Todd answers 25 questions

[Sorrow]

I bet if not interviews with people like Boyarsky people still would be saying "they did iso and tb because of financial and techonological limitations".

They do .

 

[FeelTheRads]

Bethsoft are discounting BOS and Tactics from the continuity. That's at least one plus point in their favour.

While at the same time bastardizing the franchise in their own new ways. Not a fair trade, I'd say.

And in many ways, Tactics was a much better Fallout game than Fallout 3 will ever be. And that's saying a lot.

 

[Jidai Geki]

That said, Jidai Geki, opinions aren't the be all end all of everything. The fact that you are of the opinion that the gameplay of Fallout is irrelevant to it, doesn't make your opinion valid.

I agree to an extent, but an opinion is neither inherently valid nor invalid. It is not governed by fact and so cannot be 'wrong'.

And yes, Fallout's design was centered around the mechanics, not around the atmosphere or the adult themes. That's a simple, verifiable fact.

Can you point me to something which backs this up? I just find the concept of deciding upon game mechanics before deciding upon a storyline strange. Surely the game mechanics should be made to fit the concept, not the other way around?

 

[Sander]

Can you point me to something which backs this up? I just find the concept of deciding upon game mechanics before deciding upon a storyline strange. Surely the game mechanics should be made to fit the concept, not the other way around?

Go read this.
It's a game, Jidai, not a book. The gameplay was the centre of the design, and rightly so since a game stands or falls with its gameplay, not with its story (although a story is important).

 

[Morbus]

I agree to an extent, but an opinion is neither inherently valid nor invalid. It is not governed by fact and so cannot be 'wrong'.

I don't think you wholly understand the concept of "opinion". Firstly, opinions are for jackasses. Besides, they are like assholes: everybody's got one and they all stink. However, you are right when you say they are neither inherently valid nor invalid. That is the reason why "opinions" are *inherently* unproven. They aren't necessarily governed by facts, but their logic depends on them. So you CAN have a wrong opinion.

Anyway, I don't like opinions: I like facts and that's it.

Sorry for interrupting.

And in many ways, Tactics was a much better Fallout game than Fallout 3 will ever be. And that's saying a lot.

No, not in "many" ways. In *some* ways FOT was better a fallout game than FO3, but not in many. FO3 will have (mild) choices, and that's saying something... But I understand what you mean, yes, FOT looks much more Fallouty than FO3 will ever hope to look.

 

[Jidai Geki]

It's a game, Jidai, not a book. The gameplay was the centre of the design, and rightly so since a game stands or falls with its gameplay, not with its story (although a story is important).

Fair enough, point conceded.

Anyway, I don't like opinions: I like facts and that's it.

FOT looks much more Fallouty than FO3 will ever hope to look.

FOT "looks"? As in, your opinion?

 

[Kyuu]

Wooz's anime-angst aside (not as reflected in this particular post, obviously), his post was pretty spot on. Quoting someone just to say something akin to "that's opinion, asshole, not fact," is rather tiring. Especially since you just spent two TLDR-quality posts going over the whole issue.

Opinions can be wrong, if they are based on incorrect assumptions, are made in ignorance, or for many other reasons.

By the way, in my opinion, all signs point to FO3 being of substandard quality, though probably not as bad as Oblivion was (I played it for a while, having enjoyed Morrowind in some aspects, before realizing how utterly empty and boring the entirety of the game was). I'm not sure what makes you so optimistic... go play Oblivion and see if it feels like the kind of game you want Fallout 3 to be an evolution of, because that's what it is, essentially. Same engine, same people, same attitude, new look (in some ways). Bethesda's PR man stated right off that they're not going to do something different, because they only want to do what they do "well." And which parts of what's been shown so far make you go "oooh, they're doing a great job with the Fallout license!"?

 

[FeelTheRads]

The question was about the Fallout license, not about a game randomly named Fallout.

There's a difference.

 

[Sander]

Based on what they did with Oblivion and Morrowind, which I found to be very enjoyable, I think that Fallout 3 will deliver.

What with the awesome dialogue, the plethora of choices and appropriate consequences and great, tactical combat present in those games?

 

[Jidai Geki]

The question was about the Fallout license, not about a game randomly named Fallout.

There's a difference.

The Fallout licence is owned by Bethesda. Thus, the game they are making is, like it or not, a sequel and not "a game randomly named Fallout".

What with the awesome dialogue, the plethora of choices and appropriate consequences and great, tactical combat present in those games?

