|
Obsidian Entertainment's appointment as the developer of the next Fallout game under Bethesda's stewardship has particular resonance for longtime fans of the series. The Southern California developer is a direct descendent of Black Isle Studios, the former internal Interplay team responsible for Fallout and Fallout 2.
With Fallout: New Vegas, Obsidian is inheriting the basic design framework Bethesda Game Studios established with its acclaimed sequel Fallout 3, and applying to it an intense familiarity with the roots of the post-nuclear role playing game series. And even more than Fallout 3, New Vegas' retro-future Las Vegas harkens back to the kitschy 1950s aesthetic of its forbears.
Since last year, a 50-person Obsidian team has been hard at work on the game, going so far as to take inspiration from the PC mod community's tweaks to Fallout 3 in the development of new systems for New Vegas.
Gamasutra sat down with Feargus Urquhart, CEO of Obsidian -- and a key team member on Fallout and Fallout 2 -- to discuss his company's approach to New Vegas, the game's spotlight on 1950s excess, and his own thoughts on Fallout 3.
It's frequently observed that a number of you at Obsidian worked on the original Fallout games. What's it like working with the new gatekeeper of the series? How did you get together with Bethesda?
Feargus Urquhart: Ever since we left Black Isle and started Obsidian Entertainment, we still make role playing games. It's what we love to do. It's just what we do. Bethesda is a publisher of role playing games. They have their big internal team.
I think a lot of times, and you saw this sometimes with fans talking about Fallout 3 in particular, people say things like, "Oh, are we going to have to wait another five years to see another Fallout?" Well, Bethesda knew that we make role playing games, and the industry is not that gigantic -- I mean, Bethesda's VP of development is Todd Vaughn, and he used to be an editor of PC Gamer magazine.
Todd and I had talked together for a really long time, and we just kept in touch and talked about things. It all really seemed to fit well. We had a team available, and they really wanted to get another Fallout made. In some ways, it was an easy thing.
A lot of times, when you're trying to get a game gig and a publisher is looking for a developer, it's really complicated. You're worried about risk and how this is going to work and how this is going to mess up. In this case, we're really good at using other people's technology to make games. We know Fallout. So it just all clicked.
What did you personally think of Fallout 3?
FU: I don't want to just say that I really enjoyed it, because that feels like I'm just kissing ass: "It was a wonderful experience!" But I am not a guy who was caught up in the notion that Fallout had to be an isometric, turn-based experience. To me, Fallout was always just the feeling of the world.
Maybe that's the difference between someone who makes a Fallout and someone who plays a Fallout. Whenever we think about Fallout, it's about the areas you put in there. Whether those areas are isometric or in 3D first-person, you do a lot of the same stuff.
For me, Fallout was always the world. In playing Fallout 3, it just felt like being in that world. That was what was great for me. I really appreciated that. I like playing FPSes -- not so much on my console, though; I'm a PC FPS guy.
The VATS system really melded everything together for me -- I get to be in the world looking out my own eyes, and I don't have to fight every fight in an actual physical skill-based way. I can use my stats and ammo and all that kind of stuff and see people's heads getting blasted off in Technicolor, which was awesome. [laughs]
I think you take that. You take the feeling of being there. I really enjoyed it. I don't get to finish a ton of games, because -- I'm sure, like you -- there's usually a stack. I don't have to review them, so I don't finish everything. But I made a point of making sure that... No, you know what? I didn't have to make a point of it. I just finished it because I was having fun.
I remember back when Fallout 3 was in development, I was talking to [Bethesda Game Studios game director] Todd Howard and he said, "We're all fans of Fallout; we all played those games," but he said they made a decision that, between Fallout 1 and 2, they were going to follow up on Fallout 1, and not so much on 2. What is the significance of that decision to you?
FU: Right. You know, it's funny, because I remember that as well. There are some distinct opinions that people have about Fallout 1 versus Fallout 2. My role on the project was a little bit different.
One of the reasons I ask is because I generally associate Obsidian more with the Fallout 2 team.
FU: Yes. Well, really, most of the people, if they worked on Fallout 2 they worked on Fallout 1. Most of us actually kind of worked on both. For example, Scott Everts is actually working on Fallout: New Vegas and laying a lot of the areas. He laid out every single level in Fallout and probably 50 or 60 percent of them in Fallout 2.
It's true that when I think back, a lot of people will characterize Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 as being so different in a lot of ways. We made some decisions to have them be different, but to us they weren't as different as a lot of people make them out. We had some technical problems when Fallout 2 released, and that clouded a lot of things.
