Todd Howard Q&A on Gamespot

[Saint_Proverbius]

I would respectfully disagree.

It's true enough that Morrowind was designed for both Xbox and PC, but the mere fact that they might design it for a console does not require "dumbing down", as a number of fairly deep and complex console games attest to. Sure, there's a bunch of shallow and crappy console games too, but it's a larger market, and, well... Sturgeon's Law always applies.

Now, it does mean the control scheme would have to stay simple due to the constraints of a console controller, but that's hardly a problem for Fallout, given how well-designed the user interface is in in FO, FO2, and even Tactics was smart enough to keep it close to that.

There's also a reason why Fallout has never been ported to a console in tact, too, even though many other CRPGs have been. There's quite a bit of difference between Morrowind and Fallout as well, which makes Morrowind easier to translate to a console.

 

[Roshambo]

Maybe you need to educate yourself, first.

I feel pretty educated about this issue. Hearing about a new game coming that will be amazing and then having it cancelled is the worst (see also: X-Com Genesis). However, I still think you guys are overreacting when it comes to this issue because they haven't said much except for "well, we don't know". I can understand why, but calling for BethSoft's heads at this point isn't going to do much.

Apparently you forgot the other two games that started out exactly the same way. Bethesda either is intentionally keeping quiet, or they are truly ignorant about the previous situations.

We'll see, but it's what, day 3? Again, I don't think they know what they're doing with it. However, when people are already saying they won't buy it, there's a possiblity that they'll say "fuck it, then we'll just ignore them" instead of listening and seeing that people, say, want turn-based and a fallout-style camera (ie, not connected to player's location).

Then that would be what makes it fail. I have already pointed this out, but they wouldn't have put that much money down if they didn't have some idea as to what to do with it. They also know by now what the costs are going to be. Loss of support from those who bought the game before and trying to cash in on the TES crowd, or gaining the fan support and get favorable word of mouth to spread Bethesda's recognition into more facets of the Adventure genre. Or they could do something that would drag Bethesda's name through the mud. A LOT of news sites are watching this, with deep interest.

Word of mouth also carries a lot of weight.

I wasn't aware someone tried to sequel Wasteland, but I can see why i didn't hear about it.

Add about 15 years. If it weren't for the name of Fallout, something quite like Fountain of Dreams could very easily happen for it. That is why the fans are upset at this, especially the old school. We've been through this shit before, just with different jokers.

But here's one: I'm aware of the game "Dreamland Cronocles" [sic]. It was being made by Mythos Games, makers of X-Com, which was sold after the funding was cut by BethSoft's parent company (Virgin Interactive for this, i think). The license was sold to a company called Altar who threw away what was already done and made their own engine and design choices and renamed to UFO:Aftermath. The game came out. It wasn't as good as some would have liked but it was pretty decent. The design followed the same ideals as what Mythos would made, it's just that it had some serious gameplay issues.

Namely what made the X-COM franchise popular, and the Euro title for X-COM didn't help, either. X-COM: Apocalypse was...well, sort of like FOT. I don't know, I have an affinity for the Master of Magic development side of things, I didn't follow X-COM's series all that well except for the spin-offs and attempts to make two kinds of combat systems work for the same kind of map/item/stat balancing.

Worse case scenario*: you end up with something like that. Different, but kinda the same and just not as good as the original. Luckily UFO:A wasn't as bad as it could have been because they listened to the fans. BethSoft says they'll do that so hopefully they'll do better than ALTAR did in terms of coming up with a game that is what the fans want. (Although part of the problem with UFO:A was that it was limited by funding, and some serious balance issues).

If it's not in the intent and design of the original, as in a CRPG, then what is the point? Really, why should we cover another cashing in on the franchise? Take a look at the complete lack of anything really FOS related to the site. Then of course we can just wait for another good post-apocalyptic CRPG, probably from Troika themselves, that is a spiritual successor for Fallout and that title can finally rest in peace if it's not going to be well cared for. So far all I've seen from Bethesda is empty hype and claims that they will do what they do best, including no "top-down isometric Baldur's Gate-style" view. I'll have to clip the exact quote, it is /sig worthy.

Like I said, I keep bringing up X-Com because it damn near parallels the Fallout series in how much bullshit it's fans have had to go with.

