No, you read that right.

Looking at his games, and the sort of RPG systems he makes; I highly doubt Todd Howard would have made a very good turn-based, traditional, Fallout game. If he'd tacked on some turn-based options, it probably would have taken away from something else in trying to fit that in, and it probably still wouldn't have worked all that well.

Edit - Fallout 1 and 2 themselves weren't exactly the high point of turn-based rules. I'm a bit partial to them, but I doubt Bethesda would have pulled off something that did justice to even that system, to be honest. It would most realistically have been sub-par combat in the game; even in relation to the original system. And I'm not going to play a game just because it's turn-based. If it's a sub-par turn-based game, then I'd just as soon as they make a halfway-decent action game instead. I didn't buy Fallout 3 just because it was a Fallout game - I bought it because it looked like a well-made game. If it ended up being a poorly-implemented turn-based game, then I wouldn't have bothered with it. (And I'm coming at this as someone who prefers turn-based games, all things being equal.)

In other words - I think he made a "better" action RPG than he would have made a traditional Fallout game. (And the only reason to have gone more traditional would have been to please other people.) Look at the games he makes - he obivously likes a certain type of RPG. Emil as well. To have done any other type of game for Fallout 3, would only have been specifically to please us older fans. It wouldn't have been the game they're obviously more comfortable making. ie, it would have been diluted to please other people and not themselves...

Ah ok, that's what you meant. I wouldn't call that diluted, frankly the game is that right now, but cheap appeals to 'traditional' fans would not be a good thing I agree. But turn based and the view are probably the most minor things the 'traditional' fans have complaint with.

It's pretty simple to me, if I was a successful developer I would want to make a Fallout sequel, that would be at the top of the list, the atmosphere, storyline, and characters are the most interesting I have ever played.

We already have something like that in the form of the BoS and Enclave appearances in FO3.

It's also a bit of a chicken/ egg conundrum. Does Todd Howard make the sort of games he does because he knows that's what "the masses" want, or does he just happen to enjoy those types of games, as well? Is he making games for a target audience, or does he happen to fit into the target audience he's making game for? One of my room-mates when I was at school was a Film/Video major. He wasn't that stereotypical avant-garde, beret-wearing sort of film student, either. He wanted to make exactly the sort of films he was a fan of. Which happened to be those blockbuster summer movie type of films. He worshipped guys like Micheal Bay, and last I talked to him, he's even quite a big Uwe Bolle fan.

He hasn't really got his "big break" yet, but the stuff of his I've seen so far epitomize that "style of over substance" philosophy that tends to draw big audiences at the box office. It's not because he thinks that's what everyone else wants - those are the sort of movies he's a fan of; so those are the sort of movies he wants to make some day.

I get kind of the same impression with Todd Howard, as well. Ammo doesn't weigh anything in Fallout 3, because that's probably an aspect he found tedious, as well. You get a perk every level, because he probably always wished his character could gain a perk every level when he was playing Fallout 1 and 2.

(I don't mean that in a demeaning way, either - Bethesda has certain other strengths that play more to my tastes; I just happen to disagree on some other philosophical points. I don't want to turn this into a "casual," vs "hardcoe" thing. Mostly because I think those are inaccurate terms and not terribly apt for real-world comparisons.)

I think Morrowind and Oblivion were the most ideal concepts for a video game, for hardcoe or casual fans, a large world where you do what you want, you create your character, it tries to mimick real life, and everything is made to seem tangible, that's pretty much the zenith of video game potential

Along the way some things got dumbed down, especially in Oblivion, Fallout 3 became even more shallow

I don't think Todd Howard is a style over substance video game developer, I don't know if it's presure from the publishers or maybe they're losing their touch, but really the concepts behind Morrowind and Oblivion were pretty bold, but their games seem to get dumber as we go.

There might realistically have been some pressure from the publishers. But that would be ZeniMax, which was basically started by Bethesda in the first place.

Hmmm, imo I thought FO3 was much more deaper than Oblivion. I thought the locations were more unique, the quests had more options and were longer, and exploration segment of the game was better done. It might be because I have Oblivion for the 360 and FO3 for PC, though :shrug:

And Harold, FEV, SMs... But throwing in a half-assed turn based and isometric view would be worse fan-service.

True. But come on, how bad can the guy be if he's married to Wonder Woman?

I think if you make a game for a "target audience", you're pretty much doomed to failure.

I think Todd knows he's an "average demographic kinda guy" so anything he likes is likely to be liked by the average person. The more you fit into that mindset, the more likely you are to appreciate what he does.

It's a lot like when I saw an interview with Todd and he said almost word-for-word something I'd written in a post here. At first I was kinda freaked out by it, but then I realised that if you start in the same place and are headed in the same direction, you'll likely reach the same destination at the same time. It's not like I have this extraordinary psychic connection to Todd. It's just that as the Average Person, I happen to relate comfortably to this other Average Person and know exactly where they're coming from. He's just like me, only smarter.


