Todd is on a rampage

Odin

Odin

Carbon Dated and Proud
Admin
Next up Todd Howard (Bethesda) decided to talk to PC Gamer, in their November issue he again talks about Fallout 3. Here's the snibblet stolen from DAC:<blockquote>While Bethesda is still evaluating different designs and features, Fallout 3 will undoubtedly introduce some changes to the series. Executive Producer Todd Howard wouldn’t confirm whether the franchise’s traditional isometric view and turn-based combat will be abandoned, but he did point out that the strategy spin-off Fallout Tactics retained those elements and still didn’t resonate with series fans. In Howard’s view: “There was so much more to Fallout than the angle you viewed it at, or how combat was resolved. You need to look at what Fallout did for RPG’s when it came out in 1997, and create a game that has the same effect for the next generation.”

Howard thinks the vital, mandatory elements that define Fallout games are “the overall tone and character choices. You could play Fallout in many different ways with different results. And the first game did a brilliant job of putting you in a harsh, unknown wasteland that was full of people who [hoped] humanity would survive. At it’s core, it’s a survival game.” That’s already a fitting characterization for Fallout 3 given that it’s survived considerable adversity and now the follow-up’s back in experienced RPG-making hands.</blockquote>Todd, let's all chant: THAT'S NOT WHY FOT FAILED!
 
I just keep getting a weird feeling in my stomach.
Why does all these "interviews" and "snibblets" give information I'm not at all at peace with.
*shrugs*
 
Eh, Todd, FOT was a strategy game, not an RPG - big difference. That's like trying to compare Warcraft II with Baldur's Gate II. FOT was generally received poorly because it was a strategy game and not an RPG, though there were thin RPG elements. Plus the overall story got rather tedious after mission 10, when robots became the norm. People craving a Fallout RPG felt gypped by getting a mediocre strategy game, and I don't blame them (hell, I was a tester on the thing and I still don't blame them).
 
All Fallout Craptics had going for it was the iso viewpoint and the FOish interface.

Essently everythiing else sucked, from it's not being a RPG to the 90's retro feel of it.

EDIT

Pukk, you were a tester for Craptics ?

Let me ask, did any of the testers happen to point out how it didnt even look like FO ? Not blaming you, just wanting to see what the dev reaction to the game was.
 
While Bethesda is still evaluating different designs and features, Fallout 3 will undoubtedly introduce some changes to the series.
Click to expand...
It was inevitable things would change, all we could hope is that those changes aren't too far out there.
Executive Producer Todd Howard wouldn’t confirm whether the franchise’s traditional isometric view and turn-based combat will be abandoned, but he did point out that the strategy spin-off Fallout Tactics retained those elements and still didn’t resonate with series fans.
Click to expand...
Hmmmmm... possbily because it lost this: “the overall tone and character choices. You could play Fallout in many different ways with different results." He even said himself that those elements were crucial to Fallout, yet he doesn't see how those missing elements are responsible for the FOT flop. He's only looking for a thin justification for the changes he wants to make.
In Howard’s view: “There was so much more to Fallout than the angle you viewed it at, or how combat was resolved. You need to look at what Fallout did for RPG’s when it came out in 1997, and create a game that has the same effect for the next generation.”
Click to expand...
While not losing the last generation... you forgot that part dumbass. You cannot afford to make a fallout that doesn't stand to it's predasessors, because the game is bound to be compared to them in any review of it.
and now the follow-up’s back in experienced RPG-making hands.
Click to expand...
Action RPG's Morrowind style are a far cry from the traditional BIS style of RPG's. They have no experience here. They know the tools, but not the prodect they hope to make.
 
goddamnit. look, Bethesda, Fallout made the impact that it did because it was Fallout, and Fallout is nothing but the sum of its parts. remove those parts, and you get something like Tactics and FO:BoS. in otherwords, not Fallout. it can't be boiled down to some "core essance" and remain itself.

when i see Bethesda employees hanging around here and not being the kind of clueless gimps that Fallout usually gets handed to, i think that they 'get it'. that there isn't much to worry about.

then i see a Bethesda employee actually talking about Fallout 3, and things aren't so hopeful all of a sudden. i don't like that.

instead of assuming why Tactics failed, why don't you look at the reasons fans had for -making- it a failure, Todd? is this going to be like the last Fallout 3, with developers that know what they're doing getting jerked around by someone with overall power that doesn't? don't hole yourself up like Herve Caen and start believing your personal conclusions over reality.
 
Executive Producer Todd Howard wouldn’t confirm whether the franchise’s traditional isometric view and turn-based combat will be abandoned, but he did point out that the strategy spin-off Fallout Tactics retained those elements and still didn’t resonate with series fans.
Click to expand...