The Ultima and M&M series as well...including a number of other titles. I know the warning signs to look for; a developer that gives out that many interviews without anything, with a lot of empty reassurances that are full of phrasing that would make a lawyer envious, and doesn't say for sure if they plan to keep to the original game design despite blowing that much money on it...it smells of dishonesty, extremely so.

Then, of course, I could name the title that's in perfect parallel for this situation, one that usually sets most X-COM fans into psychotic rages.

X-COM: Enforcer.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Does anyone know what the Van Buren devs are saying about this? I'd like to hear what Tim, JE, Puuk, MCA and all the others think about this.

Who gives a rat's ass what the last three in that list think? Tim, Leon, Jason, and Chris Taylor would be the important four to ask since they're the original four horseman. MCA is the only one of the latter three that's worked on a Fallout title, and while he's a good level designer, he never exactly made anything that fit in with the setting.

 

[Brutulf]

GS: Fallout had many unique elements for an RPG, including its extensive (and iconic) perk system and darkly comic tone. Will those be present in the sequel?

TH: Oh yes. Most definitely. "Bloody Mess" is the best perk ever, where your enemies die in ultra-violent ways.

Wooooooooooooo!

 

[Darque]

Add about 15 years. If it weren't for the name of Fallout, something quite like Fountain of Dreams could very easily happen for it. That is why the fans are upset at this, especially the old school. We've been through this shit before, just with different jokers.

Yuck... I had forgotten about that game.

 

[Roshambo]

Wooooooooooooo!

/me bursts Brutulf's throat with a pipe rifle at point blank, giggling in a psychotic frenzy at the arterial blood spray.

Yay!

 

[Cutedge]

Apparently you forgot the other two games that started out exactly the same way.

I don't know how FOT started out, although I thought it was pretty clear that FOPOS was going to be a piece of shit from the start. It would have been amusing for a diversion if Chuck and team didn't fuck up even the premise of it and manage to screw up the gameplay of BGDA.

X-COM: Apocalypse was...well, sort of like FOT

The X-Com:A development was supposedly hell in that the final game was essentially what they could cobble together out of what worked. FOPOS had a bad design, XCA just had a bad development (and was far too overzealous, by the developers' own accounts).

If it's not in the intent and design of the original, as in a CRPG, then what is the point?

I don't see it being a non-[C]RPG. I don't think they're going to make a FPS out of it. They at least [should] know better than that.

Things such as the camera angle could be considered trival compared to them not raping the fallout game environment (ie: ghouls attacking you because they eat flesh). Turn based is obviously a more important matter and I would hope they would make a decision on that very early in the design. If they came out next week and said "we don't know about the camera or other things, but it's going to be turn based [or not]" and "it will use SPECIAL [or not]" then we would be at a point where people could be as upset as they are now, in my eyes. Right now, I think we just don't have the concrete info to really know how to feel. Bethesda has made more than just TES, so I don't think we should think immediately that this will be Morrow-out.

Just to clarify because I may have confused people including myself: I'm not saying we shouldn't ask for the heads of BethSoft. I'm saying we shouldn't ask for the heads of BethSoft right now.

The reaction that I think would be best for the community would be to say "hey, okay. you've got the license. Show us what you're going to do". When they come back, we criticize, we complain, we applaud whatever decisions they've made that agree with the collective fallout community's wishes, and from there it's a point where people can be saying "Okay, you're as bad as iply and we're doomed"... or not, as the case may be.

A LOT of news sites are watching this, with deep interest.

And with hope that should tell Bethsoft something:
People liked this game. Don't fuck it up.

With that knowledge, I would think (and hope) they that won't do something radical and stupid, ie make a Fallout FPS, or make it have a combat system similar to Dungeon Siege.

that is a spiritual successor for Fallout and that title can finally rest in peace if it's not going to be well cared for

Wasn't fallout a spirtual successor to Wasteland? A spirtual successor to a spirtual seccessor. Pretty amusing if you don't think about it too much lest you get saddened by it.

X-COM: Enforcer

Well I would really hope it doesn't come to that. Besides, I thought the parallel for that was FOPOS.

Then again, X-Com Enforcer came out of the fact that Genesis was canned and the team had nothing to work on and the fact that since they canned Star Trek First Contact they had a license left for the Unreal Tournament engine. Since it was the same team, I remember telling people in the community that we should buy it so it'll show that there was interest in X-Com. I know I wasn't alone in that sentament. Looking back, it was foolish to think that any outcome other than no X-Com would come out of it.



