Todd Howard on RPGs

[Section8]

Even making the assumption that 99% of content produced by the gaming media is filled with idiocy, that article managed to offend me into a rare "tl;dr" state by about the fourth paragraph.

 

[Sorrow]

What you fail to mention is that it was one of your whining posts that made up his mind to give up. The problem was that he found working like this unrewarding. And who can blame him, when the most feedback he gets is from you.

You mean the most of my feedback which was supportive, constructive and that led him to adding new features, like no-hit-points-on-level-up and the first dungeon becoming actually survivable in iron man mode? I don't think so...

You fail to mention that in that particular situation he wanted to increase sales of his game by hiding how his game really looks from potential buyers, which is pretty hypocritical when it comes from someone who writes on his website about how shareware games are great because they allow the player to decide if he really wants to buy that game or not and that if demo isn't good, it will not sell any copies.
Could you seriously advice anyone to spent their money on that game without trying the shareware version first?
I couldn't. Especially that I have shown the demo to a few other hardcore cRPG fans and they didn't like it.

So, I was supportive and constructive and I didn't mention things that I (and the people I mentioned before) didn't like about the game and which were impossible to repair without a lot of work until he decided to throw ethics out of the window and use the very model of sale that he criticized in mainstream publishers, which prevented people from finding out about these things by playing the shareware version and deciding if they will tolerate them or not.

Also, that was one hell of a stupid, short-sighted post you made just now.

Stupid and short-sighted? Because I'm not afraid to talk about unscrupulous developers that that throw ethics out of the window when they become inconvenient and go emo over criticism and completely abandon support without even caring to find a mirror for patches?

So, now there are separate rules for mainstream developers and indies? When indies do the same unethical shit that mainstream developers get criticism for, everything is okay?

Sorry, but I lost 40$ on a game that stopped working on my computer because of malfunctioning DRM and I didn't get any support because the developer couldn't stand the fact that there are people who don't like his creation. Tolerating such things would be stupid and short-sighted.

I was thinking you couldn't get any lower after telling Iron Tower's Vince that he was "part of the problem"

He was an asshole towards me, so I was an asshole towards him. Sorry but I don't believe in turning the other cheek.

but here you are spouting an even dumber vision on the state of RPGs.

Really? So, mainstream developers develop excellent classical RPGs that not only surpass Fallout, but also don't require cutting edge hardware?

You always find new ways to surprise me.

Personally, I dream about a cross between Fallout: A GURPS Post-Nuclear Adventure and Wasteland - simple, cheap 2d graphics, combat system that would be close to GURPS or The Riddle of Steel, interesting world, good dialogues, good story, good quests...

So make it.

Maybe in future when I'll collect enough design experience from modding, acquire proper programming skills and find a decent writer.

 

[Maszin]

As someone stated above, after the amazingly sincere bombardment by Emil "WE AM GODZ" Pagliarulo and the amount of bullshit PR-ed over the last year it does not even come close to a surprise. And yet it's always nice to see your number one enemy proving you right. Hell, Todd is getting the position next to Andy Warhol on my personal list of people who proved that any shit can be sold and praised if hyped properly.

Mostly it’s about plenty of player progression and making repetitive actions, such as combat, interesting.

Said the man who can take the credit for Oblivion's oh-so-interesting repetitive actions increasing the suicide rate among players who don't expect RPG games to provide a challenge for their thumbs.

 

[Tagaziel]

I, me, my, mine..

Heh, Bethesda uses the same logic to justify Fallout 3: a game we want to play.

Bloated ego, anyone?

 

[Mettle]

Here at least, the RPG has an advantage: it’s fundamentally designed to train you up from nothing, as Howard points out. “It’s often easy in an RPG to keep layering on the complexity with new abilities. It actually makes the game more fun and addictive then if you gave all that stuff out at the beginning.”

After that, it’s all about the grind – specifically, disguising it so you don’t notice that it’s there. Howard again: “Mostly it’s about plenty of player progression and making repetitive actions, such as combat, interesting. If the basic monster-killing is fun and exciting, I will do it over and over for hours on end – especially if it unlocks new abilities.”

Heh, this part actually made me laugh. Especially when I read;

Howard fully expects Fallout 3 to push RPGs forward by “mixing genres and providing plenty of unique interactions” for the gamer. This could be a potential game of the year.

