Todd Howard and his inspiration video to gamers everywhere.

[ZigzagPX4]

Yeah, I don't have a problem with Todd as person, I don't know this guy! And he is succesfull in what he's aiming for I guess. So, you have to give him that. He knows how to sell stuff.

What I find really creepy is this ... fetish some have with Todd, like woha! There! You critisted God Howard! No one expects the spanish inquisition I guess. I would assume those people are just trolling ... but I fear ... knowing the human mind, that a lot actually really adore him ...

Seriously. I like the original Fallout 1 developers. But, puting them on some kind of pedestal? They are making games, not curing cancer while pushing space explortion and serving meals to bums on a space station.

It's an Internet running gag - those usually get elaborate and deep, but they're still just jokes. No one actually hails Gabe Newell, or "GabeN", as a god for introducing Steam sales.

As for the anti-criticism culture - well, that exists for every series, every intellectual property, all media, all entertainment, all pieces of fiction AND non-fiction. Unavoidable. As long as humanity remains human, you won't see the "you can't say bad things about this" culture go away.

I know that, don't worry. But seriously, I think it is a bit special with Todd compared to Gabe, considering the target audience of their titles and the way how their marketing is mainly focused on creating entertainment and hype. Even Todd said so much when he was having this conference in some University, they are making mainly entertainment, if I remember his words. I would say this atracts a certain kind of audience, that is simply in to that.

Like why some go to Biber concerts or gathering for the pope. The same kind of people that seek those GOTY shows, going to Blizzcon and all that. It's more about the event than the person I assume. Gabe and many others are not nearly as present like Todd is when it comes to presentations, like the last E3. But Bethesda is not the only one! Don't get me wrong! I am not judging it or saying it is a bad thing.

That's simply how AAA gaming works these days, creating marketing, hype, brands etc. And it is not unique to gaming. This happens with Windows and their conferences, Apple and showcasing new products. And people love it. So much that they start to idolize certain people - for what ever reason, as like they were gods.

Enjoying such events isn't the problem. When people start to shut down their brain, is what I find disturbing.

It's really about the event. And besides, Bethesda aims closer at being "everyday entertainment" like FIFA and Battlefield than being a video game for the video gaming community. But people do shut off their brains to too many things nowadays, that's true. Especially in the technology industry. But it's hopefully going to get better.

Also, a tad bit unrelated, but just for your amusement, have a look at this.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Yeah well, now that you mention it. See, when you put this in context, like what happend from Daggerfall to Morrowind > Oblivion > Skyrim and now from Fallout 3 to Fallout 4, you can clearly see what they mean with experience.

I don't want to write a novell about it nor do I intend to bash on Todd and his approach, because honestly, I feel he is very close to Michael Bay, in the sense that both are mainly into creating (sort of) high quality, but shallow, entertainment products for the masses. And apparantly, it works very well! If I would be runing a company like EA or Bethesda, with the main target to make money with games, I would want to have someone like Todd doing the work as well. However, if my intention would be to realize a certain vision AND to make money with it, I would probably want to have someone like Obsidian on my side.

So I will simply say, that you can put Todd on one end of the extreme, and people like Timothy Cain on the other. Two design approaches, where Todd wants to actually deliver a very great and entertaining experience for as many people as possible, and the other, with Tim creating deep and complex games that challange the player. There are a lot of inbetweens mind you! - Albeit Fallout 4 I guess pushed that extreme a little bit further again ...

- What I don't understand is why Bethesda as company isn't actually upfront about this, no one's really expecting Ubisoft or Rockstart to create those extremly deep, nich products. I doubt that Bethesda would really lose anything if they sold their games the same way like GTA did. But for some reason, it's sold like a very deep role playing experience. I feel they must have this kind of notion that they are superior developers for making "RPGs" for the masses or something. No clue.

The problem, for me personaly, is when you take a game that was exclusively made with one concept in mind (Tim) and turn it upside down to fit a totally dimetrically opposed approach (Todd).

Those two concepts are not only limited to games, to say that!

 

[The_Time_Master]

Tell me quietly, guys and gals of NMA...

Is your hate of Todd Howard seriously serious or is this just some form of extreme cynical sarcasm? Because trust me, people are scared of NMA because they can't tell the difference.

Hot Toddy is just twink fuel.

We expect more RPG in a Fallout RPG. Todd is just.... something beautiful.

 

[naossano]

I don't believe that both visions are mutually exclusives.
You can still make a product that have mass apeal and not necessary totally moronic.
I assume most of you know a movie or a game that had wide success, targeted toward a large audience, while being good at the same time.

Some of the complain about Fallout 3 or Fallout 4 could be fixed without losing audience. You don't lose audience when you have good or even just consistent writing, you don't lose audience when you respect player agency and provide choices & consequences, you don't lose audience when you give the option to turn off invincibility, you don't lose audience when you keep skills, you don't lose audience if you put vehicles as alternative to teleportation and so on...

