Interview Pete Hines chats with Gaming Source

[Vault Dweller]

Tags: Bethesda Softworks; Fallout 3

And another pointless <b>Fallout 3</b> <a href=http://gamingsource.co.uk/front/interviews/14july-fallout3.php>interview</a> with <b>Pete Hines</b>, this time brought to you by <a href=http://gamingsource.co.uk>Gaming Source</a>. It's short, so I'll post the whole thing here:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote><b>The Fallout series has a large fan following. Was this one of the main reasons for Bethesda confronting Interplay for the rights to the game or were there other reasons (such as a personal love for the series) which sparked the decision to ask for the rights?</b>
<br>
<br>
I think it was more about our internal discussions about what kind of game we thought we could do, and do really well. There are any number of available RPG licenses out there, as well as the opportunity to implement any number of our own original ideas, but at the end of the day we really wanted the chance to make Fallout 3, so that's what we're going to do.
<br>
<br>
<b>The Fallout series has always had a myriad of different and entertaining easter eggs and characters. Does Bethesda hope to carry on this trend or will the game be a little more serious?</b>
<br>
<br>
It's too early to get into specifics, but in general we hope to create a game that is true to what the original Fallout was about and what made it so much fun.
<br>
<br>
<b>If you knew a nuclear holocaust was coming and could take one item with you into hiding, what would that item be?</b>
<br>
<br>
A spare water chip?
<br>
<br>
<b>Fallout fans seem to be skeptical about whether Bethesda will be making a Fallout 3 that is true to the original series. Do you think Fallout 3 will satisfy the fanatics within the Fallout community?</b>
<br>
<br>
I sure hope so. We won't be able to know for sure until the game comes out and people play it and decide whether they like it or not.</blockquote>
<br>
Isn't that what Chuck said?
<br>
<br>
<br>
Spotted at: <A HREF="http://www.nma-fallout.com">NMA</A>

 

[Nightjed]

i wish they would make saying "its too early" illegal (if they need to say it they shouldnt really agree to the interview anyway)

edit: btw, whos chuck ? im not good remembering names :p

 

[StraitLacedDeviant]

The guy behind FoOS

 

[Nightjed]

ah, i placed my bet on lionheart i guess i lose :p

 

[Ultron]

Every time I read more of this shit, it makes my stomach queasy.

What really irks me is this anti-isometric pose they're taking. Why does everyone equate FP = SUPERIOR ENGINE? Don't get me wrong, I love my mindless FPS's, but for RPG's, especially turn-based, isometric is the ONLY way to go. It's maddening, I tell ya....

For the record, I bought the Morrowind GotY edition and gave up after a few hours....I found the game and it's npcs vapid.

 

[StraitLacedDeviant]

You can't deny the amount of work that went into morrowind, its farkin huge the guys obviously wanted to give their fans something to sink their teeth into. Still I would rather have 2 hours of utter fallout story bliss than a thousand hours of walking around a wonderfully rendered fantast wonderland filled with fuck all.

 

[Seven]

You can't deny the amount of work that went into morrowind, its farkin huge the guys obviously wanted to give their fans something to sink their teeth into. Still I would rather have 2 hours of utter fallout story bliss than a thousand hours of walking around a wonderfully rendered fantast wonderland filled with fuck all.

They could have given the fans something to do by adding more story options. Wondering around killing stuff is fine, but it gets boring fast. Plus FO2 suffered from the fact that by the end of the game you had probably seen and killed more robbers than actual in-game inhabitants. Can you imagine the impact of killing so many people in the Wasteland? This is one of my worries for FO3 among the many...

 

[Sentack]

Being friendly to the player base is typicaly better then being cold and closed. Now in this case, being closed may actually be a better thing since a lot of the fanboys are rather insane lunatics that shouldn't have heard about this potental game in the first place and gotten the chance to rant about it. Yet, the devs opt to talk about it, and give what every reviewer already should know and that is, it's too early to tell what the game is going to be like, ask the devs what they like or want instead or a series of questions not directly related.

Everyone knows things are too early to tell, it doesn't need to be asked even. EVERY aspect is still up for graps, every.