Wich sounds ridiculous to me, might be reading to much into it, but how can the game be "all about the grind" and "provide plenty of unique interactions"?
Sounds like he's trying to make World of Fallout, not ... Fallout.
The first sentence in that part does'nt make any sence to me, at all. My mind stands still as I try to find some meaning in those words.
Anyone that can help me out?

The final RPG that’s got us excited is the upcoming Fallout 3, which should be out by the end of this year. The fact that this is a sequel to an ageing franchise that hasn’t had an entry in ten years shouldn’t matter – this is Bethesda’s next project, and if Oblivion’s anything to go by, it’ll be a cracker. Expect jet-black humour and people juice everywhere – the combat system will allow you to pause the action at any particular time and target specific body parts.

Swedish PCGamer magazine recently reviewed SOF - Payback (42% score, 45% metacritic), though I don't hold them to any high esteem, they pretty much hated it, despite; Good graphics, good physics (Their own words) and silly amounts of gore/violence.

I'm curious to know what the score for FINO3 will be at release...

 

[Wooz]

The fact that this is a sequel to an ageing franchise that hasn’t had an entry in ten years

Oh, really?

What about Fallout:Tictacs and Falloutiece Of Shit?

Someone didn't do his homework.

 

[Mettle]

Depends on how you see it, he might've thought of "proper" entries.

But hell, I don't like 'em one bit.
They really did'nt. *Grin*

 

[Sorrow]

I, me, my, mine..

Heh, Bethesda uses the same logic to justify Fallout 3: a game we want to play.

Bloated ego, anyone?

Except that I'm simply talking about my about dream cRPG, not about an established franchise.

Faulty logic, anyone?

 

[Tagaziel]

Except that I'm simply talking about my about dream cRPG, not about an established franchise.

And applying it to everything you find, spouting bullshit about purity and similiar nonsense.

 

[Sander]

The notion that somehow graphics are irrelevant is pretty stupid, you know. It's one of the hallmarks of the medium, aside from interactivity, and there is no reason whatsoever not to use that possibility to its full potential.

You're not going about screaming about the uselesness of colour cinema either, right?

 

[Morbus]

The notion that somehow graphics are irrelevant is pretty stupid, you know. It's one of the hallmarks of the medium, aside from interactivity, and there is no reason whatsoever not to use that possibility to its full potential.

You're not going about screaming about the uselesness of colour cinema either, right?

Graphics are important in any game, but not the way they make it be. Games are about Gameplay, first and foremost, and everything else comes either as an extra or as a way to improve gameplay. Graphics may exist to improve gameplay, and they do, but pretty graphics very seldom are used to that purpose. Instead, they come as extras, and, in that sense, they are complete useless and should only be though of (just as any other potential extra) when the gameplay, the game itself, is polished to the point where the devs can say "this is what we wanted to do. Now, on to the eyecandy". Graphics are important, pretty graphics are not.

If you can't see this, then I don't know what to call you...

:EDIT:
Look at Dwarf Fortress, for example, for a way to have graphics exclusively to help get the gameplay through to the player. Look at, I don't know, Eschalon or Age of Decadence for a way to have graphics help get the gameplay through to the player and at the same time serve as a extra (they are pretty and all). Now look at Oblivion for a way to dumb down the gameplay where you could play the game in notepad and excel and have the graphics serve almost exclusively as an extra, eyecandy. In ten years, Oblivion will NOT be playable by anyone, when everypoint of it that ever was top notch (i.e. graphics) is incredibly outdated. And in ten years, and more, Fallout and all those last millennium classical RPGs will still be played...

 

[Sorrow]

Except that colour cinema isn't made to force people to spend 1000s of dollars to upgrade their DVDs players every 3 years. I have yet to see a movie that is funded by tv/DVD developer so that it would require hardware that will be available 2 years later.

And applying it to everything you find, spouting bullshit about purity and similiar nonsense.

I checked my posts from the last months and came to conclusion that you are lying or exaggerating an outdated data.

 

[Brother None]

You mean the most of my feedback which was supportive, constructive and that led him to adding new features, like no-hit-points-on-level-up and the first dungeon becoming actually survivable in iron man mode? I don't think so...

No, the later feedback when you started flaming him for removing his demo. Which was indeed an odd move, but no need to become a whiny kid...wait...did I say "become"?