I need a forum title that says "I write essays". I fucking write too much.

 

[Roshambo]

Then again, X-Com Enforcer came out of the fact that Genesis was canned and the team had nothing to work on and the fact that since they canned Star Trek First Contact they had a license left for the Unreal Tournament engine. Since it was the same team, I remember telling people in the community that we should buy it so it'll show that there was interest in X-Com. I know I wasn't alone in that sentament. Looking back, it was foolish to think that any outcome other than no X-Com would come out of it.

Which is, oddly enough, what a lot of FOS apologists said. Buy the game so we get Fallout 3.

As for questionable design issues, take a look at my sig. 8)

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Which is, oddly enough, what a lot of FOS apologists said. Buy the game so we get Fallout 3.

... and look. We didn't buy the game and we're still getting a Fallout 3 (for good or bad).

 

[Roshambo]

... and look. We didn't buy the game and we're still getting a Fallout 3 (for good or bad).

Yes, but it's rather like having a blind date who comes from a family of meth addicts.

 

[rikus]

is it just me or is bethasoft are overconfident fools?


just the way he describes the 1st fallouts:
"What I really love about the first two is the overall atmosphere, tone, and role-playing. Those two games really let me choose to play a certain character--and the level of immersion was outstanding."

that sounds a bit high for someone who is about to recreate this, no?

wouldn't it be better to say how he can make this feeling his own creation?

was the level of immersion was outstanding in your standards? if so, how are you going to recreate that outstanding immersion again?

if anyone "dabbled" in creation, he would know that those "out of reach praises" are showing something about the creator itself...

damn, i think all FO devs should just stay on NMA forums for a month and read what people say, and then start to create it, before rushing to exploit another famed title.

 

[jr.]

However, I still think you guys are overreacting when it comes to this issue because they haven't said much except for "well, we don't know".

for a company that got last-minute emergency backing to win the liscense, that's pretty worrying. Bethesda's said alot so far, by the way. from "we'll make Fallout 3 however we want it and ignore anyone who doesn't like it", to "if you have a problem, be quiet", to more than a few contradictions. too early to be written off as a disaster yet, sure, but what -has- been said by Bethesda so far can be read, which doesn't make for confident reading. notice some pattern to this "overreaction", here? the more they say, the more this goes downhill. they need to fix that -now-, and not fix it by saying less.

 

[kibble]

"TH: Oh yes. Most definitely. "Bloody Mess" is the best perk ever, where your enemies die in ultra-violent ways."

Are our 3D engines up to the task of removing limbs and such which anyone would give a shit about this?

Oh, and of course, it's going to suck. Sucking in the fashion of DX2, T3, KoTOR, BG2 and many other titles that get game of the year and an insanely huge fanbase even though they're not really system shock/fallout/deus ex great.

I'm really glad bioware/some other D20 merchant didn't get the license though, who's with me?

 

[Bobbin]

I thought a little summary of what we will probably get, might get and probably won't get would be nice as it shows a not-so-bleak picture of the whole situation.

We will probably get:
- SPECIAL ("Most definitely")
- Mature content ("I wouldn't worry about the ESRB thing.")
- A continued storyline ("But gamers can assume this will be a continuation of the Fallout storyline? - Yes"

We might get:
- Third-person view ("To early to say")
- Tactical combat ("To early to say")

We probably won't get:
- TB combat
- Isometric view

 

[Cutedge]

Which is, oddly enough, what a lot of FOS apologists said. Buy the game so we get Fallout 3.

I'm sure if you look far enough back on these forums, you'll find a post of me saying something to the effect of "don't do it guys, it won't work".

[it's] too early to be written off as a disaster yet, sure, but what -has- been said by Bethesda so far can be read, which doesn't make for confident reading. notice some pattern to this "overreaction", here? the more they say, the more this goes downhill. they need to fix that -now-, and not fix it by saying less.

I think they need to say less now and then come back in, say, a month saying what they're going to do. Or they need to somehow figure out what the fans want. Actually, they need to play fallout 1 and 2 for a month and then figure out what they want to do and then present what they are going to do. Right now you've got a developer who seems to be saying the good things (such as the fact that he plans to have SPECIAL in it) and a PR guy who seems to just be answering "too early to tell" on every question, which is pretty typical for any PR guy.

