Fallout 3 in PC Gamer

[Mr. Teatime]

<strong>[ -> Interview]</strong>

Forum regular <b>brillo</b> let me know that <b>Fallout 3</b> is covered in the November issue of <a href="http://www.pcgamer.com/">PC Gamer (US)</a>. He kindly typed up the relevant section for us.<blockquote><i>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.�
<br>
<br>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.</i></blockquote>I don't read this article as saying "<i>there will be no turn based combat or isometric viewpoint</i>", unlike the <b>GameInformer</b> one, but I do think, if this really is <b>Todd Howard</b>'s view, he needs to take another look at the series. It was the <i>combination</i> of the viewpoint, the combat, the characters, the setting, and the roleplaying system and opportunities (amongst others) that helped make <b>Fallout</b> a cult classic. At least he mentions the fans of the franchise and how we reacted to <b>Fallout: Tactics</b>.
<br>
<br>Thanks again, <b>brillo</b>.

[Retlaw83]

At it’s core, it’s a survival game.

This might be where the console magazine kiddies got their "survival horror" idea.

[jiujitsu]

Why would they add "horror" to it though? That is noob shit for a magazine.

[jetbaby]

Fallout Tactics sure had the isometric view down, but turn based combat was barely supported. Pathetic, at best, horrific at worst. Sweet, sweet jesus when will people understand that FO:T has very few connections to FO other than name and the Brotherhood (again, in name only).

[jiujitsu]

I think the whole Brotherhood idea was too cool to not try and spin off. It damaged the way I view the Brotherhood now though, which sucks. It is kind of like: "Oh, not the Brotherhood of Steel again.." IPLY really fucked up their image with FOT and FOPOS.

Hopefully, Bethesda will use discretion when dealing with the Brotherhood in FO3. This is a really big game issue for me. It won't be Fallout without them, but there is more to Fallout than the Brotherhood of Steel.

[PsychoSniper]

Bethesda's PR REALLY FUCKING SUCKS.

[Burnov]

but he did point out that the strategy spin-off Fallout Tactics retained those elements and still didn’t resonate with series fans

Unfortunately Teatime. He made mention of FOT in my opinion as a scapegoat reason for not making the next game turn based.

He totally neglects to point out that people were disappointed with FOT for reasons other than the fact that it was turn based.

I see them simply using this as an excuse to alienate the original fanbase entirely.

Either the guy's stupid or he doesn't even want to attempt to try and please fallout fans.

[Mertek]

Despite how much we'd like a Fallout 3 that was vastly similar to Fallout 1 and 2, it probably isn't going to happen. The original Fallout fanbase (as in the lot of us who hate spinoffs that eliminate the ambience and environment that defined the originals, as well as other things I'm sure) is far too small to support a company that would make it specifically for us. The group of the masses is much more wide than a bunch of hardcore Fallout fans, and of course the main goal of a business is to make money. The money's going to be in the hands of the idiotic masses. That's not to say that Bethesda doesn't care about us, but their main focus is the masses and pleasing them out of their money, like a big ole whore.

[Araanor]

Oh yeah, you mean like the chuckle-head in this article?

RT SELLS TB DROOLS is one of the strange myths perpetuated in the PC games biz. It's partly a subset of the THAT GAME SOLD WELL, SO WE HAVE TO CLONE IT! type of thinking. Diablo sold shitloads, this means RT hack n slash is what rolls in the money, right? Tell that to all the devs who made Diablo clones that failed miserably.

Aping after the big sellers doesn't translate to profit. If people feel like playing the same old thing again they can pick up just that, they don't have to dish out money for it.

Fallout fans are stating what they want. Just because we like it doesn't mean the so-called masses wouldn't. Sequels require extra care, you have to consider the expectations of the existing fanbase. You're not just making a game, you're making a sequel. It's a special context where you shouldn't change things too much. If you have to make drastic changes, just go and make a completely new game from scratch.

The single-most important thing for the sales of a game is how fun/interesting it is, disagree? Making design decisions because of marketing tripe is getting the whole thing backwards, you should design to make a good game and then do the marketing.

You're digging up another fallacy with "the fallout community is too small" line. Even with the lack of promotional work Interplay did for the game, Fallout sold fairly well over time. Regardless, it is regarded industry-wide as a classic and has many fans in the press. When the Fallout fans made noise about FOBOS, the world noticed. Have you read the interviews with Bethesda people? You'll see questions like "will you do it isometric? TB?" Heck - you even see it in the recent printed interviews. The world noticed. The fallout fanbase is not small and its influence is not insignificant.

[Mr. Teatime]

Unfortunately, recent companies learn this the hard way. BY publishing their shitty game and being confused as to why it doesn't sell.

[Araanor]

Yeah, Harbinger couldn't have flopped because it's a crappy game, it's gotta be because it's sci-fi! Let's make fantasy games and frollic in the greenest of glades!

[King of Creation]

I don't think that these people realize that probably the main reason Fallout Tactics didn't "resonate" with us is because is WASN'T A ROLE PLAYING GAME.