You fail to mention that in that particular situation he wanted to increase sales of his game by hiding how his game really looks from potential buyers

What the fuck is wrong with you? Is that actually how you remember it happened or are you just in denial? "Looks"? There are screenshots of the game strewn all across the internet including on several vending points of the game. Besides, OS wasn't actually attracting many news potential buyers at that point, demo or no. Word of mouth is where it's at, and was he making any attempts to manipulate word of mouth? No, you thought it sucked and you told other people it sucked. No stopping that.

Could you seriously advice anyone to spent their money on that game without trying the shareware version first?
I couldn't. Especially that I have shown the demo to a few other hardcore cRPG fans and they didn't like it.

Some like it, some don't. I didn't dig Omega Syndrome much either, though ironically the engine is the ideal one to make a simple 2D game with tactical combat. Seriously, couldn't think of an engine better suited for it.

So, I was supportive and constructive and I didn't mention things that I (and the people I mentioned before) didn't like about the game and which were impossible to repair without a lot of work until he decided to throw ethics out of the window and use the very model of sale that he criticized in mainstream publishers, which prevented people from finding out about these things by playing the shareware version and deciding if they will tolerate them or not.

Wow, are you ever a dickwad. It's his game, he can determine whether he wants to put up a demo or not. If you can't decide whether or not you want to buy it without playing a demo, then don't buy it. He wasn't exactly holding a gun to people's heads forcing them to buy it, was he?

Ethics out the window? Where the hell do you come off pretending you're on the high moral point here, S?

Stupid and short-sighted?

That remark wasn't about OS, whose actions are pretty shitty, but more about the rest of your stupidity. Thanks for the rant, though.

He was an asshole towards me, so I was an asshole towards him. Sorry but I don't believe in turning the other cheek.

Ahahaha, you dipshit, he was being an asshole towards you because you were spouting off some of the dumbest shit ever seen, and he has a zero tolerance policy towards dumbasses.

Sorry he hurt your feelings and everything, but next time, maybe you should try to think before you post.

Really? So, mainstream developers develop excellent classical RPGs that not only surpass Fallout, but also don't require cutting edge hardware?

Straw man again and you're out. Just giving you a fair warning.

No, the dumbass bit of your post is where you hold up the RPG business to some kind of idiotic unreachable golden standard, which is irrelevant because it doesn't exist, and then note "quickly losing respect towards indie ones" (as if anyone should really care about your opinion of them, but apropos).

The idiocy in your rant is that you view everything from an ego-perspective. You somehow think your idiotic views on the RPG business are important enough that they should be dominant, and you fail to recognize how the mainstream is making games people want to buy while indies are making games they want to make. I can't even get my head around how stupid it is to then hold up indie games to your standards as if they're even remotely relevant to them.

Maybe in future when I'll collect enough design experience from modding, acquire proper programming skills and find a decent writer.

No, put up or shut up.

People have as much right to whine and complain as they like. But when you start trolling independent developers like you do and somehow think it's important that they adapt their vision to your tastes, you're going a step too far. If you think your tastes and views and design intellect are so awesome, then either put up or shut. the. fuck. up.

Considering your stunted views on graphics, gameplay and other elements of RPGs, I doubt anyone would really care, though.

 

[Sander]

Graphics are important in any game, but not the way they make it be. Games are about Gameplay, first and foremost, and everything else comes either as an extra or as a way to improve gameplay. Graphics may exist to improve gameplay, and they do, but pretty graphics very seldom are used to that purpose. Instead, they come as extras, and, in that sense, they are complete useless and should only be though of (just as any other potential extra) when the gameplay, the game itself, is polished to the point where the devs can say "this is what we wanted to do. Now, on to the eyecandy". Graphics are important, pretty graphics are not.

If you can't see this, then I don't know what to call you...

I don't recall ever claiming that graphics should go before, or are more important than, gameplay, story or other components of a game. So I really don't see what relevance your rant has to my remark.

Yes, I'm being curt. It's because this is a dumbshit argument. Seriously, all I'm saying is that 'please don't make games pretty' makes no fucking sense.

Except that colour cinema isn't made to force people to spend 1000s of dollars to upgrade their DVDs players every 3 years. I have yet to see a movie that is funded by tv/DVD developer so that it would require hardware that will be available 2 years later.

