Tim Cain interview on Matt Chat, part 2

[Dario ff]

I've gotten the impression that most criticism isn't intended as feedback. To begin with feedback should be sent to Bethesda, include explanations (not just empty bashing and whining, however witty, though some posts here are probably decent enough in that regard), and so on.

Well, if we ponder about the point of the forum, we have lots of discussions here. Only by discussing with other people we come to realise and define what was wrong, what should be fixed. We narrow the problems down, we debate which could be left out, which are the most important.

Then there are the reviews, which can be found at the homepage. To be fair, I think we don't really bash F3 so often, 90% of the time we do because a random dude registers, tells us we're all wrong, and then everyone repeats itself. Heck, we should have some kind of codeword to avoid repeating the same things all the time.

 

[cunningandvalor]

Oh, for fuck's sake! Why people keep saying this? I know you can't pinpoint the exact value of a game/movie/book/whatever on a scale but saying it's all subjective is bullshit.

Here, it's objective. Every where else it's subjective. Maybe Duck and Cover too, but other than that it's a bunch of people focused on what changed their lives versus people who want to say "No, if God gave us Fallout, then this is what he wanted us to do with it."

And there's Todd Howard.

 

[choconutjoe]

The bigger question is, who the fuck are you to tell me that i am wrong when i say that i am not satisfied by a product?

I never said anything of the sort.

Seriously... Nothing is made, so everyone can like it and nothing can be liked by everyone. You know what? I don't like Deus Ex at all, but you know what i do? I don't play the game and i don't tell other people that they are wrong for liking it. Because they are not. And i am not wrong for not liking it. I know how wonderful it is to have a big group, who shares your interests and likes what you like, but there is always the other group with different interests. Without us liking the game, you don't lose anything. We are the only ones that lose. A good sequel forever. And that's why we bitch and moan about it. If you people are not with us, the least you can do is be neutral. There is no point to waste anyone's time.

You've pretty much just paraphrased everything I've argued in this thread so far. If you agree with me, I don't know why you're swearing at me.

 

[tekhedd]

...I don't know why you're swearing at me.

And this, you see, is important.

Not everyone agrees with you. In fact, the people you are trying to convince start out not agreeing with you. You might want to have this in mind when you proofread your postings.

I have found in life that when people are shouting at me and I don't know why, usually it is because I missed something important.

 

[Stanislao Moulinsky]

Here, it's objective. Every where else it's subjective. Maybe Duck and Cover too, but other than that it's a bunch of people focused on what changed their lives versus people who want to say "No, if God gave us Fallout, then this is what he wanted us to do with it."

And there's Todd Howard.

I'm talking in general. I lost the count of the times I read that reviews and judgements of games "are opinions and therefore can't be wrong".

 

[choconutjoe]

...I don't know why you're swearing at me.

And this, you see, is important.

Not everyone agrees with you. In fact, the people you are trying to convince start out not agreeing with you. You might want to have this in mind when you proofread your postings.

Do you mean that my posts seem overly contentious?

 

[tekhedd]

...I don't know why you're swearing at me.

And this, you see, is important.

Not everyone agrees with you. In fact, the people you are trying to convince start out not agreeing with you. You might want to have this in mind when you proofread your postings.

Do you mean that my posts seem overly contentious?

I mean that you're in a place where a lot of people who love the old-school RPG style congregate, and have for many years. Also many people who enjoy playing the new games. There have been many (rolleyes) discussions about exactly how F3 was wrong/right/succeeded/failed, in much depth. A large number of the regulars here were/are disappointed with F3, and so anything that implies "why don't you leave poor F3 alone" is pretty much contentious already, since they're only holding back from F3-bothering because it's such a tired subject already.

I mean, there's a lot of history...there's bad blood between Bethesda and the loyal fan base of every game they touch, Fallout being only the most recent. So... yeah you have to understand the context here.

In my experience, whenever people are shouting it's either because of miscommunication, or over some girl.

 

[Nonagon]

I think this video was actually better than the last one. I'm glad Tim wanted to do these interviews. Can't wait until part 3, hoping for a part 4.

 

[choconutjoe]

I mean that you're in a place where a lot of people who love the old-school RPG style congregate, and have for many years. Also many people who enjoy playing the new games. There have been many (rolleyes) discussions about exactly how F3 was wrong/right/succeeded/failed, in much depth. A large number of the regulars here were/are disappointed with F3, and so anything that implies "why don't you leave poor F3 alone" is pretty much contentious already, since they're only holding back from F3-bothering because it's such a tired subject already.

I mean, there's a lot of history...there's bad blood between Bethesda and the loyal fan base of every game they touch, Fallout being only the most recent. So... yeah you have to understand the context here.

