Interview Feargus talks Fallout: New Vegas with The Escapist

[Azrael the cat]

I am kind of concerned that there were only a few things that Todd Howard told them not to do, which points to this game being more like FO3.

Of COURSE it will be more like FO3. They are doing a spinoff of Bethesda's FO3, using Bethesda's licence, Bethesda's engine, Bethesda's marketing and aiming at Bethesda's audience. It would be seriously fucking immoral at this stage for them to turn around and make the kind of FO3 that we want. Sure, they can put their spin on it - greater use of statchecks (though the original wasn't lacking for quantity, just quality) and better dialogues. But they're spinning off from Bethesda's FO3.

It would be like signing a multibillion dollar contract to sell derivative security bundles to clients, and then suddenly deciding it was unethical and losing your employer tons of money. Sure, there's something respectful about it, but in the immediate term it's both a breach of contract and seriously unethical. If you want to make a moral standard, there's other ways of going about it. If Obsidian wanted to make an 'oldschool' FO of the kind that they and we would like playing, rather than an elder scrolls P-A mod, they should have said NO to Bethesda's offer, NOT licence Bethesda's FO3, and made their own PA setting. That would be the ethical way of going about it - it's would mean a good game without screwing their business partners or their new-found fanbase.

We will get FO3 mk2 because that's what they've contracted to create. And that's more than fair enough - that's just Obsidian showing a modicum of decency to their business partners and to their new audience that Bethesda has been urging to accept them 'on trust'. It isn't like there weren't legitimate ways of producing an oldshool P-A crpg: Obsidian CHOSE not to adopt those.

Now I'm not bashing Obsidian. I LIKE the company and think they've got lots of talent. Signing themselves up to a guranteed money maker is a really smart move. People at the Codex really have to stop expecting studios to release top-quality games every single time, or even every single year. Occasionally when the market is this fucked, you've just got to bite into the wooden stick, grimace with the pain, and collect the cheque after. Then after doing that a few more times, go out and make a good game (it's why I'm more disappointed with AP than this - NV screams of 'I'll just bite this stick and try not to cry, tell me when the sodomising's over; AP looks like a failed attempt at a good game:-(.

So I like Obsidian. But there's only so far you can go with this one. Expecting miracles from this scenario isn't fair to them or us.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

Of COURSE it will be more like FO3. They are doing a spinoff of Bethesda's FO3, using Bethesda's licence, Bethesda's engine, Bethesda's marketing and aiming at Bethesda's audience. It would be seriously fucking immoral at this stage for them to turn around and make the kind of FO3 that we want. Sure, they can put their spin on it - greater use of statchecks (though the original wasn't lacking for quantity, just quality) and better dialogues. But they're spinning off from Bethesda's FO3.

It would be like signing a multibillion dollar contract to sell derivative security bundles to clients, and then suddenly deciding it was unethical and losing your employer tons of money. Sure, there's something respectful about it, but in the immediate term it's both a breach of contract and seriously unethical. If you want to make a moral standard, there's other ways of going about it. If Obsidian wanted to make an 'oldschool' FO of the kind that they and we would like playing, rather than an elder scrolls P-A mod, they should have said NO to Bethesda's offer, NOT licence Bethesda's FO3, and made their own PA setting. That would be the ethical way of going about it - it's would mean a good game without screwing their business partners or their new-found fanbase.

We will get FO3 mk2 because that's what they've contracted to create. And that's more than fair enough - that's just Obsidian showing a modicum of decency to their business partners and to their new audience that Bethesda has been urging to accept them 'on trust'. It isn't like there weren't legitimate ways of producing an oldshool P-A crpg: Obsidian CHOSE not to adopt those.

Now I'm not bashing Obsidian. I LIKE the company and think they've got lots of talent. Signing themselves up to a guranteed money maker is a really smart move. People at the Codex really have to stop expecting studios to release top-quality games every single time, or even every single year. Occasionally when the market is this fucked, you've just got to bite into the wooden stick, grimace with the pain, and collect the cheque after. Then after doing that a few more times, go out and make a good game (it's why I'm more disappointed with AP than this - NV screams of 'I'll just bite this stick and try not to cry, tell me when the sodomising's over; AP looks like a failed attempt at a good game:-(.

