Feargus Urquhart interview on Gamasutra

[Lingwei]

Is it:

A) stimpack
B) stimpak
c) stim pak
D) stim pack

The answer: None of the above. It's "Stimpak." Hence the importance of a game style guide.

Right. Yes. There were discussions early on, like, "Do we make stimpacks outside of hardcore mode?" That is, even when you're just playing on normal mode, maybe that's the one big change we make: stimpacks actually do take time to apply, no matter what.

I think Mr Urquhart needs to re-read the game style guide...

 

[Per]

Assuming it was an email interview.

 

[PaladinHeart]

Aren't they all email interviews? That's what I usually assume anyway...

 

[Per]

It says in the first couple of paragraphs that they "sat down with" FU, but this is often journalist code for "swapped a few emails with".

 

[Lexx]

Many interviews nowdays are nothing more than a kind of Q and A letter.

 

[PaladinHeart]

That's not really an interview. It's just fan mail with the name of a website or whatever behind it. Otherwise they wouldn't give em the time of day.

Edit: And a lot of times they just take questions from the community (usually in a thread asking them what they'd like to ask so-and-so) and put them together, and send those. To me, that means they can't even think of the questions themselves. Heh. "Journalism"...

 

[BarackSays]

Mor: you're still generalizing over an entire population, making assumptions you shouldn't and then insulting them. That's all there is to it, so stop it.

Also, besides not wanting to insult other games due to employment considerations, he's making one of these games now. He's not going to say "yeah, well, the game I'm making now isn't really Fallout because it doesn't have the mechanics" even if he thinks that, which he probably doesn't.

Is this not generalizing?

Just as with any of the other original Fallout developers who have commented positively about Fallout 3, if that is Feargus's honest opinion, then he has shitty taste in videogames. Nothing more or less than that.

Luckily, anyone from the team having drank too much, consumed too much LSD, or just having whatever mental lapse that makes them honestly believe Fallout 3 captured anything that made the original Fallouts great -- which it clearly doesn't -- doesn't retroactively damage their previous efforts, so whatever floats Feargus's boat I guess.

So if I'm a fan of Fallout 1, 2 AND 3 I'm obviously on drugs.

 

[terebikun]

So if I'm a fan of Fallout 1, 2 AND 3 I'm obviously on drugs.

Oh man, now you're generalizing! He said LSD, not just any drugs!

Also, I always love the comparison of Fallout to Diablo or Starcraft, as if it had half the fanbase or brand loyalty. And how most people have been unable to refute the "NMA should point out to newcomers that most people here passionately dislike F3" argument without themselves pointing out how they dislike F3.

Newcomers! I like Fallout 3! Apparently a few other dudes in this thread too, who are all probably totally neat! We may be in the statistical minority here, but forming conclusions based on that is uncomfortably close to racial profiling, so don't be afraid!

 

[Brother None]

them honestly believe Fallout 3 captured anything that made the original Fallouts great -- which it clearly doesn't

So if I'm a fan of Fallout 1, 2 AND 3 I'm obviously on drugs.

Actually that's not what he said, at all, is it? You're twisting his words.

Not that I agree with him or his "anything" assessment. Fallout 3 obviously captured some things that made Fallout 1/2 great. How much? That's up to you. Everything? That's a bit delusional.

 

[Kerr-Plomb]

Concerning the market thing. I'm not saying I think it's good that there are no isometric games out there. Yes, Diablo, but Diablo is not strong because of the perspective, it's a name which is worth tons of gold, just as warcraft and starcraft are, look at starcraft 2. No innovation, old graphics and gameplay, millions sold.

Diablo's name is worth a lot of money because Diablo and Diablo 2 were both excellent games. StarCraft 2 appears pretty good to me and it certainly has some improvements and has differences (many of the units) from StarCraft. Sure, it's name and Blizzards are the reason that it sold so fast but that doesn't mean that it's a bad game.

I bought the game myself, I just think the hype is unneeded, it's a game between 80-90 points, depending on taste and preference, but all those 96% and whatever are simply, I don't know, it is like they think they have to give it that much no matter what because it's part two of the great starcraft.

 

[LionXavier]

I always love the comparison of Fallout to Diablo or Starcraft, as if it had half the fanbase or brand loyalty.

