Development Info Fallout fans ask - <i>Who's your daddy?</i>. Bethesda Answers.

[Mefi]

Not good enough, just like the blowfish chef who poisons his customer, the only honorable thing to do is seppuku.

Agreed.
*sends a chest with leveled katanas to Bethesda*

They'd miss. You'll have to do it yourself if you want the job done.

 

[Relien]

Not good enough, just like the blowfish chef who poisons his customer, the only honorable thing to do is seppuku.

Agreed.
*sends a chest with leveled katanas to Bethesda*

They'd miss. You'll have to do it yourself if you want the job done.

They can't miss. At worst they won't do enough damage, in which case they'll have to repeat the attempt several times. Anyway they are surely marked as essential, so they'll be suffering indefinitely. That will teach them to make proper combat systems

 

[taxacaria]

I had a dream : Todd, Pete, MSFD and Emil are facing the consequences

 

[Spectacle]

I'm pretty sure noone at bethesda has any grasp of the concept of honor, so the katanas will just go to waste. The best we can hope for is that they hurt themselves by accident.

Also, I have a hard time believeing that beths hardest critics are themselves. If they criticize themselves harder than the codex has been doing, they should all be ready to be hospitalized for depression by now.

 

[kingcomrade]

The best we can hope for is that they hurt themselves by accident.

Todd: KATANAS! COOL!! *swish swish swish*

 

[FireWolf]

It seems very strange for the first details about a game to feature the voice acting cast rather than some more interesting feature like where the game will be set or what the opening premise is.

To my mind the inclusion of a father or any family leads down one of three paths. Your character's backstory is already defined by the writers, you have a series of background information to fill out prior to starting the game or your family gets killed within two minutes so that whatever personal ideas you have about your past can't be contradicted by inconvenient relatives.

I like the characters that Liam Neeson has had to play in the past, though I do get a little tired of the 'mentor who dies' trend that has featured in some of his more recent movies. This trend gives me cause for concern in this instance because it might very well be shaping his role in F3 - that of the wise mentor who may or may not die after putting the PC on the 'right' path (there's a right path in the wastelands?).

There are different ways that the father could be implemented - the press release does not implicitly state that the father is there at the start. It could well be that you take it upon yourself to go look for your father after he doesn't return (or, if they do the freedom to do what you want rout, choose to run off and gamble your life away on craps to feed your jet addiction) perhaps the Father is the narrator of your life's story providing the intro and exit movies' voice overs. Maybe the PC isn't aware of who his father is and comes across him in the wastes at some point. Or perhaps someone more creative than me can come up with something that's more interesting and hasn't been done before. All of this is wild speculation on a tidbit of information and I'll reserve judgement until the game is released and some reviews come in.

I find the rampant hatred for F3 before we know too much about it is getting old. While a lot of concerns about the game may be justified by Bethesda's past performance, the sheer unwillingness of most of the 'fallout fans' to accept that there might, just might, be something worthwhile in the game just reinforces the widespread feeling that fans of fallout are impossible to please, will bitch your ear off and offer nothing constructive to a discussion beyond "it's not fallout 1" a thought that alienates developers from even attempting to take onboard anything said by the fans. Why bother trying to impress these people when they've already made their minds up about the game? Why not just focus on new people or developer fanboys instead of this rabid group of malcontents?

Don't get me wrong, I have quite strong negative opinions regarding Oblivion and Bethesda as a whole, not to mention cross platform development (correct me if I'm wrong, but f3 has been announced as cross platform, right?) and the over use of voice-over dialogue in dialogue rich games. I just don't understand what you all want to get out of being so hostile to any news about the game rather than having a discussion about what it could mean, how it could be handled or whatever. Bethesda suck, it's not fallout, I did not like oblivion, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

On a semi-related note: the music on the 'official' fallout website. Does it remind anyone else of batman begins? Dark Knight of the Wastelands.