I see. Well, maybe I was foolish to get involved. I'll keep my thoughts on the subject to myself in the future.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I mean, there's a lot of history...there's bad blood between Bethesda and the loyal fan base of every game they touch, Fallout being only the most recent. So... yeah you have to understand the context here.

This. It seems people forget many times that Fallout wasnt the first IP Bethesda had in one way or another its hands on. Ever watched a Star Trek forum regarding the game which was published by Bethesda ? Now THOSE people are poor souls ...

So it's not an RPG, it's something else. Call it whatever you like. Maybe Bethesda were wrong to call the game an RPG, but that's not really a reflection of the game itself, it just means that Bethesda have a poor grasp of the English language (and as you say, the writing in FO3 isn't very good). Either way, my enjoyment of FO3 wasn't dependent on the quality of the writing, it was something else entirely. If that means that FO3 shouldn't be called an RPG, that's fine by me.

Then you DO understand why people disslike Fallout 3 as "Fallout" game. You just enjoy it for a different reason.

Look. What ever if you enjoy the game or not is trivial. No one here will seriously dispute that you "can" enjoy Fallout 3. Its a game afterall. But when you here already agree that its "not" a RPG ~ or something else, then how can it be "good" in comparision to previous Fallout games that have been clear RPGs ? Isnt Fallout 3 missing inherently something compared to previous games ? How is then wrong to say that Fallout 3 might be a fun game for it self eventually but not a good game in the Fallout franchise ? Particularly when its missing some of the aspects that made the past games important and I am not only talking about gameplay here. Gameplay is important but it can be very superficial. The writting which is deep in the content was one of the core aspects of the Fallout games. And which made it so succesfull as RPG. next to the importance of skills for example.

Yes that doesn't seem very constructive (or logical), but what do you think about the constant and bitter bashing of and whining about FO3 and Bethesda on this forum? Constructive? Enjoyable? Best possible use of time?

Do you really expect some answer to that ? Jeez. People bash BOS or Tactics and some people at Interplay just as they do with Bethesda and Fallout 3. Its a forum people talk about it. We are maybe a bit different to places like the Beth forum but I doubt we are more cynical then most people there. Particularly when you take a look in to those parts of the forum where "old" fans of the TES setting start to talk about Oblivion. But my intention is not to bash their forum here.

 

[Jeremiah]

I've gotten the impression that most criticism isn't intended as feedback. To begin with feedback should be sent to Bethesda, include explanations (not just empty bashing and whining, however witty, though some posts here are probably decent enough in that regard), and so on.

Well, if we ponder about the point of the forum, we have lots of discussions here. Only by discussing with other people we come to realise and define what was wrong, what should be fixed. We narrow the problems down, we debate which could be left out, which are the most important.

That sounds great, and certainly not something I want to discourage. However, I was referring more to the not so few and not so constructive snide remarks that I've seen, that as far as I can remember (but I'm kind of new here) often isn't a reaction to some FO3-loving random dude either.

But in any event, hardly a big deal and I don't have much more to say on the issue.

 

[Aphyosis]

All these arguments around the notion that FO3 is supposed to be something other than what it is. Essentially your arguing that it has the wrong name, and that Bethesda marketed it wrongly. The logical conclusion is that if it had been called 'Laffout 3' and been described by Bethesda a 'First Playing-Role Shooter Game', people would be justified in liking it (because then it would contain the things that a Laffout game in the First Playing-Role Shooter Game genre are supposed to have!).

I never said people needed justification to like it. But essentially, yeah. The fact it's attempting to masquerade as a Fallout game is the issue. If the game wasn't related to the Fallout license, it wouldn't be a problem. People could make up their minds based on its merit's and like it for other reasons, which is obviously what has happened for a lot of its fan base.

To say that a Fallout game must contain certain 'prerequisite elements' is essentially just stating your own personal expectations. It says nothing about the quality of the game itself. Saying that FO3 wasn't what you wanted or expected is fine, but that doesn't mean that other people are 'wrong' for having different expectations.

Not really. The Fallout games became popular because of these prerequisite elements and because they did them well. That's not a personal expectation, its a fact.

For a game to be a proper sequel, it needs to carry on these elements. It could still be a good game without them, sure, but as a sequel it's quality is debatable.

 

[fedaykin]

while MW2 can be enjoyable, the earlier titles were much better.

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.

Boy, you sure told that NiRv4n4 guy there, NiRv4n4.

 

[.Pixote.]

You ask for steak, I bring you fish. You say that you think steak is better than fish. I say that fish is much more popular than steak so obviously it's better. You say that no matter how good the fish is it can't be better at being steak than the actual steak we used to serve. I say that's just your perception and you're entitled to it but you should accept that fish is the future and that's good. You begin to say something but I stab you in the eye with a fork and run into the kitchen.

