Todd Howard on Gamasutra

[Bernard Bumner]

I was just talking about position of someone checking here for news while not caring about Beth's F3. And, my negativity is not pre-decided....I fe. can see a lot of reasons why F3 will sux.

"will"? - perhaps may or even looks likely to would sound a little less predetermined.

While I amd still shocked by terminator-style humor quote I simply can't believe some few positive things the Beth people say (with PR bulshit and nothing concrete btw.)

Isn't that whole point, though? Bethesda have said virtually nothing about the game, and yet there is a huge amount of time and words devoted to interpreting and extrapolating what little they have said. I understand why this is, and I understand some of the cynicism, but too much speculation seems to become assumed fact for it be described as anything other than "negativity".

Bethesda have made a lot of positive noises, and it really does remain to be seen whether that translates into a satisfying product. There have also been a few quotes which don't bode well. (As of now, it quacks like a duck, smells a bit like a bull, and who knows what it will turn out to be once they pull back the curtain?) Bethesda haven't release enough details to properly critique, let alone started to really hype this one yet. Skepticism is much healthier at this point than outright cynicism.

 

[Brother None]

Also, the "anything bad Bethesda says is bible truth and anything good Bethesda says I can not trust" is a bit of a stretch for me.

 

[globbi]

Ahh well, a typical reaction of human who lost his trust in something, isn't it?

 

[Goweigus]

Bethesda have made a lot of positive noises, and it really does remain to be seen whether that translates into a satisfying product. There have also been a few quotes which don't bode well. (As of now, it quacks like a duck, smells a bit like a bull, and who knows what it will turn out to be once they pull back the curtain?) Bethesda haven't release enough details to properly critique, let alone started to really hype this one yet. Skepticism is much healthier at this point than outright cynicism.

What positive noises? Unless its that what they say is bull crap, as far as I know all the quotes haven't boded well. Cept maybe 1 about how they will try to keep bloody mess and makes things gory. And the combination of suspicous quotes and Fascist supremacy of Factual forum criticism of their other games does not help them either

 

[Briosafreak]

think the hardcore fans are incredibly misunderstood, and frankly, have been mistreated in the past. We've been reading the forums a lot and much of our thinking on Fallout 3 is just listening to experiences people had with the other games, like how those games made them feel, what they liked and disliked about every Fallout game.

The reason we wanted to make a Fallout game in the first place, was just how much we loved the first game. But we weren't the ones online posting all the time about a game from 97. Think about that...8 years later and they still haven't gotten a decent Fallout RPG, and people keep shoving crap at them. I'd be pissed too. I'd be wary of the new guys from Bethesda too. Hopefully when they see our game they'll give it a shot.

This quote is rather good.

 

[Morbus]

Absolutely! Is it *another* blink of hope? Ah, well... We're bound to see what they're up to in a few months, anyways....

 

[Bernard Bumner]

What positive noises? Unless its that what they say is bull crap, as far as I know all the quotes haven't boded well. Cept maybe 1 about how they will try to keep bloody mess and makes things gory.

Take a look at almost every interview; they repeat the same things about being fans of the original games. They appear show an understanding of the setting, the atmosphere, the story, the music, and so on. However, anything they've said so far is general in the extreme, and could simply amount to paying lip-service to the ideals of fans.

(Of course, They is pretty meaningless here, because we're dealing with various people with various levels of actual involvement in the end product. That is exactly why talking any real positives or negatives from such vague soundbites relies heavily on one's preconceptions.)

 

[Sander]

Take a look at almost every interview; they repeat the same things about being fans of the original games. They appear show an understanding of the setting, the atmosphere, the story, the music, and so on.

Errr....no they don't. They didn't show any understanding of the atmosphere, they in fact showed the opposite (with the 'Fallout is violence and cartoons next to eachother!!' comments).
The only they thing they showed they 'understood' about the music was that they were listening to 40s music. The problem here is that Fallout's in-game music was largely electronic and ambient, not 40s at all. The story is something they've said nothing about whatsoever.

What is positive is their affirmation that they are looking more to Fallout 1 than 2.

 

[Bunkermensch]

Yep that quote sounds good. Maybe Bethesda isn't the pure evil.
My new theory is that Microsoft is responsible for the decreasing quality of PC Games, because of their creation of XBOX. Imagine a world without it, there wouldn't be Oblivion or any Game specialized for XBOX Gamers and ported to PC .... Fallout3 would be developed for PC only!
This theory is rather simple but it took me a long time to get it ... :lighten:
lets go XBOX crushing!!

 

[Morbus]

ALL consoles are evil in their most basic nature. Limitated and crippled machines, when compared to PC... or mac's or something, of course.

 

[Bunkermensch]

ALL consoles are evil in their most basic nature. Limitated and crippled machines, when compared to PC... or mac's or something, of course.

Thats right, but XBOX is the evil king of consoles.
Only the thought of the fact that Fallout3 will be a XBOX game destoys the dream of a playable Fallout game. So what Todd is telling is of no bigger importance because it is not possible to build a good Fallout3 game for XBOX. Fallout3 is condemned since it was developed as a console game.

For Todd once again, because he is reading the forums:
Fallout3 developed for XBOX cannot be a Fallout game.
the problem is visualized in the sentence by coloration

 

[Morbus]

It's not certain that both games (Xbox's and PC's FO3) will be equal...It's not certain... yet...

 

[Bernard Bumner]

Errr....no they don't. They didn't show any understanding of the atmosphere, they in fact showed the opposite (with the 'Fallout is violence and cartoons next to eachother!!' comments).
The only they thing they showed they 'understood' about the music was that they were listening to 40s music. The problem here is that Fallout's in-game music was largely electronic and ambient, not 40s at all. The story is something they've said nothing about whatsoever.

