Game News Todd Howard talks about Fallout

[Relayer71]

Todd as Ash in Evil Dead 3 Army Of Darkness: "It's pillow talk baby!"

 

[Micmu]

I really liked the first game and thought Fallout would be a great fit for us, it has all the big things I love about RPGs – player freedom, big world, go do what you want type of stuff.

:!:

 

[hiciacit]

And here I was thinking Molyneux was the most deluted fuck in the gaming industry.

 

[Claw]

Yet there are fifteen+ pages ANALyzing a handful of concept art pictures and one music track, that are not even 'official'.

Smart use of capitalization, there. As in Jeff Smart, of course.

I just hope it's fun to play and has some depth, I'm sure it wont based on the dodgy article, but we'll see.

Actually, my trust in Bethesda is low enough to rather hope it's total crap, so not playing it will be a trivial decision and I won't feel like I miss anything.
What does a "modernized" game bearing the name Fallout but devoid of Fallout's unique qualities give me? Nothing I couldn't get from another game except disappointment souring the experience.

I think he’s got something to say, and I think it’s important.

Oh, deity. He's making me sick.

You may not agree, you may be too cynical to look at it objectively anymore

Of course tha hint that if you disagree with them, you are just plain wrong couldn't be missing.

Todd as Ash in Evil Dead 3 Army Of Darkness: "It's pillow talk baby!"

That's.. blasphemy!

 

[POOPERSCOOPER]

Since I've read poopers third installment of the fallout sitcomt I picture Todd as a sinister, bitter, brutal tyrannt who sexually absuses his employees.

I never saw it that way, but when I'm looking at a picture of him now its totaly fits. Poopers has done a disturbing but also heartbraking analysis of the monster's soul. Give him teh noble price.

I did a very in depth study of Todd Howard and his evil ways for many months before writing the piece.

 

[sabishii]

I really liked the first game and thought Daggerfall would be a great fit for us, it has all the big things I love about RPGs – player freedom, big world, go do what you want type of stuff.

:!:

 

[Micmu]

Yeah, he pretty much confirms "any genre" Fallout.

"We" might even get an improved S.T.A.L.K.E.R. rather than Oblivion With Guns.

 

[Ivy Mike]

Obviously I can’t talk about the game itself yet, but I can give you a look into how I/we approached it...
I obviously replayed the games, and Fallout 1 remains the truest inspiration for what we’re doing, but again, it can be hard to get at the “soul” of it, because of its aging...
game’s manual... I obviously looked at all the PA movies – Boy and his Dog, Mad Max, Strangelove, etc...

As much as I know that whatever Bethesda does with Fallout won't be the Fallout we want, I see no reason for claiming the Todd didn't do his homework. He explicitly stated that he he wouldn't be talking about the game, but how to approach the game and trying to understand what makes Fallout Fallout. From what I can see he actually took the time to look through the major references for Fallout (not including books though... smart move there Todd!). Excluding the drama at the end of that speech, I see no major faults with it.

 

[aries202]

I know you can don't do this, but if you are so mad at Todd & Bethesda building and making a Fallout game, why then do you not make your own PA-game - the way you think it should be made.

That's exactly what Todd is saying i.e. Bethesda is oging to make a Fallout game, bases on their decisions, not yours or rmine decisions as to what the game looks like, setting etc. Like Bioware & Obsidian it means that Bethesda indeed values faninputs and inspirations for the game, but the final decisions of how the game is going to be is his,
Todd Howards, the decider. Deal with it --- or don't buy the game. It really is that simple...

And nowhere do Todd say anything about that Fallout is going to change people lives. He says that Bethesda get letters from fans and from people whom Morrowind/Oblivion have helped through difficult times in their lives by allowing these people to play a character in the game(s) that were stronger than these people were - at that particular time - in real life. (some people have a punching bag to deal with frustrations, others play Morrowind/Oblivion or other games).

I try not not to secondguess other people's motives, including Todd Howard's motives for writing this stuff, and I personally doubt that he has time to read the Codex at all.

Personally I would rather see a Fallout game that has its 'soul' intact and which sells millions than a game that looks like a rehash of the former games and just sells 100,000 units (copies). I know some of you (or probably nearly all of you) think that a game that is popular can't be quality, but it can, imo. Just like a good book can be very popular, and sell a lot of units (copies). It is, really, finding a balance between the two, and the balance is sometimes hard to find, I think.

