aVENGER Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 Duck and Cover (a Fallout/RPG fansite) has done an interview with Bethesda's executive producer - Todd Howard regarding the upcoming Fallout 3 sequel: The interview Some interesting quotes: DAC: 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? TH: 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. ... DAC: Will you be using the SPECIAL system in Fallout 3? TH: Yes, we have rights to it and plan on using it. ... DAC: Are there any plans to have contact with developers who have worked on the franchise before, for consultation on the Fallout universe or any other aspect of development of Fallout 3? TH: Yes, that's already occurred. There's a lot of passion from everyone to see Fallout return. Hmm, the interview does sound promising, and it raises some of my hopes for FO3 again. Sure, it won't be BIS' Van Buren but it might turn out to be a decent game after all, and not merely 'Morrowind with guns'. BTW, that last part kind of intrigued me. Wouldn't it be somewhat ironic that, due to the recent events, the Troika developers who worked on the original FO1, get hired by Bethesda's and finally get a chance of making the sequel as a result of their own company going down? This is pure speculation, of course, but it would be great to see the creators of the series work on the long awaited sequel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 Everytime I remember this is going to be a console game too my hopes come crashing down. You have to wonder what effect that will have. Time will tell I guess, but for now I'm just not excited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brannart Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 I will need at least a screenshot before I start getting interested. I wonder how loyal they will be to the spirit of the gameplay and series Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirottu Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 Everytime I remember this is going to be a console game too my hopes come crashing down. You have to wonder what effect that will have. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Really? But that interview sounded quite promising. I personally don This post is not to be enjoyed, discussed, or referenced on company time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sammael Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 I've heard that Bethesda was quite impressed with the Van Buren stuff they acquired, and that they may end up using a large number of elements from VB for their incarnation of FO. I also know that Bethesda has had extensive contacts with quite a few former IPLY designers (FO, FO2, and VB), and even wanted to hire them as consultants. I am not sure how it all worked out in the end. There are no doors in Jefferson that are "special game locked" doors. There are no characters in that game that you can kill that will result in the game ending prematurely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeverwinterKnight Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 reading between the lines (and ones that are quite obvious), id surmise that as a "yes" to the special system, and a "no" to turnbased and 3/4 view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aVENGER Posted February 4, 2005 Author Share Posted February 4, 2005 Everytime I remember this is going to be a console game too my hopes come crashing down. You have to wonder what effect that will have. Agreed. This interview sounds pretty good, but than again Morrowind also seemed like an incredible genre-revolutionizing RPG on paper before it was released. I remember reading about some of its highly praised features in the FAQ and feeling really astonished. But after I've bought and played it, I felt that it was not such a great experience for me. Although most of the features were there, their execution wasn't so good, and ultimately, I was disappointed with the game. Still, the implications of using SPECIAL and the possiblity of Bethesda hiring developers who worked of the previous Fallout games do give me some hope for FO3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkreku Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 Well, at least he seems to acknowledge one of the main problems in the Elder Scrolls series in that interview: the NPC's and their dialogue. If they do as he says (20-40 deep NPC's) it'll be a whole lot better than Morrowind already. Also, using the SPECIAL system is almost forcing the game to become true to the old Fallout's. Lionheart is, of course, an example where even SPECIAL can't save the day, but as long as it's there, I think a lot of hardcore Fallout nutters will be pleased. I am, personally, hoping they change the combat to real time and the view to (optional) third person, over the shoulder. More game developers need to play Spellforce to see how well a combined RTS/third person viewed RPG can work. Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 Everytime I remember this is going to be a console game too my hopes come crashing down. You have to wonder what effect that will have. It's going to be odd for console gamers who have never heard about Fallout to suddenly see 'Fallout 3' on the shelves. I suppose they'll just name it 'Fallout: Stuff' as everyone seems to do these days. Anyway, I'm not too worried about it being a console title, too. After all, KotOR was an Xbox title mainly, if I'm not mistaken and it didn't turn out so bad. I am, personally, hoping they change the combat to real time and the view to (optional) third person, over the shoulder. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 reading between the lines (and ones that are quite obvious), id surmise that as a "yes" to the special system, and a "no" to turnbased and 3/4 view. