Fallout 3 - Interview @ Joystiq

[Dhruin]

Joystiq has an audio interview (http://www.joystiq.com/2008/07/21/joystiq-interview-bethesdas-todd-howard-on-fallout-3/) with Bethsoft's Todd Howard talking about, naturally, Fallout 3. They've also provided a summary of the main points, which I appreciate. Here's a sample:


Find out why some of the elements are very reminiscent of BioShock, which Todd Howard calls "Easily one of the best games of the last five years." The short answer is that "a lot of today's gamers weren't alive when Fallout first came out and contained in-game vending machines.
How quickly did Bethesda decide to use the Oblivion engine? "Instantly." To Bethesda, this is a great tool for building really huge games both now and in the future.
How big is the world of Fallout 3? They aren't even sure. Right now it's "almost as big as Oblivion... we haven't measured it."
However, as big as the game is, you won't using any sort of transports to get around. At least Oblivion gave you horses (with armor!) to help pass the time.
Will this game appease Oblivion fans? "If they're mainly into swords and elves, I don't think they'll like it."

In other Fallout 3 news, NMA has been playing with some Google maps (http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=43673), figuring out different locations despicted.
More information. (http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/newsbit?newsbit=9681)

[Ion Flux]

"a lot of today's gamers weren't alive when Fallout first came out"

Since Fallout was released in 1997, that would mean that Todd is aiming for the 11 and under crowd. That explains a great deal.

[woges]

I think it's called a figure of speech.

Nice Subotai avatar btw.

[zahratustra]

If it was ment as a figure of speach it wasn't a most fortunate one to pick was it?

[Maylander]

He meant: They weren't playing games at the time. A lot of Oblivions fans are around 16-20 now, meaning they were 10 (or less) back then.

Seems fairly obvious to me.

[DArtagnan]

He looks older, but his comments about Bioshock would seem to suggest - using his own logic - that he wasn't alive when System Shock was released.

It's ironic, really, because what Bethesda's doing with Fallout 3 is very much the same thing Irrational did with Bioshock. They're introducing the original work their game is based on to the mass-market. In the process, they're stripping away stuff that might get in the way of making a sale.

That's all fine, but I think it's a bit sad that inferior versions of brilliant concepts get so much attention. I'd have loved if the creators of the original works had gotten some sunshine, but then, it's not a perfect world.

Of course, there's the chance that Fallout 3 is actually a better game than the original Fallout was at release - but my experience with Bethesda and their ability to create wholesome gaming experiences suggests that it won't be.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

That's all fine, but I think it's a bit sad that inferior versions of brilliant concepts get so much attention.

I think it has something to do with the new(er) generation of gamers.

And the publishers who've grown them, of course. Their tastes, their "needs", their demand for certain visual layouts.

[Rendelius]

It's ironic, really, because what Bethesda's doing with Fallout 3 is very much the same thing Irrational did with Bioshock. They're introducing the original work their game is based on to the mass-market. In the process, they're stripping away stuff that might get in the way of making a sale.


And that's just the way it is nowadays. Too much money at stake to risk something with something new and innovative. It's not that it will fail, but it MIGHT fail - much more than something streamlined for mass market might.

We will have to live with it.

[GhanBuriGhan]

And that's just the way it is nowadays. Too much money at stake to risk something with something new and innovative. It's not that it will fail, but it MIGHT fail - much more than something streamlined for mass market might.

We will have to live with it.

At least until the market has grown big enough that it can also support a sizable "independent" scene (more in the sense we used it for the movie or music scene, which is not the same as todays "independent game developer"), a scene that can only distinguish itself through innovation.

[DArtagnan]

And that's just the way it is nowadays. Too much money at stake to risk something with something new and innovative. It's not that it will fail, but it MIGHT fail - much more than something streamlined for mass market might.

We will have to live with it.
But it's only because they choose to invest so much money that the risk is so great. Production values don't equate quality - as we all know - so they could simply accept a smaller market, and invest less in both production and marketing. But they're not willing to settle for that, as they want the big bucks - not just make a profit.

