper its very easy to modify and make new models)

eventually its all about what you want to make out of your game and your art design choice.
because ISO is mostly better for group control, FP is mostly better for point and shoot and third person is mostly better for combo combat that depends on the environment.

in my opinion up until recently the "FP" didnt delivered the goods in terms of technical ability that would allow anything but remakes of old games (and we all know how everyone like remakes) but now that this tech is much more available, we can see more and more interesting original titles poping, with good writing and good mechanics.

so in my opinion much of the griffing about non iso (aside from the obvious main steam games target audience) is with its cost, because many p-p-l here has old hardware which can still run all the old iso titles but not nearly enough to run any of the newer stuff.

btw anyone seen Witcher 2 gameplay?

 

[Arden]

Looks like missing meshes/textures to me crni vuk. If you use mods that can happen if you mess up the installation paths or plain forget to copy some stuff. If this happens in vanilla... well, ouch.

There are obviously very different views on FO3, be it as a game in itself or as part of the franchise. Even a cursory glance at this thread should show that there is no such thing as "the NMA-Crowd" or hivemind. But then what troll reads threads even cursory.

My 2cents on this topic are that FO3 is not a Fallout-Game. Perhaps a spin-off at best, something like FOPOS. And FO3 is not a good game. No, not even if you look at it for itself. Not even if you judge it by what it tried to do (except money, it did that well). Its crap, its not a role-playing game, hell, i will go so far as to say its not even a game.
A game is played with others or against a virtual enviroment, it poses an entertaining challenge. FO3 doesnt do that, its just a sim, a dollhouse sim to get your house, your dresses, your poses, your gear and your companions. At no point in the sim you get a challenge or a sense of achievement, i cant get involved in its story or world. And its stupid, so unbelievable stupid that i felt insulted that even a shallow games-company as bethesda thought something like that would entertain me (i know, i know, they did not make the game for me, obviously).

Im very tolerant concerning bugs and glitches. There should not be any of course but the world isnt perfect. As long as bugs arent gamebreaking or you get CTDs i dont care much. But only if there is a game worth playing between bugs (thats why i liked Alpha protocol immensely despite its faults). Its not bugs that bug me in FO3, its the sheer stupidity and the assumption that i would not mind that the world, the plot and the characters make absolutely no sense and that they are retarded so far that in a curved universe they should stand directly in front of me. I tried hard to like FO3 and modded the hell out of it but i still cant stand playing it for more than an hour. Standing very still in the middle of the wasteland and looking at the scenery is ok but thats about it.

FO3 is like the retarded TV-Shows we get on nearly every friggin channel today. Self-serving stupid and banal shit. Desinged only to "entertain". And if you read the crap that developers like bethesda spill, its not entertaining if you die, its not entertaining if you have to make a choice and block yourself from path B if you choose A. It is not entertaining facing a boss without an overpowered weapon apearing miraculously in front of the player. its entertaining however when stuff blows up and heads asplode, over and over and over again.

Playing FO3 is like listening to a moron telling you the same stupid jokes over and over again, like wathing for hours an end how retarded people tell you their retarded problems in front of a retarded audience. A game should be a bit like sports and not like masturbation.

I prefer playing chess against an opponent of my skill or better, i prefer to watch movies that move me and make me think stuff over, i prefer to read a book that makes sense and contains characters with depht. But i guess that by todays media-standarts im just and old elitist bore that doesnt know how to enjoy himself.

Fallout3? its a pretty good modding-training tool. You can really get into modding with it. It also is a great tool for those chaps that are into 3D-Porn-animation stuff. But a game worth my time? Nah, if im desperately in need of some ego-boost, standing in a corner, tellimg myself what a great and cool dude i am works better and is more entertaining.

 

[mor]

FO3 is like the retarded TV-Shows we get on nearly every friggin channel today. Self-serving stupid and banal shit. Desinged only to "entertain". And if you read the crap that developers like bethesda spill, its not entertaining if you die, its not entertaining if you have to make a choice and block yourself from path B if you choose A. It is not entertaining facing a boss without an overpowered weapon apearing miraculously in front of the player. its entertaining however when stuff blows up and heads asplode, over and over and over again.

Playing FO3 is like listening to a moron telling you the same stupid jokes over and over again, like wathing for hours an end how retarded people tell you their retarded problems in front of a retarded audience. A game should be a bit like sports and not like masturbation.

so how would you call those who knows that the TV-Show that is playing on this channel is retarded and still watch it only to complain afterward that its retarded or going out with a moron who tells the same stupid joke and listen to him tell a joke or just play a game that was clearly not meant for you


btw there i recall there is this pokemon RPG game, for some 8-10 years olds ...

 

[x'il]

so in my opinion much of the griffing about non iso (aside from the obvious main steam games target audience) is with its cost, because many p-p-l here has old hardware which can still run all the old iso titles but not nearly enough to run any of the newer stuff.

And, cannot any of the newer stuff be iso? or top down 3d 'pseudo-iso'? I think what most people complain about is actually the predominance of fps and tps types.

 

[Ausir]

It can. See Diablo 3 or DA:O. Funny thing is, iso perspective in DA:O is not available on consoles because the hardware couldn't handle it.

 

[mor]

so in my opinion much of the griffing about non iso (aside from the obvious main steam games target audience) is with its cost, because many p-p-l here has old hardware which can still run all the old iso titles but not nearly enough to run any of the newer stuff.

And, cannot any of the newer stuff be iso? or top down 3d 'pseudo-iso'? I think what most people complain about is actually the predominance of fps and tps types.

why should any of the new stuff be iso?! if it doesnt fit the perspective of the game the developer is aiming for.

and fps and tps are predominant because that what the p-p-l want, i recall some statistic that more than 90% of the p-p-l just skip dialogues or choose the obvious first-good last-bad option, this why all the voice overs because p-p-l are more perceptive to them...

any way yes, p-p-l whine because they are not part of the main stream but guess what, just like with music and movies etc, it takes a little bit of work to find something good amongst all the crap.

It can. See Diablo 3 or DA:O. Funny thing is, iso perspective in DA:O is not available on consoles because the hardware couldn't handle it.

DA:O i s a good example of mix, they use both ISO and TP perspective, ISO for group control but you zoom in to TP when focused on yourself or watch cinematic's...

and Diablo 3 should break all hopes of any new big ISO games that will run on an outdated hardware. (i think that 256 GFX memory is minimum and 512 recommended with 2GB of memory and a dual core)

 

[Ausir]

DA:O i s a good example of mix, they use both ISO and TP perspective, ISO for group control but you zoom in to TP when focused on yourself or watch cinematic's...

Agreed. Too bad that DA2 will likely get rid of iso altogether.

and Diablo 3 should break all hopes of any new big ISO games that will run on an outdated hardware. (i think that 256 GFX memory is minimum and 512 recommended with 2GB of memory and a dual core)

Anyone has hopes for big (financially, that is, not size-wise) iso games that will run on outdated hardware?

And in terms of more niche titles, I'm looking forward to Age of Decadence.