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There is a theory that the game might function in over the shoulder or fp, but the camera swings out to 3/4 for TB combat. Heres hoping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 I am, personally, hoping they change the combat to real time and the view to (optional) third person, over the shoulder. More game developers need to play Spellforce to see how well a combined RTS/third person viewed RPG can work. FO isn't Spellforce. They bought the rights to Fallout. I'd hope they did that for a reason, namely to make a third FO. Not "hey, let's mix and match things we like from other games with the FO universe!". Besides, FO is, and should be, the opposite of twitch combat. Say what you want, but no matter how you dress it up, RT still depends on twitch combat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkreku Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 FO isn't Spellforce. No, really? The (rather obvious) point I was trying to make is that it's very possible to combine an isometric view with a third person view. Spellforce did it in style. Besides, FO is, and should be, the opposite of twitch combat. Say what you want, but no matter how you dress it up, RT still depends on twitch combat. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Should be? Only in your mind. Fortunately, in the real world, there's no law as to how the combat in a Fallout "should be". For me, the worst thing about Fallout was.. the combat. Fighting one rat took too long, the game became totally unbalanced as soon as I got hold of automatic weapons and, quite frankly, I thought the combat was rather boring. Maybe Bethesda can do it better? Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volourn Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 No. Bethesda sucks. Everything they touch sucks. Gothic 2 is 100 times better than anything Bethesda cna make. FO3 will be trash. It's that simple. I'd rather have ANYONE even the creators of POR2 make FO3 than Bethesda. Period. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oerwinde Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 If it comes out and is an over the shoulder or 1st peson game with real time combat.... heres hoping theres a really good mod community. The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 I've been waiting for this for a long time. FO3 will be trash. It's that simple. Proof, please? - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volourn Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 "Proof, please?" Elderscroll Series. Game over. Bethesda lose... my $80... though they might get my $20. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 That's not proof. That's just you stating your opinion about some games. You're going to have to do better than that. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darque Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 Everytime I remember this is going to be a console game too my hopes come crashing down. You have to wonder what effect that will have. Time will tell I guess, but for now I'm just not excited. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have no hope for Fallout 3. If it sucks, I'm out nothing. If it turns out to be good, I'll be unbelievably surprised and pleased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darque Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 FO isn't Spellforce. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thank goodness, because Spellforce sucked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volourn Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 "That's not proof. That's just you stating your opinion about some games. You're going to have to do better than that." What is this? A court of law? It's enough proof for me. That's what matters when it comes to my money. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aponez Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 FO isn't Spellforce. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thank goodness, because Spellforce sucked. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Spellforce wasn't so bad, at least not as bad as Warcraft III :D PRIUS FLAMMIS COMBUSTA QUAM ARMIS NUMANCIA VICTA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zer"0" Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 Well. Its a good interview. Nicely done, Mr.Teatime! A lot of relevant questions. And it seems like Bethsoft know they have something s.p.e.c.i.a.l. How to interpret/translate the answers is a different matter though. Why is it so hard for them to give straight-forward answers. It would put an end to all this speculation. e.g: 3/4 isometric view -> yes/no TB or RT -> yes/no instead of: "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? 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. Are they worried they would dissapoint anyone or what? I reckon folks shouldn't get their hopes up just yet. This game will be in development for a long time to come. I'm gonna wait till I see in-game screenshots of combat and dialogue, or a movie clip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeverwinterKnight Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 I have no hope for Fallout 3. If it sucks, I'm out nothing. If it turns out to be good, I'll be unbelievably surprised and pleased. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> im looking forward to it. even if its halfway decent ill be satisfied, since the more rpgs there are, the better for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 What is this? A court of law? It's enough proof for me. That's what matters when it comes to my money. Hey man, don't get all defensive on me just because I'm using your own logic against you. I'm just pulling a Volourn here... you do that all the time. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volourn Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 "Hey man, don't get all defensive on me just because I'm using your own logic against you. I'm just pulling a Volourn here... you do that all the time." My logic is my logic. " DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now