As for Todd's other comments in the 'meet the devs.' thread, it look to me like Todd did think a lot about Fallout's iconic status, and it kind of reassures me a bit that he has read the "One Woman’s Path through the Desert" manual that came with Fallout 1 (I've read it, too, and it was really great read and helped me understand a lot of the spirit or soul in Fallout).

It is also clear to me, from Todd's statement or comment that Bethesda did indeed make (good?)
research and judt didn't plunge into making Fallout 3 without having soming general idea of where they were going to take the Fallout franchise.

And, irrc, Frank Miller's Dark Night's cartoony drawings for the Dark Knight series (for batman) borrows inspiration rather heavily from a certain movie called 'necropolis' which, irrc, is a very bleek, grim and dark tale of the future.

Personally, I like that Todd & Bethesda are 'removing the aging' of Fallout, simply because (many) people do indeed speak of FO in nostalgic tones (just like so many older people speak nostagicly about their childhood).

However, I'm still not sure that Todd&Bethesda can pull this off aka doing it correctly, since they don't seem to have any experience developing a very story based game as the Fallout games, afterall, are.

 

[KazikluBey]

Personally I would rather see a Fallout game that has its 'soul' intact and which sells millions than a game that looks like a rehash of the former games and just sells 100,000 units (copies).

Again this weird notion that making a true Fallout 3 would be a "rehash" despite there not being a game like them for 7-8 years, while changing core game mechanics to things we have seen in countless other games in recent times would make it "innovative" or a "quality" product.

 

[Anaglyph]

"...because it’s aged, and people often discuss it in nostalgic tones."

Funny he should say that because I played Fallout 2 for the first time last year and was amazed at how fresh and new it felt. It was full of the sort of detail and interesting gameplay that something like the hollow shell of Oblivion is completely lacking. Haven't even played the original so there are no rose-tinted Fallout glasses in my case; the only accusation that could be made along those lines is that I follow the general Codex line that the game industry is in a pretty sorry state these days. The only thing remotely "aged" about it was the lack of sparkly graphic shine (and that's not a bad thing) and low display resolution. Now maybe there's a huge difference between 1 and 2 and the original really does seem dated, but I doubt it.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that Howard would find it aged though.

 

[elander_]

However, I'm still not sure that Todd&Bethesda can pull this off aka doing it correctly, since they don't seem to have any experience developing a very story based game as the Fallout games, afterall, are.

Afterall Doom3 is story based too retard.

"...because it’s aged, and people often discuss it in nostalgic tones."

Graphics are aged, and the TB system could use a modern game engine like Neverwinter Nights 2 or the one in Troikas demo. That's all that is aged.

What TH should be saying is that he have a lot to learn with Fallout gameplay because it is 100x better than the pile of crap of gameplay he puts in his games, instead of trying to find excuses before he shows what he his doing with the game.

 

[Joe Krow]

Quite a collection of words you have there. So Fallout 3 will be an elaboration of a few paragraphs from the Fallout 1 manual? (The part that's not "aged"?) Can someone post the section he's talking about?

 

[psycojester]

and I personally doubt that he has time to read the Codex at all.

True, but then again Todd can't read.

 

[Micmu]

The manual is not aged because today's manual is still the same old manual - mostly with text and some pictures.

Once they invent Action/manuals, Fallout's manual will be "aged", too.

 

[Joe Krow]

Once they invent Action/manuals, Fallout's manual will be "aged", too.

nice post/rpg :D

 

[Amasius]

Aged? Fallout is aged like a good Bordeaux. I can do very well without all the modern stuff like Questmarker and instant travel. Multiple quest solutions and good dialogue never gets old.

 

[Remax]

We’ve left no stone unturned in trying to find Fallout’s “soul”,

I can think of several unturned stones, like most of the original developers - Cain, Boyarsky, Campbell,...

Wait, those are unturned BOULDERS.

 

[Futile Rhetoric]

Please, guy, whatever you're smoking, pass it around. I could use some.

I know you can don't do this, but if you are so mad at Todd & Bethesda building and making a Fallout game, why then do you not make your own PA-game - the way you think it should be made.

I do not see why the only way to play a good game is to make one yourself -- I am a firm believer in the old adage that if one is to do something right, he has to do it himself, and all that, but this is going overboard a bit.

