Todd Howard Q&A on Gamespot

[Hawkmoon]

I'd forgoten about Ultima 8... boy it's been awhile since I've even thought of the Ultima series. Though I can't remember if EA published Ultima 8 and if so, what impact that had on its developement.

U8 was the one pumped out the door so they could get cracking on UO. U9 repeated this, but UO2 was cancelled.

Well at least we don't have to worry bout that mistake, BethSoft doesn't have the rights to a Fallout MMORPG heh... but then again, maybe they'll rush Fallout 3 so they can get to Fallout Dance Revolution heheh.

Hawkmoon

*EDIT* Just incase, this is meant to be sarcastic and in no way is meant to represent an insult toward anyone on this board.

 

[Hawkmoon]

It's been an interesting discussion and I have come away from here looking at things a bit differently, so I'm glad I stopped by. You guys needn't worry bout my trollish responses anymore because I'll be showing myself out. No need to reply to my leftover inane dribble unless you feel the need.

Bye,
Hawkmoon

 

[Pope Viper]

I'd forgoten about Ultima 8... boy it's been awhile since I've even thought of the Ultima series. Though I can't remember if EA published Ultima 8 and if so, what impact that had on its developement.

U8 was the one pumped out the door so they could get cracking on UO. U9 repeated this, but UO2 was cancelled.

Well at least we don't have to worry bout that mistake, BethSoft doesn't have the rights to a Fallout MMORPG heh... but then again, maybe they'll rush Fallout 3 so they can get to Fallout Dance Revolution heheh.

Hawkmoon

*EDIT* Just incase, this is meant to be sarcastic and in no way is meant to represent an insult toward anyone on this board.

Gawd, that's so not funny on many different levels.

 

[jr.]

I still don't see your point

...

I just want to know where this info comes from....

if you knew about the circumstances surrounding FO:BoS, or even payed attention to the current circumstances, you -would- see my point. you -would- know. when you offer an opinion on something that you don't make an effort to understand, things like this happen.

No. Yeah so the PR may sound similar, but alot of PR sounds similar.. its just that, PR.

i'm not talking about the PR. i'm talking about the growing parallels between Interplay and Bethesda. i'm talking about this spontaneous bloom of people like you who're repeating the -exact- same hollow shit that was said in FO:BoS' and Interplays' "defence", except with 'Bethesda' swapped around for 'Interplay'. it's honestly like you dragged up cached bits of the Interplay forums, copied the text into Wordpad, and ran the replace all function. hell, in your case, you repeated the -official Interplay FO:BoS spiel- without one bit of alteration.

sure, i'm impressed by your dedication in making a perfect 1:1 replication of the FO:BoS disaster, but Bethesda is supposed to do better than that. you can't stop HayT and Pete from gimping things up, but for the sake of everyone involved, you can stop yourself. so fucking -stop yourself-. i mean this about everyone who's popped in to read Interplay's list of talking-points from the last time a game with the Fallout liscense attached to it was obviously shit.

But at the same time I don't expect Fallout El Diablo or Morrowind with Guns.

you haven't even listened to what Bethesda has said, then. did facts ever enter into your reason for being here?

FO:BoS was . . .
..
The same is true for FO:BoS . . .

again, are you lying about not having followed FO:BoS, or are you talking about something you have no knowledge of?

I'm just saying BethSoft doesn't want to make a craptastic game, that isn't their goal

brilliant, they have the same goal as all developers. that worked out ace with FO:BoS and every other game in history that's been a flop, hasn't it?

Then ya just put two and two together....

and come up with your baseless argument. if Troika was being dodgy as Bethesda, the reaction would be similair. you seem to think people're having problems only because Bethesda isn't this developer or that developer. that's a great shot at bullshitting them off the hook, but that's all it is.

Why should Interplay apologize to you?

playing ignorant is no excuse to justify doing the Interplay apologist ruitine. it has -no- place post-FO:BoS, so fuck off with it.

Also, I don't see how you can either see FO:Tatics or FO:BoS as important parts of Fallout History

they and the circumstances surrounding them very much are important bits of Fallout history. thanks for trying to justify your ignorance instead of fixing it, though.

No need to reply to my leftover inane dribble unless you feel the need.

no, i'm not letting you off.

 

[Macaco]

Hmmm junior, i guess you should try reading a bit more:

You guys needn't worry bout my trollish responses anymore because I'll be showing myself out. No need to reply to my leftover inane dribble unless you feel the need.

Bye,
Hawkmoon

EDIT: Holy cow, i guess it's not junior who needs to read more

 

[Darque]

Hmmm junior, i guess you should try reading a bit more:

You guys needn't worry bout my trollish responses anymore because I'll be showing myself out. No need to reply to my leftover inane dribble unless you feel the need.

Bye,
Hawkmoon

No need to reply to my leftover inane dribble unless you feel the need.

no, i'm not letting you off.