So I like Obsidian. But there's only so far you can go with this one. Expecting miracles from this scenario isn't fair to them or us.

+1

everybody else can die. especially Volourn.

 

[Chefe]

I am kind of concerned that there were only a few things that Todd Howard told them not to do, which points to this game being more like FO3.

Of COURSE it will be more like FO3. They are doing a spinoff of Bethesda's FO3, using Bethesda's licence, Bethesda's engine, Bethesda's marketing and aiming at Bethesda's audience. It would be seriously fucking immoral at this stage for them to turn around and make the kind of FO3 that we want. Sure, they can put their spin on it - greater use of statchecks (though the original wasn't lacking for quantity, just quality) and better dialogues. But they're spinning off from Bethesda's FO3.

It would be like signing a multibillion dollar contract to sell derivative security bundles to clients, and then suddenly deciding it was unethical and losing your employer tons of money. Sure, there's something respectful about it, but in the immediate term it's both a breach of contract and seriously unethical. If you want to make a moral standard, there's other ways of going about it. If Obsidian wanted to make an 'oldschool' FO of the kind that they and we would like playing, rather than an elder scrolls P-A mod, they should have said NO to Bethesda's offer, NOT licence Bethesda's FO3, and made their own PA setting. That would be the ethical way of going about it - it's would mean a good game without screwing their business partners or their new-found fanbase.

We will get FO3 mk2 because that's what they've contracted to create. And that's more than fair enough - that's just Obsidian showing a modicum of decency to their business partners and to their new audience that Bethesda has been urging to accept them 'on trust'. It isn't like there weren't legitimate ways of producing an oldshool P-A crpg: Obsidian CHOSE not to adopt those.

Now I'm not bashing Obsidian. I LIKE the company and think they've got lots of talent. Signing themselves up to a guranteed money maker is a really smart move. People at the Codex really have to stop expecting studios to release top-quality games every single time, or even every single year. Occasionally when the market is this fucked, you've just got to bite into the wooden stick, grimace with the pain, and collect the cheque after. Then after doing that a few more times, go out and make a good game (it's why I'm more disappointed with AP than this - NV screams of 'I'll just bite this stick and try not to cry, tell me when the sodomising's over; AP looks like a failed attempt at a good game:-(.

So I like Obsidian. But there's only so far you can go with this one. Expecting miracles from this scenario isn't fair to them or us.

"More like Fallout 3" was in reference to the child-like writing and skill checks, obsession with gore, theme-park world, paper thin characters, banal plot, stupid quests, idiotic gameworld, and excessive hand-holding.

It is Bethesda's license, but that doesn't mean the lore has suddenly gone completely sour. You can tell a great story with bad source material. There is nothing inherently wrong with Bethesda's engine. Marketing, while it often sucks, does not make a game. Bethesda's audience, as I understand it, is more interested in open world exploration and item collection above all else.

 

[mike73]

I think we all realize it's about money for Bethestard. Fallout 3 was unfortunately selling very good despite of shite of a plot, uninteresting characters and replayability or lack there of. They want their next game to be selling just as well hence not changing it much. I'm worried the setting and few touches is all there is new to NV and even MCA won't make it a decent RPG.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

"More like Fallout 3" was in reference to the child-like writing and skill checks, obsession with gore, theme-park world, paper thin characters, banal plot, stupid quests, idiotic gameworld, and excessive hand-holding.

if we're to look forward to one thing, with hope...i think it is that we won't get a "More like Fallout 3" game in those areas.

It is Bethesda's license, but that doesn't mean the lore has suddenly gone completely sour. You can tell a great story with bad source material. There is nothing inherently wrong with Bethesda's engine. Marketing, while it often sucks, does not make a game. Bethesda's audience, as I understand it, is more interested in open world exploration and item collection above all else.

i can't figure out what you're driving at here.

