Fallout 3 maturity hasn't been "tempered" Related content
-
Latest Fallout 3 screenshots
- Review Fallout 3 [466]
- Interview Bethesda Softworks' Pete Hines [22]
Advertisement
Fallout 3 maturity hasn't been "tempered" News
PC
Xbox 360
PlayStation 3
News
by
Robert Purchese
Bethesda power-dresser Todd Howard has promised that Fallout 3 will lose none of the "harshness and maturity" fans like about the series.
Howard said "slavery, children, drugs and addiction" will feature as themes, and that narcotics abuse will be a "key gameplay device". But child killing and nudity will not feature, as they were deemed to add nothing to the "flavour" of the game.
"I think the heart of this question is, 'Has the harshness and maturity of the world of Fallout 3 been tempered from the earlier games?' And I can certainly say, 'No, it hasn't been,'" explained Howard in a fan interview on the official forum.
"You will not be able to be a child killer. There are several reasons for this, some of them are very basic, like we wouldn't be able to sell the game anywhere to anyone if the children could be killed. I'm not using that as a scapegoat. We never wanted the game to offer any incentive or desire to be blowing kids away. From our initial designs we didn't know how we were going to handle [what happened] if you shot them, we just knew it was going to be a big no-no...
"Anyway, when attacked, all children flee and any regular NPCs friendly to the children will instantly attack you, so it feels good in the game, in that there is an appropriate response," he added.
Howard went on to weigh-up good and evil choices in Fallout 3, and said the moral grey area in some of its choices choices is a feature he's particularly proud of.
"The grey area comes into several quests where the situation is just 'bad'. Some feel like no-win situations and they come across as 'make a hard choice'," said Howard. "I think that's where it feels best, honestly, but we do need to mix it up between that and simpler good or bad [decisions]."
Dialogue will play a central role in Fallout 3, and you can often start a conversation with an opening line to set the tone. You could be strong and silent, for instance, or poke fun at someone. Whatever you're after, Howard promises lots and lots of it.
"They are big," said Howard of dialogue trees. "If you look at Fallout 1, it's deeper than that. To give you the scale, we have over 40,000 lines of dialogue, compared to a few thousand in Fallout 1."
Fallout 3 is a post-apocalyptic role-playing game for PC, PS3 and Xbox 360. It's due out this autumn and will let you make a bloody mess with big guns.
Head over to the full fan interview or our Fallout 3 gamepage for plenty more information.
Advertisement
Are you excited about Fallout 3 on PC/Xbox 360/PlayStation 3?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games
Thanks!
Related Games
Fallout 3
Latest Features
-
Fallout 3 Review [466]
-
Fallout 3 Interview [22]
-
Fallout 3 Hands On [99]
-
Fallout 3 Hands On [174]
-
Fallout 3 Interview [15]
Latest Videos
No videos found.
Latest News
-
Fallout 3 GOTY dated for mid-October [15]
-
Fallout 3 GOTY date still non-committal [30]
-
Interplay's Fallout MMO on the ropes [21]
-
Mothership Zeta weapons, perk details [15]
-
Fallout 3: Mothership Zeta dated, priced [24]
Latest Screenshots
28 October, 2008 [2]
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Poster
|
0
""I think the heart of this question is, 'Has the harshness and maturity of the world of Fallout 3 been tempered from the earlier games?' And I can certainly say, 'No, it hasn't been,'""
Considering that you scrapped quite a few things such as prostitution, I'd say that you are lying through your teeth just to save face. Not that I care as this is at the top of my list. |
|
Britesparc
09/07/08 @ 09:05
0
I think it's very unlikely we'll ever see an open-world game in the near future that lets you stove babies' heads in with a shovel, but I do wonder how they'll handle it. Where are the kids in GTA, for example? Do the Combine have some kind of suppression field in effect above Liberty City?
I guess "crippling" the player's ability to go ANYWHERE and do ANYTHING might be the only answer. |
|
0
what the fuck is wrong with people if they want dead children in their games
bioshock for example, offered the illusion of choice, kill the little children or not. excuse me? what type of fucking choice is that? i don't want or need a fucking infanticide simulator! As for nudeness, its shit in games unless you can make the characters look real. The nudity in Conan for example, was embarrassing. maturity comes from the writing, not the tits or dead children |
|
0
I would have respected Todd Howard more if he had simply come along and said "we consider the killing of children in any context, to be unacceptable and so have removed it from the fallout game". That would have been short, honest and anyone disagreeing would need to have been seriously considered for a police watch list somewhere.
|
|
0
Video games are kidless, no kids in the +54k population of Dead Rising too, sux, really.