I think he did

 

[Roshambo]

You mean not cowering before the majority?

MORE flamebait? Don't worry about having to be shown the door, I've done that for you.

That still doesn't remove the fact that you lied when you claimed what you did in regards to why Fo3 must be TB.

I'd forgoten about Ultima 8... boy it's been awhile since I've even thought of the Ultima series. Though I can't remember if EA published Ultima 8 and if so, what impact that had on its developement.

Well, since I used it in a parellel, what WOULD you think? If you can't remember, why can't you be bothered to find out and edumacate yourself, please? I'm not going to do it for you and I don't like your presumption that your ignorant attempts to spin the discussion have any relevance.

No your beligerent because you constantly insult people.

Case in point...

I'm glad trolling liars are treated well in your world. Tell me, what is it called?

As for my aptitude for game design... dunno till I try, maybe they will let me work on Fallout 3?

Game design doesn't mean monkeying around on an editor someone makes. It also implies understanding and ability to recognize and piece together the design aspects of a game together into one artistic presentation. What has been put forth as what should be kept is also part of that artistic presentation. Therefore to show a total disregard about this in lieu of changing it for "the hell of it" or naive "it's the future" stances, without giving any real valid reason for why it should be changed, is nothing but pure unadulterated ignorance about game design.

As one Metroid Prime developer stated about the artistic design about that game (paraphrased): "I didn't draw MY Samus Aran. I drew the Samus that the fans wanted. No matter how much I wanted, I had to give them what they wanted because the game is theirs."

(Before anyone tries, the 2d side-scroller genre is pretty much dead, though there was a number of other ways that they could have refreshed the series. Though, it is an action game, after all. Isometric is far from dead, and FP has been done since 1979, and over the shoulder is a bit too much more like Tomb Raider than the artistic presentation of Fallout.)

Actually as long as BioWare didn't literally do a Forgotten Realms/TES crossover setting; I wouldn't mind playing a BioWare developed TES game that had psuedo realtime squad based combat mechanics from 3/4 view perspective, even if it was called TES 4; provided I enjoyed playing it.

That's the problem. A lot of ignorant people think only about themselves and stroke their own marbles without any regards as to the franchise integrity or anyone else who might have bought the game for a reason. After all, those others are looking for a sequel, not a spin-off.

Thanks for playing. Goodbye.

You can't say that I didn't warn you, and then you just had to piss around more.

 

[limafoxtrot]

[/quote]

... looking for a sequel, not a spin-off.
.[/quote]

Beth should think a long time about that statement. There have been two spin-offs. There has yet to be a sequel - they claim to be doing Fallout 3 - then fans expect a sequal.

If they want to make a spin-off - morrowind style - just say so - up front, don't play off the title "Fallout 3." Don't expect a lot of happy comments if that is the case, but at least be honest.

Try thinking of it this way - Would fans of the games want to see Halo 2, Half-life 2 or a Far Cry 2 done top down turn based?? NO - They want a FPS. Same is true here - Fallout 3 should be the same genere and style as the series it is built upon.

 

[King of Creation]

Try thinking of it this way - Would fans of the games want to see Halo 2, Half-life 2 or a Far Cry 2 done top down turn based?? NO - They want a FPS. Same is true here - Fallout 3 should be the same genere and style as the series it is built upon.

EXACTLY
I used that exact same example in another thread. There are some less than intelligent people out there who think that as long as there is "da s4Me st0ry lolx0rs" then the game would be the same. No, the story might be coherent with the series, but the game would be different. A GAME is the total sum of all of its parts: Engine, which includes things like viewpoint, 2d or 3d, etc, story, art, music, dialogue, interface, and many more things all put together make up the game. If you change something drastic, like the engine, the way people percieve the world that they have previously come to love, then you are just asking to fail.

 

[Macaco]

If you change something drastic, like the engine, the way people percieve the world that they have previously come to love, then you are just asking to fail.

I hope you know there was never any chance of the same engine being used, right? I like it, but it's just impossible that any company these days would use a 7 year old, sprite based engine... I think perspective would be the correct word here.

What you, and everyone who keeps talking about "engines" needs to focus on is the *viewpoint* used by the game not the engine itself. They could use their present technology to make a game using a floating camera (take for example Natural Selection, the half life mod, it uses the half life engine, but there is a commander that has a bird's eye view, and that's just a fan modification), the true question is, would they?

 

[King of Creation]

If you change something drastic, like the engine, the way people percieve the world that they have previously come to love, then you are just asking to fail.

I hope you know there was never any chance of the same engine being used, right? I like it, but it's just impossible that any company these days would use a 7 year old, sprite based engine...

Yeah, I know. I just use the word "engine" to describe the whole top down isometric situation and things like that. It's easier to say "engine" than explaining the whole thing, because most people will know what you're talking about. But I guess I could have dropped in a more specific word like "engine style" or something.