What is positive is their affirmation that they are looking more to Fallout 1 than 2.

Sorry, there needed to separation between those first two sentences you've quoted, and maybe some clarification of my points. In every interview They seem to repeat the same things about being fans of the original games.

At some points various people working for Bethesda have said things that could taken as understanding various components of setting, atmosphere, and music of the originals. (So they don't appear to be looking towards modern popular rock music, for instance, which we all know should have been unthinkable to anybody involved with a Fallout title! However, they've said pretty much as little about this as about anything else.)

However, as per my last point, nobody has expressed an understanding of all of those things in a single coherent statement, and nor have they ever said enough to really judge whether that apparent understanding will inform the final product. It isn't even clear whether there is a unified vision of the original game shared by the people actually producing this one.

My main point is that there has really been as little negative said as there has been positive, i.e. very little at all. Speculation at this point is entirely that, because most of the soundbites have been short and oblique. People have said things which are very positive, such as the fact that they're looking toward Fallout 1 as their standard, and they have also dropped the clangers about humour and the such like.

It seems to me that it would be foolish at this point to fall overwhelmingly towards blind optimism or to write the whole thing off. Time will tell.

 

[Sander]

Sorry, there needed to separation between those first two sentences you've quoted, and maybe some clarification of my points. In every interview They seem to repeat the same things about being fans of the original games.

Which is a meaningless admission. Remember that the FoOS developers said the same thing.

At some points various people working for Bethesda have said things that could taken as understanding various components of setting, atmosphere, and music of the originals. (So they don't appear to be looking towards modern popular rock music, for instance, which we all know should have been unthinkable to anybody involved with a Fallout title! However, they've said pretty much as little about this as about anything else.)

As I said, I haven't seen any understanding of anything from them yet, except for the 40s music.
Where did anyone show they understood the atmosphere, for instance?

My main point is that there has really been as little negative said as there has been positive, i.e. very little at all. Speculation at this point is entirely that, because most of the soundbites have been short and oblique. People have said things which are very positive, such as the fact that they're looking toward Fallout 1 as their standard, and they have also dropped the clangers about humour and the such like.

It seems to me that it would be foolish at this point to fall overwhelmingly towards blind optimism or to write the whole thing off. Time will tell.

Bullshit.
Really. So far the *only* positive thing has been the remark on Fallout 1, although they've started to 'warm up' to the hardcore audience.
If you look at everything they've said before that, including the 'leaks' that we've had and their understanding of the 'RPG' concept, there's plenty of reason to be negative until they show they can be trusted.

 

[Bernard Bumner]

Okay, just to draw a line under this one, so that it doesn't look as though I've just tried to let it die without defending what I've said.

Bullshit.
Really. So far the *only* positive thing has been the remark on Fallout 1, although they've started to 'warm up' to the hardcore audience.

Here, I disagree. There are positive noises - I went back and checked through the interviews and the Fallout 3 FAQ and made a list of some.

I was perhaps not clear enough (again); they are only positive at face value, or else, by implication. This is part of my point - the positives are few and far between, as are the negatives. Overwhelmingly, what They've said so far is very, very little.

The positives mainly stem from statements that they are making a sequel to Fallout 2, with more of the tone of the first game. They talk about keeping the elements of the first games that made them special (although, of course, they generally describe those things in very nebulous terms).

If you look at everything they've said before that, including the 'leaks' that we've had and their understanding of the 'RPG' concept, there's plenty of reason to be negative until they show they can be trusted.

In many respects, I agree with you here, although I would use the word skeptical, rather than negative. I would tend to see you, for instance, as strongly skeptical; you've offered reasoning, supported by evidence, as to why you're not hopeful about the game (and you seem to remain open to the possibility of being proved wrong).

This is in contrast to people who are simply negative and attempt to interpret every quote - no matter how minimal its content - as further proof that the game is utterly beyond hope (i.e. when someone pounces on the idea of 40's music for Fallout 3, without even checking the most obvious of facts).

Anyway, aside from that, I'm not sure that there is much else to argue on this one. All I'm trying to say is that - for the time being - I'm sitting firmly on the fence trying to ignore the spike jabbing me in the arse...

 

[Bradylama]

You really should've just let it go.

The positives mainly stem from statements that they are making a sequel to Fallout 2, with more of the tone of the first game. They talk about keeping the elements of the first games that made them special (although, of course, they generally describe those things in very nebulous terms).

Which doesn't really mean anything. If somebody tells you they know how to cut a diamond, you better damn well ask to see examples of their work before handing over the rock.

We might not have any examples from Bethesda in regards to diamonds, but they've made plenty enough crappy jewelry over the years.

This is in contrast to people who are simply negative and attempt to interpret every quote - no matter how minimal its content - as further proof that the game is utterly beyond hope (i.e. when someone pounces on the idea of 40's music for Fallout 3, without even checking the most obvious of facts).

You mean like what Sander said about the music being electronic and ambient, while "40's music" is mostly used as flavor tracks for the intro and closing credits?

There's really no fault in being negative either. If somebody's wrong, they're wrong, and evidence will refute their ideas. However, I'm still hella negative, and have very little faith whatsoever that I'll be impressed by what Bethesda has to show us.

 

[Bernard Bumner]

You really should've just let it go.

I thought about, because none of this really does achieve anything. However, I've always been a slave to having the last word! No, I just didn't want to give the impression that I'd just let it die because I didn't feel I could defend my point; I promise that I'lll say nothing else this one after this.

...Which doesn't really mean anything...

Which is my point exactly; the real litmus test comes when they start giving details.

There is a case to be made for skeptisicm on the basis of their other output, but overinterpretation of the few crumbs they've scattered so far on this one doesn't make a convincing argument.

I'll shut up now....