Todd Howard questionnaire at Next-Gen

[Roshambo]

I'm not going to search through previous posts on the forums. I've been reading No Mutants for a long time now, mainly the news items and FAQs, and I think you guys run a good web site, albeit a little cynical. I have read all the interviews with the developers as well as the FAQ on FO3, but I just don't have time to traul the forums due to having a young family to look after.

I'll just give you one warning with that attitude. You can bother to go back and search about a topic before you just come in with posting whateve you care. We're not going to treat you special and disregard to standards of netiquette for just you. Or is that what you are looking for?

To put it simply: You're the one who wants to know, how about you figure it out? No, asking doesn't quite count. You want to know if/why people are angry, how about you read what they said THE FIRST TIME AROUND, rather than make them repeat themselves for those too lazy to use a search engine. "Bethesda Fallout rights", or similar, would generally be a good idea to use if you wanted to know when Bethesda got the rights to Fallout. Took me less than five seconds to do that, so don't give me the lack of time excuse.

In addition, it takes two to make a sale, so while Interplay wasn't liked for selling it to Bethesda (in fact, quite a LOT was said about this topic including Troika), Bethesda still made the offer without bothering to even ask the original developers their own intents about the license.

Let's just say that I understand our feelings are mutual regarding Interplay, but I cannot be angry with or blame anyone else who was involved in the sale of the Fallout licence, simply because I don't think the bidding parties had a hand in the demise of Fallout at Interplay. If the general consensus at No Mutants is contrary to mine regarding this then I'll just keep my opinion to myself in future. I don't want to get off-side with you guys having just found out about the forums.

Look, if you're just going to spew your opinion without regards to what people have said before, don't bother. "Oh, hey, I found a forum! Time to post what I think without any care to what people have written before! Let's make the forum re-run everything back for my benefit because I can't be bothered to search and read, but I can post to ask people to re-post from threads on this very forum!"

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

It`s kind of like if the Backstreet Boys bought the rights to make the next album as "The Doors". I know what you`re thinking, but trust them they`re big fans. Except truth be told The Doors heyday was a long time ago and really needs a fresh approach. And the whole psychadelic 60s thing isn`t really what the Backstreet Boys do best. They already have some wildly popular albums and will use them as a foundation, while of course remaining true to what the Doors are all about (i.e. the singer will swear and reel drunkenly on stage truly the essence of the Doors).

But wait a minute, Morrison is dead, and Manzarek and Kreieger are off doing their own thing (which despite not being called the Doors is more Doorsy then anything else could possbily be). You can`t possibly have the Doors without them can you? So it`s just gonna be another Backstreet Boys album right? So why bother callling it "The Doors"? Oh, musical credibilty, the BSB have none. So this new album will be as vapid as all the other BSB albums, but they`ve purchased this exploitable commodity that will be hyped ad nauseum - the snake oil salesmen will be out in full force peddling the new Doors album. Then one day you`re on the subway reading a book of Morrison`s poetry while you overhear some JHS kids explain "Dude it`s the Doors, the singer wears black leather pants and he`s drunk and says fuck and falls down a lot."
Sound fucked up? It`s not.



You know, in some strange self-fullfilling prophecy, Fallout has become it`s own protagonist, the savior of the RPG wasteland, exploited for all it`s worth, but never embraced and eventually shunned because of the fundamental methods it employed to keep a genre alive.

Brilliant analogy, Cimmerian Nights.

 

[Mick1965]

Hah! You're a prickly one Roshambo! No offense or accusations were meant in my posts, but I'll try to be more careful in future. I guess you can put it down to me being a newb with forums in general; I was a forum virgin just a few posts ago.

Mick

 

[Roshambo]

Hah! You're a prickly one Roshambo!

That generally happens when someone tells me that they aren't going to bother doing something I kindly ask them to do, as a reminder of the forum rules.

No offense or accusations were meant in my posts, but I'll try to be more careful in future. I guess you can put it down to me being a newb with forums in general; I was a forum virgin just a few posts ago.

It just depends if you're willing to acknowledge that some forums have standards in posting, and to post on the forums you have to follow them, just like in every community. As long as you're willing to go along with the standards of posting, I don't see a problem. Don't sweat it too badly, I tend to bite due to those who really don't care about anyone but themsleves and don't even care about forum standards, and if you can acknowledge said standards, fine with me.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

At least Troika didn't buy the licence or else the game really would be dead and we'd never see another Fallout.

Death has a dignity all its own.

I dont see anyone lining up to make Enter the Dragon 2. Why? Because Bruce Lee is fucking dead and buried my friend.

 

[PhredBean]

No offense or accusations were meant in my posts, but I'll try to be more careful in future. I guess you can put it down to me being a newb with forums in general; I was a forum virgin just a few posts ago.

Cool, this one didn't launch into defensive mode, I like him. Just a word of advice, post in the generals, but lurk the Order and the Fallout suggestions for a bit before posting in either. It will help alot.

