Chatting with Vault Dwellers from PAX

[taag]

Glad to hear the game atmosphere's spot on. That's what's most important to me.

Beth licensed (and then bought) the franchise pretty soon after it was made available. It's not as if no one was interested in it for 6 years until Bethesda saved it by buying it.

Was there anybody else interested in the license?

good music, pretty decent story (I don't know what is wrong about it), miscellaneous world, good voice actors, the whole idea of magic and technology- pretty original.

The Arcanum hype was pretty high back then. I remember the game being declared as a Fallout (but much better) set in an even more original world. But it failed to deliver sadly, reviewers sort of remembered the hype. It even boasted your character could dual-wield pistols. Eh.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

I was with you guys until the last two questions at which point I facepalmed. Your answer to what you liked most about the game sounds like one of those "Real customer testimonials!" on an infomercial and your answer to the last question showed a level of enthusiasm which doesn't really help your case as skeptics. Still, you're right that they aren't likely to post any interview which is damning and are likely to edit/modify any interview they do post to be as possitive as possible.

Out of curiosity, did you guys get more time with the game than most people at PAX? I thought people were only given 15 minutes there... Thumbs up on the costumes by the way.

We got about an hour with the game, which is more than most at PAX got. I can't vouch for my companions' answers to the final question, but I tried to pick what I liked and be honest about it. I personally don't feel that VATS equates to turn-based, but for a more in-depth explanation of that answer you'd have to talk to Chad

We passed the controller around and took turns with the game. We wanted to beeline straight to Megaton so we could check out the dialogue side of the game rather than combat, but we ran into a lot of encounters along the way. These weren't all necessarily combat encounters, such as the BOS paladin, however my reply "get that fucking gun out of my face," sort of turned it into a combat encounter, and she proceeded to light me up with her laser rifle. I liked that I could have the option of not taking any crap from an NPC obviously way more powerful than I was and that there were consequences for mouthing off. I think Bethesda took the criticism of level-scaling in Oblivion to heart, and that's what drove my final comment:

"Zac: I liked that I could start trouble with anyone I felt and that it didn’t feel like the game was pulling any punches. Also the atmosphere was dead-on."

That's always the risk of short answers, they run the risk of not providing enough info to really justify themselves. As for level scaling, I think the damage that their new system may cause will only be apparent in the full game once you're a ways in. Last I read, they lock, for the rest of the game, the areas at whatever encounter level that adjust to the first time you enter it which means that if you do a lot of exploring that the game might be too easy and thus not fun later on. I'd like to hear Chad's view as to how VATS equates in any way to turn-based, I don't think the facts are in his favour but hearing what he has to say about this and VATS in general would be interesting.

The whole sequel/spin-off debate aside (which you are probably aware of, having lurked here), would you really say it is faithful enough to any of the other elements that comprised Fallout? Because it seems to me that even with regards to lore, setting and even feel it just doesn't cut it.

As far as lore, I wouldn't be able to tell, though apparently Bethesda are keeping a lot of the story of Fallout 3 close to the vest and assure us that everything will be faithful, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Ditto for setting. As for feel, that's the part where I'll say I was pleasantly surprised. Apart from the NPCs having that "Oblivion" feel to them, moving around in the wasteland and everything else just felt "right." I noticed while I was playing that the beams from a BOS laser rifle looked pretty much exactly like the ones in Fallout, only 3D. Whatever the flaws of the game, I feel that the level of quality on overall presentation is very high, and really does feel like Fallout to me.

Do you have some more specific things that made it feel like Fallout when wandering around? You liked being able to get yourself killed in dialogue and the look of the lasers but if you have more specifics that'd be great (this stuff isn't always easy to put into words, just fishing for more info).

Should the series have remained dead, it would likely lose some of its value (most people even say Beth paid too much as it was), and maybe could have been picked up by a company that would have done it more justice - say, Troika. I just can’t bring myself to prefer anyone taking a shot at it, especially if it buries the originals' entire design philosophy under TES-derivative elements forever.

That's a big "if," and while I loved Bloodlines, it really did have a lot of technical issues, and frankly Arcanum was crap. Also Troika went off the radar in 2005. I'd imagine a more likely scenario would be that someone like Bioware might pick it up, but then we could just take everything that's already been said and replace the word "Oblivion" with "Mass Effect" I guess it all comes down to personal choice. I'd rather have a Fallout than no Fallout.

