DAC exclusive - interview with Todd Howard

Mr. Teatime · Post by **Mr. Teatime** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 7:19 pm

I'd agree it's largely perception rather than based on fact. Publishers think 'turn based = bad' and dont make those games, despite there not being much evidence to back up the idea that TB doesn't sell. The fact is there hasn't been a decent TB game since the Fallouts really, and they've sold more than any of interplay's slam dunk ideas like FOBOS or Tactics, or IWD2 or whatever.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 7:30 pm

Walt, you must love me for most of the time then, no?

The general public wants it "2 fast 2 furious". And the tactics you use in FF and such don't really require you to bother your brains, more like stressing your spine - memorizing patterns that will be repeated over and over again repeated over and over again repeated over and over again until they're burned in the back of your skull. From that point onward reactions to different kinds of stimulants (ie. press x-rectangle-rectangle-circle-x-x and repeat 12 times when you see pink dragon, 3 seconds time left or game over) are automatic. It doesn't take a Napoleon or George Patton to realize that fire elementals are immune to fire, but vulnerable to ice and water. Ok, ok, I got a bit carried away there, but the point still stands.

You *can* play turn-based games in a "stupid" way, yet still succeed. Most of the time you'll just end up with more wasted hit points, ammo and time, but you still survive. You know, still remember the first time when you played Fallout? It propably took me the same amount of ammo to shoot my way through to Junktown on my first try as it took a couple of months ago during the whole game. And on my first play through I never even reached the level cap. Even dumbasses like me have managed to beat Jagged Alliance 2, which is quite an achievement on it's own, so why not the rest of the gaming community?

Damn it. I think I just created some kind of a paradox here, saying first that most people hate TB and don't have the wits for it and then that anyone can succeed in TB games and even enjoy it. Oh chit, I don't know the answer either, I'm just trying to sound smart. Perhaps we should put a group of skilled and devoted people on the task, to educate the gaming audience on the finer aspects of turn-based gaming? Yeah. We've seen how "great" effect marketing has on people and games, so why not the other way around?

EA, here I come.

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 7:35 pm

Kash - I was refering to Final Fantasy Tactics which is quite differant from the other Final Fantasies in that it requires troop placement and troop choice and such. Although they're not on the level of Jagged Alliance or something like that, they can get quite complicated, especially the Nippon Ichi titles which add strict time limits and other such novelties.

I'll agree with you that the common consensus is that '2 fast 2 furious' type of gameplay is what most companies see as saleworthy.

I'd rather just imagine that a game should be sold on its own merits rather then the merits of a particular genre and style system. However, chances are high some guy from Bestheda or morrowind fanboy will take that as "Well then, as long as we make Fallout an excellent ES clone, this guy should love it."

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 7:39 pm

Ah, forgive me. I'm still trying to comprehend this whole "English"-deal and even after years of struggle such simple tasks as "reading complete sentences" or "reading every line, not every second" are proving to be very challenging.

Chances are that Fallout 3 will suck - but I won't be slitting my wrists any day soon over it, no way josÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â©. Instead, I'm going to wait for the sunrise and die with my boots on. Bring it on, Bethesda!

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 7:43 pm

I don't think FFT sold a lot, unlike the other FF games.

Because it was slower and more linear.

It still ruled but eh.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 7:51 pm

"More linear"?

How is that even possible, may I ask?

Stainless · Post by **Stainless** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 8:52 pm

It ment you probibly couldn't name your characters.

PiP · Post by **PiP** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 9:25 pm

first things first, I gotta say both MrTea and MrTodd showed a lot of proefessionalism.

Nonetheless, I can't see where does your enthusiasm over "hints about TB-combat" (or something) come form, Tea. I'd rather say Todd used a neat syntax to convey "if we don't think TB will sell BIG, we won't do it, so most probably we won't do it."

But I see TB is already being discussed in this thread. You guys mention some console TB games which sell good - good point. But is it really this (kind of) audience you think it would be interested in buying a Fallout? I know nothing about console games, but I guess if this kind of audience were to become those that make Fallout 3 sell BIG, it'd have to be made for consoles
and look like this ^_^ Or am I being a nazi, prejudiced sunuvabitch?

So basically we gotta think about PC audience. Be it true or not, producers think TB games for PCs can't sell well - at least this is my raugh conclusion from this discussion and from the interview w/ L. Boyarsky a while back.
(oh BTW, how did Silent Storm sell?)

I know it's contrary to what many F fans think, but IMO turn-based combat isn't _that_ important. However, I don't wanna say let's go real-time H&S (like Bloodlines, which was pretty good in some other respects). As long as I have the time to think what to do next in combat, I'll be fine - be it turn-based, or auto-pause, or dunno what else.
As regards the view, I'm for top-down pseudo-isometric 3D (like VanBuren), or maybe a free choice between different types of view not restricted at any time (though possibly it's be darn hard to balance the gameplay for all views at the same time). Lastly, I think top-down is not necessary for a good RPG, but it's necessary for a Falout feel to a game. Bear this in mind Pete, Todd, and others.