The size of the world, the sandbox approach, the variety of enemies, spells, weapons and armour, the number of quests (shallow though they may have been, they were no more shallow than any other number of generic RPG quests), the fact that you could create your own spells, the fact that you could create your own weapons/armour, the fact that you could go into virtually any location and kill its owner or simply plunder it, the variety in character creation options...

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

The Fallout licence is owned by Bethesda. Thus, the game they are making is, like it or not, a sequel and not "a game randomly named Fallout".

Which is exactly the problem. The game they are making isn't a sequel to Fallout, it's an improved Oblivion with a futuristic setting and the Fallout label slapped on.

The size of the world, the sandbox approach, the variety of enemies, spells, weapons and armour, the number of quests (shallow though they may have been, they were no more shallow than any other number of generic RPG quests), the fact that you could create your own spells, the fact that you could create your own weapons/armour, the fact that you could go into virtually any location and kill its owner or simply plunder it, the variety in character creation options...

You mean a directionless game, where you can go anywhere, do anything with little or no consequence and is basically about building up your character. Other than freedom of choice it has little or nothing in common with Fallout.

 

[FeelTheRads]

The Fallout licence is owned by Bethesda. Thus, the game they are making is, like it or not, a sequel and not "a game randomly named Fallout".

Obviously not what I meant. Would you try and refrain from such dumb come-backs in the future?

Yes, they own the license, that doesn't mean they do it justice, and it doesn't mean they'll do a real sequel even if they say they do.
Learn to differentiate between title and substance.
Try the link in my signature if you still don't get it.

The size of the world, the sandbox approach, the variety of enemies, spells, weapons and armour, the number of quests (shallow though they may have been, they were no more shallow than any other number of generic RPG quests), the fact that you could create your own spells, the fact that you could create your own weapons/armour, the fact that you could go into virtually any location and kill its owner or simply plunder it, the variety in character creation options...

Of wich pretty much nothing is that important to Fallout except the big world, which anyway in Bethesda's games is empty, generic and completely uninteresting.
And give me a break with this sandbox thing. If you really want a sandbox game, go play Darklands. It's so sandbox it doesn't even have a set narrative.

 

[Jidai Geki]

Which is exactly the problem. The game they are making isn't a sequel to Fallout, it's an improved Oblivion with a futuristic setting and the Fallout label slapped on.

No no no, you obviously don't understand. THEY BOUGHT THE LICENCE. It's called "Fallout 3". The gaming media in its entirety acknowledges it as a sequel to Fallout 2. You might as well be a redneck with a Confederate flag on his trailer bleating on about how the USA doesn't really exist, because the South seceded regardless of whether the rest of the world thinks so. Just because you don't think that it's a sequel, doesn't make it so.

You mean a directionless game, where you can go anywhere, do anything with little or no consequence and is basically about building up your character. Other than freedom of choice it has little or nothing in common with Fallout.

It's as directionless as you make it. That's the point of a sandbox game; do what you want. Do the main quest, or be a thief and steal everybody's shit, or be a dungeon-crawler and go looking for treasure. Of course it has little or nothing in common with Fallout; it's a FPP real-time RPG in 3D. What exactly should it have in common with Fallout?

Obviously not what I meant. Would you try and abstain from such dumb come-backs in the future?

Only if you abstain from making generic comments and then bitching when said comment is challenged.

Yes, they own the license, that doesn't mean they do it justice, and it doesn't mean they'll do a real sequel even if they say they do.
Learn to differentiate between title and substance.

What do you define as a "real" sequel?

Of wich pretty much nothing is that important to Fallout except the big world, which anyway in Bethesda's games is empty, generic and completely uninteresting.
And give me a break with this sandbox thing. If you really want a sandbox game, go play Darklands. It's so sandbox it doesn't even have a set narrative.

How is Oblivion "empty" by anyone's standards? Is it a massive map filled with untextured landscapes and with absolutely nothing to do?

And how is the sandbox question NOT relevant? Does anyone want a linear Fallout 3?

 

[FeelTheRads]

What do you define as a "real" sequel?

It's been said countless of times on this forum. A real sequel must abide to the characteristics of its predecessor. That goes from mechanics to atmosphere and so on.

And how is the sandbox question NOT relevant? Does anyone want a linear Fallout 3?

By any chance Bethesda's games, these supposed gems of sandboxness, weren't liniar? Because apart from the possibility to wander like an idiot in the forest and collect flowers, everything else is liniar... like, you know, the most important parts.
So no, thank you, I don't want Fallout to be this kind of sandbox game. Neither do I want it to be like Darklands, without a storyline, which by the way, it was released in 1992 and it had more choice and consequence than all Bethesda's games put together.

