DAC exclusive - interview with Todd Howard

[Mr. Teatime]

<strong>[Game -> Interview]</strong> - More info on <a href="http://wikipocalypse.duckandcover.cx/in ... le=Fallout 3 (Bethesda)">Game: Fallout 3 (Bethesda)</a> | More info on <a href="http://wikipocalypse.duckandcover.cx/in ... e=Bethesda Softworks">Company: Bethesda Softworks</a> | More info on <a href="http://wikipocalypse.duckandcover.cx/in ... title=Todd Howard">Person: Todd Howard</a>

What better way to test <strong>DarkUnderlord</strong>'s new content system than to put up an exclusive interview I've done with the <strong>Executive Producer</strong> at <a href="http://www.bethsoft.com">Bethesda</a> (otherwise known as The Person Who Makes The Decisions about Fallout 3), <strong>Todd Howard</strong>, in his first full interview on the subject <a href="http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/fallout3 ... tml">since July 2004</a>?


Is SPECIAL going to be used in <em>Fallout 3</em>? At what point in
Fallout history will the game take place? Somewhat surprisingly, given
the company's policy on not talking about their games until they've had
a few years of development, Todd answered these questions. Here's a
quote about the combat that comes with a vaguer answer:

<blockquote><em><strong>Whilst every fan tends to have a different idea of
what precisely Fallout 3 should be, there are a few things that most of
us are unified on. Are you aware of the strong desires for turn-based
combat and the classic 3/4 top-down viewpoint? Do you think pure
turn-based combat in an RPG is viable in today's market?</strong>



Yes, of course we've heard many of the old-school fans regarding the
view and combat resolution. What's viable today? Certainly turn-based
combat limits your audience to a small number, but I do find that
audiences will come if your game is good enough and the presentation is
superb. Ultimately we'll do what we think will be the most fun.

</em></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.duckandcover.cx/content.php?id=66">Click here for the rest</a>. <strong>DarkUnderlord</strong>
has taken the time to put the interview in context and write an
editorial on Todd's responses, which you can read as part of the
article.


Thanks to <strong>Todd Howard</strong> for his time and agreeing to answer my
questions. I feel I should mention that I've been impressed with the
friendliness of all <a href="http://www.bethsoft.com">Bethesda</a>
staff I've contacted, and their willingness to communicate. Maybe that
will change when they announce the real-time, console-only sequel to <em>FO: BOS</em>, but that hasn't happened yet.


Let's hope that the positive direction for the game that I think this interview implies is not just talk.

[Mismatch]

well, what to say....
I'm impressen. not only because you manageing to make that interview, but also with many of the answers.
Sound better than I had anticipated.
:fondle:

edit:
he really said all the right things....
shall we send susan?
so the rimjob business will be all taken care of.
and then if things turn out to be less spiffy than they sound he'll owe us one.

[Briosafreak]

I liked the way the questions were made, it has indeed some good material to discuss.

[Pope Viper]

Great job, guys!!

[Retlaw83]

Todd's made me hopeful for the future. Let's hope they pull this thing off.

[Mr. Teatime]

The interview is the most positive thing I've heard about the game in all the time it's been known Bethsoft had the licence. The stuff that Todd confirms is good news (SPECIAL), the hints are good (turn based combat), the idea of deeper NPCs... like I said, let's hope it's not just all talk. And of course, if the game is announced to be real time and first person, the interview can never have said to have been false.

[S4ur0n27]

Neato. It's still just talk.

[King of Creation]

There were, without a doubt, some things that we learned from the interview that I was extremely happy about. Namely the fact that a.)they’re not going to really work on the game during Oblivion production and b.) they’re going to/have already consulted people who have worked on the series before.

One of the things I was initially worried about with Bethesda’s Fallout 3 announcement was that they were going to devote considerably less attention to the game than they should have. I was afraid that Oblivion had called shotgun, and Fallout 3 was going to have to sit cramped up in the back seat of a 96 extended cab Ford F-150 on a cross country road trip. Anyone who has ever been in one of those knows that the back seat really isn’t a seat at all...it’s a glorified glove compartment. Needless to say, you can see the point of the metaphor.

Thankfully, this interview proves that Bethesda has the intention of putting full focus on Fallout 3 when its turn comes around, which may be a very long time in the future. I can be patient though, regardless of the conditions. I’ve waited outside nonstop for days on end with nothing but lots of beer, some bags of chips, and no real bathrooms in the rain and freezing cold for basketball tickets. I can be patient. We’ve hung around this long, I think we can wait around at least until Oblivion comes out. As long as the payoff is good.

