RPGVault talks to Pete

Odin

Odin

Carbon Dated and Proud
Admin
RPGVault also took some time to talk to Pete Hines (Bethesda's Head PR guy), they asked when the deal came about and why Bethesda was interested in the license, here's what the man said:<blockquote>Fallout is something we've talked about internally for a long time. I'm pretty sure we made the initial approach. I don't remember when. I believe it was something we talked about with our president, Vlatko, at one point, who probably made the initial contact. Again, it's something that has been brought up internally, every now and then, for a long time.

We're big fans of the Fallout franchise and think it's a good fit for our skills and what we do well. Simply put, we think we can make a great Fallout 3 that lots and lots of people will want to buy.</blockquote>Being fans doesn't mean you can do it justice, but we'll see tho won't we..
Link: RPGVault talks to Pete
 
"We're big fans of the Fallout franchise and think it's a good fit for our skills and what we do well."


Eh?? Isn't this a direct contradiction to his earlier interviews
 
Yesterday: "We're not going to go away from what it is that we do best. We're not going to suddenly do a top-down isometric Baldur's Gate-style game, because that's not what we do well. "

Today: "We're big fans of the Fallout franchise and think it's a good fit for our skills and what we do well."

That just doesn't make sense.
 
Mr. Teatime said:
Yesterday: "We're not going to go away from what it is that we do best. We're not going to suddenly do a top-down isometric Baldur's Gate-style game, because that's not what we do well. "

Today: "We're big fans of the Fallout franchise and think it's a good fit for our skills and what we do well."

That just doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Tomorrow, they'll develop a 1984esque system of believing contradicting statements.
 
Perhaps they are different from Interplay and actually listen to us... perhaps they decided to change what they had in mind after reading the stuff we post!

yeah right
 
Yesterday: "We're not going to go away from what it is that we do best. We're not going to suddenly do a top-down isometric Baldur's Gate-style game, because that's not what we do well. "

Today: "We're big fans of the Fallout franchise and think it's a good fit for our skills and what we do well."

That just doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Hmmm let me guess... I think they're thinking doing honor to the franchise without making "a top-down isometric Baldur's Gate-style game" is possible and will be "a good fit for our skills and what we do well".

It only contradicts if you think its impossible to be a fan of the franchise and think a isometric view is not essential (or not necessarily a good thing for a new fallout). Its fairly simple some times.

Another possibily is of course that they realised the previous statement was a major fuck up and are trying to bullshit their way out of it. that of course would suck. But a least they realised how those things are thought of by the fanbase, and the statement from today might indicate a change of thought....
 
Mr. Teatime said:
Yesterday: "We're not going to go away from what it is that we do best. We're not going to suddenly do a top-down isometric Baldur's Gate-style game, because that's not what we do well. "

Today: "We're big fans of the Fallout franchise and think it's a good fit for our skills and what we do well."

That just doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

No, it makes perfect sense if you cut through the bullshit.

They're going to do Fallout 3 their way, and expect to sell a lot of it.
 
PR!!!!! i cant get over those people theyre like double agents fs! it goes to show theyre leaving all options open so they can figure out the best money making way and theyll stick to it.FINE! but i wont buy anything from them!

edit: i seem to be repeating what rosh said about money making, pardon me!
 
Yesterday: "We're not going to go away from what it is that we do best. We're not going to suddenly do a top-down isometric Baldur's Gate-style game, because that's not what we do well. "

Today: "We're big fans of the Fallout franchise and think it's a good fit for our skills and what we do well."

That just doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Ok. So the logic in the posts above is:

a) Fallout has a certain look
b) "What we do well" has a different look
c) therefore "it's a good fit for our skills" = false/ a lie / spin

Hmmm. Well that all depends on what your definition of "skills" is, isnt it?

Not to be Clinton-esque, but is it so far fetched to believe that the programming, development, artistic, comedic and visonary SKILLS that are necessary to make a worthwhile Fallout 3 title could be possesed by a group of people that dont follow the original look of Fallout?

Said a different way, would it be possible to make a fulfilling FO3 title while changing something previously guarded as untouchable canon?

You'd better hope so.
 
GameDev said:
(Snip a lot of bullshit.)
Click to expand...

They already said it would be "what they did best" and already made a firm comment about the view. I'm sorry you're too attention-whoring to have bothered to read the important facts, but hey, it works out for your schtick.

Said a different way, would it be possible to make a fulfilling FO3 title while changing something previously guarded as untouchable canon?

You'd better hope so.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you have to be at least brighter than bread mold to continue in any conversation on this forum.
 
Apparently not since you can't acknowledge simple points made with no insult.

Answer my question...dont avoid it.

Can ANYTHING at all ...anything previously regarded as "essential" be changed for Fallout 3 and have you deem the product decent?

If you cant answer that...well lets just see if you can or if you avoid the topic.
 
GameDev said:
anything previously regarded as "essential" be changed for Fallout 3 and have you deem the product decent?
Click to expand...

I think that me and Rosh talked on this earlier, and more or less it boils down to that it might be a nice game, but that doesn't matter. It won't be a good Fallout.
 
Of course you cant change something essential and still have something worth the name Fallout. Thats why it would be essential (because without it, it would be fallout). :roll:

the question is, what is essential
 
Hirle said:
Of course you cant change something essential and still have something worth the name Fallout. Thats why it would be essential (because without it, it would be fallout). :roll:

the question is, what is essential
Click to expand...

That's exactly where I wanted the next person to take the discussion.

The people here have a mental list of what's "essential" and comparing that to what they THINK they know about Bethesda and deciding there's no good way to marry the two.

What I think people ought to be doing is helping to discuss more of what they find important to the game...and seeing if there isnt a meeting point where the game can still be great.

So what could you lose from FO and still be happy. If you say "nothing" then you're merely digging your heels in and being obstinant. You should pick your battles.
 
I want to gain not lose things. Good sequals are made by adding to what originally made the game great not by taking them away.
 
So what could you lose from FO and still be happy. If you say "nothing" then you're merely digging your heels in and being obstinant. You should pick your battles.
Click to expand...

And why exactly do we have to "lose" anything?
 
jaberwocki said:
I want to gain not lose things. Good sequals are made by adding to what originally made the game great not by taking them away.
Click to expand...

Again this is a question of distilling the "essential" from the "worthwhile."

Surely for the greater good you could remove some things and add others to advance the experience and make it better than what came before?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top