You might with turn-based isometric, as it always was niche-y from the get go, but many of the things they removed or issues they added weren't necessary for gathering a large audience. They weren't impossible for a technical/financial/manpower/money standpoint, as they have big budget, big team and long developement cycle. They messed some stuff because they didn't care about those, because they were unskilled, because they didn't considered those things as important, because they had assumption about a very specific target audience and didn't want to bother with a larger one or because they don't respect their audience. It can be one or more of those reasons, but not just larger audience. Larger audience doesn't force you to make so many bad choices.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I don't believe that both visions are mutually exclusives.
You can still make a product that have mass apeal and not necessary totally moronic.

It depends, really. There is room for games like Fallout 4. That's not the issue. Like if it was released under a completely different name, not as RPG, and with it's own universe and setting, and not exploting the Fallout franchise. I mean you don't see people here really complaining an awfull lot about GTA, Saints Row or even Borderlands. Why? Because those games can be enjoyed as what they are. Fast paced entertainment with little to no consideration. Infact, quite a lot of people here actually enjoyed Borderlands for example. Same with GTA.

The issue is, if you cram to many different design decisions into one medium, you end up with not pleasing either group - very similar to what Bethesda tried with F4, trying to please shooter crowds, mine-craft lovers, border-lands fetishists and role playing gamers. 3 to 4 games in one, with lots of good ideas, but sadly none of them fleshed out enough to be extremly deep or satisfying.

However, you have to agree that getting a diametrical design like Star Wars and 2001: A Space Odyssey in one movie is nigh to impossible, without sacrificing the quality and message of either the one or the other.

I am not saying those are absolute rules or that a certain movie maker and game developer can't do something exceptional here, trying to go for both. But really it takes a very very special kind of genius to pull it off. Like I said, there are many gray areas here where you can get both visions. But even if it doesn't end up as a trainwreck, one way or another one of those visions will be the stronger element, dictating the tone of the medium. Like where it leans more the one or the other side.

- This is not meant as a evaluation of movie quality!

A Sci Fi movie for example will either lean more on the side of 2001 or Star Wars. Even Matrix was gaining a lot more more attention as action movie than a philosophical odyssey. But really, it is rather rare that you see something that offers you both. Particularly as far as movies goes. Of course, doesn't mean one kind of movie doesn't contain elements from the other. Odyssey contains elements of tension just as how Star Wars has moments of depth, but it doesn't dictate the overall experience of the movie.

 

[ZigzagPX4]

I don't believe that both visions are mutually exclusives.
You can still make a product that have mass apeal and not necessary totally moronic.
I assume most of you know a movie or a game that had wide success, targeted toward a large audience, while being good at the same time.

Some of the complain about Fallout 3 or Fallout 4 could be fixed without losing audience. You don't lose audience when you have good or even just consistent writing, you don't lose audience when you respect player agency and provide choices & consequences, you don't lose audience when you give the option to turn off invincibility, you don't lose audience when you keep skills, you don't lose audience if you put vehicles as alternative to teleportation and so on...

You might with turn-based isometric, as it always was niche-y from the get go, but many of the things they removed or issues they added weren't necessary for gathering a large audience. They weren't impossible for a technical/financial/manpower/money standpoint, as they have big budget, big team and long developement cycle. They messed some stuff because they didn't care about those, because they were unskilled, because they didn't considered those things as important, because they had assumption about a very specific target audience and didn't want to bother with a larger one or because they don't respect their audience. It can be one or more of those reasons, but not just larger audience. Larger audience doesn't force you to make so many bad choices.

Obviously not. Ubisoft, despite their attempts to simplify all the Tom Clancy games for the general audience (and it shows - they advertise directly at RL friends and multiplayer fun), do not mar their own products. They set out to make streamlined, non-complex games and succeed in all points. Bethesda can neither make Fallout pleasing to the old fans or the new mass audience they're aiming at, which is why NMA is surprised they aren't criticised more.

I say it's because they're a jack-of-all-trades. The only AAA jack-of-all-trades video game, actually. All it takes is for a competitor to step in and make an actual Elder Scrolls with guns. Hell, maybe Ubisoft could just stick dialogue choices and choice/consequence into the next Far Cry and they're all set. Bethesda would have to change their tactics or fail.

Then again, some people preferred Fallout 3 over Fallout: New Vegas for the atmosphere and lack of having to think in advance about the effects of your action. So sometimes, when "good" is subjective, you just have to stick with mass appeal. Less risk that way.

That's why simplifying games is such a popular thing to do nowadays - because instead of having to be afraid whether you're going to please Half A or Half B of the original fans, you just aim at a crowd that you know for a fact will pay for the product.

 

[naossano]

What i say is that you aren't required to make complete garbage to keep mass apeal. I doubt they would go in a room and say "Let's make it as worse as possible so we don't risk people not buying it". What they do is making sure that the game is still doable by the lowest skilled/focused player possible. It is entirelly possible to do it without screwing every and each other kind of players. They can allow you to turn off some of the worst feature with mere days of work and implement various kind of difficulties and optionnal challenges. Also they can hire some competents, if not skilled, or even junior writters to do a minimal amount of writting so it doesn't look like the entire game was written by a pair of underage monkeys. It doesn't need to be shakespeare level of writting or AOD level of difficulty. Just don't force everyone into the lowest difficulty setting and the worse level of writting.