People are forcing you to play these games?
I'd get some new bosses if I were you.

 

[Moving Target]

Shit.

Please don't encourage him.

Sorry. Should've seen that coming.

 

[fireb0rn]

“Mostly it’s about plenty of player progression and making repetitive actions, such as combat, interesting. If the basic monster-killing is fun and exciting, I will do it over and over for hours on end – especially if it unlocks new abilities.”

oh lord...

 

[Deleted member 53669]

Frankly, 90% games I bought in last 10 years are games that go to shelf after a couple of hours of playing or prove fatally flawed after a longer time.
Icewind Dale 2 - I played it for 5 hours and got bored with it.
Neverwinter Nights - I played it for 3 hours, disliked the elven whore on loading screens, shiny special effects and dumbed-down gameplay. I stopped playing it after discovering that I can't kill "innocent" people (or children).
Arcanum - played it for a day, got put off by weird character development system that gives me a character that is weaker than mere commoners in towns and simply feels unfinished. Started playing again after I found a character editor and edited my character to be equal to townspeople, I played for a few weeks, but got put off by dungeon crawling and broken combat system - never got myself to finish it.
Delta Force: Black Hawk Down - played for 2 days, got put off by horrible AI of allies, which made the game very frustrating.
The Temple of Elemental Evil - played for 2 hours, got to Homlet, got bored to death. I tried starting it for 12 times and finally uninstalled it.
Hammer And Sickle - installed it, saw the Starforce logo - returned it to store.
Laser Squad Nemesis - played it for 2 hours, got bored to death with uninspired gameplay - old Laser Squad was much more playable.
Omega Syndrome - found it unplayable, edited savegames to make a decent character - got pretty far before dying. Talked with developer to change the game balance. Got bored with uninspiring dungeon crawling after 2 days. After some time the developer released a patch that made game crawl even on high-end hardware and disappeared because too few people bought the game, which proves that piracy isn't needed to make a shitty design fail. Downloaded an old demo, which somehow made my CD-Key "expire". The game doesn't want to run on my comp anymore. I sent two e-mails about it to the creator, but he didn't bother to reply, which is pretty amusing taking in account that he criticized Bioshock for its DRM .

There were a few games that I really enjoyed, namely Close Combat: Modern Tactics (only because of modding), a space shooter called Astro Menace, another shooter called Soldat and Operation: Flashpoint. That's all. The rest was wasted money. Wait, no wasted money - I actually learned a lot about bad design.

If thats the full extent of a gaming library you have accumulated over ten years, then it's pretty easy to say that your opinions are short-sighted even before analyzing your argument. What fatal flaws do you see in games when you play them? Is it that not every detail is not up to your high standards, envisioned so perfectly and heavenly in your thick skull? May I ask what is the idol of perfect RPG gameplay in your nomenclature? Apparently it's not Fallout, or Wasteland. It's something in your mind that doesn't exist it seems. Fallout 1 and Wasteland will never ever be made again. Deal with it. May I suggest hitting yourself over the head with a lead pipe, acquiring amnesia, and replaying Fallout 1 again after you forgot it existed.


The difference between you and most of everyone else on the forum is that we see cRPGs as the system used to emulate what the designers wanted us to see, and we want to see more. Fallout 3 is not a cRPG, we are pissed, but ah-fucking-well. You, want nothing more than the perfect game that will satisfy your ridiculous ego-fueled standards, and bitch like wildfire when they are not met.

I'm sure everyone else is already sick of hearing this as much as I am.

Then uh, why respond to the thread? I don't read their garbage anymore for the same reason. I just wait for technical info.

The notion that somehow graphics are irrelevant is pretty stupid, you know. It's one of the hallmarks of the medium, aside from interactivity, and there is no reason whatsoever not to use that possibility to its full potential.

You're not going about screaming about the uselesness of colour cinema either, right?

Absolutely. Bad graphics make the whole point of a video game being a "VIDEO" game pointless. Graphics are used to emulate gameplay, but if I can't tell one polygon from another then the gameplay is useless. Space Invaders did the job for the game, and so did the ridiculous system chugger for the PS1, Metal Gear Solid. Graphics achieve whatever the game is going for in visual terms. MGS1 would not have started the idea of cinematic gameplay if the graphics where not as film-like as possible for 1998.