Maybe this is why Todd doesn't get paid to design? Maybe because he's just displayed no clue how to understand design concepts. Maybe it's because he's displayed that he has little clue to FOT's elements or the backstory. Maybe it's because Todd has no clue about the artistic design of the game and didn't quite understand the Boyarsky interview. Maybe Todd failed Sesame Street and Can't Figure Out Which One of These Things Doesn't Belong. Maybe because he didn't play the games, which is the most likely possibility, as the proof is in the pudding to use an old cliché. It's hard to miss the actual material there and to do a simple comparison, unless you are that naive of the setting.

Maybe that's the reason, maybe everything and more. I'm not Todd's pyschoanalyst. I do know one thing.

Until Todd shows some sign of understanding what he's talking about, someone should take his keyboard away from him, as he's doing nobody any favors much less his own credibility.
 
Why the fuck can't people like Todd understand it was the niche market that made Fallout a success.

Craptics sucked because it WASN'T Fallout, and so fans like us who buy the games avoided it like the plague.

If the forums at the Elder Scroll burn like a firestorm then I have no sympathy. We have time and again made the above point clear but dfor some god knows reason those people cannot listen.
 
Odin said:
You need to look at what Fallout did for RPG’s when it came out in 1997, and create a game that has the same effect for the next generation.”
Click to expand...

And let me guess: the present generation is a bunch of mindless acne-ridden thirteen-year-olds who want thongs, big boobs and big guns?
 
Puuk said:
Eh, Todd, FOT was a strategy game, not an RPG - big difference. That's like trying to compare Warcraft II with Baldur's Gate II. FOT was generally received poorly because it was a strategy game and not an RPG, though there were thin RPG elements. Plus the overall story got rather tedious after mission 10, when robots became the norm. People craving a Fallout RPG felt gypped by getting a mediocre strategy game, and I don't blame them (hell, I was a tester on the thing and I still don't blame them).
Click to expand...

You said it better than I could have. And, while I'm glad to hear that Bethesda is thinking more in-depth about the game than just "radscorpions and swearing=Fallout!" (not that I thought they wouldn't), the isometric comment is a little disheartening as it makes it seem like they're looking to cut that feature and trying to soften the blow for everyone. I'm still on the "wait-and-see" side of the fence though - once we start hearing from the developers I'll take the comments made about the game a little more seriously.

Edit: Just noticed your new avatar Puuk, congratulations on the move.
 
I'm not going to comment on these quotes from Todd, because he clearly shows that he doesn't get it..
 
^ Why does that sound like I've heard it before?

Oh wait, it was the other "Todd" thread. :wink:
 
well regain some of it then :)
if what pete says is true, and there are no devs for fallout3 yet, then you can be passemistic(due to our friend todd here) but still a bit hopeful i guess...
 
{breathes in, breathes out} Calm... calm.... alright.

Welp, I just commented on the other Todd attack and then found this one. OI.

I agree with Rosh, more and more these days. Maybe that's a good thing, or a scary thing, not sure yet.

I seriously believe Todd has not played FO... and if he did, he must not have played Tactics or the POS... or....

Maybe he did and he has no idea what the difference is, which is... SCARY.

Let us pray the developers have actually played all of them, know the difference and THEN.. Play FO and FO2 AGAIN... and AGAIN... then get to work.
 
Okay people, just keep in mind Todd's role as a producer. That means (at least as far as i know) that he simply has nothing to do with the game's development, his job is basically keeping schedule, maintaining contact between the team and upper management, etc. That means that, tough Todd doesn't have a clue, that won't probably affect the game much.

There's a saying here in Brazil "Quem sabe faz, quem não sabe, manda" that translates roughly to "People who know do, people who don't give orders" (yeah i know it sounds a bit off, maybe Brios, Role-Player or one of the other portuguese speakers can help me here)

And, lastly, about the whole "isometric and TB" thing, if i could ask one thing from the bethesda guys, it would be "play silent storm"
 
Look's to me like you've translated it as close to it as it's going to get.

I suppose you could change give orders with rule or lead, but there's hardly any difference if any at all.
 
Ahhhh! So that's it! FO:T sucked because it was isometric and semi-turn-based and because "the times have changed" (mysteriously somehow) FO:T would've actually sold well had it been FPS, real-time Morrowind-with-gunz style.

I get it now...

... Actually, that doesn't make any sense, seeing as I like both the original Fallout's (No# 1 better than No# 2) AND still have both of them installed on my PC, versus Morrowind, which was removed about a week ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top