 

[Vault Dweller]

It seems very strange for the first details about a game to feature the voice acting cast rather than some more interesting feature like where the game will be set or what the opening premise is

No more strange than starting the Oblivion marketing campaign with Patrick Stewart!!!, soil erosion, and virtual forests.

There are different ways that the father could be implemented - the press release does not implicitly state that the father is there at the start. It could well be that you take it upon yourself to go look for your father after he doesn't return (or, if they do the freedom to do what you want rout, choose to run off and gamble your life away on craps to feed your jet addiction) perhaps the Father is the narrator of your life's story providing the intro and exit movies' voice overs. Maybe the PC isn't aware of who his father is and comes across him in the wastes at some point. Or perhaps someone more creative than me can come up with something that's more interesting and hasn't been done before. All of this is wild speculation on a tidbit of information and I'll reserve judgement until the game is released and some reviews come in.

None of these theories go with the "lead, prominent, dramatic role" announcement. As for "we can't judge the game until it's released", it's getting really, really old.

I find the rampant hatred for F3 before we know too much about it is getting old.

Unlike these statements that never, ever get old.

While a lot of concerns about the game may be justified by Bethesda's past performance, the sheer unwillingness of most of the 'fallout fans' to accept that there might, just might, be something worthwhile in the game...

Based on what? No, seriously? It's like saying "hey, guys, let's give ol' Herve some benefits of the doubt. Maybe his Fallout MMO game will have something there."

... just reinforces the widespread feeling that fans of fallout are impossible to please, will bitch your ear off and offer nothing constructive to a discussion beyond "it's not fallout 1" ...

I'm sure that if someone made an isometric, turn-based TES game, TES fans would have been very open minded about the changes.

I just don't understand what you all want to get out of being so hostile to any news about the game rather than having a discussion about what it could mean, how it could be handled or whatever.

Here you go:
http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=18598

 

[FireWolf]

No more strange than starting the Oblivion marketing campaign with Patrick Stewart!!!, soil erosion, and virtual forests.

Does anyone know why they do this, or if this is a trend in gaming as a whole? Going the way of hollywood and trying to promote a product based on star appeal? How many people bought oblivion just because it had Picard and Boromir in it? Was it just a way to get publicity for a game, make it more acceptable to those who are not inclined towards video games and treat them as toys rather than the series business of films and tv?

None of these theories go with the "lead, prominent, dramatic role" announcement. As for "we can't judge the game until it's released", it's getting really, really old.

Considering it's a marketing release with lots of back and forth "it was wonderful to work with star/developers" I would be inclined to take what is said to be perhaps exagerated. That he leads the voice over cast could just mean he's the biggest name, or the first one to have his dialogue finished. A prominent role doesn't mean he's in the game a lot, just that it's an important character, like Tandy, Killian, or the village elder in fo2. A dramatic role could mean anything. A narrator for the beginning and end, perhaps a cut scene or two mid way through (such as the depleting water updates in fo, or the GECK dreams in fo2) can be construed as 'throughout' the game.

As for judging a game with reviews after the game's released, that might be getting old but it remains true. Judging a game because of a voice over choice and a marketing blurb is pretty shoddy as far as damning evidence goes. If Neeson's dialogue is finished already (as suggested in the blub) then either the game is coming to a close, he's doing more of a monologue that won't require tweaking, or the game's going to be linear as all hell. Proclaiming to the world that having a big name actor in your game is a sign of the end of days is hardly worth it when there's nothing else confirmed about the title. At least form damning opinions on something more substantial.

I find the rampant hatred for F3 before we know too much about it is getting old.

Unlike these statements that never, ever get old.

Is this some kind of defense mechanism? People who've had control of fallout have hurt you in the past so now anyone who might make another fallout titled game is obviously out to get you all? I am all in favour of damning people who think that what makes fallout is ghouls, mutants and prostitutes, but this is an announcement that there's going to be a 'father' in the game.

