What Josh Sawyer wants from Fallout 4

[valcik]

What exactly is naive about some post-apocalyptic games being more accessible?

I'm talking about Fallout, as Josh himself did:

"A lot of stuff I did in New Vegas was to try and make choices feel more impactful and meaningful and to challenge the player," he said. "Some people want to go through the wasteland like a tourist, which is fine - they don't really want it to be super-difficult. They want it to be interesting and engaging, and they want to see a lot of neat stuff and go through a cool story. And that's cool.

Then why we can't have a whole new IP for those people instead of Fallout? Perhaps adventure game? Or arcade game?

As for Fallout RPG, I'm horribly biased in this regard. I've always considered it a very serious game in terms of realistic social interactions between the survivors of nuclear apocalypse, where all civilized things are gone for good and those who survived are driven mostly by their basic atavistic instincts. Let's call it a law of the jungle - none governments, none police officers, none rules; the strongest one will survive!

I would like to invite any of those friendly tourists here in Slovakia, to show them some gypsy ghettos. Dude, this is not a post-apo world, yet nobody is dare enough to cross those villages alone, in the middle of night. Even trained and armed police officers are patroling only in groups in those places:

 

[Crni Vuk]

Then why we can't have a whole new IP for those people instead of Fallout? Perhaps adventure game? Or arcade game?

it's to expensive. A high risk and a lot of work. And you never know if you will succeed. Its all about buisness decisions and the value something holds. Why are there so many sequels? Why do they follow a certain trend? Compare the number of sequels, prequels, crossovers and spin-offs released today. Its very often simply cheaper. It takes less effort. IPs like Fallout hold a lot of value for example.

Those are considerations from a marketing perspective. Gaming, movies and literature are very established. Its a very saturated market. So when ever you come up with a new idea, then it has to penetrate the market first, which requires extensive advertising and a lot of resources without even earning a single dollar. Its just to get known, to reach the consumer, building up recognition. IPs like Fallout dont need such preperations. They are known to most gamers, doesnt matter if only 300 000 or 500 000 people played Fallout 1 or 2. The IP for it self, is very well known among gamers and holds a lot of potential, particularly since you dont have to come up with a whole new setting. Its not a surprise that Fallout 3 recycled so much content.

 

[Wastewander]

I'm talking about Fallout, as Josh himself did

That was aimed towards your comment about post-apocalyptic games in general.

 

[valcik]

Ah, I see. Back to your question then:

What exactly is naive about some post-apocalyptic games being more accessible?

That's because any post-apo story or movie I remember is harsh, cruel and very dangerous for those who survived. A Canticle for Liebowitz novel, the Mad Max movies, or even more serious and realistic pieces as The Threads or The Day After movies; any broken society is depicted as violent and dangerous. And I completely agree with that, it's logical, so I can't fathom it otherwise. Even my favorite and perhaps the most humorous post-apo story The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where all the society is reduced to two persons only, doesn't spare survivors from very dangerous and life threatening situations. And that's one of the reasons why I do love BIS Fallouts so much even after two decades, they're unforgiving.

Anyway, I don't remember any difficult game produced by Bethesda, so I'm sure those people awaiting less challenging experience won't be disappointed with F4.

 

[Wastewander]

You seem to misunderstand what Josh meant by saying certain players want to be tourists. It's a metaphor for escapism without the game being overly punishing and difficult, not necessarily that it has to have a super friendly society and story. That's why your Slovakia argument was irrelevant.

 

[valcik]

Sorry, a little sarcasm on my part with the "friendly tourists", I do understand what Josh was referring to.
We could replace my Slovakia example with city of Stalingrad, if you wish. People without food started eating rats, cats and even their dead family members, when their city was besieged. Honestly, would you dare to cross any American city full of armed and desperate people in similar situation? Well, my belief in humanity is much lower than yours, that's for sure.

 

[Wastewander]

I don't see what replacing Slovakia with Stalingrad does to change your argument. You have to remember that these are video games, as in fiction; not every post-apocalyptic game has to follow the same approach that Fallout does. Keep in mind that my question, which was meant to be a bit rhetoric, is about being more accessible. Not inherently about the nature of the society.

 

[valcik]

I don't see what replacing Slovakia with Stalingrad does to change your argument.

Fair enough. Let me rephrase my point some more, I'm hoping my limited English vocabulary won't let me down this time. Thanks for patience, it's really appreciated!

I do expect some dangerous and life threatening situations occuring in any post-apo game. This goes with the setting, as I had explained before - desperate people ambushing travelers and fighting for food; murdering gangs or mutated creatures, while unforgiving combat system is one of the best methods for transferring this endangerment on me, as a player. When my lone wanderer will stumble carelessly on a bunch of angry cannibals, being overnumbered and overrun, what's the point of such dangerous situation if the combat system would let me waltz out without a drop of sweat on my part? The same goes for extremely powerful opponents as deathclaws, for instance. Such a huge creature should be capable to rip off my head with simple swing of his claw, otherwise it looks just ridiculous.

This is what I do expect from any RPG - if my character is poorly equipped and suddenly ambushed by greater number of well armed attackers or some powerful creature, he should die no matter what. The odds should change with higher levels and better equipment, any other approach reminds me of Disneyland instead of post-apo game. I do understand that some people are not interested in such chalenges, yet I can't agree with them. That's why there are various difficulty settings in modern games, isn't it?

 

[Makagulfazel]

"Nuanced" is a good word.
Bummer that the Bethesda/Obsidian relationship is pretty much nil; I would've loved to see Obsidian at least consult for Fallout 4's development. One way or another, Josh hits on what I believe to be the most important aspects of the Fallout series: Ambiguity, choice, chaos and a dash of challenge.
I'm excited for Pillars.