 

[Chronus]

Morrowind had no humor, it was a stiff fantasy rpg in a completely dead environment you couldn't affect. You ran around in first-person perspective and attacked bugs with your sword or magic. The water was nice. It had a editor. The story was pretty much the 'ol fantasy mash-up you'd expect and largely sacrificed for more 'free play' though that was more a word for saying 'we're too lazy to make a real plot so we'll just do it this way instead'.

Blah, I don't want FO3 to turn out like that. Also no matter what is must have multiplayer, if it's gonna be half-crappy then the only thing that can make me enjoy it more is if I play it with a bunch of friends rather than alone, sitting there thinking how dull a game it ended up to be. He-he.

 

[ericjones]

Being a big fan of Star Wars KotOR I would believe that a similar design (3rd person view) could work quite well with Fallout. As long as you can actually see and feel you character interacting with the environment it should be acceptable.

First person view, however, could very well ruin the whole game. Hell, I don't even play nor like first person shooters. If they decide to make a first-person, real time combat Fallout, one could just as well play Wasteland Half-Life or some other free mod for a FPS.

So, turn based combat is a must. I don't see a problem with implenting turn-based combat in a 3d environment. With this, the SPECIAL system could also be implented.

Furthermore, I would actually like to get more info before getting mad at Bethesda for aquiring the Fallout franchise. Really, anything is better than Interplay still having it, as they probably wouldn't mind fucking us around with another horrible "Fallout-esque" game.

After reading quite a bit on Bethesda's Morrowind forums I believe that the developers actually would take fan input into consideration to a greater extent than what was the case at Interplay. As the Fallout fans are the most passionate/fanatic fans around, they cannot not listen to us if they actually plan to work as passionately on this as they say they will.

(On the other hand, as Interplay loves screwing the Fallout fans around more than anything, they selling the franchise to Bethesda could be just another step in their plan not to give the Fallout fans what they've been faithfully waiting for for the last 6 years...)

Actually, they need to play fallout 1 and 2 for a month and then figure out what they want to do and then present what they are going to do.

Make that a couple of months at least

 

[victor]

Being a big fan of Star Wars KotOR I would believe that a similar design (3rd person view) could work quite well with Fallout. As long as you can actually see and feel you character interacting with the environment it should be acceptable.

The pathetic 3D engine in KOTOR was a joke. It had a piss-poor framerate, very low-detailed textures and environments, and was uncomfortable in general.

So, turn based combat is a must. I don't see a problem with implenting turn-based combat in a 3d environment. With this, the SPECIAL system could also be implented.

No, it has to be isometric. For several reasons; first, it's much easier to get an overview of combat (I often got lost in Dungeon siege, see) and a 3D engine is unnecessary for a TB game, IMO. Could be useful for a tactical RTS, but not a TB CRPG like Fallout. Also, you can achieve much more beautiful and detailed environments with an isometric 2D engine. Compare The Fall to Baldur's gate 2, or even Fallout 2 for that matter, you'll see what I mean.

Furthermore, I would actually like to get more info before getting mad at Bethesda for aquiring the Fallout franchise. Really, anything is better than Interplay still having it, as they probably wouldn't mind fucking us around with another horrible "Fallout-esque" game.

I have no reason to trust Bethesda more than Interplay. They are as viable to fuck up the game as anyone else, really. We're mad at them mainly because they won't give us any clear answers to our questions, something Interplay was doing in it's senior years. After 6 years of waiting, we deserve answers, or at least something that all the devs agree on. They keep giving us different answers.

After reading quite a bit on Bethesda's Morrowind forums I believe that the developers actually would take fan input into consideration to a greater extent than what was the case at Interplay. As the Fallout fans are the most passionate/fanatic fans around, they cannot not listen to us if they actually plan to work as passionately on this as they say they will.

Apparently, they don't listen to us, since they won't give us any answers. They seem to be fucking things up, actually.

 

[ericjones]

Of course, I was not implying using the KotOR engine in Fallout 2. In my opinion, KotOR was a good game (actually the only game I've completed except for FO1 and 2).

I too would prefer an isometric game, but it seems quite clear to me that it's not going to happen with FO3 no matter what.

I can also understand the worrying with Bethesda as the developer, and I do also see a problem with them not creating a FO3 forum immediately after the press release. However, in my opinion, anything is better than IPLY, so I am willing to give Bethesda a chance.

 

[WaR-CrAzY]

i want Van Buren