Also, I'm a believer that, Isometric was nice when hardware was limited, graphics where simple and the interface was easy. You can still do that today, Jeff Vogal does with Spiderweb games, but honestly, it's the the absolutely best system in the world. Turn based is still a great way to do tactical combat, but you can still do it 3D just as well as 2D. And anyways, what's perfect is in the eye of the beholder. Everyone has an idea of perfection and in general your idea is no better or worse then the next guy.

Sentack

 

[StraitLacedDeviant]

You can do isometric in 3d you gimboid. Van Buren was 3d, jesus read the other threads before you go posting. You can have all your amazing P@rT1cUL effect in an isometric view if you want them. The combat was integral to fallout, tb and iso were integral to the combat. ITS NOT THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND.

 

[suibhne]

You can't deny the amount of work that went into morrowind, its farkin huge the guys obviously wanted to give their fans something to sink their teeth into. Still I would rather have 2 hours of utter fallout story bliss than a thousand hours of walking around a wonderfully rendered fantast wonderland filled with fuck all.

Honestly, I'm not worried about BethSoft being half-assed or unresponsive to some fan community. They've done a genuinely great job of interacting with the TES community. I'm worried about them being responsive, while making Fallout, to the Fallout fan community. So far, evidence of that (from their forum interactions to their asinine PR contortions) has been mighty scant.

 

[Ultron]

Outside of them bringing in some fresh developers, which I doubt, the same team that created Morrowind will be creating FO3, with the same writing/story skillzorz. Regardless that they're fans of Fallout, I've yet to see ANYTHING that team produced come close to the depth the FO series had. That concerns me. I may be a huge fan of Neal Stephenson books....does that mean I can write like him? No.....

 

[Ultron]

You can do isometric in 3d you gimboid. Van Buren was 3d, jesus read the other threads before you go posting. You can have all your amazing P@rT1cUL effect in an isometric view if you want them.

My concern is, can the newly modified TES engine do an isometric view, and would Bethsoft be willing to tweak the engine to allow it?

 

[Duodenum]

Morrowind is a product of years of background story development and lore. The Elder Scrolls universe is extremely thoroughly defined. There's a HUGE amount written about the Elder Scrolls lore. Of course, the Elder Scrolls series has a longer history than Fallout -- Arena was released in 1993, Daggerfall in 1996, Battlespire in 1997, Redguard in 1998, and Morrowind in 2002 (with two expansions released in 2002 and 2003). All of the Elder Scrolls titles were developed internally by a team that has changed & evolved over the years. Check MobyGames for credits on the various titles.

Other RPG's -- Sea Dogs, Pirates of the Caribbean, Magic & Mayhem -- were published by Bethesda Softworks and developed by outside companies.

To say that Morrowind lacks depth shows a lack of knowledge of the Elder Scrolls series -- and as a Fallout fan, it's fine if you don't have that knowledge. If Morrowind is the first Elder Scrolls game you've played, and you only spent a few hours with it, then you're certainly not going to have been exposed to the lore, nor have you seen much of the story. If you add up the main quest, plus all the side quests, guilds, factions, and other groups with quest lines that you can pursue, there is literally over one hundred hours of gameplay (some say as much as 300 hours). There are hundreds of books you can read as well, all of which touch upon well-established Elder Scrolls lore or expand it. Morrowind is an extremely freeform game -- you don't even have to follow the main quest. In fact you don't have to do ANY quests. I know of people who spent weeks just gathering up ingredients, making potions, and taking them into town to sell them. You can play as a tank, you can play as a thief, you can play as a magic user, or any combination. The world is left wide open for players to do what they want. And the TES Construction Set allows people not only to create new content for the game, but also to CHANGE the game in fundamental ways -- including affecting game system formulas, rebalancing weapons & magic items, etc. It's extraordinarily flexible. (And I bet they include a Fallout Construction Set with Fallout 3 that is just as flexible and powerful, if not more so!)

Of course, that's not everyone's cup of tea. It might be the fantasy setting that puts some people off. It might be the lack of obvious direction (you do need to keep track of your active quests, and the original journal didn't help much in that regard). Some people need to have a concrete goal that they are reminded of and guided along -- not necessarily holding your hand, rather simply making it clear what you're supposed to be doing at any given time. Morrowind likely suffers to many by simply offering TOO MUCH freedom. And the game does have its share of flaws.