 

[Chefe]

"More like Fallout 3" was in reference to the child-like writing and skill checks, obsession with gore, theme-park world, paper thin characters, banal plot, stupid quests, idiotic gameworld, and excessive hand-holding.

if we're to look forward to one thing, with hope...i think it is that we won't get a "More like Fallout 3" game in those areas.

It is Bethesda's license, but that doesn't mean the lore has suddenly gone completely sour. You can tell a great story with bad source material. There is nothing inherently wrong with Bethesda's engine. Marketing, while it often sucks, does not make a game. Bethesda's audience, as I understand it, is more interested in open world exploration and item collection above all else.

i can't figure out what you're driving at here.

I was responding to this: "Of COURSE it will be more like FO3. They are doing a spinoff of Bethesda's FO3, using Bethesda's licence, Bethesda's engine, Bethesda's marketing and aiming at Bethesda's audience."

It was just a miscommunication. Az apparently didn't understand what I was getting at when I said I was concerned that the game would be more like FO3, and I suppose I wasn't clear enough.

 

[bhlaab]

Damage Threshold is back so theres something

 

[Mastermind]

"More like Fallout 3" was in reference to the child-like writing and skill checks, obsession with gore, theme-park world, paper thin characters, banal plot, stupid quests, idiotic gameworld, and excessive hand-holding.

Other than the hand-holding, that pretty much sums up Fallout 1.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

^0/10

Of COURSE it will be more like FO3. They are doing a spinoff of Bethesda's FO3, using Bethesda's licence, Bethesda's engine, Bethesda's marketing and aiming at Bethesda's audience.

None of those things implies the writing, combat and quest design will be on the same level. Behtesda's audience will gulp anything with collectan and barbie doll dressan.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

Other than the hand-holding, that pretty much sums up Fallout 1.

Master, Master, where's the dreams that I've been after?
Master, Master, you promised only lies
Laughter, laughter, all I hear or see is laughter
Laughter, laughter, laughing at my cries

 

[Naturaliensammler]

They stole superior Bethesda intellectual property!

Oh, wait...

This is a stupid picture. The lone warrior looking down on a city on the horizon is probably featured at least once in every SF or fantasy setting ever made. That he slowly turns his head to the camera doesn't help. Who uses red glowing eyes anymore anyway? If every game tries to be "cool", the way to stand out from this crowd is not to be retarded.

Bethesda wants to sell games. People love the badass look of that outfit. So they will buy it. Bethesda is not interested in being innovative or anything at all. They just want your $$. And your soul.

 

[FeelTheRads]

"More like Fallout 3" was in reference to the child-like writing and skill checks, obsession with gore, theme-park world, paper thin characters, banal plot, stupid quests, idiotic gameworld, and excessive hand-holding.

Other than the hand-holding, that pretty much sums up Fallout 1.

This is what Mastermind actually thinks!

 

[Chefe]

 

[ecliptic]

We [also] talked a lot about when it should occur in the timeline. Originally, we thought that it didn't take place after Fallout 3 and that it took place between Fallout 2 and Fallout 3. When Bethesda thinks about their worlds, they always want to be pressing forward. So every game just moves the timeline forward. That's one of the things they said "No," and that's why it takes place years after Fallout 3.

Don't want to confuse people on their 360s.

 

[Texas Red]

They stole superior Bethesda intellectual property!

Oh, wait...

This is a stupid picture. The lone warrior looking down on a city on the horizon is probably featured at least once in every SF or fantasy setting ever made. That he slowly turns his head to the camera doesn't help. Who uses red glowing eyes anymore anyway? If every game tries to be "cool", the way to stand out from this crowd is not to be retarded.

Bethesda wants to sell games. People love the badass look of that outfit. So they will buy it. Bethesda is not interested in being innovative or anything at all. They just want your $$. And your soul.

Now there's a good marketing strategy: try to imitate your competitors as closely as possible and hope your elven bikini armour is smaller than theirs.