But it's interesting. I don't know if it's 50/50 or what, but I get very distinct people who come up and say they like one more than the other. From a vibe perspective, Fallout 1 was more directed. It was nonlinear, but you had more of a straight shot. It wasn't as big or as complicated as Fallout 2. I haven't actually ever talked to Todd Howard about it, but I wonder if that's more what they were trying to go with.
|
Printer-Friendly Version
I'll give you an example. I use a gun 1/2 through my entire playthrough, and I am very attached to that gun. Or maybe it's outfit that I wore. In either case, eventually I'm going to find something better. In vanilla Fallout 3, I had a dresser FULL of old guns and another dresser packed with old outfits or unique items. I never get to see them... they're just lines of text in a box. There's this sentimentality about these items where shoving them in a drawer (or worse, selling them) that makes it just sad. Meanwhile, mods bring these houses with display cases and mannequins and it's just shows my evolution as a player when I'm strolling through between missions and I see my old gear. It's nice.
Of course, there's a lot of other things, (one house has an inground swimming pool! yay) but that seemed to resonate with me for some reason.
> I am not a guy who was caught up in the notion that Fallout had to be an isometric, turn-based experience. To me, Fallout was always just the feeling of the world. Maybe that's the difference between someone who makes a Fallout and someone who plays a Fallout. Whenever we think about Fallout, it's about the areas you put in there. Whether those areas are isometric or in 3D first-person, you do a lot of the same stuff.
should end once and for all the loud complaining from the Fallout 1/2 fans that Fallout 3 was somehow defective to the point of insult because it took the world of Fallout into the third dimension.
It won't. But it should.
A little less seriously:
> Sam & Max Hit the Road was a big road trip through chintzy, forgotten Americana. Very few games are directly influenced by those weird, backwoods American roadside attractions.
And then there was Redneck Rampage: Suckin' Grits on Route 66. (The classics never go out of style.)
Finally, I think Jake Romigh makes a very good point. Part of the enjoyment of playing a "world-y" RPG is the personal history of your character as a story. (With respect to Tadhg Kelly, I think most players of worldy RPGs will indeed feel the sequences of events are a story, even if they took place within a game construct. That's inevitable if the game expresses player agency as people/characters acting within a distinctively realized world.)
I remember taking screen captures in Fallout 3 and Two Worlds of my character in all the various bits of clothing and armor. It was a nice way to memorialize the events of that character's life in the gameworld (which really were fun moments of play for me-the-player). People decorating their homes with trophies and old weapons and armor in MMORPGs is another example of this desire in some gamers to retain objects that remind them of old adventures in enjoyable worlds.
It's a little surprising that RPG developers haven't recognized this as an opportunity to provide a feature that would seem to be something that some subset of RPG players yearn for. Seems like a good user-retention opportunity to me.
I can think of a few reasons why they shouldn't be upset. To start: what difference does it make, to these fans, that a game is being made bearing the name of their beloved franchise? If they aren't interested in it, they don't have to play it.
Did Fallout 3 besmirch the series' good name? Well, the game was pretty well-received by critics, and helped reinvigorate interest about the Fallout brand, leading to the development of New Vegas here by some of the original crew -- so no, I wouldn't say it hurt the brand's namesake in the eyes of the masses.
Perhaps Fallout 3 prevented the creation of a "true" Fallout successor? Well, there was Van Buren, but that ship sank back in 2003 because Interplay seemed intent on bringing the Fallout brand down with them. Thanks to selling the IP to a company that actually has enough capital to do something with it (Bethesda), however, Interplay was given an opportunity to make a Fallout MMO. And of course, there's the aforementioned New Vegas. The existence of Fallout 3 didn't halt creation of any other Fallout projects, rather, it enabled them to come into fruition.
Now, I ask the question, why *should* fans be upset with the existence of Fallout 3? I love Deus Ex, and think Human Revolution will probably pale in comparison to its pedigree, but am I *upset*? No. Because if Human Revolution wasn't being made, it's not like anything else would be going on with the franchise. And, if the game gets good reviews, I might just pick it up.
So, looking forward to New Vegas, great interview, and there's no reason to be *upset* that Fallout 3 exists. Thank you.
Maybe it is that in some versions playing exclusively with VATS is impossible because of several game breaking bugs... (the PC version is particularly riddled with bugs in VATS, there in the the official forums HUUUUUUUGEEEEEE threads (note the plural) only about how buggy VATS is...)
Note: I am not one of those vocal fans, I am only stating something that I saw on the forums.
I'll take a stab at the argument regarding BlackIsle Studio's Fallout 1/2 purist against Bethesda's Fallout 3.
The main issue I think the "No Mutants Allowed" forum community has with Fallout 3 is that it does not fall in line with the true turn-based combat system used in the original Fallout series. The implementation of the VATS system seems like somewhat of an after thought compared to the original series. Not that there is anything wrong with the VATS pause combat-mode style of play, but it seems like it is trying to re-create the turn-based style action point based combat system used in the original series, yet it succeeds in vain.
For example, in the original series, when the player engages in combat, gameplay immediately shifts to the turn-based action point system (which includes movement, combat, as well as inventory management). In Fallout 3, the VATS pause system only allows the player to engage in combat and nothing more. In order to be able to move, you have to un-pause the game and then move in real-time. Also there was no action point penalty for accessing player inventory during combat when using the VATS system. These issues may seem minor when comparing the original series against Fallout 3, yet they are subtle nuances that could possibly affect the viewpoints of the original hardcore fanbase, hence a reason why Fallout 3 may not have been as well received by them in comparison to the loyal fans of Bethesda's ElderScroll's/Oblivion series.
Secondly, the 2D isometric viewpoint in the original Fallout series creates more of an RPG feel/element in the game where the player is presented with an overhead 3/4 viewcam perspective. This design style intuitively leads to a more tactical approach in terms of overall combat. With the 1st person 3D look and feel style of gameplay in Fallout 3, the user is more directly submersed within the game world from a real-time player perspective. Hence the reason the two series can be compared to apples and oranges. Fallout 1/2 = a true turn-based RPG combat system, whereas Fallout 3 = a real-time FPS with action-RPG elements.
Thirdly, don't even get me started on the Perk system. I think everyone already understands the difference there... :/
In conclusion, both games greatly succeed in terms of a world based upon a fallout/post-apocalyptic universe, however in terms of their respective combat systems, they are completely different games in terms of actual combat style. This is just my opinion of course, but my 2 cents regardless...
P.S. Great interview with Feargus btw. I especially enjoyed the hardcore mode and stimpak elements.
Cheers!
If the combat is going to be real-time and gun-based, then make it play like a shooter. A GOOD shooter.
The advancement of game technology and alternative platforms has meant that cherished but niche products have a much better chance of finding an audience. So, somebody go start coding an isometric, turn-based, post apocalyptic RPG for the iPad. :-)
-P
I am one of those annoying players that will explore EVERY single spot that I can reach and collect everything that I can carry. Because of that I am still roaming the lands of FA3 and Oblivion. The latter for potion ingredients... I hope there are more objects to find in this one! I want to build stuff in the Post-Apocalyptic-Future-Where-Water-is-More-Precious-than-Life World!
After some of Obsidian's recent releases, NWN2 to a lesser degree, but especially KOTOR 2, I don't really thing I'm willing to spend 60$ for it. Maybe 40$, definitely 30$. So I guess I will wait til it hits the bargain bin...
Really? I thought being forced to either kill yourself or doom everyone when there's a god damned radiation immune super mutant the size of Texas standing next to you who could do it and not feel a thing was kind of a surprise.
Did I mention that F3's writing is god awful?
I agree with alot of the things you said. I like fallout 3 but it has such a different feel than the other two. Major props to Bethesda and all their hard work, I love alot of the things they did with the game... But there were some major problems
It did have a very depressing feel. I don't understand why EVERY freaking building had to look like it was hit with a nuclear bomb (except tenpenny tower). I mean.. The citadel?? One of the main outposts for the brotherhood of steel? The friggin pentagon? They didn't assign anyone to do a little interior decorating? Or ever sweep the floors or something? Come on.
And I must say I am a fan of fallout 2, which leads me to my next point... There should really be people driving cars in these worlds. I know these games have glitches so I assume that's one of the main reasons there are no cars.. But it makes no sense. There should be cars. Even If you can only use them like in fallout 2. But at least it would be a more logical and convenient way of storing items. It bugged me to think somehow I could walk into a bar carrying a missile launcher a minigun a flame thrower and a fat man and no one looks any more nervous.
I also agree that the story line was horrible. I was utterly diassapointes at the end. Thanks alot Fawkes.. But that was one of the reasons I loved fallout 2... How satisfying was it to shoot the president of the enclave in the face? They completely lost my interest with that whole situation in this one. I listened to the president on the radio savoring the day I got to meet him. And then of course he's.. Well don't want to spoil it for anyone but it was incredibly lame.
But I'm a big fan of the series and I cant wait for the next one. There need to be more comedic cameos like the random encounter with the bridge keeper from Monty python!