Interview DAC Interviews Todd Howard

[Sol Invictus]

Tags: Bethesda Softworks; Fallout 3

The Fallout fansite <a href=http://www.duckandcover.cx>Duck and Cover</a> has gotten the opportunity to interview <a href=http://www.bethsoft.com/>Bethesda</a>'s <b>Executive Producer</b> and the head honcho behind their upcoming <b>Fallout 3</b> on the very subject of the upcoming post-apocalyptic themed RPG sequel. It is the first interview Mr. Howard has given on Fallout 3 since <a href=http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/fallout3/news_6102442.html>July 2004 on GameSpot</a>.
<br>
<br>
Here's his response on the subject of the implementation of turn-based combat:
<br>
<blockquote><b>Whilst every fan tends to have a different idea of what precisely Fallout 3 should be, there are a few things that most of us are unified on. Are you aware of the strong desires for turn-based combat and the classic 3/4 top-down viewpoint? Do you think pure turn-based combat in an RPG is viable in today's market?</b>
<br>
Yes, of course we've heard many of the old-school fans regarding the view and combat resolution. What's viable today? Certainly turn-based combat limits your audience to a small number, but I do find that audiences will come if your game is good enough and the presentation is superb. Ultimately we'll do what we think will be the most fun.</blockquote>
<br>
Well, don't get your hopes up too high. Most of us know that this ultimately refers to a full implementation of real time combat, but the vague answer should keep a few people hopeful for a turn-based implementation. If you close your eyes and wish hard enough, maybe it'll come true. Teatime notes, "<i>Let's hope that the positive direction for the game that I think this interview implies is not just talk.</i>"
<br>
<br>
Here's something a little more solid information on the game to sink your teeth into:
<br>
<blockquote><b>What, in your mind, are some of the things that differentiate the Fallout games (ignoring FO: Tactics and FO: Brotherhood of Steel, which didn't happen) from the Elder Scrolls series of RPGs?</b>
<br>
Outside of the obvious flavor and setting, the number one thing is stronger characters. Fallout really set the standard for me on believable people, good dialogue, and character choice and consequence. With Elder Scrolls, we do aim for something enormous, and we simply can't focus on say - 20 to 40 really deep strong characters and just do them. With Oblivion, we're doing a much better job than we've done before, but the scale of game is so different that without sacrificing some of what makes The Elder Scrolls what it is, I don't think we'd be able to have the same level of characterization in NPCs Fallout did. So with Fallout 3, that's something we want to do well, a limited number of super-deep NPCs. </blockquote>
<br>
<br>
You can read the rest of the interview <a href=http://www.duckandcover.cx/content.php?id=66>here</a>.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Wow, the words are definitely right, then again, talk is cheap. Still, hope dies last, as they say...

 

[Kamaz]

Shit..if he speaks truth..it might be very good. At least he does see the direction FO3 should take, the last thing - will he follow it?

 

[Briosafreak]

The questions were all well placed, it gives space to some good discussions, good work DU.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

"Ultimately, we'll do what we think is the most fun." is kind of scary considering they've never done a turn based game. So, either he's saying that real time isn't the most funnest thing evar(all their games to date), or it'll be real time. But, it's a cute way of answering the question without actually answering the question.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I don't really doubt that it will be RT. It's the other things like first/third person view, dumbing down for the consoles, poor role-playing and dialogues, that horror-esque survival thing, etc that bother me.

 

[Kamaz]

Two ways FO3 would be fucked up - first, they make FO3 iso3D (like VanBuren) but leave it RT. It totally sucks and Bethesda blames isometric perspective. The other way - they make it 3D - using first Fallout intros as concept, but make it turn-based. It totally sucks ass, Bethesda blames TB.

I would love to see this game iso3D with real-time/turn-based choice and I think Bethesda could pull it off really well. But if thats not possible, I better see FO3 from FPS perspective and RT actinous combat. Yeah, I do sound like heretic, but - as I said, we've got Fallout intros that do look nice and cool and very falloutish (remember the movie from FO1 when you left the vault?) while being 1st person...and turn-based doesnt fit fps style games (Wizardry8 was utter shit..yeah, I know some loved the tactical combat, bet I dont think the phase-based(?) combat in perspectve from eyes..its uncomfortable). But real-time with guns in iso3D perspective? No way, Hose. It'd be total crap. I am curious how Restricted Area pulled that off, since they have ranged weapons, real-time and isometric perspective.