Nothing to do with desire to be infanticide or some shit, it's just odd, why no kids zombies? Anyway, the ppl who were "ofended" by Bioshock's "children" should play on Wiis, just Wiis. And nudity... oh my god..., is that a breast ?!
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 09/07/08 @ 10:37
|
|
Poorandugly
09/07/08 @ 09:53
0
I think the problem is that I no longer have the choice to not kill the children. Not that people can't wait to go around slaughtering kids. It's better to be able to chose to not do something, rather than being forced not to.
|
|
0
This doesn't bother me in the slightest... Other fallout fans may disagree, but if that's the case then maybe other fallout fans need to stop escaping to 'fantasy' and seek some professional help. In this day and age we developers have to take the morale high ground, especially so now as graphics become more 'realistic' and in an age where attack on our medium is commonplace. We have to come to understand that depictions of violence and depravity of this ilk *isn't* ok, regardless of if some feel that it somehow encroaches on their freedom of 'choice' or how it effects the artistic-integrity of the world being depicted.
From what I’ve seen, Bethesda are doing a fine job, and I’m confident that they will still deliver an experience with enough depth without compromising on the important things that made the original fallouts great. Child murdering and prostitution omitted. Shame on you EG for this blatant goading. |
|
Snidesworth
09/07/08 @ 09:56
0
The kill/save choice in Bioshock wasn't really a choice at all, given how you ended up with a extra plasmids and only slightly less ADAM if you went around saving the little scamps. If they wanted it to have weight then harvesting them should have given you a clear material advantage. At the cost of you being a horrible, deplorable child murderer.
Child killing being "removed" I'm not fussed about, since it really doesn't add anything to the game. Nudity isn't a loss either so long as that's all that's lost. The original two games didn't have nudity either; they had some sexual content in places, but it was never graphically explicit. San Reno wouldn't be San Reno if it wasn't a den of vice with pushers, pimps and hookers lining the street, hawking their goods to you as you pass. |
|
0
will it be as moddable as oblivion. that is the only question that needs to be answered.
if it is, than everything will be possible... and those of you, who want to kill children in a game: are you sick? the best solution would be, imho, to prevent they player to shoot at them. take aim at them and you can't pull the trigger (and get a on screen message, that is asking after your mental health) if you kill them indirectly like through a grenade or an exploding propane gas tank you shoot all nearby npcs should kill you within seconds instantly through a headshoot, game over. and just place the kids out of harms way in the game world. i am totally fine with nudity, a naked character is interesting for 5 seconds. if i want stimulating nudity, a game would be the last place i would look for it
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 09/07/08 @ 11:10
|
|
afghan_jones
09/07/08 @ 10:06
0
I killed a child in the first Fallout. It wasnt a child character model though so not too horrible.
However, when I went to towns and settlements after that, there were wanted posters about and people really disliked me for being a child killer. So there was a tangible consequence. Its fucking depressing though that child killing and nudity are viewed as equally bad things. I really hate the way nudity is seen as worse than violence in film and games these days. gratuitious nudity is one thing but in a large RPG set in a psot apocalyptic and therefore somewhat morally vacuous world anyway, to declare that no one will get naked or have sex at any point seems jarring. |
|
hiddenranbir
09/07/08 @ 10:18
0
Nudity patch plz.
I think the maturity HAS been tempered. Instead of giving the player the engaging experience to deal with consequences of actions they're instead putting us, once again, in some magic bubble. It really tempers their nonsense hype of "choices" and "morally grey".
Edited 4 times,
most recently on 09/07/08 @ 11:23
|
|
0
I wish developers would just make the game they want to, then censor all the bits they need to for each appropriate market e.g Japan/Europe/Canada get the intended version America get's the same with all the sex scenes and nudity removed and Germany get's a game about cuddly cartoon animals learning about the importance of sharing.