Other people worry that Bethesda's developers are inflexible, that they can't change or do anything differently. To answer that you can look at the three Elder Scrolls RPG's themselves. It wasn't just technology that changed from each iteration. Major portions of the character system -- skill selection, advancement, leveling up -- have changed in each iteration. The combat system has been different in all three games -- always real-time, but the control scheme and attack variations has been different. The magic system has changed dramatically. And of course the scope and method of creating the game worlds has changed, moving from primarily randomly generated locations to hand-made locations and maps. And no Elder Scrolls game before Morrowind had a third-person option. If Bethesda is willing and able to make changes in its own franchise, why wouldn't they also be willing and able and flexible enough to do Fallout differently from Morrowind?

One possible advantage Bethesda has over, say, Obsidian or Troika, is that Bethesda will self-publish Fallout 3. This is HUGE. There will be no outside entities exerting their influence on the game. No external publisher saying "get it out on this date!" or "you must include this feature!" or "you must go for this ESRB rating!" This gives Bethesda a huge amount of flexibility in development that an independent developer may not necessarily have. Bethesda's other games -- Elder Scrolls, the driving games, and those they publish from external developers -- will help to fund Fallout 3's development, so there won't be as much pressure on Bethesda's internal team to deliver -- simply because it's not the company's only iron in the fire.

Basically what I'm saying is, I think that Bethesda DOES have the experience, flexibility, knowledge, drive, and most importantly, MONEY, to make Fallout 3 what it SHOULD be.

YMMV of course -- but there IS hope.

 

[Volourn]

"Basically what I'm saying is, I think that Bethesda DOES have the experience, flexibility, knowledge, drive, and most importantly, MONEY"

None of this changes the fact that all of Bethseda's games have suck, and bore me to tears so I ahve no hope for their version of FO3.

 

[Duodenum]

"Basically what I'm saying is, I think that Bethesda DOES have the experience, flexibility, knowledge, drive, and most importantly, MONEY"

None of this changes the fact that all of Bethseda's games have suck, and bore me to tears so I ahve no hope for their version of FO3.

And that is absolutely your prerogative. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion!

 

[Transcendent One]

In fact you don't have to do ANY quests. I know of people who spent weeks just gathering up ingredients, making potions, and taking them into town to sell them

*presses forward key to move*
*moves mouse down to target a flower*
*clicks*

EXCITING!

You can play as a tank, you can play as a thief, you can play as a magic user, or any combination

Yeah, impressive, as if every single RPG out there doesn't have this

It might be the fantasy setting that puts some people off. It might be the lack of obvious direction (you do need to keep track of your active quests, and the original journal didn't help much in that regard). Some people need to have a concrete goal that they are reminded of and guided along -- not necessarily holding your hand, rather simply making it clear what you're supposed to be doing at any given time. Morrowind likely suffers to many by simply offering TOO MUCH freedom. And the game does have its share of flaws.

Talk about totally missing the mark. What about empty dead gameworld, boring NPC's, ridiculous quests, lack of meaningful roleplaying options. Oh must I go on.

Other people worry that Bethesda's developers are inflexible, that they can't change or do anything differently. To answer that you can look at the three Elder Scrolls RPG's themselves. It wasn't just technology that changed from each iteration. Major portions of the character system -- skill selection, advancement, leveling up -- have changed in each iteration. The combat system has been different in all three games -- always real-time, but the control scheme and attack variations has been different. The magic system has changed dramatically. And of course the scope and method of creating the game worlds has changed, moving from primarily randomly generated locations to hand-made locations and maps. And no Elder Scrolls game before Morrowind had a third-person option. If Bethesda is willing and able to make changes in its own franchise, why wouldn't they also be willing and able and flexible enough to do Fallout differently from Morrowind?

Those are minor changes. Nothing that even remotely compares to going from a Morrowind or even a Daggerfall to a Fallout. Changing how you have to click to attack does not equate to a large change for me. Neither is a 90% of the time useless third person option.

Morrowind's choice to go pregenerated unlike Daggerfall was extremely stupid. It ended up having quests that stay the same no matter how you play, whereas Daggerfall will have random ones that are, oddly enough, not much less deep than Morrowind's. It ended up having dungeons that stay the same regardless of what. In Daggerfall I always had that concern that I might find something I can't handle in the dungeons. Morrowind had this feel the first time through for about 10 hours.