But then again, MSFD will find this post because of included goatse keyword, show it to Bethesdians and they will decide that it means Fallout fans would love Fallout seeing 3D and real-time. Therefor, MSFD, please note that this is my very own freakin' opinion and since I am LARPer, you should not consider it very seriously.

 

[MrSmileyFaceDude]

What, did you say something, Kamaz?

 

[kathode]

since I am LARPer, you should not consider it very seriously.

Lightning bolt!

 

[dojoteef]

Please disregard Kamaz. As he's stated, he's a larper and we know what sick twisted bastards they are.

 

[Hajo]

Please disregard Kamaz. As he's stated, he's a larper and we know what sick twisted bastards they are.

You know, latex boots insulate from lightning bolts ...

 

[Mr. Teatime]

The questions were all well placed, it gives space to some good discussions, good work DU.

Brios, the questions and interview was mine. After I got it back, I forwarded it to DU to let him write his editorial.

Just making sure credit is given where it's due

 

[RGE]

I am curious how Restricted Area pulled that off, since they have ranged weapons, real-time and isometric perspective.

Judging from the gameplay video I saw they pulled it off by having Johnson run while the mutants walked, and Johnson shot as often as he could while those mutant monsters who had some ranged attack only seemed to use it every now and then. Not quite what anyone would expect from a Fallout game where the opponents are supposed to have guns. Well, except for the molerats and such. We'll be playing whack-a-molerat with those, using a supersledge. Yeah...no one ever played whack-a-molerat in F1 and F2.

So, is this Troika's chance of getting in on the F3 development? I thought that would be too good to be true, since I assumed that Bethesda had their own ideas about what they want to do, and wouldn't need or want anyone else to come in and tell them how it was done when it was done right. But if pre-production is the time to goof around, maybe it could be worth a shot?

 

[Briosafreak]

The questions were all well placed, it gives space to some good discussions, good work DU.

Brios, the questions and interview was mine. After I got it back, I forwarded it to DU to let him write his editorial.

Just making sure credit is given where it's due

The questions were all well placed, it gives space to some good discussions, good work MRT.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Quit trying to steal DU's credit, Teatime!

 

[Mr. Teatime]

Quit trying to steal DU's credit, Teatime!

He's getting AO, so we can get him to join the clans and kill him repeatedly in PvP.

 

[Kamaz]

What, did you say something, Kamaz?

Quote:

since I am LARPer, you should not consider it very seriously.

Lightning bolt!

YES! A Developer Strike!

And, for everyone to know, that LordFish, the guy who posted that video is LARPer, too, and while I just create games, he is regular player in them.
=========================
But seriously, I expressed my very own opinion about this "how should Bethesda pull FO3 off" in case they are not going VanBuren way (which would be the good way) and I meant that I do not want it to be considered an official fan-base opinion and therefor cause some PR trouble.

Bethesdians (kathode, MSFD, cranky_guy_from_garden, July Rberts and others) could clear up smth, at least give an unofficial insight in what direction would Bethesda go. Seriously, we all know Bethesda wants make money and they bought Fallout3 for that purpose...or did they bought it because they wanted to save it? Maybe you could give an anonymous answer? Really, just to clear things up - is Bethesda more with fans or with money? I am pretty sure that wont change a thing in sales figures, but its very long time before we see anything concerning Fallout3 and I think the fanbase should deserve at least some bits of some general info.

 

[Ekodas]

The main concern I have regarding Fallout 3 is that Beth will most likely release the game for consoles too. So they'll design a game that can also run on a console. I know Todd Howard believe that this argument is irrevelant (" Play Morrowind on PC, and then play it on Xbox. Anyone who says a console game can't have depth hasn't played enough of them. The platform is 100 percent irrelevant." - GameSpot Interview), but I beg to differ.

