RPGWatch Forums

RPGWatch Forums (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/index.php)
-   News Comments (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   Fallout 3 - Interview @ Gametap (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2644)

Dhruin September 5th, 2007 09:53

Fallout 3 - Interview @ Gametap
 
Game distribution service Gametap has an interview on Fallout 3 with lead designer Emil Pagliarulo. The conversation starts out talking about Emil's work on the Dark Brotherhood in Oblivion and then moves on to F3 topics:
Quote:

GameTap: One of the most memorable parts of Fallout was the fact that you could convince the last boss to kill himself. This is part of a larger aspect of Fallout, in that you could conceivably finish the game without killing anyone. Without spoiling anything, would it be accurate to say that Fallout 3 maintains this tradition—that the endgame can be done without violence?
Emil Pagliarulo: How do you know there is an end boss, huh? Huh?!
OK, letís assume for a second that there is an end boss. And Iím a master of verbal manipulation. Will I be able to use these skills to my advantage, to maybe defeat my opponent without lifting a finger? You can count on it.
Now, thatís not to say you can talk your way through the entire game without ever engaging in combat. The Capital Wastelandís a dangerous place, so youíre going to have to defend yourself at some point. But within the quests, and several other places, yeah—you can talk your way through, if youíve got the skill.
In other Fallout 3 news, German site Gameswelt.de has a preview.
More information.

GhanBuriGhan September 5th, 2007 09:53

These interviews are such emotional rollercoasters. The comments about the importance and nature of choice and consequence: great, really makes me hopeful. The idea that almost anything goes in the Fallout world: sounds dangerously close to not really getting the setting. Lots of love for melee combat: great! Intelligence not influencing dialogue: bad, not only because the dumb dialogue feature will be missed, but also because it falls in that lamentable tendency of the "new Bethesda" to streamline, streamline, streamline until no substance is left.
In the end I am still not sure what to expect from the game.

Dez September 5th, 2007 12:11

Don't expect anything. Thats what I do. There is no point to drive yourself crazy by expecting something as remarkable as the first fallouts. It is going to be a good game, but worthy sequel to series? we'll see.

txa1265 September 5th, 2007 14:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dez (Post 43870)
Don't expect anything. Thats what I do. There is no point to drive yourself crazy by expecting something as remarkable as the first fallouts. It is going to be a good game, but worthy sequel to series? we'll see.

That is the best approach - and similar to what I recommend for people approaching Bioshock. Do you see 'System Shock III' anywhere on the label? No? Good, forget about the prior games and just enjoy this one for what it offers rather than constantly worrying if this or that lives up to the legacy of the originals.

Because it can't, won't and never will … even if it does.

GhanBuriGhan September 5th, 2007 14:50

Well, if there were a gigantic mass of RPG's with great choice and consequences and deep, satisfying, complex stories and gameplay just piling up to be played, I would agree that one could just lean back and let the good times roll.
But the way it is, here is the company that made two of my all time favourite games (DF and MW) creating a sequel to another one of my all time favourite games (FO), and yet I am at best having lukewarm feelings about the project. Sigh.

5stonese September 5th, 2007 16:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by txa1265 (Post 43882)
That is the best approach - and similar to what I recommend for people approaching Bioshock. Do you see 'System Shock III' anywhere on the label? No? Good, forget about the prior games and just enjoy this one for what it offers rather than constantly worrying if this or that lives up to the legacy of the originals.
Because it can't, won't and never will … even if it does.

Do we see "Fallout 3" on this title ? (as in: a new game in the fallout universe and third in the series after fallout 1 and 2).
Yes.
So what's your point exactly?

txa1265 September 5th, 2007 16:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5stonese (Post 43904)
Do we see "Fallout 3" on this title ? (as in: a new game in the fallout universe and third in the series after fallout 1 and 2).
Yes.
So what's your point exactly?

My point is that we already know that this 'third game' will be significantly and materially different than the other two, much like Commandos: Strike Force is not of the same game type as the other Commandos games or how Shadowrun is unlike the RPG heritage and Dark Messiah is nothing like the M&M history … we should accept that we are looking more at a 'spiritual sequel' than a real one, or like the made for TV movies say "inspired by a true story", this is "inspired by the classic RPG franchise".

curiously undead September 5th, 2007 17:50

mike i'm not sure you're examples, while good, of commandos and bioshock are relevent since those games are being made by the same creators and thus i think the term 'spiritual succesor' kind of implies it got its life from somewhere in the game before. i think the proper term for bethesda/fallout 3 (though i have no opinon as to the quality of the game) would be 'succubus succesor'!

Brother None September 5th, 2007 17:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by txa1265 (Post 43910)
we should accept that we are looking more at a 'spiritual sequel' than a real one, or like the made for TV movies say "inspired by a true story", this is "inspired by the classic RPG franchise".

Better for your sanity, sure, but I see no reason to "forgive" Bethesda's usage of the license. It's their choice to buy the license and claim their new game is a direct successor to Fallout 2, hence they set the expectations to "a Fallout game." I can passively change it and just go all defeatist on it, or I can become internet angry.

NET RAGE!

Bateman September 5th, 2007 18:27

There will be some token quests where you can "talk your way out", but overall I don't expect something special with this one. Sci-Fi Oblivion under FO license. FPSish

txa1265 September 5th, 2007 18:28

I agree with what all of you are saying, and it is largely the reason that Deus Ex Invisible War - a demonstrably 'average' game - is on the short list of my most hated games ever. You have a well-based fear that Bethesda will rape and pillage a beloved franchise.

My only suggestion of how to deal with that is to step back before the fact and disassociate the product Bethesda is making *somewhat* from the Fallout franchise. Evaluate it both within the framework of the franchise and as a standalone … that is what I'll have to do.