 

[SuAside]

well, for The Order, a word of advice:

 

[Pop]

It`s kind of like if the Backstreet Boys bought the rights to make the next album as "The Doors". I know what you`re thinking, but trust them they`re big fans. Except truth be told The Doors heyday was a long time ago and really needs a fresh approach. And the whole psychadelic 60s thing isn`t really what the Backstreet Boys do best. They already have some wildly popular albums and will use them as a foundation, while of course remaining true to what the Doors are all about (i.e. the singer will swear and reel drunkenly on stage truly the essence of the Doors).

But wait a minute, Morrison is dead, and Manzarek and Kreieger are off doing their own thing (which despite not being called the Doors is more Doorsy then anything else could possbily be). You can`t possibly have the Doors without them can you? So it`s just gonna be another Backstreet Boys album right? So why bother callling it "The Doors"? Oh, musical credibilty, the BSB have none. So this new album will be as vapid as all the other BSB albums, but they`ve purchased this exploitable commodity that will be hyped ad nauseum - the snake oil salesmen will be out in full force peddling the new Doors album. Then one day you`re on the subway reading a book of Morrison`s poetry while you overhear some JHS kids explain "Dude it`s the Doors, the singer wears black leather pants and he`s drunk and says fuck and falls down a lot."
Sound fucked up? It`s not.

Couple of things.
1. You're ignoring the fact that the Backstreet Boys don't have to do any of this, and that Kreieger and Manzarek are already propping up the corpse of the Doors with that guy from the Cult. They're called the Doors of the 21st Century, and you should check them out sometime, because even as they suck Ungodly ass, they're not much worse than the actual Doors in terms of faux-goth mysticism and steadfast belief in nonexistent talent.
2. That JHS description of the Doors is just perfect, except you forgot to add "bloated and couldn't write good lyrics to save his own life".

A much more apt comparison would be David Gilmour making "Pink Floyd" albums after both Syd Barrett and Roger Waters had left the band. Fallout 3 is the Division Bell

You know, in some strange self-fullfilling prophecy, Fallout has become it`s own protagonist, the savior of the RPG wasteland, exploited for all it`s worth, but never embraced and eventually shunned because of the fundamental methods it employed to keep a genre alive.

Fallout is not Jesus. What's more, Fallout is a game franchise. It was never meant to save anything.
What the fuck are you talking about.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

1. Division Bell rocks.

Fallout is a game franchise.

2. Don't dis the saviour.

 

[Pop]

1. Division Bell rocks.

Good thing for Fallout 3. Division Bell is still Gilmour Floyd, which is to say, it's not Dark Side of the Moon (or Fallout 2, or whatever). Make of that what you will.

Fallout is a game franchise.

2. Don't dis the saviour.

I'm not at the point where I have to depend on Fallout to define or "save" gaming or RPGs for me. It's a great game, one of the best RPGs ever, a game I love to play, but it's a game. I'd much rather it be in the hands of its original creators, in fact I'd be happier if Obsidian had it rather than Troika (or whatever it is now/ will be in the future), but it's not. Bethesda has it. So it's better this way for me, as I don't want to have a coronary when Fallout 3 comes out at E3 2008 or whenever and it's not the raging God of RPGs I expected. Raising my expectations too high does nothing but sets me up for disappointment.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

Good thing for Fallout 3. Division Bell is still Gilmour Floyd, which is to say, it's not Dark Side of the Moon (or Fallout 2, or whatever). Make of that what you will.

What? You're mixing your metaphores.

Bethesda has it. So it's better this way for me, as I don't want to have a coronary when Fallout 3 comes out at E3 2008 or whenever and it's not the raging God of RPGs I expected. Raising my expectations too high does nothing but sets me up for disappointment.

You know, that just might be the silliest argument in favor of Bethesda ever, and I've heard some pretty silly ones.

 

[Pop]

What? You're mixing your metaphors.

Fallout 3 is Division Bell, or Pink Floyd - Barrett/Waters. Good (we're talking potential here, since Fallout 3 obviously isn't on hand for comparison) but lacking in what made earlier efforts legendary. DSotM is Fallout 2, established canon with all associated brilliant minds involved. Does that make sense?

You know, that just might be the silliest argument in favor of Bethesda ever, and I've heard some pretty silly ones.

What argument? What are you talking about? Bethesda has the same chance of failure whether or not I accept that Fallout 3 is what it is. Why would I "argue" for Bethesda? We all lose if they fuck up. Is there a "Bethesda has already lost" camp and a "Bethesda has a chance" camp? What's the goddamn difference if there are?

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

Fallout 3 is Division Bell, or Pink Floyd - Barrett/Waters. Good (we're talking potential here, since Fallout 3 obviously isn't on hand for comparison) but lacking in what made earlier efforts legendary.

First you say FO3 isn't available for comparison and than you claim with certainty that it will lack "in what made earlier efforts legendary"? How do you know? I, mean, you're probably right but we can't know that.

What argument? What are you talking about? Bethesda has the same chance of failure whether or not I accept that Fallout 3 is what it is.

You said

Bethesda has it. So it's better this way for me

hence you support Bethesda. I'm just saying that it's silly to support something that you think will be crappy just because you don't want to be disappointed.