I want steak...

 

[Jeremiah]

Tim Cain seemed to be vaguely positive about FO3, interestingly.

He likes FO3:

DAC: What are your thoughts and opinions on Fallout 3 and its various DLCs from Bethesda? Did you play/finish the game?

Tim: I played and finished Fallout 3 as soon as it came out. I really enjoyed the game, and I think Bethesda’s designers had really done their homework. The game showed they had a deep understanding and knowledge of the key aspects of the original games. I even replayed it a few times to see how I could have different experiences, and I had fun with that.

But also:

Of course, I would have done things differently if I had made it.

Of course, since there are countless ways to make a game.

 

[Public]

This whole thread sounds like a mind-blowing movie plot, with twists and turns. Once you are onto something, a small chill runs through your spine. You think you have finally figured out what the writer was trying to get you in, but you were wrong...there is another turn saying "This way to further events".

It's dark in here, messy...scary.

There is this...fish and steak.

A sexy Polish waitress comes over, with your order ready.

PW: Here's your steak, mister.
You: But...this is a fish.

The restaurant's manager comes.

Manager: Is there a problem with your order , sir?
You: Yes, I ordered a steak and you give me a fish saying it's a steak.
Manager: I do appologise, but the rules changed...steak and fish are now both the same meals.
You: But...

then some random guy, who's sitting in another table

RGude, this new steak is delicious! What's wrong with you? Are you a fag?



Apparently you did not realise, that the company that created fish products bought the steak company. To increas the sells of the steak, they changed steak into fish, still calling it a steak.


Now, you have to pay for what you did not know, all along. You were living in a world not knowing what's in it.

The waitress brings the cheque, you want to pay by card as you have no cash. Then it turns out:

PW: Sorry, things changed, nobody accept cards anymore.
You: NOOOOOOooooooo...


The End


"If love can be just a word, then changing steak into fish, can be just a simple change"

Voytek Pavlik
1987-present

 

[grayx]

I mean that you're in a place where a lot of people who love the old-school RPG style congregate, and have for many years. Also many people who enjoy playing the new games. There have been many (rolleyes) discussions about exactly how F3 was wrong/right/succeeded/failed, in much depth. A large number of the regulars here were/are disappointed with F3, and so anything that implies "why don't you leave poor F3 alone" is pretty much contentious already, since they're only holding back from F3-bothering because it's such a tired subject already.

I mean, there's a lot of history...there's bad blood between Bethesda and the loyal fan base of every game they touch, Fallout being only the most recent. So... yeah you have to understand the context here.

I see. Well, maybe I was foolish to get involved. I'll keep my thoughts on the subject to myself in the future.

No, continue to share ideas here please. You seem like a clever person, and although I disagree with almost everything that you wrote, I had a good time reading But, as tekhedd have said, try to read some "history", there is indeed a lot of bad blood between some of us and that ignorant, infantile-gathering company that now have rights to Fallout IP.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

DAC: What are your thoughts and opinions on Fallout 3 and its various DLCs from Bethesda? Did you play/finish the game?

Tim: I played and finished Fallout 3 as soon as it came out. I really enjoyed the game, and I think Bethesda’s designers had really done their homework. The game showed they had a deep understanding and knowledge of the key aspects of the original games. I even replayed it a few times to see how I could have different experiences, and I had fun with that.

What does he have to gain by reconciling Bethesda's market driven McFallout RPG-lite approach to RPG design to the PnP design fundamentals that he admits in the interview to basing the whole series upon? The design philosophy and their manifestation in FO1 vs. FO3 is pretty self-evident and stark. It shouldn't need to be spelled out, he was pretty explicit in the first interview. How Bethesda "showed they had a deep understanding and knowledge" of those aspects (GURPS, PnP fundamentals) is gracious lip service. They showed greater understanding and knowledge of Oblivion, because that was the basis for FO3, and it is Oblivion's spiritual successor as evident in design philosophy and (it's lack of) RPG elements.

 

[Crni Vuk]

well regarding interviews I think we will never know any devs real oppinion anyway. But I would not be surprised if they tried to do what maybe most did. Playing and enjoying it as game. Not as Fallout title.

 

[Beelzebud]

I just have this to add. Words of wisdom from an expert.

When asked why Diablo 3 was keeping the isometric viewpoint, and not following the trend of making it a first person perspective, Leonard Boyarsky, the lead world designer for Diablo 3, had this to say:

Leonard: There was never any question that we'd be using the isometric view. The advantages for this camera angle are many: It is the established camera angle for the series; we want our game to expand and improve on the classic Diablo feel, which is irrevocably tied to isometric gameplay;

But what does he know? He only designed a huge chunk of the original Fallout.