People talk a lot about dumbing down, but I find the earlier games needlessly cluttered and pointlessly complicated. I just want to get on with playing them. I like to customise my character, but I get bored spending ages in the chargen screen. Actually, that was one thing I liked about Fallout - having the option of preset characters. I enjoy customisation but I hate faffing with stats. Like, shut up already - I don't care - just let me play the damn game.

Wow, you're impatient, heh. Ages on the screen but there's not -that- much to do on the screen, unless you're trying to powergame but why do that on the first playthrough. You can indeed design a game for a target audience, look at Arma 2. That's not designed for the COD4 or Quake crowds in mind, and I don't feel the game is a failure. Unless you're of the though that less than #1 is a failure.

Are we comparing Duke 3d to Duke2 & FO1 to FO3? (or comparing Duke 3D and Duke Manhattan Project to Duke 2 ?). I love Duke 3D, but Duke MP is basically Duke 2 in a full 3D engine.

Funny but there is a correlation with these games to FO3... Duke 1 & 2 can {by a wild stretch} be likened to FO1&2; And FO3 {by the same stretch} likened to Duke 3D ~and Duke Manhattan Project to the fictional FO3 that [IMO] should have been made instead of the current FO3. (Now don't go comparing them directly ~ A lot of folks hated DN-MP, and I preferred Duke 3D, but the example and its abstract relations should be apparent).


I believe he has stated that the play testers were surprised that they did not get a perk when leveling... so they changed it.


I heartily disagree ~not with you personally, but the idea that "a large world where you do what you want, you create your character, it tries to mimick real life, and everything is made to seem tangible" is any kind of zenith ~I'd hate it if it were true. Its far too limiting, and I play games to escape reality with a mental abstraction/distraction ~not jump from mine into another's. So far I've played Chessmaster9000 more than FO3, (which I bought first), not counting GECK testing, and the height of PC game design ~ an FPP havok enabled Chess program is not. The game is far greater for its abstraction, and would be damaged badly were someone to try to make it "more real", or imitate reality. That's just not the point of the game.

As for RPG's... I would love to play an RPG based on the [fictional] life & times of Zatoichi, and perhaps I'd be only too interested in an FPP version of the game as you describe being the Zenith. To experience the world exactly as he would (in DX9 or better and with 7.1 surround sound). :rolleyes:

~But I kind of think that the best style for that game would ultimately turn out to be a TB ISO-3D combat RPG.
and I'd probably love it if it were a mechanical clone of Fallout 2 or ToEE.


Depends on your target audience.

As to What he liked about FO... I've said this before...
Its a bit like two friends at the theater, watching Fantasia ~one is blind the other is deaf.

The first one loves the film for its fantastic visual animations ~while the other drifts off into the rich musical performances ~Neither one understands why the other likes the film. If the first fellow went on to make a film based on Fantasia, with all that he loved in the original... Would it satisfy his friend, who loved it for reasons that the first man clearly cannot see? (nor would care about?)

I don't understand... how is "a large world, where you can do whatever you want, yadda yadda" limiting?

Because you only engage in small tasks, and (in TES at least), you only do them from your PC's limited perspective.
If all games were restricted to FPP invented worlds with the intent of photo realistic simulation... It'd get boring rather quick I'd imagine.

Consider a game like "Connect Four". When people play it, most don't concern themselves with any details other than chip position, and potential development ~that's the same as Chess and Go, and Othello! Additional detail is irrelevant to the game. Take the game HQ for instance. The player plays on a global scale and is attempting to conquer Asia and Africa in real time. The player is far more concerned with battalion attrition, than terrain color, and a single man finding a better handgun. This is part of the limitation I mean.

When I play Fallout, I size up the raiders and monsters by class; I couldn't care less what hair styles they wear, or what their faces look like ~because it has no bearing on the game play. All that matters is their disposition, base potential, and what they are armed with. Simulating the extreme minutiae of the Fallout world is IMO pretty insignificant, and strays away from the core gameplay of the series.. (It also fills in all of the blanks ~Imagine someone gave you a "paint by numbers" book with a dozen projects ~but all of them were 90% pre-painted ~The object of the activity is to paint, not to have a painting). The Object of an RPG is to imagine, not win; and with a CRPG, it is to find a careful balance between getting the PC to handle the details of the mechanics and convey pertinent information well, but not force feed it to completion with no real participation by the player. Detail to extreme measure is quite damaging to an RPG setting IMO.
_______________________________
Personally, I don't mind the ability to zoom in close and examine a detailed environment, but if it were possible in say.. HQ... Who would really care? The game has 50 battles going on simultaneously across the continents, and dropping down to a single unit is a waste of your time and would make you effectively blind to the bigger picture. ~Just like if you were to try to play Dawn of War from the FPP view of a single SpaceMarine.