 

[Pop]

First you say FO3 isn't available for comparison and than you claim with certainty that it will lack "in what made earlier efforts legendary"? How do you know? I, mean, you're probably right but we can't know that.

When I think of what made Fallout really special, I think of the sharp writing and attention to detail and dialogue that Black Isle employed. Bethesda sorely lacks that. I can hope that they'll do a decent job, if they pay enough attention to F1/2, but they're not going to be able to nail it down the way the original makers did. And "legendary" is hyperbole I felt comfortable using to describe Fallout within the confines of a board devoted to it

You said

Bethesda has it. So it's better this way for me

hence you support Bethesda. I'm just saying that it's silly to support something that you think will be crappy just because you don't want to be disappointed.

I guess I support Bethesda. They'll make or unmake the game regardless of my support. And I don't believe the game itself will be crappy. I believe it will be polished and reasonably entertaining, as far as games go. It's when you start comparing this coming game to its predecessors, then it loses its luster. I'm expecting an entertaining game, but I'm not expecting a Fallout. If it turns out to be as good as 1/2, all the better for me. If not, I'll not lose sleep over it. Comparing a game to Fallout will kill that game to you 95% of the time, so I try to avoid it. I've fretted over the lack of new Fallout for long enough, and if this new one's not up to snuff I'll have to accept that I'll only see the name "Fallout" and not anything resembling what it once was. I'll be disappointed if it's not great, but I could be devastated. I'd rather be disappointed. And if that's settling for less, well, what other options do I have? I want to enjoy this as much as it can be enjoyed.

 

[Roshambo]

I'd much rather it be in the hands of its original creators, in fact I'd be happier if Obsidian had it rather than Troika (or whatever it is now/ will be in the future), but it's not.

Why? You'd want another buggy, easter-egg filled, Fanservice Feargus SLAM DUMP! sequel like <s>KoTOR 2</s> Fallout 2? Yes, <s>BIS</s> Obsidian did both. If it weren't for the initial efforts of the Troika crew before they left, Fo2 would have been a complete mess.

 

[Pop]

I'd much rather it be in the hands of its original creators, in fact I'd be happier if Obsidian had it rather than Troika (or whatever it is now/ will be in the future), but it's not.

Why? You'd want another buggy, easter-egg filled, Fanservice Feargus SLAM DUMP! sequel like <s>KoTOR 2</s> Fallout 2? Yes, <s>BIS</s> Obsidian did both.

It seems both Black Isle offspring had problems with buggy games. Vampire was horrific (the Source engine's inherent problems might have been to blame, though) and Arcanum might have been the sloppiest game I've ever played. So yes.

I'm aware that F2 is more Obsidian than Troika. I still like it better. The point was that they're both preferable to Bethesda.

 

[Sander]

You're completely forgetting that Troika did not spawn in any way from Black Isle. And that the creators of Fallout did not work on Fallout 2, making Fallout 2 a rather inconsistent and messy sequel that was severely lacking, in comparison to the first Fallout. Especially with the crapload of easter-eggs.

 

[PhredBean]

I'd much rather it be in the hands of its original creators, in fact I'd be happier if Obsidian had it rather than Troika (or whatever it is now/ will be in the future), but it's not.

Why? You'd want another buggy, easter-egg filled, Fanservice Feargus SLAM DUMP! sequel like <s>KoTOR 2</s> Fallout 2? Yes, <s>BIS</s> Obsidian did both.

It seems both Black Isle offspring had problems with buggy games. Vampire was horrific (the Source engine's inherent problems might have been to blame, though) and Arcanum might have been the sloppiest game I've ever played. So yes.

Free fact straightening service, courtesy of Phred: Arcanum and VtM:Bloodlines was Troika, not BIS. Troika went down for that reason among others. Granted they had incredible ideas, beautiful stories, dialog, and quests, but their QA suffered bad.

 

[Pop]

You're completely forgetting that Troika did not spawn in any way from Black Isle. And that the creators of Fallout did not work on Fallout 2, making Fallout 2 a rather inconsistent and messy sequel that was severely lacking, in comparison to the first Fallout. Especially with the crapload of easter-eggs.

I liked Fallout 2, as messy as it was. In fact, I prefer it to the original. I liked it because it felt more expansive, was generally easier to play more than once, and because I was a child when it came out and the idea of the Enclave was just so awesome to me. I liked both of them, certainly the original occupies a special place in my heart, but I don't necessarily feel the need to put one over the other.

 

[Sander]

I liked Fallout 2, as messy as it was. In fact, I prefer it to the original. I liked it because it felt more expansive, was generally easier to play more than once, and because I was a child when it came out and the idea of the Enclave was just so awesome to me. I liked both of them, certainly the original occupies a special place in my heart, but I don't necessarily feel the need to put one over the other.

Yes, but if you were to choose between a Fallout 3 the size of Fallout 2 in the vein of Fallout or in the vein of Fallout 2, the sensible choice would be going with the Fallout setting.
Mainly because Fallout 2's world was more like a dumbed-down and inconsistent version of Fallout's world. Mobster towns and kung-fu fights in a 50s setting? And a rather silly end-boss that paled in comparison to the intelligence and intricacies of the Master?