All in all, Fallout is not sandbox. Fallout is non-linear.

Just because you don't think that it's a sequel, doesn't make it so.

Goddamnit, will you spare us the political bullshit. You sound like you'd argue a piece of shit (ahem) is a sequel, because that's what the media says it is.
Yes, Fallout 3 is marketed as a sequel, and yes it will go down in history as a sequel. But if you think that makes it a sequel, I'm sorry for you.

 

[Sander]

Translation: a real sequel must be all but identical to its predecessors.

You are missing the point. It is not about being identical, it is about preserving the core of the game. As I've already shown to you, part of the core of the series is the gameplay, which they have completely ignored and just implemented their Oblivion gameplay.

No no no, you obviously don't understand. THEY BOUGHT THE LICENCE. It's called "Fallout 3". The gaming media in its entirety acknowledges it as a sequel to Fallout 2. You might as well be a redneck with a Confederate flag on his trailer bleating on about how the USA doesn't really exist, because the South seceded regardless of whether the rest of the world thinks so. Just because you don't think that it's a sequel, doesn't make it so.

We're not arguing it's not an official sequel, we're arguing that it's not a faithful sequel and that's *all* that matters to us. You're just being pedantic and annoying in arguing 'but it's official so hah!'

The size of the world, the sandbox approach, the variety of enemies, spells, weapons and armour, the number of quests (shallow though they may have been, they were no more shallow than any other number of generic RPG quests), the fact that you could create your own spells, the fact that you could create your own weapons/armour, the fact that you could go into virtually any location and kill its owner or simply plunder it, the variety in character creation options...

Please explain to me how any of that, outside of the sandbox approach, is relevant to Fallout. I didn't see a variety of enemies, spells, weapons and armour in Fallout, nor did I see many shallow inconsequential quests, nor did I see any creating of your own spells (or weapons or armour), nor did I see any random killing go essentially unpunished in Fallout. And no, paying a fine for a murder is not the same as proper consequences.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

No no no, you obviously don't understand. THEY BOUGHT THE LICENCE. It's called "Fallout 3". The gaming media in its entirety acknowledges it as a sequel to Fallout 2.

It doesn't matter who owns the licence or what it's called it's a sequel in name only. The Force Unleashed isn't a sequel to the Jedi Knight series, Fallout Tactics wasn't a sequel to FO2, Halo Wars isn't a sequel to Halo 3. Same franchise, same setting, different gameplay and different stories does not a sequel make. This is why people are upset!

It's as directionless as you make it. That's the point of a sandbox game; do what you want. Do the main quest, or be a thief and steal everybody's shit, or be a dungeon-crawler and go looking for treasure.

And Fallout isn't a sandbox franchise, it isn't about doing the main quest or not, it's about getting the water chip or getting the GECK. What happens along the way is just a means to get you there, what you find along the way, which might be more important than finding some old tech is essential to the game. All the other stuff isn't there so you can do what you want but to challenge and prepare you.

Of course it has little or nothing in common with Fallout; it's a FPP real-time RPG in 3D. What exactly should it have in common with Fallout?

Oh how about for a start, same setting, same gameplay, same attention to detail and quality of writing.

What do you define as a "real" sequel?

A recognisable progression of gameplay and story. FPP is not an advancement over isometric! Real time is not an advancement over turnbased! Disregarding previous continuity and ripping off elements of FOT & FOBOS is not an advancement of story.

Wrong.

Yeah you are aren't you, gee wikipedia a bastion of non partisan knowledge and truth. Fallout is story driven, while you can literally stumble on the ending and play through in a non linear fashion it has a linear plot.

And how is the sandbox question NOT relevant? Does anyone want a linear Fallout 3?

A non-linear game doesn't mean sandbox, Fallout isn't open ended and while there's no set path through the game there are paths there to lead different characters through. Most of Fallout 2 is there for dumb characters, nearly all paths in Fallout 2 lead to Vault 13.

 

[Ausir]

If Blizzard bought the Might & Magic franchise and made Heroes of Might & Magic 6 as an RTS based on the Warcraft 3 engine, but within the M&M universe, keeping the various HoMM factions and units, would you consider it a faithful sequel?

 

[Bernard Bumner]

What exactly should it have in common with Fallout?

How about a strong sense of historical/mythological narrative that interweaves throughout a story-driven roleplaying scenario, allowing genuine player choice and consequences.

Or, the ability to react - or not - to situations in a manner that is self-consistent with a player-defined character, but also continuous with regards to background, setting, and story.