Based on what? No, seriously? It's like saying "hey, guys, let's give ol' Herve some benefits of the doubt. Maybe his Fallout MMO game will have something there."

Give peace a chance. Buy our flyer. I am by no means a Bethesda fanboy. I won't go out and buy a game just because it was made by Bethesda, Bioware, Blizzard or any other developer, nor will I not buy a game because it was made by a specific developer. I won't go out and buy a game because it is part of a franchise I liked previously, either. I'll buy a game because of reviews, word of mouth, my experience with demos or playing someone else's copy of the game. I guess I'm not the demographic that this kind of marketing is aimed at, since I don't give a shit who's in the game, who made the game, who didn't make the game so long as it's good.

I didn't like Oblivion, morrowind or (unrelated) legacy because each of them had aspects that I didn't like that ruined the game's experience for me. That doesn't mean that everything about the games was utter crap. Perhaps if their attempts to make the game were not instantly discounted by those that are the franchise' fans, they might make a game that attempts to appease them, rather than just ignore them as impossible to please, so why bother?

... just reinforces the widespread feeling that fans of fallout are impossible to please, will bitch your ear off and offer nothing constructive to a discussion beyond "it's not fallout 1" ...

I'm sure that if someone made an isometric, turn-based TES game, TES fans would have been very open minded about the changes.

So we have screenshots and announcements that Fo3 is going to be first person and twitch based? Perhaps this is getting a bit off topic here, but does an isometric viewpoint and turn based combat make a fallout game? Or does the game have to have been made 10 years ago to qualify?

I just don't understand what you all want to get out of being so hostile to any news about the game rather than having a discussion about what it could mean, how it could be handled or whatever.

Here you go:
http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=18598

Onwards!

 

[Vault Dweller]

Does anyone know why they do this...

It worked, didn't it? It generates hype and media attention. Talking about game mechanics, no matter how interesting, usually generates boredom and "well, it's nice" reaction.

Considering it's a marketing release with lots of back and forth "it was wonderful to work with star/developers" I would be inclined to take what is said to be perhaps exagerated.

In other words, you are inclined to dismiss a developer's statement to support your own theory based on wishful thinking?

As for judging a game with reviews after the game's released, that might be getting old but it remains true. Judging a game because of a voice over choice and a marketing blurb is pretty shoddy as far as damning evidence goes.

I don't think that anyone's judging the game yet, but there are a lot of facts pointing that it will be a Fallout game in name only (i.e. a post-apocalyptic game under the Fallout license), while we have 0 facts/statements pointing at the opposite.

Personally, I don't expect a true Fallout game, but I hope that it will be a decent PA action-adventure game.

Is this some kind of defense mechanism? People who've had control of fallout have hurt you in the past so now anyone who might make another fallout titled game is obviously out to get you all?

No, of course not. However, the name Bethesda implies certain design philosophies manifested weakly in Morrowind and much stronger in Oblivion. We have no reason to expect a different design approach, and so far all the facts/rumors show that the trend continues.

I am all in favour of damning people who think that what makes fallout is ghouls, mutants and prostitutes, but this is an announcement that there's going to be a 'father' in the game.

I've already linked you a thread explaining what the father figure implies.

Give peace a chance. Buy our flyer. I am by no means a Bethesda fanboy. I won't go out and buy a game just because it was made by Bethesda, Bioware, Blizzard or any other developer, nor will I not buy a game because it was made by a specific developer.

Why not? Games are not born, they are made by people, influencing the design process. That's why KOTOR 2 is very different from KOTOR 1, but is very similar to NWN2.

Perhaps if their attempts to make the game were not instantly discounted by those that are the franchise' fans, they might make a game that attempts to appease them...

Why? Did they listen to the Daggerfall fans when they were making MW? No. Did they listen to the Morrowind fans when they were making Oblivion? No. Mind you, these fans were enthusiastic about these games and expected nothing but improvements. They learned what Bethesda's design philosophies are the hard way.