That's exactly what Todd is saying i.e. Bethesda is oging to make a Fallout game, bases on their decisions, not yours or rmine decisions as to what the game looks like, setting etc. Like Bioware & Obsidian it means that Bethesda indeed values faninputs and inspirations for the game, but the final decisions of how the game is going to be is his,
Todd Howards, the decider. Deal with it --- or don't buy the game. It really is that simple...

And I daresay very few people here will in fact buy the game. In the meantime, quite a few people think quite fondly of the Fallout games, and are therefore understandably outraged at the treatment which Fallout 3 has received. It's a no-brainer, really; people love Fallout, people want more Fallout, instead, people are getting explosive diarrhoea. The fact that Bethesda and their fanbase are into scatology, does not change that.

And nowhere do Todd say anything about that Fallout is going to change people lives. He says that Bethesda get letters from fans and from people whom Morrowind/Oblivion have helped through difficult times in their lives by allowing these people to play a character in the game(s) that were stronger than these people were - at that particular time - in real life. (some people have a punching bag to deal with frustrations, others play Morrowind/Oblivion or other games).

I am guessing you didn't read the last paragraph of Todd's little whine-fest. That's okay, it was hard for me, too. Take your time. Good man.

Personally I would rather see a Fallout game that has its 'soul' intact and which sells millions than a game that looks like a rehash of the former games and just sells 100,000 units (copies). I know some of you (or probably nearly all of you) think that a game that is popular can't be quality, but it can, imo. Just like a good book can be very popular, and sell a lot of units (copies). It is, really, finding a balance between the two, and the balance is sometimes hard to find, I think.

The gameplay of Fallout is very much part of its "soul". Everything Todd has said so far neglects that very simple fact, and it is quite clear that none of it shall be preserved.

As for Todd's other comments in the 'meet the devs.' thread, it look to me like Todd did think a lot about Fallout's iconic status, and it kind of reassures me a bit that he has read the "One Woman’s Path through the Desert" manual that came with Fallout 1 (I've read it, too, and it was really great read and helped me understand a lot of the spirit or soul in Fallout).

Far out, man.

It is also clear to me, from Todd's statement or comment that Bethesda did indeed make (good?)
research and judt didn't plunge into making Fallout 3 without having soming general idea of where they were going to take the Fallout franchise.

What the fuck does that even mean? They could have a general idea of making a post-apocalyptic desert soccer game and stick the "Fallout" tag on it. Hell, that's not too far off from the truth.

Personally, I like that Todd & Bethesda are 'removing the aging' of Fallout, simply because (many) people do indeed speak of FO in nostalgic tones (just like so many older people speak nostagicly about their childhood).

Then what was Van Buren, old? The only thing that has aged about Fallout is the way it looks, and even that is debatable. Fallout needs to be "modernised" like Citizen Kane and 2001 need boobies and a hip-hop soundtrack.

However, I'm still not sure that Todd&Bethesda can pull this off aka doing it correctly, since they don't seem to have any experience developing a very story based game as the Fallout games, afterall, are.

Actually, Bethesda do not have any experience in any of the areas of game design which made Fallout great. Sadder still is that nothing they have said or done so far shows that they are willing to learn.

 

[Jim Kata]

I know you can don't do this, but if you are so mad at Todd & Bethesda building and making a Fallout game, why then do you not make your own PA-game - the way you think it should be made.

That's exactly what Todd is saying i.e. Bethesda is oging to make a Fallout game, bases on their decisions, not yours or rmine decisions as to what the game looks like, setting etc. Like Bioware & Obsidian it means that Bethesda indeed values faninputs and inspirations for the game, but the final decisions of how the game is going to be is his,
Todd Howards, the decider. Deal with it --- or don't buy the game. It really is that simple...

And nowhere do Todd say anything about that Fallout is going to change people lives. He says that Bethesda get letters from fans and from people whom Morrowind/Oblivion have helped through difficult times in their lives by allowing these people to play a character in the game(s) that were stronger than these people were - at that particular time - in real life. (some people have a punching bag to deal with frustrations, others play Morrowind/Oblivion or other games).

I try not not to secondguess other people's motives, including Todd Howard's motives for writing this stuff, and I personally doubt that he has time to read the Codex at all.

Personally I would rather see a Fallout game that has its 'soul' intact and which sells millions than a game that looks like a rehash of the former games and just sells 100,000 units (copies). I know some of you (or probably nearly all of you) think that a game that is popular can't be quality, but it can, imo. Just like a good book can be very popular, and sell a lot of units (copies). It is, really, finding a balance between the two, and the balance is sometimes hard to find, I think.

As for Todd's other comments in the 'meet the devs.' thread, it look to me like Todd did think a lot about Fallout's iconic status, and it kind of reassures me a bit that he has read the "One Woman’s Path through the Desert" manual that came with Fallout 1 (I've read it, too, and it was really great read and helped me understand a lot of the spirit or soul in Fallout).

It is also clear to me, from Todd's statement or comment that Bethesda did indeed make (good?)
research and judt didn't plunge into making Fallout 3 without having soming general idea of where they were going to take the Fallout franchise.

And, irrc, Frank Miller's Dark Night's cartoony drawings for the Dark Knight series (for batman) borrows inspiration rather heavily from a certain movie called 'necropolis' which, irrc, is a very bleek, grim and dark tale of the future.

Personally, I like that Todd & Bethesda are 'removing the aging' of Fallout, simply because (many) people do indeed speak of FO in nostalgic tones (just like so many older people speak nostagicly about their childhood).

However, I'm still not sure that Todd&Bethesda can pull this off aka doing it correctly, since they don't seem to have any experience developing a very story based game as the Fallout games, afterall, are.

Please dumbfuck this person asap.

 

[SimpleComplexity]

I´m more surprised that the question wasn`t called "Inspirations?".

 

[FrancoTAU]

Between this goofy bit from Todd and the Liam Neeson announcement, we really need more photoshop mockery of Bethseda.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

I have seen children dying of brain tumors who wanted as their last request to be able to talk to me, and have gone to their graves with a peace brought on by knowing that their belief in this kind of character is intact.

Todd's more suited to publish inspirational kitten posters for dentist's offices than PA cRPGs.

 

[Roqua]

I don’t see why that post would make anyone angry. Todd seems pretty sincere. I honestly think that Bethesda and the people there were ecstatic to get the license and work on a new FO game.

I am not going to buy there drivel, but I also think it would have sucked every bit as much if Bioware or Obsidian or any other dev studio got the license also. I don’t care what people did in the past anymore, its what have you done lately. Troika is the only company that didn’t sell out, that stuck to their guns, and didn’t pander to the mainstream like a bunch of bitches. There was zero chance of a real FO3 being made by anyone but Troika.

I’ll always despise Bethesda for besting Troika in the bid wars, but if anyone had to get it, I’m glad its Bethesda. If Bioware got it and made some crap ass, simpleton rt w/p mainstream garbage that everyone loved and praised I would be a lot more angry. At least with Bethesda, everyone is kind of mad. But of course not mad enough for you retards not to buy it. And I’m sure, deep down, most of you are happy to have another game like Stalker made over an actual rpg.

Load op FO or FO2 and look at the credits, who do you trust still to make the third one? The only people that worked on it that have proved since then consistently that they get it are Troika. That’s it. Furgus? Fuck no. Even look at someone who you guys suck all over the balls of, Chris Avellone. What has he done of note since PS:T? And for God’s sake, the man wears sandals with jeans. Can you trust someone like that to work on a good game? That’s only acceptable if you also wear a robe and a crown of thorns with the sandals. Someone needs to sign him up for Man classes.

If the world were sane what we would all try and put our efforts into is trying to pressure Bethesda into hiring the ex-troika guys and contracting them into making a FO spin-off that will actually be the real FO3. Maybe they can call it a tactical game and release it for hand-helds so people wouldn’t get confused. That would be putting our effort into something worthwhile. Bethesda is going to make the game Bethesda wants to. You guys will cry and whine and bitch, buy it, play it, love it, and then go back to crying and whining and bitching. Its futile, even if you think its fun and it gives you another reason not to finally commit suicide.

 

[Admiral Rimjob POOBUM]

I have seen children dying of brain tumors who wanted as their last request to be able to talk to me, and have gone to their graves with a peace brought on by knowing that their belief in this kind of character is intact.

Todd's more suited to publish inspirational kitten posters for dentist's offices than PA cRPGs.

I read this before reading the last of the bullshit, and I didn't realise he was quoting Reeve. It made me fall off my chair.