It's quite a silly situation in GTA IV where you can sniper innocent passer-bys, steal cars, deal drugs, swear like a sailor and pick up prostitutes but as soon as you enter a strip club the game suddenly decideds it's a PG. There are simular situations with the Witcher and Vampire the Masquerade. Not that I have a strong desire to see pretend women naked or anything. It's just consitencey i'm looking for. If Fallout 3 doesn't go anywhere near a strip club, have any prostitutes or gratuitous sex (the sex scene in Mass Effect was pitch perfect) then no nudity isn't an issue. As for killing kids. If the game allows you to shoot kids, there should be severe consequences for killing them (perhaps even game ending) but giving small consequences and turning the kids into some strange invulnerable immortal creature seems to be wussing out to me. Edit: for clarity
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 09/07/08 @ 11:42
|
|
0
penhalion: I would have respected Todd Howard more if he had simply come along and said "we consider the killing of children in any context, to be unacceptable and so have removed it from the fallout game". That would have been short, honest and anyone disagreeing would need to have been seriously considered for a police watch list somewhere.
Totally agree. What he is doing is just marketing talk. afghan_jones: Its fucking depressing though that child killing and nudity are viewed as equally bad things. I really hate the way nudity is seen as worse than violence in film and games these days. gratuitious nudity is one thing but in a large RPG set in a psot apocalyptic and therefore somewhat morally vacuous world anyway, to declare that no one will get naked or have sex at any point seems jarring. Again, my thoughts exactly. For fucks sake, noone is asking for textures to jack off to, and if someone is, then there is already terabytes of porn on the net. I am asking however for a consistent and immersive experience. I doubt that a post apocalyptic world would be as prude as it is in 2008.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 09/07/08 @ 11:43
|
|
0
Who cares about nudity (and those Oblivion mods are laughable - turning cheesy Oblivion into Deathstalker 2 fantasy film (though I have to admit it was definitelly more funny than Oblivion - Deathstalker 2 :-), but Fallout without killable children is weird.
WTF is bad about killing children? And before you start labeling me child killer - I mean, you can mass murder whole villages, cities, countryside, roast and mutilate every elf, dwarf, mutant, whatever and be Savior of Humankind, but no, you cannot even scratch the child's hair - if that happened, you are immediately labeled Hitler's ugly, despicable twin. So basically: one children >>> other humanoids combined. Funny thing is that while it is basically forbidden harming children in games and mainstream movies (unless it is supposed to be hearbreaking movie about harmed children, of course), it is really widespread in the real world. But of course, games are not about reality, are they? *rolls eyes* Not that I ever killed innocent (well, this term is really open to discussion, though .-) humans in Fallout games (or other games). Hmm, have you ever tried to set the timer on the bomb, leave it in inventory and wander around Flick's shoppe in Den? XD With this all said, it is sad but Bethesda is right - I guess nowadays they would be roasted alive if they released game in which you can kill children, guess they are too high profile to be able to slip without attention... So please, just leave the children from the game completely - nothing breaks the suspension more than being unable do do somthing... You know, Lord British got killed too...
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 09/07/08 @ 11:58
|
|
ligurmatic
09/07/08 @ 11:04
0
To everyone saying how terrible it is to kill virtual children in games: How much less sick is killing adults?
It strikes me as hypocracy of the highest order to complain about killing one section of humanity and then relishing in killing the rest. |
|
0
@7Creature
The act of killing children in the game is one of those invisible lines. Crossing that takes the game into very uncomfortable territory. In theory, any adult could turn around and defend themselves. While you're mowing down adults, you to have to remember, on some level, they have 'earned' their deaths by their actions, and secondly, they have the potential to either save themselves or run away. Now, in sandbox games like GTA4 , its slightly different, but the game inst about grabbing a gun and mowing people down for no reason. People might try it first and a few times, like i did, its funny i suppose. Would it be as funny if it was a bus full of children? No. But, if you're putting virtual children in there, then they really are innocent parties. Its unlikely, from the story point of view, that they choose their situation, rather they were born into it, and secondly, its unlikely they could defend themselves to any true degree. In that case then, you've gone from reaping justice, to killing innocents with no capability of defending themselves. If killing children was an integral part of the game, i'd pass on it. |
|
muscleblade
09/07/08 @ 11:24
0
"To everyone saying how terrible it is to kill virtual children in games: How much less sick is killing adults? "
Its a huge difference. Children are a lot more innocent and cant defend themselves. There are no children in GTAIV because there are som crazy maniac loose killing innocents on the streets so they have to stay inside as long as that maniac isnt captured. Seriously though its just a game. If you want it to be realistic there are many other more unrealistc things in GTA than the lack of children. |
|
0
@anomagnus
well said - and a similar response i was going to use against ligurmatic's arguement. :) EDIT: oh and muscleblade above me :) TBH, if people feel they have to somehow justify their right to exersise their freedom to kill children if they so choose then like i said earlier please seek professional help. And anyway, when have games ever been about giving people ultimate freedom to do whatever they please?
