Give Feedback
After leaving Interplay Tim moved to help start up Troika Games where he helped develop other RPG gems such as Arcanum and Temple of Elemental Evil. After Troika folded in 2005 Tim went on to Carbine Studios, and starting working at Obsidian Entertainment in 2011.
A snippet of the most relevant part for people who have only played Fallout 3 or Fallout New Vegas:
You claimed to enjoy Fallout 3, and I'm going to assume you also enjoyed Fallout: New Vegas. From a design standpoint, how would you compare Fallout 3 and New Vegas? What did New Vegas do differently from Fallout 3, in your view?
I did enjoy both Fallout 3 and New Vegas. I know that surprised some of my fans, who wanted me to hate the games and rail against their design choices (which I have repeatedly pointed out were different than the ones I would have made), but there is no arguing that more people enjoy the modern versions of the franchise than the older ones.
If I were to compare the two games, I would say that Fallout New Vegas felt like it captured the humor and style of the Fallout universe better than Fallout 3, but I have to hand it to the FO3 designers for developing VATS, a cool twist on called shots for a real-time game. I also loved the set decoration FO3. There was so much destruction, yet obviously everything had been meticulously hand-placed. So much story was told entirely through art. I ended up naming these little art vignettes and creating side stories in my head about what had happened. There was "The Suicide", a dead guy in a bathtub with a shotgun, and I figured he just couldn't handle life after the bombs. There was "Eternal Love", a couple of skeletons in a bed in a hotel room, forever embracing each other. There was "My Last Mistake", the corpse in the temporary one-man fallout shelter which obviously didn't do its job of keeping out the heat and radiation. My favorite was "Desperate Gamble", where I found a feral ghoul in an underground shelter filled with lab supplies and lots of drugs... except for Rad-X. I imagined that a scientist found himself irradiated and desperately tried to synthesize some Rad-X to cure himself before he succumbed, but he was too slow. I did notice that whatever was left of his mind sure did seem to enjoy toilet plungers.
If I had to pick something I didn't like about FO3, I would pick its ending. I hated the ending. There, I said it. I didn't like the sudden problem with the purifier, and I especially didn't like the lack of real, meaningful multiple endings beyond what I chose in the final few minutes (FEV or not, me or Lyons, and that was it?). But the worst thing about the ending was there was no mention of the fate of places I had visited. In my head I had already imagined slides for Megaton, the Citadel, Rivet City, Underworld, GNR, the Enclave or the mysterious Commonwealth. But I got... pretty much nothing.
I liked FONV's ending much better. It had a nice set of slides at the end of the game. They covered everything I was wondering about. I went with Mr. House at the end... and that seemed a worse choice after the slides, but still OK. It led to a law-abiding but somewhat impersonal Vegas. I wish I didn't have to kill the BoS, but I want House to control the future, so I had to do it. It was a great morally ambiguous choice, and the decision made me pause. That's a sign of good design, right there.
The whole interview is worth reading so read it. You can find the full interview at RPG Codex.
9 comments
Strawman. And the main quest-line is not one of those situations, as the choice between killing the BoS or killing House is a design-deficiency at best. I accept that win-lose and lose-lose situations can happen, but it's a glaring design-flaw (at least to me) when i don't feel like i'm actually in that situation.
Maybe i was being a sophist on this one, but killing a bunch of people who aren't doing anything but hiding in a hole since who-knows-how-long-ago doesn't sit well with me. This might get a little tangential, but their continued existence baffles me, seeing as how they've collectively outlawed themselves and dug themselves into their own grave. You'd think they would have to come out and get real jobs by now, but maybe they know how to make Ruby's casserole. They're essentially cavemen now, and they can either join civilization for the first time or stagnate. Basically, i don't understand this as a situation where any significant degree of good is achieved that is worth a mass-slaughter of people, many of whom are accomplices at worst.
Strawman. And it's not like the assassination and the final battle are going to put themselves on hold until after all House's wishes are granted in order. It kind of breaks the fourth wall when my non-compliance to someone's whim causes an entire war to stalemate.
That is some consolation, yes. I am glad that New Vegas tones down on the whole demigod of good or evil aspect, among other unrelated things. Fallout needs more 1930s Conan the Barbarian and less He-Man, if anyone gets my dated references.
Sometimes it's impossible to do only good things, not because of fake melodrama, because that's how the world works and certain individuals act. Politics are always dirty.
Also, whether or not such ambiguous things are immoral is relative. One could argue that BoS are simply terrorists whose destruction would not be missed, could only help the Mojave and sometimes drastic measures must be taken for the greater good.
Also, you may think of creative ways, but Mr. House *won't* and doesn't care. It's a trade-off for his progressive leadership: he's an egomaniac whose unwilling to deviate from his perfect, coldly calculated masterplan. This quest was not supposed to be logical: it was all about his whim.
If it's any consolation for New Vegas, lack of any choices regarding your Dad/essential characters throughout the Fallout 3 or inane "evil karma" alternatives in the binary good-evil moral system, like blowing up Megaton for the lulz were much, much worse.
And that Fawkes option was added only in Broken Steel to fix that terrible ending, he wouldn't do it in vanilla "because it's your destiny lol".
There's no logical reason to have to murder anybody; the game just herds you into it. I can think of a number of creative ways to not have to murder the BoS or Mr. House.
For instance, have the quarry workers help you set off a huge explosion in the scorpion gulch, and lie to House about having eradicated the BoS. Alternatively, just take away House's securitrons without opening his isolation chamber, and let the Followers study him.
It's not that hard a choice, but the game wants you to have to do something immoral, because melodrama.
This really ruined FONV for me, whereas at least in FO3, [spoiler:] you could be not-stupid and get Fawkes to save the purifier.