I'd agree that it's overly optimistic to assume that Troika could have finished the game and not gone belly up but I still think that at least Bioware would have likely picked it up. That said, I have a love hate relationship with Bioware, I see a lot of potential in their games but they tend to make some pretty knarly mistakes in a lot of their games. Still, they would have made a RTwP sequel that would have arguably been a sequel rather than a game which is clearly a spin-off.

Oh by the way, you mention SDK a couple times and I thought I'd just remind you that they have said that they are not currently working on them while they have already started on DLC, so any hopes for changes/improvements from fans via SDK isn't going to happen in the short-term after Fallout 3 is released. That is all assuming that you don't have any new information regarding an SDK for Fallout 3.

Actually, one of my first questions to Todd Howard was "Will I see a SDK?" to which I got the standard line, DLC, finishing the game, yada yada yada. Then I said "What about a year from now?" and he assured me that definitely within a year there would be a SDK. Of course this is off-record and I could be lying or remembering the conversation wrong, or he could have been blowing smoke up my ass to get me to stop asking questions, but hopefully all that's not the case. I told him the first thing I'd want is a child-killer mod. He and Pete laughed.

That's cool and not really surprising but it carries the problem of off the record comments and promises, they can be completely disregarded with no major negetive effects commonly associated with completely going against one's word. Add the fact that Todd (the man who brought us the Oblivion RAI demo) said it and you have plenty to be skeptical of. Still, at least it's promising and provides a reason for those interested to not completely ignore news about the game but I wouldn't say that it's enough to justify the purchase for folks who "need" a SDK.

If I remember right you said that you liked VATS better than you were expecting, do you think that it has long term appeal? Do you think that the cutscenes will get boring after dozens of hours of play?

Also, if you don't mind, what do you and your friends think about Oblivion (if you've played it)? I ask not so that you can be assaulted for loving or hating it but simply to get an idea of what types of gameplay you guys like.

 

[ookami]

I'd rather have a Fallout than no Fallout.

I really don't understand this sentiment. FOPOS was technically a Fallout. I'd much rather have had no Fallout at that time than that stain on the franchise. But it's easier to ignore POS because it was just a spin-off. Bethesda seems to be making a rather decent Fallout spin-off (which would be a positive thing for the franchise), but undeserving of the sequel title (except in the legal terms). A spin-off style game named as a sequel is not something good for the series.

 

[Ausir]

That's a big "if," and while I loved Bloodlines, it really did have a lot of technical issues, and frankly Arcanum was crap. Also Troika went off the radar in 2005.

I very much disagree with your opinion on Arcanum - it's my #2 best game ever.

And Troika went off the radar in part because they didn't manage to acquire the license for Fallout 3, and their publisher wasn't interested in publishing a generic, non-Fallout post-apocalyptic game (while they would be in publishing a Fallout 3).

 

[FeelTheRads]

I really don't understand this sentiment.

Let me explain:

- It's a pick-up line on GameSpy. Chicks just fall for it.
- Denotes no taste whatsoever. Anything goes.

 

[taag]

And Troika went off the radar in part because they didn't manage to acquire the license for Fallout 3

That's incorrect. Leonard from Troika said they never placed a bid for Fallout license because they just didn't have the money for it. They did approach Bethesda about working together on it though.

 

[Ausir]

They didn't have enough money to outbid Bethesda, but if Bethesda hadn't purchased it, together with Activision they might have been able to license the rights to a Fallout 3.

And even aside from Bethesda and Troika, do you seriously think that no one else was or would be interested in the license? Bethesda simply was the highest bidder, not the lone rescuer of a forgotten license no one else wanted.

 

[taag]

I asked you that a few posts earlier but you didn't notice, I presume. So, who else was interested?

 

[Ausir]

We don't know that, since that information is not normally made public. But as far as I know, Bethesda was only the highest bidder, not the only bidder.

 

[taag]

Well aside from Bioware I can't imagine who else could pay that amount money. Obsidian's CEO expressed himself as "We never made a bid" also.

Anyway, it was probably the publishers who placed the bids, not development houses

 

[Ausir]

Yup. If Troika had had a chance to make a bid, they also wouldn't make it alone, but together with Activision.