There is nothing in this world to indicate that the bigger you get, the better you'll get. It just doesn't work that way, but people will never learn.

It's a disease that affects all of us, to some degree, and mixing capitalism with human nature is a VERY fertile ground for greed to sprout.

We will have to live with it, true, but I don't have to support it.

[crpgnut]

It's not the Fallout I remember, but then again it's not 1997 anymore. It looks like a fun game, which is all you can really ask for. Did anyone really think that Bethesda would remake the game to be like the old Fallout? Why would they? The old Fallout didn't sell all that well and Oblivion sold millions of copies. I think I'd rather go with the money-maker formula over the defunct company formula. I think that they've honored the old Fallout as much as possible, while still making sure the game will sell well to today's market.

[DArtagnan]

It's not the Fallout I remember, but then again it's not 1997 anymore. It looks like a fun game, which is all you can really ask for. Did anyone really think that Bethesda would remake the game to be like the old Fallout? Why would they? The old Fallout didn't sell all that well and Oblivion sold millions of copies. I think I'd rather go with the money-maker formula over the defunct company formula. I think that they've honored the old Fallout as much as possible, while still making sure the game will sell well to today's market.

It's not about asking for anything.

It's about communicating and exchanging viewpoints.

But why can you only imagine the money-maker formula and the defunct company formula? Is there no room in your mind for the middle-ground? That's precisely the kind of limited perspective that makes people go for profit every single time. It's incredible that it escapes people that you CAN make a profit, even if you don't make it the top priority. Why not have a little faith in the vision, instead of compromising to please more people? Know your audience, but don't alter the vision to get a bigger one - that's just sad.

It's a very unfortunate black and white perception prevalent everywhere today. What happens to a company when growth and expansion is the focus? Take Bioware, for instance, are their games better today than when they were merely successful?

How about Irrational now known as Take 2? Are they really better developers because of their growth? Was Bioshock better than System Shock 2 because it sold more copies?

What about Molyneux? Is he a better developer today, then when he was with Bullfrog? Are their games better? Will Fable 2 be the best yet with all the marketing and hype?

[Maylander]

.. because the people investing money, and therefore earning money, are not developers, and care nothing at all for gamers. They are investors, they make money by investing in products, and getting something in return when they product is completed. Anything and everything beyond that is irrelevant.

If you are going to convince someone with money that buying an expensive lisence like Fallout is a bargain, you have to be able to live up to your part of the deal - which means the game had better make some serious cash.

Investors always balance risk and payoff. If there's a big risk, there had better be a lot of money involved, or you simply won't be able to convince any investors. If you play it safe, you can get away with a smaller profit.

With all the developers that have shut down over the years, I personally think it's amazing that there are still investors out there willing to put cash into gaming. I suspect that only reason they still do it, however, is because of the huge profit of certain companies (Blizzard etc).

Troika, 3DO and so on and so forth will forever be remembered as excellent developers, but among investors they are the very reason why you should never, ever consider investing in such a company. It's basically money down the drain.

[Drakehash]

In the end, everything is money...

[crpgnut]

@DA-I would argue that Bethesda very well knows their audience. Their audience is not the old Fallout audience of NMA or RPGCodex. Their audience are gamers who stay hip :D with the times and are not always looking backwards with rose-colored glasses. I've been playing crpgs for as long as the genre existed but I try not to get caught in the false adoration of the good ol' days. I enjoyed Oblivion, The Witcher, and Two Worlds as much as I enjoyed Might and Magic, Wizardry, and Ultima. While I still enjoy the crpgs based on the older models (Exile, Avernum, Eschalon, etc), I have room on my hard drive for the newer style games as well. I think that I end up being a happier gamer because of this.