Edit:
Small example: I liked the dragons in Baldur's Gate 2, because they were the right size and the right shape. The game provides a good "roughing out" of the occurrences in the game's narrative. It lets me imagine the scene in greater detail (both visually, and in the actions of my PC's). Games can actually depict such scenes in extreme detail now, but in doing that they don't allow me to imagine the scene in ~my~ greater detail anymore; which was the fun IMO.

Exactly. (I'm not saying that's a bad thing, either.) I would have rather had a different Fallout 3, if I had my druthers - this isn't the game I'd been waiting ten years for. But if Todd had a direct line to my mindset and had tried to make something that appealed specifically to me, it would have come out as a diluted exerience, because it would no longer be a game he was passionate about making. (I might have my issues with the game, but I certainly feel this was a game everyone involved had a certain passionate about and put a lot of care into making.) I just happen to be one of those guys who likes really complicated systems and such - that's why I like computer games; because so long as the computer knows the rules, I really don't have to.

I mean, I was madly in love with Eve Online for a number of years. Many people will disparage the extreme learning curve of that game, but that's actually what drug me into that game. I liked learning all the intricacies of that game, and the work involved in becoming familiar with and mastering the system (which still wasn't all that complex when you get right down to it - I wouldn't have minded more, to be honest. ) If I was a game designer with the ability to make my own game, I'd have about as much luck trying to make a game that appealed specifically to Todd in every way as vice versa. I'd be much better off making a quality game if I just ignored his wants and did what I felt was right. Todd didn't make the Fallout 3 that I'd wanted, but then again I actually have more respect for him for not trying to, and succeeding; than if he had tried to, and failed.

I think my second paragraph, up there, was supposed to go here. But I mean, that's just where I'm coming from. I'm an old-school table-top, miniatures type of gamer. Now that all my old gaming group have moved on to all corners of the country over the years, videogames are a much more realistic way for me to get my "fix." With a computer game: I don't have to spend days learning a new system by heart, find a group of like-minded people, teach them enough rules to know what they're doing, buy the miniatures I'll need, spend another month painting them up, do all the work actually getting everyone together in one place for long enough to make it worthwhile, spend more hours setting up the map, go through all the tedium of working out all the math involved in every turn while trying not to knock down the plastic trees with my funny-shaped dice, referee the inevitable rules disputes, etc. And then I probably still won't have enough time to get through one engagement before someone's wife calls them home; and then have to hope that in the intervening weeks before I can get everyone together again that my cats won't decide to turn my obsessively-placed arrangement into their own personal litter box (yes, that's happened before... )

All of that is actually part of the fun, as well - way back in my highschool days when all that was easier to accomplish, all of that work was part of the fun. But sometimes I, too, just want to play a game without all of the hassle. It's just that from where I'm coming from, even the most complex videogame imagineable (which still don't hold a candle to some of the tabletop games I play, in terms of complexity,) is a nice easy change of pace. I mean, Civilization 4, with the largest map, on epic timescale, is a "quick and easy game," compared to what I'm used to playing.

But yeah, like I said - different strokes for different folks. And again, I think expecting Bethesda to make the sort of Fallout that would cater to my interests would be about as likely to happen as them trying to make a Civilization 5 that was worthy of it's predecessors. I wouldn't be suprised if some of those guys at Beth were big Civ fans, but I wouldn't expect them to have the degree of passion making that sort of game that they would something that's closer to the type of game they really want to make. And if you don't have any real passion for what you're doing, then I'd just as soon you'd do something else.

When I escape reality I want to go somewhere better, not be distracted with a chore, chess is just to keep busy, that's about the most basic thing video games can do, just provide you with a meaningless task to accomplish for the sake of accomplishing it, providing a pretend world that is better than the real one is a much bigger accomplishment for technology and entertainment.

So long as we're agreeing that you're talking about a completely subjective set of standards, I don't think there's really anything else to talk about on this subject. Like I said above - different strokes for different folks.

You don't like Chess - that's your perogative. I don't really like Cricket, myself. I think Eggs Benedict is disgusting, and a good way to ruin a perfectly good English Muffin. I think a good Omelette is a much more worthy and valid use for an egg, but I'm not going to try and pass off an Omelette as an inherent zenith of accomplishment for all egg-kind, or expect all the Eggs Benedict people to agree with what is, after all, only my own opinion.

I agree with nu_clear_day above, but would ask... What's the difference? All games are "just to keep busy", and provide you with meaningless tasks to accomplish for the sake of accomplishing them. :shrug:

I don't see how Chess is a chore, but hey...