So we have screenshots and announcements that Fo3 is going to be first person and twitch based?

Do you have reasons to believe it won't be?

Perhaps this is getting a bit off topic here, but does an isometric viewpoint and turn based combat make a fallout game?

Depends on what a "Fallout game" is.

 

[Jim Kata]

I had a dream : Todd, Pete, MSFD and Emil are facing the consequences

Choose to make a shitty fallout 3, and the consequence will be death.

 

[FireWolf]

Does anyone know why they do this...

It worked, didn't it? It generates hype and media attention. Talking about game mechanics, no matter how interesting, usually generates boredom and "well, it's nice" reaction.

Funnily enough that's pretty much what my reaction was to the announcement of the voice over. Big woop.

Considering it's a marketing release with lots of back and forth "it was wonderful to work with star/developers" I would be inclined to take what is said to be perhaps exagerated.

In other words, you are inclined to dismiss a developer's statement to support your own theory based on wishful thinking?

No, I just don't accept marketing as truth. I haven't formed an opinion about the issue beyond recognising the actor and trying to understand why this is such a big issue.

I don't think that anyone's judging the game yet, but there are a lot of facts pointing that it will be a Fallout game in name only (i.e. a post-apocalyptic game under the Fallout license), while we have 0 facts/statements pointing at the opposite.

Personally, I don't expect a true Fallout game, but I hope that it will be a decent PA action-adventure game.

All comes down to what people think makes a true Fallout game. I'm fairly sure that it wont please everyone and I would agree that it's a safer bet to hope for a decent PA game, though I'd rather it not be action adventure.

No, of course not. However, the name Bethesda implies certain design philosophies manifested weakly in Morrowind and much stronger in Oblivion. We have no reason to expect a different design approach, and so far all the facts/rumors show that the trend continues.

Perhaps, though that they were willing to purchase the Fallout IP shows they have at least some reverence towards the source material. Fallout comes out practically every time RPGs are discussed and I would suspect that Beth has to make a fair effort to meet the expectations that journalists have for the title or the backlash is likely to be pretty severe.

Why not? Games are not born, they are made by people, influencing the design process. That's why KOTOR 2 is very different from KOTOR 1, but is very similar to NWN2.

So you're saying that developers cannot change or evolve their ideas, taking what is bad out and adding things that work well? Games developers are surely influenced by other titles, the mechanics that work well and the features that get a game noticed are copied into new titles. KotOR 2 and NwN2 may be similar because NwN's OC was badly received, while Kotor2's campaign, besides being rushed and bug ridden, was considered more engaging. Bethesda recently released Legacy, I wouldn't say that's the same game as Oblivion.

Why? Did they listen to the Daggerfall fans when they were making MW? No. Did they listen to the Morrowind fans when they were making Oblivion? No. Mind you, these fans were enthusiastic about these games and expected nothing but improvements. They learned what Bethesda's design philosophies are the hard way.

So damning things out of hand is better than giving things consideration? The fans damn things out of hand because the developers dont listen to them, and the developers dont listen to the fans because they damn things out of hand, so what's the point? I admit, it's pretty unlikely that a developer listens to fan opinion (and they probably shouldn't listen to the vocal minority in any case) since a lot of it is presented in a knee-jerk reaction to minor details without the context of the rest of the game or the design intentions in any case.

So we have screenshots and announcements that Fo3 is going to be first person and twitch based?

Do you have reasons to believe it won't be?

So your argument is that because we haven't seen a screenshot or had any evidence to say that the game is going to be a third person isometric turn-based game, then it must be a twitchy action game? Morrowind was first person, Oblivion was first person because it was following the style of morrowind. Fallout 3 is supposed to be following Fallout 2, so if you're going to jump to a conclusion that a game is going to follow it's predecessor, you should be more inclined to believe it's going to be turn based isometric. While I doubt that it will be, to come to a conclusion that the game will be thus based on no evidence one way or the other is deliberately negative.