Try again.

Next :arrow:

 

[Shevek]

Morrowind is a product of years of background story development and lore. The Elder Scrolls universe is extremely thoroughly defined. There's a HUGE amount written about the Elder Scrolls lore. Of course, the Elder Scrolls series has a longer history than Fallout -- Arena was released in 1993, Daggerfall in 1996, Battlespire in 1997, Redguard in 1998, and Morrowind in 2002 (with two expansions released in 2002 and 2003). All of the Elder Scrolls titles were developed internally by a team that has changed & evolved over the years. Check MobyGames for credits on the various titles.

Well, how old the series is means very very little. One could argue Fallout has its spiritual roots in an older title, Wasteland, but this is all irrellevant. Issues of lore and game history do not at all reflect on core game differences.

Other RPG's -- Sea Dogs, Pirates of the Caribbean, Magic & Mayhem -- were published by Bethesda Softworks and developed by outside companies.

Relevance? How about working in all the Terminator, platformer and racing games Bethesda made? How does that make them good FO devs?

To say that Morrowind lacks depth shows a lack of knowledge of the Elder Scrolls series -- and as a Fallout fan, it's fine if you don't have that knowledge. If Morrowind is the first Elder Scrolls game you've played, and you only spent a few hours with it, then you're certainly not going to have been exposed to the lore, nor have you seen much of the story. If you add up the main quest, plus all the side quests, guilds, factions, and other groups with quest lines that you can pursue, there is literally over one hundred hours of gameplay (some say as much as 300 hours). There are hundreds of books you can read as well, all of which touch upon well-established Elder Scrolls lore or expand it.

In game lore is all fine and dandy but how exactly does this allay fears concerning Bethesda's inability to do tactical combat, inability to implement a decent character development system, inability to work with decent dialog trees, inability to design decent NPCs and so on?

Fallout had some interesting in game lore but this is not what has endeared it to its fanbase. Other games have had fine stories and interesting in game lore but this does not automatically mean their developers could make FO.

Morrowind is an extremely freeform game -- you don't even have to follow the main quest. In fact you don't have to do ANY quests. I know of people who spent weeks just gathering up ingredients, making potions, and taking them into town to sell them. You can play as a tank, you can play as a thief, you can play as a magic user, or any combination. The world is left wide open for players to do what they want.

This is true. Fallout was largely successful for its non linearality. Still, exploration per-se was not what made FO great. It was the developers taking a non linear game and managing to infuse it with strong characters and quests. FO is not the actiony world sim Morrowind was. Running around aimlessly through a post apoc wasteland would not be Fallout. Fallout would be presenting the player with a fairly open world and a character development system structured NOT around combat but instead equally around stealth, diplomacy, combat and science and, of courses, scripted means in which to utilize it. Morrowind is a actiony world sim. They are completely different games.

And the TES Construction Set allows people not only to create new content for the game, but also to CHANGE the game in fundamental ways -- including affecting game system formulas, rebalancing weapons & magic items, etc. It's extraordinarily flexible. (And I bet they include a Fallout Construction Set with Fallout 3 that is just as flexible and powerful, if not more so!)

Construction sets are a mixed blessing. Certainly, Morrowind would have been terrible for me if not for some of the fan made mods. That being said, I would hate to see FO3 design suffer since time would be spent on a construction set. I'd rather the game ship with a game rather than kit.

Of course, that's not everyone's cup of tea. It might be the fantasy setting that puts some people off. It might be the lack of obvious direction (you do need to keep track of your active quests, and the original journal didn't help much in that regard). Some people need to have a concrete goal that they are reminded of and guided along -- not necessarily holding your hand, rather simply making it clear what you're supposed to be doing at any given time. Morrowind likely suffers to many by simply offering TOO MUCH freedom. And the game does have its share of flaws.

I dont think FO holds your hand much. For that kinda game, see a Bioware title which is much more linear and story driven. FO fans just want more from a FO game than wandering around a post apoc wasteland fighting stuff. You know in FO1 you could go through the game without killing anything?

Other people worry that Bethesda's developers are inflexible, that they can't change or do anything differently.

Please see my sig to see just how 'flexible' they are.

