Interview Yet another Fallout 3 interview

[Vault Dweller]

Tags: Bethesda Softworks; Fallout 3

A new series of questions and <a href=http://www.telefragged.com/interviews/fallout3/>non-informative answers</a> regarding <b>Fallout 3</b>, courtesy of <b>Pete Hines</b>, is available at <a href=http://www.telefragged.com>Telefragged</a>:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>While you haven't announced any specific console platforms that Fallout 3 might be delivered on - nor even whether they'll be on the current- or next-generation consoles - we can probably guess it'll be next generation. What do you think of the rumors about these consoles and their power compared to the PCs of 2005? If you are developing for next-gen consoles, do you think you can deliver a "full" Fallout experience onto a console?
<br>
<br>
I think future consoles are going to be insanely powerful. When looking at bringing a Fallout game to something like that, well, I don't think it's an issue. If you look at the original Fallout when it came out in 97, it was one of the most technically advanced RPGs of its day. It had the best animation, the best resolution, the best dialogue, and more. It's important that we accomplish the same things with Fallout 3. </blockquote>Fallout 3: The particle effects unleashed!
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Spotted at: <A HREF="http://www.rpgdot.com">RPG Dot</A>

 

[Mr. Teatime]

Finger: The diehard Fallout fans are demanding that Fallout 3 take place from a top-down view and that its combat will be turn-based. I've read many comments that say it's not Fallout without these elements. What can you say to those fans right now to ease their minds?

Pete Hines: Until we show the game itself, nothing we say will ease their minds.
---------
Is there any other way to interpret this, other than 'we're not doing isometric. We're not doing turn based. But wait until we show you our real time first person game - you'll be converted!' ? Seems to me there's a very simple way to 'ease their minds' - tell us that the combat is turn based, and tell us that the view is isometric. Yeah, that would about do it, Petey.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

That's true.

As for console development, like i've said in a recent thread here, i think Bethesda was successful in making nearly identical versions of Morrowind for the two platforms it was released on. If anything, it shows they have one successful example of how they can work with games which are running on dual development.

 

[Mr. Teatime]

My worry with consoles is that they make the game more mainstream. Which, as we're seeing, means no turn based, and no isometric. Which means the franchise is about to be raped. Like I said - Pet Hines, it's VERY simple to 'ease our minds'. Just tell us you're making the combat turn based and the viewpoint isometric.

 

[Greenskin13]

Right on, Mr. Teatime.

Either Pete Hines is representing BethSoft extremely poorly, or we're looking at a first person, real time FO3. I'm inclined towards the latter.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I don't think i'll bask in that doomsaying. Consoles may be mainstream, but the worries that because of them turnbased might suffer are a bit unfounded. The Final Fantasy series are the primary example of how turnbased games can successful in consoles. You also have other titles like Front Mission, which are strategy games involving mechanized units (similar to Battletech, but with animeish mech design and weirder stories).

If turnbased is actually removed for the sake of going to consoles, then it would be a very idiotic move. If Bethesda does want to take advantage of the console market layer, look at the success of turnbased games sold in it. Correction: turnbased, non first-person games sold on it.

 

[Reklar]

Out of pure curiosity, since I am not a console gamer myself, how many turn-based console games have been successful when made by a US developer and sold in the US market?

-Reklar
(a Fallout/RPG fan)

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Good question. I don't recall that many turn-based console games which were successful when made by a US developer. At this hour of the day, i recall exactly none.

But i'll investigate.

 

[Mr. Teatime]

I'm fine with the game going on consoles if they make it turn based and isometric. But the comment up here makes me worried.

EDIT: though if they stop calling it Fallout 3 and call it Fallout: something, then I'll be worried at the effect the consoles are having on the game's links with the past ones.

 

[suibhne]

Gladius, made by LucasArts, was average in terms of sales (and got decent reviews - 80% sorta stuff).

 

[Greenskin13]

Maybe it's because of the usual fantasy setting, but I've never had an interest in TB console games. I'd pick up JA2 over FFTA any day.

 

[Lasakon]

Maybe it's because of the usual fantasy setting, but I've never had an interest in TB console games. I'd pick up JA2 over FFTA any day.

Has would I. I can't say the same thing about FFT though.