Depends on what a "Fallout game" is.

That was my point, can you quantify it? Explain what makes a Fallout game and what doesn't. Perhaps if there is enough of a consensus as to what makes a game Fallout, there would be more of a chance of the game meeting that goal. It's like some meta-physical argument akin to a pretentious art student who can't explain their art and demand you just 'feel' it, and then they get angry because your interpretation is not the same as theirs.

 

[Mefi]

Perhaps, though that they were willing to purchase the Fallout IP shows they have at least some reverence towards the source material.

You are confusing 'skull-fucking an IP for maximum profit' with 'reverence'. Easy to do. But they are actually different.

Fallout comes out practically every time RPGs are discussed

That wouldn't be why Bethesda have bought the IP would it? You know, instant name recognition, instant history of excellence - oh and such a cool setting with guns which they haven't yet had the gall to try to put into their Elder Scrolls games despite their best efforts with bow weapons.

and I would suspect that Beth has to make a fair effort to meet the expectations that journalists have for the title or the backlash is likely to be pretty severe.

Much as Oblivion was derided for being a step backwards in gameplay terms from Morrowind? Or Morrowind was derided for being a step backwards in gameplay terms from Daggerfall?

Those clever journalists did such a good job of highlighting the bad points of Oblivion didn't they?

OMG Patrick Stewart! OMG Grafix! OMG big pointy arrows! OMG insta-teleport! Teh innovation! 10/10 Game of the Century Game of the Millenium Big Gold Sticker Best Buy

 

[Vault Dweller]

It worked, didn't it? It generates hype and media attention. Talking about game mechanics, no matter how interesting, usually generates boredom and "well, it's nice" reaction.

Funnily enough that's pretty much what my reaction was to the announcement of the voice over. Big woop.

Sure. Most people here feel this way, however, I was talking about Bethesda's target market, not a site they actually blacklisted.

Considering it's a marketing release with lots of back and forth "it was wonderful to work with star/developers" I would be inclined to take what is said to be perhaps exagerated.

In other words, you are inclined to dismiss a developer's statement to support your own theory based on wishful thinking?

No, I just don't accept marketing as truth.

Good for you. Now reread my comment.

I haven't formed an opinion about the issue beyond recognising the actor and trying to understand why this is such a big issue.

No, you *have* formed an opinion and decided that it's not a big issue. Now you are dismissing the developers' statements to support your opinion.

Perhaps, though that they were willing to purchase the Fallout IP shows they have at least some reverence towards the source material.

Reverence? You've gotta be kidding. Beth needed a setting, which would allow them to use the existing technologies and experience to double the revenues, without competing with TES games (i.e. non-fantasy). Fallout was available, well known, and, as Todd saw it, just like TES - big world, do whatever you want, etc. What's even better, it has a cult status, and every magazine already refers to it as a legendary series. It's a marketing dream.

Fallout comes out practically every time RPGs are discussed and I would suspect that Beth has to make a fair effort to meet the expectations that journalists have for the title or the backlash is likely to be pretty severe.

Riiight. Shadowrun?

So you're saying that developers cannot change or evolve their ideas, taking what is bad out and adding things that work well?

Good and bad are subjective concepts. Take Bio games, for example. Do you see the trend? Well, it's not because Bio developers can't change. It's because there is no reason for them to change. That's what they like to do and that's what works well for them.

Games developers are surely influenced by other titles...

Or success of their own titles. Don't fix what aint broken and all that.

KotOR 2 and NwN2 may be similar because NwN's OC was badly received...

By whom? You? Me? The game sold over 2 mil copies.

Bethesda recently released Legacy, I wouldn't say that's the same game as Oblivion.

Bethesda didn't develop Legacy. Maybe that's why.

I ran out of time and will have to continue a bit later.