I also think it’s a very good PR move for Bethesda to consult guys that have worked on the Fallout series before. Todd mentions the passion that people have for the game. I can only assume that such passion is contagious. It’s a great morale booster to know that devs from the original games are being consulted. Who knows…maybe some of them will be hired to work on the game. If the recent rumors of a prominent game studio closing its doors come to fruition, maybe some of those guys could actually work on the third installment of their series. Now, that would be a huge confidence booster.

It’s great that Todd talks about things like the camera angle, interface, and combat. While the information he gives us is shady at best, it’s fun to try and divine things from it. First, I was kind of put off when he said that “turn based combat limits your audience to a small number.� Is it really that small? I tend to not think so. It may seem small now a days because people don’t make turn based games anymore, so no one has access to any of the new games. I can’t really remember the last game that was made by a prominent developer that had actual turn based combat. It kind of just phased out because of the “real time fad� or whatever. But look at Fallout. It was turn based and did amazingly well. That kind of turn based I find more fun in an RPG than “real time� combat. “Real Time� combat in RPGs today is really nothing more than glorified first person shooting. But it’s more frustrating. My mind gets set in Unreal Tournament mode, and I expect that when I point at something and shoot, it will die. Not so in “real time� RPG combat. Random dice rolls or whatever make me suck more. At least in Fallout, if I missed, I knew it wasn’t because of a lack of skill with a mouse.

But I’m getting off topic here, crossing paths with viewpoint. Might as well move on to that. Oh yeah…first person turn based is bad. Like KOTOR, which was kind of turn based, kind of real time. I don’t even know…I only played like 25 minutes of it. But I didn’t like the combat. It felt out of place with the first person view. Fallout needs to be turned based and it needs to have the “Classic Fallout� viewpoint. One goes hand in hand with the other. Todd’s comments on the camera angle or placement or whatever kind of bolstered my level of confidence, I guess. At least we know they have the capability for the “Classic Fallout� viewpoint.

Oh, and then he kind of mentioned interface. One word: Pipboy. We’ve kind of forgotten about that in all this Fallout 3 talk. It’s one of those things, I think, that we don’t even realize is there, but couldn’t live without. It’s a necessary element of the Fallout universe. The visual style of the interface, the functionality of its layout…they’re all pivotal elements of what makes up Fallout.

It’s like an awesome cycle. You can start anywhere on the cycle, but you’ll always have all of the elements. It’s like this: Turn based combat works well with the Classic Fallout viewpoint, which in turn needs to have the Pipboy interface of the previous Fallout games, but I can really only see that working with the Classic Viewpoint, etc. Even Tactics had the Pipboy interface. I mean, I guess you could have the Pipboy interface from different viewpoints, but it just wouldn’t be the same.

I might as well end this on another positive note. Todd seems to have a general appreciation of us, the Fallout Community. He seems to understand where we’re coming from in all of our ranting and raving. It’s great to know that the Bethesda guys are reading the forums and are using input we give, whether we realize it or not. And you know…I didn’t even realize it until he said it, but, man, it has been almost 8 years since Fallout 2. That’s a long time. We could be crazy…but I’d rather think we’re kick ass.

[Wolfman Walt]

What are your goals for Fallout 3?
To return Fallout to RPG prominence. To do the series justice while also bringing it into the current day.

Despite the fact that it's just talk, I liked that line. Not cause its some sort of self horn tooting or anything, but because it makes it sounds like they really care about this project. Overall, good work.

[Blargh]

Such optimism. Simultaneously refreshing and distressing.

[Mad Max RW]

Very nice and not too much bullshit. The followup was perfect. That's how it should be done.

It's obvious isometric turn based combat isn't gonna happen, but they might make a good game anyway. I'd rather have Fallout in the hands of a company that has all the time and money to do what they want than somebody like Troika where some publisher's got them by the balls.

[Stainless]

Interesting read. Parts of that interview sound like they're going for more Junktowns rather then New Renos to me.

[Pete]

Glad you guys enjoyed the interview. Just wanted to clarify something.

and non-linearity in Morrowind (their biggest game to date) was non-existant (anybody remember the "You have killed an important character! You've stuffed up the main plot! You should reload!" dialogue box?).

I found this a fairly odd statement by DarkOverlord in the Editorial. Yes, we let you know when you've killed a character that is crucial to the main quest. Since our game let's you kill everyone and anyone in the game, we thought it was only fair to do so in case the player wanted to reload.