 

[Shevek]

I had some experience with console titles in my younger years; let me clue you in a bit. Traditionally, most console rpgs have been both japanese and turn based. Though this is not the turnbased we know since movement and actual tactics play no role and the titles play more like adventure games with few or no puzzles. The thing when looking at consoles and saying, 'hey, they have turn based there; so why cut turn based for consoles?' is that turn based for consoles is a different animal (think of it as Wizardry 8's combat with no movement in combat (by you or the enemy), no real 'formations.' a simplfied system of spells and special attacks, and alot of watching eaningless animations). In other words, I do not think consoles have a tactical equivalent to ToEE or Jagged Alliance or whatever (at least no recent one). Even the tactical choices inherent in the BG2 spell system is beyond what console titles have had.

The closest consoles games come to proper tabletop action are the so-called 'strategy rpgs.' There arent many of these made anymore (the most popular one being Final Fantasy Tactics and they were most numerous as japanese only titles on the Sega Saturn). These have slightly less braindead combat but there is next to nothing to do outside of combat. Again though, even these titles are quite rare now and have been almost totally abandoned for regular Final Fantasy clones.

 

[Greenskin13]

The fantasy setting can't be it, because I enjoyed ToEE. Still, for some reason, I've never played a TB Console game that I liked. Just can't articulate why....

Edit: Well, looks like Shevek pretty much nailed it.

 

[Mr. Teatime]

I had some experience with console titles in my younger years; let me clue you in a bit. Traditionally, most console rpgs have been both japanese and turn based. Though this is not the turnbased we know since movement and actual tactics play no role and the titles play more like adventure games with few or no puzzles. The thing when looking at consoles and saying, 'hey, they have turn based there; so why cut turn based for consoles?' is that turn based for consoles is a different animal (think of it as Wizardry 8's combat with no movement in combat (by you or the enemy), no real 'formations.' a simplfied system of spells and special attacks, and alot of watching eaningless animations). In other words, I do not think consoles have a tactical equivalent to ToEE or Jagged Alliance or whatever (at least no recent one). Even the tactical choices inherent in the BG2 spell system is beyond what console titles have had.

The closest consoles games come to proper tabletop action are the so-called 'strategy rpgs.' There arent many of these made anymore (the most popular one being Final Fantasy Tactics and they were most numerous as japanese only titles on the Sega Saturn). These have slightly less braindead combat but there is next to nothing to do outside of combat. Again though, even these titles are quite rare now and have been almost totally abandoned for regular Final Fantasy clones.

Advance Wars on the GBA has done very well, and there's a gamecube version coming. PLaying that reminds me of PC turn based. It's an exception though - most console games suck.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I think i remember playing the Advance Wars rom or something. Felt a bit simple at the time.

Final Fantasy Tactics, Disgaea, Front Mission titles and Wizardry: Tales of the Forsaken Land are usually credited as being very good at strategy. As good as strategy can be on consoles, at least.

 

[Vault Dweller]

As for console development, like i've said in a recent thread here, i think Bethesda was successful in making nearly identical versions of Morrowind for the two platforms it was released on. If anything, it shows they have one successful example of how they can work with games which are running on dual development.

Yep, that's a popular Bethesda argument with one minor flaw: it doesn't necessary mean that Bethesda has managed to replicate high quality gameplay on consoles, but may simply mean that the original PC gameplay was intentionally simplified to ensure "nearly identical" multiplatform gameplay. Daggerfall certainly proves that.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Is there any other way to interpret this, other than 'we're not doing isometric. We're not doing turn based. But wait until we show you our real time first person game - you'll be converted!' ?

Nope, that's the only way to read it.

 

[Human Shield]

If you look at the original Fallout when it came out in 97, it was one of the most technically advanced RPGs of its day. It had the best animation, the best resolution, the best dialogue, and more.

Unlike the crap animation and dialogue Morrowind has.

 

[plin]

I had some experience with console titles in my younger years; let me clue you in a bit. Traditionally, most console rpgs have been both japanese and turn based. Though this is not the turnbased we know since movement and actual tactics play no role and the titles play more like adventure games with few or no puzzles. The thing when looking at consoles and saying, 'hey, they have turn based there; so why cut turn based for consoles?' is that turn based for consoles is a different animal (think of it as Wizardry 8's combat with no movement in combat (by you or the enemy), no real 'formations.' a simplfied system of spells and special attacks, and alot of watching eaningless animations). In other words, I do not think consoles have a tactical equivalent to ToEE or Jagged Alliance or whatever (at least no recent one). Even the tactical choices inherent in the BG2 spell system is beyond what console titles have had.