 

[zbond]

Did you guys get to drink a lot of BAWLS at PAX?
(Note: BAWLS is the "official-unofficial" drink of the Penny Arcade Expo)

Oh man I wish. Free BAWLS used to be everywhere at PAX, and the sound of an empty BAWLS bottle clattering over a concrete floor was ubiquitous. Unfortunately since PAX moved to Seattle there's some mandatory vendor deal with the convention center that prevents any private food and drink sales. So no more BAWLS.

I'd like to hear Chad's view as to how VATS equates in any way to turn-based, I don't think the facts are in his favour but hearing what he has to say about this and VATS in general would be interesting.

It's probably not too likely that Chad's going to come comment here, but I'll take a crack at interpreting his comment since I've known him for a while. He said: "I was surprised how much I liked VATS, which did a lot to soothe my irrational longing for turn-based combat."

...Not exactly "VATS = Turn-based." I think what he was trying to say was that he was of a mind that Fallout couldn't work without turn-based combat, but after he tried VATS he found it wasn't as bad an alternative as he was expecting. That's as far as I'll interpret.

Do you have some more specific things that made it feel like Fallout when wandering around? You liked being able to get yourself killed in dialogue and the look of the lasers but if you have more specifics that'd be great (this stuff isn't always easy to put into words, just fishing for more info).

It's difficult to put into words. I like the way the raiders looked, very slap-dash and dirty, but with that 80's S&M Road Warrior vibe. Gone is the insane bloom of Oblivion and the wasteland is very washed-out and desolate. I expected to hear the booming peals of their orchestral soundtrack but for the most part I don't remember the music, it was mostly minimal and nestled in the background. I liked the way the walls of Megaton looked, they reminded me of Junktown. I enjoyed the number of dialogue options I had with most NPCs and the ability to run the gamut between boy scout and jackass when speaking to them. I almost forgot one of the things I liked most: ammo was scarce. In the version we played, we usually had enough 10mm ammo, but anything else seemed quite hard to come by. I feel this is likely to change in the final version however, as the demo was played with a hacked character who had a lot of weapons and items he shouldn't have.

If I remember right you said that you liked VATS better than you were expecting, do you think that it has long term appeal? Do you think that the cutscenes will get boring after dozens of hours of play?

I did like VATS better than I was expecting, but then again I was expecting to hate it. I do think the cutscenes would begin to wear on one after a while, and I asked someone if they could be skipped or turned off in the options, but he didn't know (Todd and Pete weren't present for our play time) though the cutscenes were certainly entertaining, and they're also a lot more gratifying when you're the one playing the game instead of just watching

Also, if you don't mind, what do you and your friends think about Oblivion (if you've played it)? I ask not so that you can be assaulted for loving or hating it but simply to get an idea of what types of gameplay you guys like.

We've all played Oblivion. I've actually played all the Elder Scrolls games since Arena in 1994. When I first got Oblivion I hated it for pretty much every reason you can come up with. About a year later I came back to it armed with the Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul mod, which in my opinion made it playable. It removed level scaling, changed the economy and a ton of other things in the game. I regarded them as "fixes" and was thankful that an SDK existed. There was still the problem of the crummy story, repetitive Oblivion gates, AI bugs, the fact that your character could be everything to everyone and the world didn't change a bit based on your character's actions. But I still logged considerable time with the game, and particularly enjoyed the Dark Brotherhood quest line, which was a little gem of storytelling, dialogue and intrigue nestled in an otherwise unremarkable game. When I heard they'd taken the guy that wrote that storyline and put him in a position of importance in Fallout 3, I was cautiously optimistic.

I'm not going to carry on the Troika/Arcanum/VTM: Bloodlines debate, as de gustibus non est disputandum and all that

I really don't understand this sentiment. FOPOS was technically a Fallout. I'd much rather have had no Fallout at that time than that stain on the franchise. But it's easier to ignore POS because it was just a spin-off. Bethesda seems to be making a rather decent Fallout spin-off (which would be a positive thing for the franchise), but undeserving of the sequel title (except in the legal terms). A spin-off style game named as a sequel is not something good for the series.

I try not to acknowledge POS' existence as a Fallout game. I see your point, but I don't think there's really a comparison between a shitty budget title cashing in on a license and someone actually trying to make a decent sequel.

And I do believe Bethesda are trying. I don't think they're sitting in a room somewhere counting money and laughing maniacally, coming up with ways to deliberately piss off the Fallout fan base. There are going to be lots of things about Fallout 3 that I don't like, but then, if someone gave me a ton of money and developers and writers and told me or Brother None or Killapp or UncannyGarlic to make Fallout 3 10 years after the fact, I'm sure there'd be plenty of things people wouldn't like about it, which is why I'm willing to cut Bethesda a little slack and hold out hope that I wasn't being lied to about the SDK.