[Dez]

"a lot of today's gamers weren't alive when Fallout first came out"

Since Fallout was released in 1997, that would mean that Todd is aiming for the 11 and under crowd. That explains a great deal.

lol! Well said. obviously he must know where the money is!! :)

[Alrik Fassbauer]

I don't like being treated like ... some undemanding, IQ-wise underprivileged consumer who can easily be satisfied with non-complex stuff.

[DArtagnan]

.. because the people investing money, and therefore earning money, are not developers, and care nothing at all for gamers. They are investors, they make money by investing in products, and getting something in return when they product is completed. Anything and everything beyond that is irrelevant.

If you are going to convince someone with money that buying an expensive lisence like Fallout is a bargain, you have to be able to live up to your part of the deal - which means the game had better make some serious cash.

Investors always balance risk and payoff. If there's a big risk, there had better be a lot of money involved, or you simply won't be able to convince any investors. If you play it safe, you can get away with a smaller profit.

With all the developers that have shut down over the years, I personally think it's amazing that there are still investors out there willing to put cash into gaming. I suspect that only reason they still do it, however, is because of the huge profit of certain companies (Blizzard etc).

Troika, 3DO and so on and so forth will forever be remembered as excellent developers, but among investors they are the very reason why you should never, ever consider investing in such a company. It's basically money down the drain.

I'm fully aware that greed is rampant.

It's not that I don't understand it, I just don't like it.

You can't bring up Troika and pretend that because they failed, no one succeeded. There are plenty of developers out there who make profit without targeting huge markets or investing huge sums. Take Stardock, for instance. Not that I personally enjoy their games all that much, but the approach is valid.

The publishers don't care about the art, but that doesn't mean the developers are entirely powerless. They don't have to ask for zillions of dollars. They can simply ask for a modest sum and ensure profit by targeting an appropriate audience. But why do that, when you can compromise without anyone REALLY noticing - except those few of us who care enough to actually be aware. You'd have to genuinely care about the art above the profit, and that's an exceedingly rare trait these days.

No one forced Bethesda to pick up that license, and from the artist's point of view it's the weaker choice. If you want to create something, you don't go and buy a license and try to imitate something else. That's what the profit oriented developer does. There's nothing holding them back from simply making their own post-apocalyptic franchise.

Sure, they have every intention of staying true to the original Fallout, but only as long as it doesn't limit the exposure. That's the key to understand here. They're forcing this road of endless compromises upon themselves by investing so much money, where they really don't need to. However, I'm afraid they wouldn't be talented enough to create a game on the same level even if they didn't compromise. They're not what I would consider talented designers.

The difference between Bethesda and something like Blizzard, which would probably be the ultimate incarnation of this approach to game design, is that Blizzard developers are supremely talented craftsmen. They simply understand game design and mechanics, and they've chosen to appeal to the masses rather than being true artists. That's unfortunate for the hardcore gamer, but they're the best and most shining example of how close to quality you can come while focusing on pleasing everyone.

[Dez]

But it's only because they choose to invest so much money that the risk is so great. Production values don't equate quality - as we all know - so they could simply accept a smaller market, and invest less in both production and marketing. But they're not willing to settle for that, as they want the big bucks - not just make a profit.

There is nothing in this world to indicate that the bigger you get, the better you'll get. It just doesn't work that way, but people will never learn..

I agree. Infact it is what has been bothering me for quite some time. Why does every rpg these days or any game for that matter has to sell million units and be the next big thing, Why can't they just accept that genre fans and only some of the casual gamers will likely enjoy your art. In film industry there are all kinds of films being released: independent, b-films, limited budget films, huge hollywood productions etc. Music industry is even more varied. What about books? You don't probably end up having too much trouble getting your novel released if its any good.

The game industry doesn't have that much anymore. Some of the publishers don't even understand that there are gamers who actually know how to play games! Most gamers don't need handholding, they don't need dumbing ideas to a level where even a small animal could understand. Lets face it. The old games aren't really that difficult or complex. All you need is some patience, a curious mind and common sense as well as a bit of general knowledge at times.. Is it too much to ask?

[Ion Flux]

I think it's called a figure of speech.