The closest consoles games come to proper tabletop action are the so-called 'strategy rpgs.' There arent many of these made anymore (the most popular one being Final Fantasy Tactics and they were most numerous as japanese only titles on the Sega Saturn). These have slightly less braindead combat but there is next to nothing to do outside of combat. Again though, even these titles are quite rare now and have been almost totally abandoned for regular Final Fantasy clones.

No, they are actually growing in popularity. Disgea (I think that's the name), La Pucelle: Tactics, FFTA, Fire Emblem, Front Mission 4, remake of shining force, , advance wars (good game(s) ), advance wars 2, Fire Emblem 2 is coming, Advance wars is coming for the GC, Romance of the Three Kingdoms IX, Dynasty Tactics 1, Dynasty Tactics 2, and Phantom Brave.
And these are all recent, and they are only the ones that I know of. That's hardly rare, and as far as I know all of those are turn based.

 

[suibhne]

And - correct me if I'm mistaken - every single one of those is Japanese, for one of the two (er, three? - GBA) Japanese consoles. Something (possibly my brain) tells me that suburban-DC-based Bethesda isn't likely to see these games as potential models for their XBox2 game.

 

[Vault Dweller]

If turnbased is actually removed for the sake of going to consoles, then it would be a very idiotic move. If Bethesda does want to take advantage of the console market layer, look at the success of turnbased games sold in it. Correction: turnbased, non first-person games sold on it.

I think that you, fellas, are looking at it from the totally wrong point of view. It's not the question of what kinda game Bethesda's Fallout 3 will be, it's the question of what kinda game TES4 will be, and we all know the answer to that one. Bethesda is making a new engine and naturally wants to use it with max efficiency (Infinity Engine style). Making another fantasy game doesn't make sense, making a sci-fi one does. It would be exactly like TES4 only with different assets and skill <i>names</i>.

 

[Lasakon]

I had some experience with console titles in my younger years; let me clue you in a bit. Traditionally, most console rpgs have been both japanese and turn based. Though this is not the turnbased we know since movement and actual tactics play no role and the titles play more like adventure games with few or no puzzles. The thing when looking at consoles and saying, 'hey, they have turn based there; so why cut turn based for consoles?' is that turn based for consoles is a different animal (think of it as Wizardry 8's combat with no movement in combat (by you or the enemy), no real 'formations.' a simplfied system of spells and special attacks, and alot of watching eaningless animations). In other words, I do not think consoles have a tactical equivalent to ToEE or Jagged Alliance or whatever (at least no recent one). Even the tactical choices inherent in the BG2 spell system is beyond what console titles have had.

The closest consoles games come to proper tabletop action are the so-called 'strategy rpgs.' There arent many of these made anymore (the most popular one being Final Fantasy Tactics and they were most numerous as japanese only titles on the Sega Saturn). These have slightly less braindead combat but there is next to nothing to do outside of combat. Again though, even these titles are quite rare now and have been almost totally abandoned for regular Final Fantasy clones.

No, they are actually growing in popularity. Disgea (I think that's the name), La Pucelle: Tactics, FFTA, Fire Emblem, Front Mission 4, remake of shining force, , advance wars (good game(s) ), advance wars 2, Fire Emblem 2 is coming, Advance wars is coming for the GC, Romance of the Three Kingdoms IX, Dynasty Tactics 1, Dynasty Tactics 2, and Phantom Brave.
And these are all recent, and they are only the ones that I know of. That's hardly rare, and as far as I know all of those are turn based.

To bad the gamecube Advance Wars is a fucking RTS cop out. Otherwise, all the games you mentioned are quite good.

 

[plin]

And - correct me if I'm mistaken - every single one of those is Japanese, for one of the two (er, three? - GBA) Japanese consoles. Something (possibly my brain) tells me that suburban-DC-based Bethesda isn't likely to see these games as potential models for their XBox2 game.

It doesn't matter. He said they were rare and I corrected. Why would Beth use jap console stadegy games as models for their XBOX (2, or whatever they use) game anyways? Why not use... I dunno, maybe FALLOUT 1 and 2?

I'm a layman, I'm sure Beth can figure it out as well.

 

[Reklar]

So Vault Dweller, what you're essentially saying is the best we can hope for is Fallout Lite? Same great franchise, but no substance and therefore not worth having at all? I know the 'lite' beer comparison has been done to death, but that's all I could think of at the moment.

-Reklar
(a Fallout/RPG fan)