Plus, the ending of Tactics blew huge.


Other than that, I liked it though. (yes, I'm one of the tactics likers...sue me.)

[Mismatch]

well, as far as whaddaya call em... the group combat stategy games in which tactics fall, are concerned I consider tactics to be a rather ok game.
but indeed, one was dissapointed that they chose to develop that and not an RPG.

[brillo]

If people feel like playing the same old thing again they can pick up just that, they don't have to dish out money for it.

You sure you wanna be saying stuff like that in a discussion about FO3?

Fallout fans are stating what they want. Just because we like it doesn't mean the so-called masses wouldn't. Sequels require extra care, you have to consider the expectations of the existing fanbase. You're not just making a game, you're making a sequel. It's a special context where you shouldn't change things too much. If you have to make drastic changes, just go and make a completely new game from scratch.

The single-most important thing for the sales of a game is how fun/interesting it is, disagree? Making design decisions because of marketing tripe is getting the whole thing backwards, you should design to make a good game and then do the marketing.

You're digging up another fallacy with "the fallout community is too small" line. Even with the lack of promotional work Interplay did for the game, Fallout sold fairly well over time. Regardless, it is regarded industry-wide as a classic and has many fans in the press. When the Fallout fans made noise about FOBOS, the world noticed. Have you read the interviews with Bethesda people? You'll see questions like "will you do it isometric? TB?" Heck - you even see it in the recent printed interviews. The world noticed. The fallout fanbase is not small and its influence is not insignificant.

I'd agree with all of this. Publishers, and to a lesser extent many developers, however, apparently don't agree. And the current state of the industry pretty much shows that. Do you honestly think it's gonna change? And do you really think that people flaming Bethesda on various boards might change that for FO3?

[Franz Schubert]

Sweet, sweet jesus when will people understand that FO:T has very few connections to FO other than name and the Brotherhood (again, in name only).

Of course, they only made FO:T isometric because they didn't bother to make a new engine.

[Spazmo]

Franz, if that was sarcasm and not just a really stupid thing to say, I still don't get how it's funny.

[Araanor]

If people feel like playing the same old thing again they can pick up just that, they don't have to dish out money for it.

You sure you wanna be saying stuff like that in a discussion about FO3?

:confused2:
I think there's room for a lot of improvements to the Fallout gameplay that wouldn't bastardize the game or piss off the fans, and I think many would agree. Give more choices and consequences to actions to the player, make them more meaningful. More uses for skills. Patch up SPECIAL. Update the interface. Balance and improve combat. You could add some completely new fitting features, like crafting. All these would improve the gameplay if done competently and within the setting and style.

I'd agree with all of this. Publishers, and to a lesser extent many developers, however, apparently don't agree. And the current state of the industry pretty much shows that. Do you honestly think it's gonna change? And do you really think that people flaming Bethesda on various boards might change that for FO3?

Many publishers (and to some extent, developers) have shown to be completely clueless as to how the games industry works. Case in point: Interplay and Acclaim.

I think it's pretty unlikely that we'll see publishers aiming for quality games and customer service rather than the big bang of bucks (even if these bangs of titles are rare). I'm hoping for the Internet to flourish as the avenue for people dedicated to making great games. There's Stardock with GalCiv, Spiderweb Software with Geneforge and Avernum, Laser Squad Nemesis and many smaller ventures and I only see it growing.

Flaming Bethesda is maybe not be the most productive way to go at it, but it should get their attention well enough. I'd like to think that they are not only looking for the mighty dollar, but also to please the fans. The flaming should catch their attention as it means something for both these concerns. Pissing off the fans might not be enough to sink the game, but it'll give them a lot of bad rep. A game getting bad rep before it's released is a rare thing in the industry, with all the magazines sucking up and acting as an extended arm of publisher PR. FOBOS is one of the few examples I can think of.

The game is still in pre-production and Bethesda appears to be uncommonly open to suggestions for being in the games biz. They might change it.

I think it's irresponsible of them to buy the license and then decide to change the core gameplay against the fans' wishes. They could've come up with a completely new setting that they could've done whatever they wanted with on their own. They have the prestige, clout and backing to make this happen, and the Fallout fans would be cheering them on for making a good post-apoc game!

[Mismatch]

I think there's room for a lot of improvements to the Fallout gameplay that wouldn't bastardize the game or piss off the fans, and I think many would agree. Give more choices and consequences to actions to the player, make them more meaningful. More uses for skills. Patch up SPECIAL. Update the interface. Balance and improve combat. You could add some completely new fitting features, like crafting. All these would improve the gameplay if done competently and within the setting and style.

I want a math skill, it always pisses me off on FO2 when you do the citizenship test and fail on that equation thingy.

[Spazmo]

Mismatch, IIRC, to pass the VC citizenship test, you need something like 10 intelligence and perception.

[Mismatch]

Mismatch, IIRC, to pass the VC citizenship test, you need something like 10 intelligence and perception.

oh, I usually play with 9 in both of those.
but I still want a math skill...
a mathskill would be to me what groin ointment is to the groin people.
moist and tasty.