 

[alec]

"Chad, Zac and Jav went to PAX."

Does anyone else think that sounds like the first sentence of a joke?

But hey, all fun aside, those thingimajigs they made look pretty cool. Especially that PipBoy2000.

I asked you that a few posts earlier but you didn't notice, I presume. So, who else was interested?

I think I remember reading that BioWare did a bid as well (read it on Terra Arcanum, IIRC).

 

[Seymour the spore plant]

That's a big "if," and while I loved Bloodlines, it really did have a lot of technical issues, and frankly Arcanum was crap. Also Troika went off the radar in 2005.

Maybe not that big. As Ausir put it, perhaps if they did manage to get their hands on the rights to Fallout they could have attracted publishers and investors and keep the company from going under - a win/win situation, if I ever saw one. As for bugs, I'll have to quote DirtyDreamDesigner on that: "Bugs can be fixed but shitty design is forever".

I see your point, but I don't think there's really a comparison between a shitty budget title cashing in on a license and someone actually trying to make a decent sequel.

To be perfectly honest with you, I don't see how PoS was any different in the "cashing in" department. Sure, Fallout 3 turned out worlds better (hard not to), but in essence both are very much the same thing - someone taking a "dead" franchise and stripping it of several of its components in order to increase its appeal to a larger mainstream audience. The difference is merely one of execution, not conceptual.

Now, I don't believe anyone (not even Chuck Cuevas) deliberately tries to fuck up a game simply to laugh at the fanbase, it's just that they make lots of these compromises in order to reach ludicrous sales numbers based on what the suits tell them, plus the fact that these devs obviously misunderstand the setting. Bethesda's "motherfuckers" and "gimp" jokes are good examples of that failing to comprehend the original's humor, even if they're not on the same degree of lameness as PoS's comic-bookey "badass muscley guys and near-naked women" schtick.

 

[thefalloutfan]

So, zbond, you were surprised that the game played well? As in, you had doubts that it would be a good game before actually playing it yourself? From what I've seen, I've decided that it's not like the previous fallouts, where gameplay made them 'Fallout' for me, so I'm looking at this game as a seperate game in its own right.

Btw, that pipboy2000 is awesome.

 

[taag]

I think I remember reading that BioWare did a bid as well (read it on Terra Arcanum, IIRC).

So they opted for Mass Effect IP after the deal fell through or was that earlier?

 

[zbond]

I see your point, but I don't think there's really a comparison between a shitty budget title cashing in on a license and someone actually trying to make a decent sequel.

To be perfectly honest with you, I don't see how PoS was any different in the "cashing in" department...

I think you've misinterpreted my statement. We are in agreement that POS was the shitty cash-in title. Are you saying you see no difference in the motives behind POS and Fallout 3? POS was a desperate Herve Caen trying to squeeze the last dollar out of his company's franchises before Interplay went belly-up-- Fallout 3 is a genuine attempt at an authentic sequel. The suits are messing with it, to be sure, but the difference in intention between the two titles is plain.

 

[taag]

Companies create games to cash in. As much as they can. If someone thinks otherwise, they're being delusional and are lying to themselves.

 

[Seymour the spore plant]

I think you've misinterpreted my statement.

Nah, it's just my wording that was a bit off. I meant "I don't see how PoS was any different from Fallout 3 in the 'cashing in' department". Sorry about that.

Are you saying you see no difference in the motives behind POS and Fallout 3?

Motive and intention are absolutely meaningless to me in this case, especially because they are impossible to determine. Both companies did the exact same thing (only, as I stated, to different degrees), and it matters not if Bethesda uses the lovey-dovey "golly, we are such huge fans" approach, their actions speak louder - and they don't show me an inkling of care for the original vision, neither with gameplay nor any other element. You know what they say about good intentions.

But even if we did go into the motives debate, I would argue that the decision to buy the franchise was most likely business-driven, to diversify their IPs. Turning down an offer to work with some of the originals' creators doesn't sound to me like something a fan of anything would do, ever. Bethesda did.

 

[thefalloutfan]

Bethesda did.

Wow what an utterly stupid thread I fear some of them are actually adults.