Altogether, I think "bitching" about TB and view isn't really important, as long as they don't make a FPP hack&slash.
Shouldn't we, as a community, be more concerned about the storyline, NPCs, dialogues, combat-noncombat choices, good-bad choices, their consequences? I haven't loved Fallout for the TB and iso, but these things.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 10:27 pm

It is true, that them said things are damn important. But that doesn't change the fact that if Fallout 3 becomes a first-person shooter, even with "storyline, NPCs, dialogues, combat-noncombat choices, good-bad choices, their consequences", it won't be Fallout anymore. Hell, that's Deus Ex, but I wan't no Deus Ex, I want my Fallout god damn it!

But... sure, those things you mentioned really are more important than turn-based combat and isometric / top-down viewpoint. Thanks for bringing my fat floating ass back on the ground.

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 10:32 pm

PiP wrote: You guys mention some console TB games which sell good - good point. But is it really this (kind of) audience you think it would be interested in buying a Fallout?

The question is not 'Who do we want FO3 to be catered for' but rather who Bestheda is catering it to. In this case, as par usual, it seems to be the greatest number of people who will buy the game, since consoles are seen as mainstream and used by the "common consumer" they make a great estimate as to what's popular and whats not...on the other hand, you're right, lets scratch this, I don't want to think about anime-esque inspired fallout as I just ate.

Regardless, I believe there have been many assumptions and rumors that FO3 will be on consoles. Although this can't be confirmed or denied, it's something to be considered.

Kash wrote:How is that even possible, may I ask?

The game only advanced when you went to a certain objective on the world map which was the mission. It's not really "That much more linear" and infact I found it abit better as it cut down on "Run from here, to here to here and fight 50 odd random battles."

Final Fantasy Tactics became a greatest hit meaning it sold quite a number of copies world wide, I forget the exact number required to become a greatest hit but it's fairly high. There was a shittier sequal for GBA which also sold well to my knowledge. For referance, I refuse to really refer to it as a sequal but rather as Square's lowered production values.

Mr. Teatime · Post by **Mr. Teatime** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 10:39 pm

I think out of all the rumours floating around, the one that the game will be multiplatform is the most certain one. It would be great to hear that the game will be PC exclusive, but I doubt that will happen. Making the game cross-platform brings in a whole host of problems, from the 'theme' of the game being simplified to fit with console kiddies, to the interface being suited to a gamepad, to the combat being more action orientated, to the viewpoint being 3rd person as is traditional with many console titles.
Yes, I know Morrowind was fine on the consoles. I'd point out how console-friendly that title is, with its fast, real time combat, first/third person viewpoint, amongst other things.

PiP · Post by **PiP** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 10:49 pm

Walt: "The question is not 'Who do we want FO3 to be catered for' but rather who Bestheda is catering it to." Ditto. - That's what I was trying to say, among other things.
"I don't want to think about anime-esque inspired fallout as I just ate." nicely put

Kash: "if Fallout 3 becomes a first-person shooter"
note that I wrote
-'As long as I have the time to think what to do next in combat, I'll be fine - be it turn-based, or auto-pause, or (...)'
-'I'm for top-down pseudo-isometric 3D'
-'top-down is (...) necessary for a Falout feel to a game.'
Oh, no problem taking care of your ass, as long as your boyfriend doesn't mind

(edit) ... and lets stop confusing 'top-down' with 'isometric':
top-down can be either isometric (Fallout) or not (VanBuren).
The point is, if you have a 3D environment, lines that would be actually parallel do not look (appear on the screen) parallel because of the perspective effect. So basically you can only have real isometric with 2D graphics, but you can have something similar with 3D if you set the camera anlge right, that is top-down. At least that's what I think; I remember doing simple isometric technical drawings back in primary school.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 10:56 pm

No he won't. Spazmo is a really cool guy.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 11:05 pm

Anyone can have a piece of Kashluk, I rent out his bedroom by the hour.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 11:09 pm

My very own pimp daddy *hugs*.

---

and back to the topic:

Yes, PiP, that's why I wrote "isometric / top-down" because top-down viewpoint is the closest thing to the isometric perspective you can achieve through 3D enviroment. I know what you mean, just wanted to let you know that I wasn't confused either.

PiP · Post by **PiP** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 11:14 pm

hey Spazmo, I kinda miss your Gay-brush, haven't you been thinking bout bringing him back?

___(10 seconds later)
K: "I know what you mean" - oh ok, me thinks you didn't, sorrs

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 11:55 pm

The FFT on GBA wasn't a sequel, it was set in a different world, had different characters, and sucked, much like FFC for GC.

Briosafreak · Post by **Briosafreak** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 12:19 am

(edit) ... and lets stop confusing 'top-down' with 'isometric':
top-down can be either isometric (Fallout) or not (VanBuren).

We`ve already explained why we use the term isometric tons of times, either here, at NMA or the Bethesda fora, please do a search before talking out of context.

PiP · Post by **PiP** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 12:38 am

be that as it may, why would you call what I wrote "out of context"? And anyway I don't feel obliged to do a research if I just want to respond to an immediatelly preceding post in a particular thread of interest to me. I thought "top down / isometric" meant "top down OR isometric" and, these not being mutually exclussive, I thought I'd write a few words to make sure me and my interlocutor both speak of the same thing. Yes it proved unnecessary, but I just wasn't sure what a particular person means in this particular thread, hence my post. So, is there need to complain about this? I actually do use the 'search' button' quite a lot.

Briosafreak · Post by **Briosafreak** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 12:49 am

I`m not complaining, i was asking you to go and search what we and many in the industry mean when we talk of isometric, so you can be in context whenever that expression arises.