However, you can kill every single thing in the game (except one NPC) and still finish the main quest, albeit not through the traditional "main quest" path that you would have been on originally, but through a separate "back path." Again, as a completely open-ended game, we thought that was only fair.

Whether or not you liked Morrowind or had issues with various parts of the game, it'd be tough to argue that the game failed in its effort to be non-linear. In fact, most folks complained that it was TOO non-linear. Open-ended gameplay where the player gets to choose what to do next is actually very important to us and something we're proud to be known for.

My $.02

[King of Creation]

Whether or not you liked Morrowind or had issues with various parts of the game, it'd be tough to argue that the game failed in its effort to be non-linear. In fact, most folks complained that it was TOO non-linear. Open-ended gameplay where the player gets to choose what to do next is actually very important to us and something we're proud to be known for.

Yeah, that's actually all I've ever heard about Morrowind. That is was too non-linear, extremely open ended. I still haven't had a chance to play it, and didn't when it first came out because this kid I hated was obsessed with it, and by association, I was turned off to Morrowind. I think I will give it a go today, though, as my roommate has the game. Ah well...I will report my findings.

And thanks again for the interview Pete!

[Briosafreak]

I found this a fairly odd statement by DarkOverlord in the Editorial.

You mean DarkUnderware right?

[Mr. Teatime]

Glad you guys enjoyed the interview. Just wanted to clarify something.

and non-linearity in Morrowind (their biggest game to date) was non-existant (anybody remember the "You have killed an important character! You've stuffed up the main plot! You should reload!" dialogue box?).

I found this a fairly odd statement by DarkOverlord in the Editorial. Yes, we let you know when you've killed a character that is crucial to the main quest. Since our game let's you kill everyone and anyone in the game, we thought it was only fair to do so in case the player wanted to reload.

However, you can kill every single thing in the game (except one NPC) and still finish the main quest, albeit not through the traditional "main quest" path that you would have been on originally, but through a separate "back path." Again, as a completely open-ended game, we thought that was only fair.

Whether or not you liked Morrowind or had issues with various parts of the game, it'd be tough to argue that the game failed in its effort to be non-linear. In fact, most folks complained that it was TOO non-linear. Open-ended gameplay where the player gets to choose what to do next is actually very important to us and something we're proud to be known for.

My $.02

And when it comes to Fallout, the plot was linear. It was the way you went about solving it, solving the quests, that was non-linear. I guess there are different types of 'linearity'.

EDIT: and I just want to point out, since some people are getting confused, I did the interview itself. DarkUnderlord then wrote the editorial after I forwarded the interview on to him.

Hence, the editorial is DU's view on Morrowind. I think that game was good at what it set out to do, my fear was/is that Bethsoft might not realise all the obvious and subtle differences between the two franchises. This interview sets some of that right.

[Saint_Proverbius]

No, there's not more than one type of linear, and Morrowind was very linear. There was an exact order to the entire plot, regardless of a few sections which had other ways to get at them.

[Mr. Teatime]

Well you can have a linear main plot - ie, the same bad guy, the world is threatened, your quest is to stop him (even if it has multiple endings) - but you can have non-linear quests within that, that are unrelated to the plot... whether you sneak by someone, whether you talk your way out, whether you play a good or bad person, whatever. Bloodlines and Fallout were like this, I'd say (though Fallout did have a more reactive plot than bloodlines).

Or you could have a more non-linear overarching plot. Something like Deus Ex, where most stuff affected what happened to the plot.. if you killed a main char, the plot reacted to that and changed. The two I guess are similar... I suppose what I'm saying, in an extreme example, is that you could have a completely fixed plot with set missions, but you could solve those missions in different ways despite the outcome being the same - or you could have the opposite, where the overaching plot is completely morphable. Two types of non-linearity, IMO.

Of course, with morrowind, I never played far enough to make a decision either way.

[POOPERSCOOPER]

I think you missed the points teatime

Anyways I still think MR. HOWARD is playing us for a fool. How many times do you hear developers go "FO1 is teh fuckin best man", thats something you mostly only see on the Fallout boards. People are usually like Fo1 and Fo2 are teh fuckin awesome. He looking over the forums and saying what we say.

No one can trick pooper, pooper senses this and he sees a war coming. I think they can make a good game but some of the answers just seem BS.

[Araanor]

Good piece. Todd picked the right words this time.

Here's to hoping they try out a good form of turn-based combat during this 'pre-production'.