A PC is still more powerfull than a console, and there are still some things that you can do with a PC but can't do with a console (and yes, I know the next X-Box seems to be a very impressive piece of hardware, but it still won't beat a PC). And since no devs in their right mind would developp two game system, two absolutely different engines etc..for the same game, they will have to tune down their ambition I guess.

 

[NeutralMilkHotel]

By the time it comes out it won't be ported to ps2 or xbox. It would be xbox2/ps3. The limitations wouldn't be graphical (or much to do with the game engine), it would be adapting the pc controls/interface to the console controller and the other limitation of tv screen resolution.

As Toddy boy said, if the game is good enough (and advertised well, which I'm guessing it will) it wouldn't matter if it's turn based or real time (to sell well), as long as it's good and people know about it. So I wouldn't think turn-based is out just yet. But that's just me.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Phantom Brave wouldn't be selling like hotcakes in Japan and now Europe if TB was out of the picture. And Phantom Brave uses proper turn-based (similar to FFTA and a more simplistic JA2), not Final Fantasy/J-RPG turn based.

 

[Chief_Kirbydorf]

From what can be intuited from the interview what everyone should focus on is when he said: "What's viable today?" That alone speaks volumes, and is at this time in production, the most the fanbase will get as an addmission that a classic turn-based system is not in the cards.

Because it's simply not a market-wise decision. For every fan of TB combat, there are dozens upon dozens who take one look and scoff, "What, you guys take TURNS trying to kill each other?? How stupid is that??" I know quite a few of them actually, and for most, that's why they consider RPGs to be the dregs of gaming.

However, I forsee a system that acts like a 3rd person real-time actioner where as the player makes his decisions, the combat action would slow down to a crawl as he navigated menus or movement. Then, once finished with tactics, the on-screen action would speed back up to real time.

From what I've read, I believe Jade Empire will use a system like this, intergrating TB and RT in a way. And if it works and sets a market presence, which forecasts show it should be sucessful, it would stand as to legitimize it, making every other publisher scramble to put out their own version.

So if this......*sigh*...."bullet time" combat model is used then the kids would be entranced with the fancy visuals and we would get our deep tactics and strategy.

That's the hope, anyways.

 

[Chief_Kirbydorf]

Yeah, Nippon Ichii have pretty much made their bones off of Turn-based games. Strictly turn-based games.

However, their games are rather modest by convential, modern standards. Which lies in their best interest to make a profit. So, I'm sure they're well aware that even strong sales doesn't change the fact that they have niche appeal only.

 

[NeutralMilkHotel]

Phantom Brave wouldn't be selling like hotcakes in Japan and now Europe if TB was out of the picture. And Phantom Brave uses proper turn-based (similar to FFTA and a more simplistic JA2), not Final Fantasy/J-RPG turn based.

Do you know how it's doing in the U.S.? I hope it's selling well, I've heard they're awesome (disgaea and the others as well) games.

 

[Chief_Kirbydorf]

Phantom Brave wouldn't be selling like hotcakes in Japan and now Europe if TB was out of the picture. And Phantom Brave uses proper turn-based (similar to FFTA and a more simplistic JA2), not Final Fantasy/J-RPG turn based.

Do you know how it's doing in the U.S.? I hope it's selling well, I've heard they're awesome (disgaea and the others as well) games.

Um, I own it, if that means much. Their previous games made good buisiness so it stands to reason that Brave has done modestly well. They basically advertised it based on the strengths and 'name recoginiton' of the previous releases.

 

[Milktooth]

I just read the interview and quite frankly I think it sounds like Pete Hines is feeding us more bullshit to keep us quiet. Deep down inside we all know the game's gonna be in real time and just like every one of Bethesda's previous games it's gonna suck a copious amount of semen, but the retarded fanboys who buy all their games are gonna gobble this one up too. I have no doubt that Fallout 3 will be in real time like all their previous games, and it will suck.

Anyone who buys into this bullshit has to be dumber than a retarded chimpanzee.

I say give the development to Troika like it rightfully deserves to be and have them deliver the proper sequel to Fallout 3, instead of giving the usurpers at Bethesda and and their court jester Pete "Full of Shit" Hines their day. Who's with me?