Nice Subotai avatar btw.

I just like picking on Todd because he's dumbing down one of my favorite game franchises.

Thanks! Subotai was played by Gerry Lopez, Pipeline master of of the 70's making him exponentially cool.

[Corwin]

There are games out there aimed at small markets- Eschalon is a good example, but they are all being made by Indies!!

[Turok]

There are games out there aimed at small markets- Eschalon is a good example, but they are all being made by Indies!!

Those indies looks nice, but is a shame they don't use open source engines for make their games, those graphics are too bad for my taste.
________
Honda Cb1 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Honda_CB1)

[Dhruin]

I don't think the engine is the issue - they can't generate more/better art at an acceptable price or with their labour capabilities.

In which case, get used to mainstream gaming. To paraphrase Chris Bateman: niche markets have no business demanding a graphics quality that requires mainstream sales to pay for it.

[Turok]

I don't think the engine is the issue - they can't generate more/better art at an acceptable price or with their labour capabilities.

In which case, get used to mainstream gaming. To paraphrase Chris Bateman: niche markets have no business demanding a graphics quality that requires mainstream sales to pay for it.

Thats my problem this days, this force me to do 2 things, choose for awesome gameplay with bad graphics or go to nice graphics with mindless gameplay.

I don't know if i play too much games all this years, but this days i cant enjoy any game soo far, nothing surprise me, not sure if is time to stop playing rpg games or the games really sux.

My point is simple, for a new player that never have play games like planescape torment, vampire the masquerade, fallout 1 and 2, baldurs gate serie, icewindale serie, x-com, jagged alliance, final fantasy VII, kotor serie, etc, any new game will look awesome and surely will enjoy it.

Example the new fallout 3 thats is production, soo far all the previews show that the game is like oblivion, is a fps game, for a new gamer this will be awesome, but for me, i am sure i will no buy it, because i don't like any besheda game soo far, some friends lend me their copy of morrowind and i really don't like it, is too plastic, i mean everything is too MODULAR, everything was maded for get moded, i really don't like it, i really don't like any npc on the game because they where empty, same as oblivion.

Old games really let ppl fly his imagination, because they let you think, there was not detailed, soo you have to use your imagination to complete the whole frame. This was the effect of games that not use first person view.

Also mass effect, i buy the game hopping get a nice rpg experience, what i get? a bad fps game, stupid AI with some rpg elements. but again i am sure a new gamer will be happy with it because never play the games i play many years ago.

Bioshock was suppose to be the succesor of system shock 2, i think games this days are maded for ppl that don't want use the brain, because everything from system shock 2 was removed and in the end was just a fps, a history thats a excuse to kill monters.

RPG games are dying? where are the turn base games right now?? isometric view??? i mean, whats the problem?? this stuff no sell anymore??? is too hard for new gamers play this stuff??? i remember was not too hard for me when i begin play games, right now i am 26 years old, is not that i dont like FPS games, is that after play doom 1 and 2 everything after that just look a clone to me, nothing new on a FPS, only good stuff on fps are the multiplayer maps that you can use to enjoy with your friends.

Now that i remember, i enjoy the expansion of NWN2, nice game but still lack of something, i don't know what it is, is about the engine i think, not sure.

Sorry my english, i learn it playing rpg games since 16 years ago.
________
WINDSOR ASSEMBLY (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Windsor_Assembly)

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Thats my problem this days, this force me to do 2 things, choose for awesome gameplay with bad graphics or go to nice graphics with mindless gameplay.

With me having several older titles as my favourites, I have fewer problems with that.
I can enjoy games with not so good graphics if everything else surpasses this. Graphics are only ONE element for me (although quite an important one, I admit) that makes a game enjoyable to me.

I can kind of "feel" whether a game has been made with something "special" in mind or not. To me, it's like as if a cake has been made "with love" or by a mixing-and-baking machine.

The *taste* is in both variants the same, but there's more polish put on and more emotion put into the first one ...