To answer that you can look at the three Elder Scrolls RPG's themselves. It wasn't just technology that changed from each iteration. Major portions of the character system -- skill selection, advancement, leveling up -- have changed in each iteration. The combat system has been different in all three games -- always real-time, but the control scheme and attack variations has been different. The magic system has changed dramatically. And of course the scope and method of creating the game worlds has changed, moving from primarily randomly generated locations to hand-made locations and maps. And no Elder Scrolls game before Morrowind had a third-person option. If Bethesda is willing and able to make changes in its own franchise, why wouldn't they also be willing and able and flexible enough to do Fallout differently from Morrowind?

Yes, but having played previous TES games, i can tell you they have changed for the worse as far as character creation/development goes. They were clearly dumbed down for console play. I worry that changes to the FO franchise will occur for similar influences.

One possible advantage Bethesda has over, say, Obsidian or Troika, is that Bethesda will self-publish Fallout 3. This is HUGE. There will be no outside entities exerting their influence on the game. No external publisher saying "get it out on this date!" or "you must include this feature!" or "you must go for this ESRB rating!" This gives Bethesda a huge amount of flexibility in development that an independent developer may not necessarily have. Bethesda's other games -- Elder Scrolls, the driving games, and those they publish from external developers -- will help to fund Fallout 3's development, so there won't be as much pressure on Bethesda's internal team to deliver -- simply because it's not the company's only iron in the fire.

I guess I can agree here. One can only hope Bethesda has the INTERNAL drive to move BEYOND their strengths to make a good FO game. Their statements up to this point have not been reassuring.

Basically what I'm saying is, I think that Bethesda DOES have the experience, flexibility, knowledge, drive, and most importantly, MONEY, to make Fallout 3 what it SHOULD be.

YMMV of course -- but there IS hope.

Maybe and maybe not. They may not have the DESIRE to do so, however.

 

[Duodenum]

Try again.:

Nah, my intent was to say my piece, not debate it. Plenty of that going on already

 

[Duodenum]

Please see my sig to see just how 'flexible' they are.

I think that the statement in your signature was extremely ill-considered.

 

[Vault Dweller]

To say that Morrowind lacks depth shows a lack of knowledge of the Elder Scrolls series

TES depth is contained in the background story, books, and NPCs' encyclopedia. FO depth is in the gameplay and world's presentation (future of the 50's). See the difference? What good is the story if the gameplay is bland and generic?

If Morrowind is the first Elder Scrolls game you've played, and you only spent a few hours with it, then you're certainly not going to have been exposed to the lore, nor have you seen much of the story.

I played and finished all 3 of them: Arena, Daggerfall, and Morrowind. Skipped the expansions though.

If you add up the main quest, plus all the side quests, guilds, factions, and other groups with quest lines that you can pursue, there is literally over one hundred hours of gameplay (some say as much as 300 hours).

Quality vs Quantity.

Morrowind is an extremely freeform game -- you don't even have to follow the main quest.

Precisely, you just travel and explore, fighting monsters and leveling up. That's all. It's fun for awhile, then gets boring very quickly, because there is nothing else there.

In fact you don't have to do ANY quests. I know of people who spent weeks just gathering up ingredients, making potions, and taking them into town to sell them.

And I know people who like to stare at the screen and drool. What's your point?

You can play as a tank, you can play as a thief, you can play as a magic user, or any combination.

Wow, 3 classes and mixes thereof that result in extremely boring combat. D2 combat and classes were fun, MW's sucked. Too bad they decided to simplify DF's gameplay.

It might be the fantasy setting that puts some people off. It might be the lack of obvious direction (you do need to keep track of your active quests, and the original journal didn't help much in that regard). Some people need to have a concrete goal that they are reminded of and guided along -- not necessarily holding your hand, rather simply making it clear what you're supposed to be doing at any given time.

No, it's gameplay that sucks that puts some people of. Check this out for more detailed positions: http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic ... 23&start=0

Morrowind likely suffers to many by simply offering TOO MUCH freedom.

MW reminds me of a mall, and players of mallrats - they just like like hanging out there.

Other people worry that Bethesda's developers are inflexible, that they can't change or do anything differently. To answer that you can look at the three Elder Scrolls RPG's themselves.

Minor gameplay changes, other then the fact that MW was significantly dumbed down to ensure identical console gameplay Bethesda is so proud of. The core of the gameplay is still the same.