Brother None September 5th, 2007 19:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by txa1265 (Post 43928)
My only suggestion of how to deal with that is to step back before the fact and disassociate the product Bethesda is making *somewhat* from the Fallout franchise. Evaluate it both within the framework of the franchise and as a standalone … that is what I'll have to do.

I did a bit of that on NMA's preview, but it's not really NMA's area of expertise to make general quality assertion. But our conclusion was pretty much: terrible Fallout sequel. Good, pretty, but unoriginal and possibly dull RPG.

aries100 September 5th, 2007 21:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by txa1265 (Post 43882)
That is the best approach - and similar to what I recommend for people approaching Bioshock. Do you see 'System Shock III' anywhere on the label? No? Good, forget about the prior games and just enjoy this one for what it offers rather than constantly worrying if this or that lives up to the legacy of the originals.

Because it can't, won't and never will … even if it does.

No, I don't see System Shock 3 (III) on the box for Bioshock. However, Ken Levine never claimed to be making System Shock 3. He always said that he was making Bioshock, s spirtual succesor to both System Shock 1+2.

Bethesda is claiming to make a Fallout 3 game, a sequel to a game formerly known as Fallout (if you were to tease Bethesda a little ;) ). As such we, the public, expects a game in the same vein or around the same depths etc. as in the previus Fallout games. We didn't foresee that Bethsoft would make the Brotherhood of Steel noble knights of the wasteland as well as we did not foresee that Bethesda would tell us that supermutants are the main bad guys in the game. This reeks of the Xboxgame, Brotherhood of Steel, to me.

And who told Bethsoft to put exploding cars? in the game? Todd maybe, because you know, explosions are cool….

As Brother None has been saying over and ver again (and I agree with more and more): Certain things such as the Fatman, the toilet drinking, the exploding cars, the Megatob Bomb and maybe more, breaks verisimilitude in the game…

It could still be a good game, though…just not a good fallout game…

txa1265 September 5th, 2007 21:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by aries100 (Post 43947)
It could still be a good game, though…just not a good fallout game…

I completely agree with that - all I'm saying is that is the way to look at things. If it a really good game but a crappy FO sequel, it won't be less of a good game for being a crappy sequel, if you get my meaning. Of course, for some it will be a betrayal if it isn't both at once, but I don't expect it to be a good FO sequel, so I will be surprised by anything better.

Karmakaze September 5th, 2007 21:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by aries100 (Post 43947)
Certain things such as the Fatman, the toilet drinking, the exploding cars, the Megatob Bomb and maybe more, breaks verisimiltude in the game…

There's my new word for the day.

BillSeurer September 6th, 2007 05:13

What Drama Queen school do you guys go to learn to toss around all these "betrayals" and "rapes" and "breaks verisimiltude" and such when tallking about computer games?

Corwin September 6th, 2007 06:23

It's called using the full extent of the English language; something reasonably intelligent people attempt to do!!

fatBastard() September 6th, 2007 15:05

I was completely unable to enjoy Freelancer because I kept comparing it to StarLancer and the Wing Commander games (it was a Roberts production after all). All I saw was missed opportunities and "could-have-beens".

Had I just seen the game for it was instead of what it could have been I might have it enjoyed it.

Since then I have tried my best NOT to expect too much or to expect the wrong things from a game and that made me able to fully enjoy Oblivion for what it WAS instead of what I may have felt that it SHOULD have been. The same goes for Bioshock. By NOT expecting a System Shock 3 and by listening when Ken Levine repeatedly said: "Bioshock is a SHOOTER first and foremost" I have had one of the best gaming experiences in a LONG time playing Bioshock.

Now, let's look at the facts shall we:

1) By the time Fallout 3 will be available to the public a decade will have passed since Fallout 2. This fact alone should indicate that with the advancements in hardware, software and the gaming market/awareness there is no way in heck that Fallout 3 will be like the first two games. Even if it would be made by the same company and the same people, the game would still be significantly different.

2) As we all know it is NOT the same company or the same people that will make the Fallout 3 game. I'm sure that if you had R. A. Salvatore write a sequel to Tolkien's LoTR it would be an interesting and entertaining read, but it wouldn't be a Tolkien book and thus wouldn't "feel" like proper sequel to LoTR. The same applies to Fallout 3. I have no doubt the Bethesda's vision of the Fallout franchise will result in a great game, but I seriously doubt that the game will take the shape or form that *I* would have expected from a third installment of the Fallout games.

3) The focus on particular gameplay elements/mechanics in the former Black Isle Studios and Bethesda is very different. The BIS approach was about dialog and story in an existing engine where the Bethesda approach is more about what you can see and the sandbox feeling in their own engine. Either approach can produce great results or not so great results, but the main thing is that they are different results.

What we have seen so far of the game and what we can gather by the many interviews, there is no doubt in my mind that Fallout 3 will be nothing like what I would have expected from a sequel to Fallout 2. I can now either choose to bitch and moan and hope that the end result will be something that it should be obvious for all to see by now that it will NOT be … or I can choose to make the best of it, not expect what is clearly not going to happen, and just try to enjoy the game for what it is and not for what it should have been.

Words of wisdom or words of folly? You decide, but in the words of the librarian in Dawn of War: "Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment" or in this case "Expectations is the first step on the road to disappointment". :lol:

mactbone September 7th, 2007 15:35

If you consistently lower your expectations you will encourage worse and worse games to be produced. Some of us strive for the best in everything knowing that even if that can't be met at least the effort was made.

fatBastard() September 7th, 2007 16:30

I can certainly understand the need to strive for something when you're actually involved in the process, but this is not the case here. All you get for "striving" for perfection in upcoming games is a perfect position for a fall when the inevitable disappointment hits.

But each to his own I guess.


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:45.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch