Interview Game Informer's Fallout 3 Q&A

[Vault Dweller]

Tags: Bethesda Softworks; Fallout 3

The Game Informer's <a href=http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/fallout3/show_msgs.php?topic_id=m-1-36173560&pid=918428>Fallout 3 Q&A session</a> has been posted on the GameSpot forums.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>While staying true to the game universe, Bethesda seemed to indicate to me that they are trying very hard to create a game that new and old fans alike will be able to enjoy.</blockquote>Sounds awesome. It's great that Bethesda doesn't forget the old fans and is trying to stay true.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>Sure, Fallout 3 plays primarily from a first-person perspective like Oblivion...
<br>
<br>
...and conversations with NPCs use a similar [to Oblivion] style of dialogue tree...
<br>
<br>
I’d be surprised if every skill, perk or trait is exactly the same as before.
<br>
<br>
Fallout 3 plays in both real time and a paused tactical combat mode. It’s not really turn based, however. Instead, you can pause the real-time action in order to make aimed ranged or melee attacks on your opponents
<br>
<br>
...players have the option to play the game very much like an RPG, but with a good bit more action than traditional RPGs.
<br>
<br>
The post-WWII, Cold War feel of the franchise is very much intact...
<br>
<br>
Alternately, pretend you had an unstable nuclear bomb, and you put it outside the Dark Brotherhood hideaway and blew it up. That’s the level of <s>retardedness</s> open-endedness they’re shooting for with Fallout 3.
<br>
<br>
If you are a fan who is adamantly against some significant changes to the way gameplay occurs in the Fallout series, I’m going to tell you right now and save you the disappointment: I don’t think you’ll like Fallout 3. </blockquote>It really does sound like a true Fallout game, doesn't it? I doubt that even Tim Cain himself could make a truer game.
<br>
<br>
Anyway, as any other Bethesda game, Fallout 3 <i>promises</i> a lot:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>In many ways, Fallout 3 is being designed to be more open-ended than Oblivion, offering choices to players that alter the course of the game world in dramatic ways.
<br>
<br>
...combat, questing, character creation and most importantly the tone and style of the gameplay shares more in common with Fallout 1 and 2 than Oblivion.
<br>
<br>
...if you’re a fan of the Fallout universe, of the unique look of the world, of the moral ambiguity, of the dark and often violent humor, and the invigorating branching story paths, then everything about what I’ve seen of Fallout 3 should please you.
<br>
<br>
...they’re trying to build multiple solutions into almost any quest or situation you encounter, and that using stealth and diplomacy were very useable routes to overcome different obstacles.
<br>
<br>
In the demo that was narrated throughout the article, the character chose to arm and detonate a nuclear bomb in the town of Megaton. This choice effectively closed off a whole slew of events and quests that could only be found in Megaton. Go back to that town afterwards for the rest of the game and all the people, homes, and shops will be gone, replaced by a big irradiated hole in the ground. However, having blown up Megaton, a previously unfriendly settlement that your employer is affiliated with might open up, and new quests, (probably some pretty evil ones) might become available. Had the character not blown up Megaton, there are all sorts of quests there that would open up in Megaton, but that other town and its quests might never become an option. </blockquote>I have only question left: how did Bethesda manage to make such an amazingly awesome game?!!
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>With the larger market and potential sales that are possible with a console release, a developer is often able to make a bigger, better game than they would if only making for the PC.</blockquote>
<br>

 

[Jung]

BAH! Such fucking hubris.

 

[MisterStone]

Apparently Bethesda's idea of authentic Fallout humor involves gratuitous nuclear explosions and pretending that radioactive fallout isn't especially deadly.

 

[Severian Silk]

With the larger market and potential sales that are possible with a console release, a developer is often able to make a bigger, better game than they would if only making for the PC.

I have to agree. In today's market and considering the size of "AAA" development houses, it's getting harder and harder to justify making games of similar scope for the PC only (unless you can survive on smaller revenues)--unlike the old days when games of greater scope existed and were considered successes.

Apparently Bethesda's idea of authentic Fallout humor involves gratuitous nuclear explosions and pretending that radioactive fallout isn't especially deadly.

I thought that this sort of was the case? Bombs create radioactivity with a short but volatile lifespan, whereas reactors create the type of radioactivity that lingers for thousands of years. Also, depending on the altitude, fallout may or may not be a significant factor.

While staying true to the game universe, Bethesda seemed to indicate to me that they are trying very hard to create a game that new and old fans alike will be able to enjoy.

I don't quite understand the grammar of this sentence. He's stating two positives, while the grammar would indicate that there should be a negative.

If you are a fan who is adamantly against some significant changes to the way gameplay occurs in the Fallout series, I’m going to tell you right now and save you the disappointment: I don’t think you’ll like Fallout 3.

Didn't the last Q&A have a similar caveat? If so, NMA is finally starting to have an effect.

 

[Bradylama]

I thought that this sort of was the case? Bombs create radioactivity with a short but volatile lifespan, whereas reactors create the type of radioactivity that lingers for thousands of years. Also, depending on the altitude, fallout may or may not be a significant factor.

You detonate a nuke that's sitting in a crater. The amount of fallout that'll generate would be significant.

 

[somnus_lethe]

I thought that this sort of was the case? Bombs create radioactivity with a short but volatile lifespan, whereas reactors create the type of radioactivity that lingers for thousands of years. Also, depending on the altitude, fallout may or may not be a significant factor.

You detonate a nuke that's sitting in a crater. The amount of fallout that'll generate would be significant.

Actually, this is odd (or not) on a couple of levels.

1. It does fit the model of the 1950's cultural stereotypes about fallout in general. Not much was really understood (especially by the general public) about the effects of fallout. I'd like to give the developers credit for tapping into the cultural stereotypes of the time, but somehow I just think they've decided to play fast and loose with how fallout "works."

2. There is some level of suspended belief in all of these games when it comes to the realities of combat and damage, when was the last time somebody still functioned relatively well after being shot? But here again, this just strikes me as, "There's radiation!" Because it's post apocalyptic!"

The comment about blowing up the town and then having the quests in that town be gone was particularly depressing. There's a a medal for "most obvious statement ever" in the mail for that one.

 

[Brother None]

Didn't the last Q&A have a similar caveat? If so, NMA is finally starting to have an effect.

The last Q&A? This is the only one. However, the article had this:
Hunger for a new Fallout game began years ago, and deepened when the team that brought gamers the original masterpiece disbanded. One of the great PC gaming franchises was left in limbo, without anyone there to bring it to a new generation of players. When Bethesda bought the rights to the franchise in 2004, many were overjoyed that their favorite RPG developer would be reviving the series. Some Fallout fans immediately decried the move, sure from the start that Bethesda would change too much about their beloved series.

He doesn't really qualify the decrying further, but I love how he subtly tries to depict us as unreasonable because "we were sure" Bethesda would change too much. Hell, most of us were going "we don't know anything yet" despite Roshambo and VDweller shaking our shirt-collars several times. I wonder if Bethesda had anything to do with that line, I can imagine them encouraging our vilification, as :tinfoilhat: as that sounds.

Also: the people at the Bethsoft forums were angry at my Fallout 3 article because I said there were no citations of choice and consequence, and they say Matt Miller cited one for the article. Apparently, blowing up a town meaning there are no more quests there is choice and consequence.

It does fit the model of the 1950's cultural stereotypes about fallout in general. Not much was really understood (especially by the general public) about the effects of fallout.

Regardless of 50s stereotypes, radiation in Fallout turns humans into ghouls and makes animals giant-sized. While that is a misconception of radiation, it doesn't trivialize its effects. Remember the huge consequences described from letting off the dirty bomb in Van Buren? That's a lot closer to where it should be.

Anyway, the reason the whole thing is dumb is because Fallout takes nukes seriously, and ironically. There are only two nukes in Fallout (Cathedral and Oil Rig), both are used to not only completely eradicate end areas, they also end the game and save humanity. Bethesda's eye-popping usage of nuclear explosions is nowhere, and I do mean *nowhere*, near that level.

I have to agree. In today's market and considering the size of "AAA" development houses, it's getting harder and harder to justify making games of similar scope for the PC only (unless you can survive on smaller revenues)--unlike the old days when games of greater scope existed and were considered successes.

Yeah, not like Diablo I and II sold 17 million copies compared to TES III and IV's 7 million. Blizzard should probably go to consoles before they go bankrupt.

 

[Koby]

Re: Game Informer's Fallout 3 Q&A

Fallout 3 plays in both real time and a paused tactical combat mode. It’s not really turn based, however. Instead, you can pause the real-time action in order to make aimed ranged or melee attacks on your opponents

I like the fact that pause, of any kind, means automatically, tactical combat.

Its not just pause, its "paused tactical combat mode", that’s right, it’s a whole, different, combat mode all by it self, without anything to do with RT.

...players have the option to play the game very much like an RPG, but with a good bit more action than traditional RPGs.

Lets face it, traditional RPGs have sucky action, they don’t have enough action, what traditional RPGs are missing is good modern FPS elements 'cus action == FPS.

... and most importantly the tone and style of the gameplay shares more in common with Fallout 1 and 2 than Oblivion.

How the hell they managed to get away with that, it's like lying straight in the fans faces.

 

[Zomg]

With the larger market and potential sales that are possible with a console release, a developer is often able to make a bigger, better game than they would if only making for the PC.

I have to agree. In today's market and considering the size of "AAA" development houses, it's getting harder and harder to justify making games of similar scope for the PC only (unless you can survive on smaller revenues)--unlike the old days when games of greater scope existed and were considered successes.

No, it gives them resources to make SUMMER MOVIE BLOCKBUSTERS that have to sell multiple millions of copies to break even, targeted at vast demographics rather than audiences and marketed with hype through the organs of criticism-advertisement.

 

[Severian Silk]

The last Q&A? This is the only one.

Woops. Somehow I thought this was the GameBanshee thread.

He doesn't really qualify the decrying further, but I love how he subtly tries to depict us as unreasonable because "we were sure" Bethesda would change too much. Hell, most of us were going "we don't know anything yet" despite Roshambo and VDweller shaking our shirt-collars several times. I wonder if Bethesda had anything to do with that line, I can imagine them encouraging our vilification, as :tinfoilhat: as that sounds.

I don't think he's depicting us as unreasonable. I think that's paranoia on your part. Also, most of us were sure that Bethesda would change too much. Which Codex have you been reading?! The text you quoted is pretty tame, IMHO.

Also: the people at the Bethsoft forums were angry at my Fallout 3 article because I said there were no citations of choice and consequence, and they say Matt Miller cited one for the article. Apparently, blowing up a town meaning there are no more quests there is choice and consequence.

I agree. That is a choice and consequence. Granted, it's not a good example because there's no indication that it's dialogue related, and therefore doesn't reflect on how the game allows you to roleplay via dialogue trees and the such. But, a choice and consequence it is nonetheless.

 

[Bradylama]

Pro Tip: He's talking about NMA. The Codex isn't considered one of those "cultish fansites" because we've got like... Age of Decadence and stuff. (plus a couple of people don't even like Fallout)

 

[Ander Vinz]

I'm quite fed up with all this Fallout3 crap, thanks for keeping my hunger away.

 

[Pegultagol]

Megaton...that is where everything comes together. Megaton will be where the game will make or break for me. The name itself does not instill me much confidence however.

 

[Futile Rhetoric]

Re: Game Informer's Fallout 3 Q&A

Megaton.

You know, I remember Fallout being a lot of things. I don't remember it being corny.

 

[Jasede]

Fallout.... not... corny... head exploding....

Now that I got that out of my system...
You know, it's kinda like watching a hideous baby learn to walk, or in this case, watching Bethesda take some (careful) attempts at choices and schmonsequences, see Megaton.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Re: Game Informer's Fallout 3 Q&A

Megaton.

You know, I remember Fallout being a lot of things. I don't remember it being corny.

I do.

New Reno anyone?

 

[AZ]

This game pausing thing looks like the one in Max Payne - as I see, so I don't really know why it is "new" or "nextgen" in any way.

