Fallout: New Vegas interviews

Ausir

Venerable Relic of the Wastes
There's honestly no end in sight to this onslaught. Videogaming247 interviews Chris Avellone, including this apparently straight-faced question.<blockquote>The game does look incredible, truth be told. I asked you in the Q&A after the demo if it was running in 60fps. You told me you were aiming for 30fps.

Avellone: I don’t actually know the framerate on consoles, but the reason it was probably running so fast is because it was on a PC here, obviously.

The actual thing we always want to shoot for though, is to try and make sure it’s at least 30 on any of the platforms we release it for, because otherwise you feel the affects when it’s playing.</blockquote>Joystiq interviews Pete Hines, who was also there in Vegas.<blockquote>People have criticized Fallout 3 for kind of failing as an FPS and Todd Howard said, "Oh, I can agree with that." Do you think the Obsidian guys have addressed some of those failings?

To an extent, although I don't think that they set out as an objective to, "We're going to fix this game and make it a better FPS." I think they just set out to say, based on conversations they had with a lot of the guys on the team here at Bethesda Game Studios. They can read reactions from fans and the press just as easily as anybody else. So I think they looked for places where they could improve the game – adding new options to melee weapons and VATS doesn't make it a better FPS, but it does make it a better and more fun game. So, you know, which features make it a better FPS and which ones make it a better game? I'm not sure, but I think all of them end up making it a better game and ultimately, I think at the end of the day, that's what most folks care about. There are certainly some things, if you played the game in real-time, first-person only that'll make your game more fun and more dramatic and so forth, but I think at the end of the day all of it just makes it a better game and that's the ultimate goal.
(...)
It's almost a generational gap for gamers. There are people who've never played those first games, probably even never heard of them.

There's a lot of them, and if you sort of just look at how many people played the PC version back then versus the millions upon millions of copies of Fallout 3 we sold, there's millions and millions of people who didn't play those first games.

Yeah, it's kind of staggering. Are you guys going to do anything to bridge that history gap or fill people in?

I think we're probably going to continue on the way we have, which is each game stands on its own. You don't have to have played the originals. I don't want you to have to play Fallout 3 to get Fallout: New Vegas. There will be little things that you may get that somebody else wouldn't get, but by and large we want each one to stand on its own. And we took a similar approach with the Elder Scrolls, right? We didn't assume you played Arena or Daggerfall if you went to play Oblivion. But we didn't spend a whole lot of time trying to educate you on what those previous games were about, either. We wanted Oblivion to stand on its own. There's plenty of information there for you to dive into if you want, but if you just want to play the game and experience it on its own, you totally could.

We feel like that served us pretty well and people didn't feel overwhelmed, like, "What, is there going to be a test on it?" Like, "What's with all this info? It's way more than I need." So we wanted to make sure we don't overdo it by trying to, "Oh, look at all this great stuff we've got." Like, you know what? If they really get into it, they'll find all that and educate it. We just want to focus on the game that we're making and I think we'll take the same approach on Fallout: New Vegas. We're going to tell you everything you need to know about experiencing and having fun with Fallout: New Vegas. If you played Fallout 3 and you play Fallout: New Vegas, you'll feel the continuity, you'll get some of the little hints and references in Vegas that may refer to the similar things in the world or things from past games because we love that kind of stuff. But you don't suddenly miss out on it, like, "I have no idea what's going on" because you don't know about 1 and 2. That's the difference.</blockquote>Thanks The Vault.
 
How long has Fallout: New Vegas been in development? Since before Fallout 3 was released

Chris Avellone: No, actually. It was like a few months after the release of the last Fallout 3 DLC that Bethesda wanted to start up the next installment in the series. They approached us after that.

Huh, I just checked it again. Broken Steel came out on may 5, 2009. That makes 17 months of development, if they really started right after and if it comes out in october 2010. But if it was "a few months after..."

Thought they are working at least 2 years on it and not less.
 
It's got rushjob penned all over it. But hey, they're working with existing graphics, an existing engine, and even existing story-elements. So they got a head-start.
 
Actually, Chris is wrong here. FNV was announced in April 2009, and Mothership Zeta (the last FO3 DLC) came out in August.
 
It doesn't say they started development then. It says they were approached by Bethesda who wanted to do that. For all we know, they didn't start development till after another couple of months.

I'm still hoping they arent rushing this.
 
Your correction habit is so pathologic now you have to correct people on the games they themselves are working on? Awesome.
 
Not the first time I correct Chris on Fallout-related stuff. IIRC, my first time was even quoted in the Fallout Bible somewhere.
 
Heh, I totally forgot about Mothership Zeta. Even Point Lookout came before. How uncool.
 
No, Infinity Ward has legal problems with Activision. They just asked him for comment.
 
And we took a similar approach with the Elder Scrolls, right? We didn't assume you played Arena or Daggerfall if you went to play Oblivion.

My god! It all makes sense now!!! They are simply following the tried formula! 2 old classic games and 2 shitty ones!

Seriously, Pete, how dare you? You have no right to compare TES continuity with Fallout continuity. They are not on the same level. I mean, look at the TES Cannon Bible... Oh, wait... You don't have one!!!
 
Khan FurSainty said:
And we took a similar approach with the Elder Scrolls, right? We didn't assume you played Arena or Daggerfall if you went to play Oblivion.

My god! It all makes sense now!!! They are simply following the tried formula! 2 old classic games and 2 shitty ones!

Fuck, are you actually saying Fallout 3 and NV are classics?! (1,2 - classic F:T,BS :crap <- that I agree with, F3, NV classic <-Whaah? )
 
I think he's saying Arena, Daggerfall, classics, Morrowind, Oblivion, shitty.

FO1 and 2, classics, FO3 and F:NV, shitty.

I disagree. No shit right here.
 
Arena and Daggerfall == Classic
Morrowind and Oblivion == Shice

Fallout 1 and 2 == Classic
Fallout 3 and NV == Shice


That's his formula, I'll guess.
 
Back
Top