You kwon, I also love this comparison, because it leaves those who affirm that top-down/isometric is dead without arguments, having then to resort to poor excuses like fanbase and brand loyality, which contradict the fact that in the first days after release they largely outsell their predecessors. Seriously, if it really were a matter of names, the interest and money put by Bethesda in obtaining the Fallout brand would justify making a game in the style of the original titles.

Fallout 3 obviously captured some things that made Fallout 1/2 great.

Really?... 'cause, you know, I wouldn't call the Vault Boy, the names of the things/factions and the sounds of in/out of combat "things that made Fallout 1/2 great".

I bought the game myself, I just think the hype is unneeded, it's a game between 80-90 points, depending on taste and preference, but all those 96% and whatever are simply, I don't know, it is like they think they have to give it that much no matter what because it's part two of the great starcraft.

I don't blame you; that's exactly what I thought about the score given to Fallout 3: somehow, they had to score it that high because it's part two of the "great" Oblivion.

 

[Brother None]

Fallout 3 obviously captured some things that made Fallout 1/2 great.

Really?... 'cause, you know, I wouldn't call the Vault Boy, the names of the things/factions and the sounds of in/out of combat "things that made Fallout 1/2 great".

They're a part of it, especially Vault Boy. How big a part is something you can argue about.

But I was thinking more some of the visuals, especially of the Vaults (except the door), the quest design including some black humor choice and consequence (Tenpenny Tower) and some nice moments like Relay Tower KX-B8-11.

 

[Lexx]

Not to forgot the Robobrain robots.

 

[alec]

And the samurai in the flying saucer.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Whats this thread about again? Fargus or something?

 

[shihonage]

The only explanation I have for someone who claims to have equally enjoyed Fallout 1, 2 and 3, and fails to see major differences in quality there, is the following:

If you play

Diablo like Diablo,
Fallout 1 like Diablo,
Fallout 2 like Diablo,
Fallout 3 like Diablo,

then indeed you won't notice much - just put in some numbers for character stats, click past quest descriptions, and go kill random entity #55 and come back for reward. And don't forget to max out your equipment!

On that level of awareness, all these games are just Diablo, only with more talking NPCs.

 

[terebikun]

You kwon, I also love this comparison, because it leaves those who affirm that top-down/isometric is dead without arguments, having then to resort to poor excuses like fanbase and brand loyality, which contradict the fact that in the first days after release they largely outsell their predecessors. Seriously, if it really were a matter of names, the interest and money put by Bethesda in obtaining the Fallout brand would justify making a game in the style of the original titles.

First, I didn't say that top-down is dead, but I will say that from a business standpoint, Bethesda's decision to use Oblivion mechanics over the old ones was the better move. Because, like you said, if it were a matter of names, Oblivion at the time had a larger fanbase to draw on. Not that top-down couldn't have sold well, but FPS was going to sell more. For proof, try to imagine a Bethesda-made top-down F3 outselling the current one. I just can't picture it.
Second, fanbase and brand loyalty are one of the biggest reasons sequels can outsell their predecessors, especially considering the first days of release. People are more likely to buy things they are familiar with. This is true in any media. I don't know how this contradicts anything.

Anyways, semi-on topic, I'm curious about this "Slam Dunk" concept.

 

[fedaykin]

And how most people have been unable to refute the "NMA should point out to newcomers that most people here passionately dislike F3" argument without themselves pointing out how they dislike F3.

As if that's some kind of profound argument that needs refuting. You're in a Fallout fan forum. You can read. You can think. You may encounter some people who dislike one or several games in the franchise. Big surprise there. Why should any kind of extra labelling necessary? If you don't want to debate...just don't.

 

[terebikun]

If you don't want to debate...just don't.

I love debate! But every time the F3 arguments get into full swing, it's followed by a number of people saying how tired they are of said debates. I think it was an interesting hypothetical solution.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Whats Dairy Queen have to do with this?

They taste awesome! :p Bad editing is the real answer.

I bought the game myself, I just think the hype is unneeded, it's a game between 80-90 points, depending on taste and preference, but all those 96% and whatever are simply, I don't know, it is like they think they have to give it that much no matter what because it's part two of the great starcraft.

Game journalism is has big issues with professionalism, objectivity, and conflict of interest so you'll get no argument from me. I haven't played it yet so I can't weigh in on how good it is.