Maybe, gameplay which fosters player investment in the Fallout mythos in order to provide subtle, but strong, motivation, thus encouraging and rewarding progression through a balanced and focussed - but non-linear - storyline.

Without a strong story to move the player forwards, then the role of the player in Fallout is reduced to that of a rather unpleasant moralistic itenerant hobo, who is probably ultraviolent (since a diplomatic character would have even less to do in such an unrewarding style of gameplay).

The moral ambiguity of the Fallout universe is absolutely predicated on the basis that a good, neutral, or evil character will be faced with non-binary choices which may impel them towards uncharacteristic acts. That kind of subtlety can only be based on confronting the character with choices via the medium of narrative.

Fallout was decidely not about treasure-hunting, because even a fairly conservative player was rewarded fairly quickly with items and skills (and much more so in 2). This allowed them to get to the meat of the game, which is the meaningful interaction with the rest of the universe. What is to be gained from allowing the game to become a dungeon-crawler, when the loss of purpose would be such a great cost?

Whilst we're at it: what does "sandbox" really mean any more? (Because it has only recently been co-opted to describe non-linear play, it used to be a mode in which the player created the scenario - clearly not, therefore, applicable to cRPGs). The sandbox element of the original Fallout games is probably most obvious at the end of the second game, once there is very little to do or see (except the new dialogue), and one can simply meander around the map looking for random encounters. How many hunting rifles do I need? Possibly, it was boring because there was no glass combat armour, I'm not sure? Maybe it was just that the life of a directionless vagabond was so much less rewarding than that of a character with something to fight for?

Stamp-collecting is simply not interesting to me, and the idea of searching for yet another variant - each more unlikely than the last - of a fairly ubiquitous object, is not appealing. Does Fallout really require enough items to make treasure-hunting rewarding? Of course not, it simply requires enough items to get you through to end - which is the whole point of the story of that cultural naive, who somehow manages to save his own little world (and life) by a combination of guts and determination.

(By the way, I'm still hopeful that Bethesda will produce soemthing that is good and fun, and won't be too much of a travesty for me to play it. Call me a fool.)

 

[Paladin Solo]

Based on what they did with Oblivion and Morrowind, which I found to be very enjoyable, I think that Fallout 3 will deliver.

Based on what they did with Oblivion, we can expect linear, "go here, kill these guys, GET POINTS YOU'LL NEVER USE LOL" quests, no reason to leveling-up your character whatsoever since everything just levels up with you (even though, it's still too easy), hyped-up features which in the end, will be bland and uninteresting, a large world where there is little to do, and even less reason to do it, generic populace that offers little to no use other than "did you see those mudcrabs" "disgusting creatures, I hate them.", a plethora of randomly generated dungeons that offer nothing of any particular use except to show off the wonders of bloom and shadow effects, tedious, repetitive, and hack-and-slash adventures, a world where consequences are a price-tag on your head which can easily be forgotten by the all-time low price of 1000 coins or a few days in jail with some attributes losses that you'll never use anyways, ridiculously stupid AI that even Fallout 1, 2, and Tactics could better in comparison, a quest that makes the GECK adventure much better in consideration "LOL demons are after me, here, go do the Empire a service as a thanks on your behalf for us locking you up for unknown reasons, and for an unknown amount of time, and if anyone complains, say you're LARPing LOL!", character-creation that has little to no use in-game, dumbing down of the game to better suit the limits/uses of the console, and a pc-edition that was riddled with bugs.

Based on those things, which I found to be the gold-mine of role-playing gaming, I will expect super-duper things for Fallout 3. And if I should dare not, I should shut my mouth because it's too early to tell.

Too bad a lot of people equate RPG with fantasy action-adventure.

Hey, I got a great idea, I'm going to buy some broke company's rights to an steam-punk FPS shooter that emphasizes weapons and blowing shit up, turn it into an third-person fantasy role-playing game where character-creation is a core element of the game, emphasize class-selection and stealth elements, then I'll call it revolutionizing the industry and hail it as the second-coming of God-almighty and add the number 2 behind its original title, since the original devs would've definitely done the same thing but couldn't because technology was lacking in those prehistoric days of cable-tv and 2-dimensional games. HOW'S THAT FOR A SLICE OF GOLD!

 

[Edge386]

The moment I heard Bethesda had bought the rights and were using the Oblivion engine to power their take on Fallout, my hopes plummeted. They have not been picked up since. This however, does not mean my interest is disintigrated. I find discussion on Fallout 3 to be very interesting.