~And when I escape reality... I sometimes like to escape my human perception of it... and maybe see the world from the fourth dimension or in the extreme abstract. :shrug:

Simulation is not always interesting to me.

I think chess is much less emotionally rewarding than a second life, you may feel excited or angry while playing chess, but becoming involved with life-like characters that you care about, discovering things you never knew, have your imagination taken to places it has never been, or living a life you have only ever dreamed of is something beyond what mowing through countless hordes of zombies for no reason or playing chess can offer

It's just progress.

It requires thought (unless you're playing entirely from memory).

We're getting way off-topic, here (and sliding back into another "vs" thread - of which we've had a number lately, and look how well those always end up...)

... Alright, I'll give this another shot. You're speaking of your own personal preferences. Perhaps the only thing you look for in a videogame is this escapsim, to have your imagination "taken to places it has never been, or living a life you have only ever dreamed of." That's fine. That's great, even. They make games for that goal, and more power to you. Fallout 3 is right up your alley, and I'm happy for you. I find enjoyment in this game in another manner - I don't try to live someone else's life, or project myself into that world; but I'm certainly not going to tell you you're playing it "wrong." Game exist to make people happy, and if that's what floats your boat, great.

But unless I'm misreading you, you seem to be implying that the only purpose of a videogame is to provide this level of escapism that you seem to be looking for. If I'm playing Street Fighter, am I supposed to be pretending that I'm Blanca? Am I supposed to feel that I am Laura Croft? The implications that I'm reading into your post point that you feel the only type of videogame should ever be to place you into this escapist fantasy world. I think there certainly, most definately, is a place for those games. But I think that's also a very, very, limiting view of the medium - akin to saying all comic books have to be about super heroes.

There's a difference between inherent objective value and subjective personal preference. All I'm saying is that you have a subjective preference for what you look for in a game - whereas unless I'm misreading your intent, you're trying to pass that off as objective inheritence.

Yes, you don't get drawn into a fantasy world when playing Chess. That's not the point, though. If what you're looking for in a game is escapism, then don't play Chess. But don't expect me to buy into you saying the only reason to play a game is to escape. I'll close with http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/9/4/.

If you watch a movie you're not projecting yourself into the world, but the world must seem tangible to you to be emotionally rewarding, if you don't care or have any attatchment then it loses its effect, if you are watching circles moving around on screen and trying to figure out the pattern then you are experiencing something similar to chess, and you could be doing some other task like sweeping your garage instead

Street Fighter is the same way, there are stories and characters, but really it's just a series of tasks to keep you busy until you get bored and never play or think about it until a sequel comes out, unless you are one of those hardcoe fighting game fans that really don't care about anything but playing in tournaments, but then you just want to compete and it isn't really about the game your playing

I just think that games have always been able to distract people, with tiny dots on screen or with some high score to set, but the real achievement would be to create something beyond that, something more complex and interesting.

Unless the whole point of what you're trying to achieve involves the patterns of those circles moving around on the screen...

In you opinion...

A real achievement, one of many possible achievements; none of which are mutually exclusive, would be to convince the player that they actually are in another world, sure. I like peanut butter and chocolate, but that doesn't mean I want you to put peanut butter on all of my chocolate bars...

Listen, this is dragging completely off-topic, and isn't going to go anywhere. Respectfully, this is my last response to these sorts of posts on this thread. You can post a response to this, but my own response is going to be the same as always - you have a preference, which is subjective. You're entitled to that, and I'm not going to say you're wrong in preferring certain goals in the videogames you choose to play. But that's all it is - your own preferences. You can try to pass it off as an objective inheritence, but I'm not going to buy into it. You can assume that my rebuke is going to continue to be: "That's your opinion, but it's not an objective fact."

Edit - I'm not saying you can't decide that you only want to play games that "immerse" you. What I find to be, quite frankly, borderline offensive, is the implication you seem to be putting forward, that any game that isn't trying to accomplish that to your degree of subjective preference, is inherently less valid than those that do. The implication being that anyone playing a game other than what you consider worthy are just distracting themselves, and that you're the only one actually playing a "real" game, and not just wasting their time. Which is just elitist a view as those who consider "casual" games to be "dumbed down."

(And let's face it - all I would do in response to any claim you tried to make that you didn't have an opinion, but a solid fact, would be to link to http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/9/4/, over and over again - so we can just assume that as done and move on... )

Ever watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9GXbMFPkKQ&feature=related?

More interesting to you personally then...

I can play games like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiMPjNm8HIM, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA2-TG9bLKM&feature=related, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpKz0RmdD2A, Morrowind, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5g7ig-25t4, Oblivion, FEAR ~what have you, with EQUAL interest and fun depending on the gameplay and narrative. ~But if the game is boring... then no amount of realism will save it.
I like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwiP9P2lYCo and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkBJWibmmsE&feature=related too...

ToEE is fantastic.