If Bethesda is willing and able to make changes in its own franchise, why wouldn't they also be willing and able and flexible enough to do Fallout differently from Morrowind?

Because there are no real gameplay-affecting changes

I agree that Bethesda is in a good position because they have good resources but that counts for something only if they are planning to do a proper Fallout game: isometric, TB, SPECIAL, real dialogues, etc. So far all the signals are negative: multiplatform, not doing that BG thing, doing what we do best - i.e. MW-like game. So, who cares if Bethesda got resources if they are going to use them to slap the license on a generic post-apoc game?

 

[Duodenum]

No, it's gameplay that sucks that puts some people of. Check this out for more detailed positions: http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic ... 23&start=0

Good stuff in that thread. Like I said -- Morrowind is absolutely not without its flaws, and it is certainly not for everyone. The reason I mentioned the alchemist dude gathering herbs & making & selling potions was simply to express the wide variety of gameplay options offered to players. Some people like that sort of thing. Many different people got totally different things out of Morrowind. Many others did not. Nothing wrong with that.

Because there are no real gameplay-affecting changes

Well, I think that's an exaggeration -- Morrowind and Daggerfall are very different in many, many ways beyond just the ones I listed. Having played these games, I'm sure you can see that. Obviously the games didn't shift to turn-based or party-based, but plenty of other game systems, control systems, etc. did in fact change significantly. Obviously there are things that make a game an Elder Scrolls game that didn't change. But why does that automatically mean the team is incapable of doing something DIFFERENT?

Did you know what game the original Morrowind developers made before starting on Morrowind? PBA Bowling 2. No lie. Now if the team is able to move from an RPG (Daggerfall) to a 3rd person adventure game (Redguard) to a bowling game (PBA Bowling) back to RPG (Morrowind), what makes you think they're incapable of doing a completely different kind of RPG? Pete Hines' quote notwithstanding

I agree that Bethesda is in a good position because they have good resources but that counts for something only if they are planning to do a proper Fallout game: isometric, TB, SPECIAL, real dialogues, etc. So far all the signals are negative: multiplatform, not doing that BG thing, doing what we do best - i.e. MW-like game. So, who cares if Bethesda got resources if they are going to use them to slap the license on a generic post-apoc game?

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely see your point. And I totally agree that PR on this whole thing could have been handled much better. But I also think that it's premature to assume the project is doomed.

 

[Volourn]

"Everyone's entitled to their own opinion! "

True. then again, DS has won awards. Bioware has won as much if not more awards as Betsheda has as well and they're a younger game devoper. Both of Troika's games have won awards. Need I go on?

I don't care in this essence what others think. In fact, due to the fact that others love Betsheda's games; it makes it less likely that Betsheda has the motivation to make the neccesaary chanegs to their devlopment processes in order to make a game I'll enjoy. Hence, why I have no faith in their version of FO3. They will make it for themslves and THEIR fans; not me.


Case closed.

 

[Duodenum]

I don't care in this essence what others think. In fact, due to the fact that others love Betsheda's games; it makes it less likely that Betsheda has the motivation to make the neccesaary chanegs to their devlopment processes in order to make a game I'll enjoy. Hence, why I have no faith in their version of FO3. They will make it for themslves and THEIR fans; not me.
.

But maybe the goal in getting the Fallout franchise is to make NEW Bethesda fans? Maybe they want to get people like YOU buying Bethesda games -- at least the Fallout titles. They don't just want to sell Fallout 3 to Morrowind fans -- the idea behind any business venture is to EXPAND your market, not just keep it the same (although Apple seems to be content to do that ). By offering two different types of RPG's in two different scenarios, perhaps they're not looking for overlap as much as looking for new customers. And if THAT is the case, then they most CERTAINLY will listen to what the die-hard Fallout fans have to say.

 

[Volourn]

However, they have stated quite clearly they plan to stick with what they are good at which means I am left out of the cold again.

 

[Shevek]

Lots of people were on the fence, myself included, until I read the Hines quote in my sig.

Until these guys come out and say they will be making a true FO sequel (with all the goodies - TB, Isometric, SPECIAL, dialogue trees, yada yada yada), most guys will find what you are saying a bit hard to swallow.