 

[Punck_D]

Those elements are "new" and "nextgen" because of the hype. No coincidence the combat system has an own name like "V.A.T.S.". Same with "BulletTime".

 

[Severian Silk]

FO2 was very corny.

Megaton sounds like a small rural town for Transformers.

So what does Saint think of FO3?

 

[fastpunk]

Re: Game Informer's Fallout 3 Q&A

Alternately, pretend you had an unstable nuclear bomb, and you put it outside the Dark Brotherhood hideaway and blew it up. That’s the level of open-endedness they’re shooting for with Fallout 3.

You, the dudes who don't like the ideas in FO3, just wait and see, Fallout 3 is going to be THA BOMB (literally) and is going to create a new trend: nuclear bombs in games! This alone will make it better than FO1 and FO2. Imagine how fun it will be to nuke the brotherhood, nuke megaton, nuke your vault, nuke your dad, nuke yourself!!! I mean, this is exactly the type of dark humor FO is known for right?

OK, I was just being sarcastic. I'm gonna go take a shower, a really cold one!

 

[raziel014]

So, you guys are actually pretty excited about this game huh? Be sure to tell Bethesda that, since you slaughtered Oblivion and hurt their feelings!

But yeah, seems as they've taken the criticism and tried really really hard to create a game to appeals to both hardcore fans and new ones. This had better be good. Which I actually think it will be. Lets face it, Oblivion's engine sucked for Oblivion. Simply because the primary idea of the game was way to advanced for the engine. Slicing up a huge world into cells isn't very smart and already we've seem Carmacks MegaTexture technologi, which I hope Bethesda will use for the next Elder Scrolls.

Anyhow, Fallout 3 uses the same engine right, but with no need to slice everything into cells in the same way cause you don't have huge lush forrest areas in the game. So you get rid of a huge resource hog in that way. That AND the fact that they've redone quite a few stuff with the engine to support depth of field, motion blur etc etc and hopefully made the engine faster. So basically, I'll put my money on this game and think it will Bethesdas greatest "uncommercial" success ever. (by uncommercial, I mean you guys and not 10 year olds playing Oblivion on the 360)

 

[M0RBUS]

Thanks VD for highlight...

I’m sure there are elements of the connections that Bethesda hasn’t revealed yet, but they very definitely said that it was its own game and story, largely unconnected to the individual events of the earlier games in the series. They implied that they were approaching this aspect of things much like they always have with the Elder Scrolls

 

[MF]

Fallout 2 sucked donkey cock in the corny department.

Chris Avellone didn't get 'it' either, and I think he's a wee bit more competent than those cherry dorks over at Bethesda.

The nuking reminds me of Shadow Warrior's portable nuke launcher. That was also an FPS.

 

[Admiral Rimjob POOBUM]

Sounds horrible, but I have to admit that blowing up the town could be amusing.

 

[hiciacit]

So, you guys are actually pretty excited about this game huh? Be sure to tell Bethesda that, since you slaughtered Oblivion and hurt their feelings!

But yeah, seems as they've taken the criticism and tried really really hard to create a game to appeals to both hardcore fans and new ones. This had better be good. Which I actually think it will be. Lets face it, Oblivion's engine sucked for Oblivion. Simply because the primary idea of the game was way to advanced for the engine. Slicing up a huge world into cells isn't very smart and already we've seem Carmacks MegaTexture technologi, which I hope Bethesda will use for the next Elder Scrolls.

Anyhow, Fallout 3 uses the same engine right, but with no need to slice everything into cells in the same way cause you don't have huge lush forrest areas in the game. So you get rid of a huge resource hog in that way. That AND the fact that they've redone quite a few stuff with the engine to support depth of field, motion blur etc etc and hopefully made the engine faster. So basically, I'll put my money on this game and think it will Bethesdas greatest "uncommercial" success ever. (by uncommercial, I mean you guys and not 10 year olds playing Oblivion on the 360)

Yeah, you're right!!! The enigine just wasn't advanced enough. With FO3, they won't have to slice everything up, so FO3 will be leaps and bounds better than Oblivion!