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 09/07/08 @ 12:30
|
|
0
I'd say it's a sound decision. Being able to kill children would leave a wide open goal for the moral outrage brigade, same with nudity considering how much of a hang-up they have about it in the US.
It is annoying how all the moral crusaders care about is what you can do and not how it is actually implemented in game. In real life I could go on a killing spree or streak through a shopping mall etc but for (very very many) good reasons I don't. As long as you can always feel and see the repercussions of your actions I think it is better if you are allowed to make that choice. In fact that's why I hated the way the little sister decision was watered down so much. It is so sanitised that it never really drives it home to you how much of a monster you are. It doesn't strongly re-enforce your natural revulsion for the act (well I certainly hope people feel that it is a monstrous act...). |
|
crazyhorse174
09/07/08 @ 11:56
0
Why is this such a big deal? Its not going to change the way the game plays in any way. Anyone trying to justify this by saying that it takes the realism away from the game should stop and think about the fact that it isnt real life in the first place. Its a game.
I think the big question people should be asking though is - why are there never any toilets in any of the buildings in games these days!?! |
|
NegativeZero
09/07/08 @ 12:12
0
No child murder? Australia does not approve. Consider your game banned, Bethesda.
I am only partially joking too. I need to move to a better country. |
|
Snidesworth
09/07/08 @ 12:19
0
I disagree with every adult being theoretically able to defend themselves. If you, a skilled wasteland warrior, stride into a village of farmers clad in power armour and carrying a gattling laser and begin mowing them down then there's dick all they can do about it. They've got the same choices as a child does: run, cower, cry, beg, hide, etc.
Also, I wonder if "child killing" in games would be less of a problem if said children were 14 year old killers with knives and guns themselves.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 09/07/08 @ 13:19
|
|
schachmatt
09/07/08 @ 12:24
0
If he wouldn't have brought it up, it probably wouldn't have been an issue even if killing was possible.
It just bothers me that people are so prude nudity in games became such a big issue. Was it possible in Fallout 1/2 to kill anyone? I think so. And there were children featured as far as I remember, right? |
|
Snidesworth
09/07/08 @ 12:29
0
schachmatt: Kids were in Fallout 2, but they got removed for the European release. Which lead to a confusing conversation in The Den and an uncompletable quest where you're trying to find a missing child.
|
|
0
crazyhorse174: I completely agree. Remove children from the game, completely. Either that, or make it possible to kill them.
Oops, wait, this is Oblivion we are talking about... So I am looking forward to unkillable children companions - hopefully you can use them as 'party members'. Yes, children in Den were prone to pick your pocket for goodies. Too bad for them, when you 'accidentaly' left plastic explosive with timer set to 5 minutes... Regarding children with knives and guns - bah, you just have tell them that shooting is entertainment only adults, of course. They will melt with emotion, start sobbing and crawl to hug your legs, really :-)
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 09/07/08 @ 13:53
|
|
0
I think the child killer status that the original games had was an excellent way of getting you not to kill children, you really couldn't get anywhere with that on you so you didn't do it.
Well not without saving first before you laid waste to Shady Sands while wearing power armour and wielding a turbo plasma rifle when you just felt like seeing how long it would take to kill an entire town. Er, not that I ever did that. |
|
kangarootoo
09/07/08 @ 12:56
0
I'm kind of surprised anyone would get pissed off about this.
The absence of the things being discussed will have absolutely zero effect on the quality of the gameplay experience, yet some of us get sooo up tight when anyone is seen to restrict our lovely hobby in any way whatsoever that the rest of the planet must think us lunatics. That said, I'm actually quite pleased to see a relatively low number of "GIVE US OUR FREEDOM, LEAVE OUR GAMES ALONE, YOU BASTARDS" type posts on here. |
|
kangarootoo
09/07/08 @ 13:00
0
"Remove children from the game, completely. Either that, or make it possible to kill them."
Why make such a hard and fast rule. Does the suspension of disbelief required really impact the experience so heavily? The presence of the kids probably do more to build a realistic picture of a busling town than their invulnerability does to damage that same realism. I mean, if you simply avoiding trying to attack them, you don't even need to suspend disbelief at the results, so why not simply leave them in? I think the right decision was made personally, given the options available. And also, as an aside, the following should never be underestimated... "some of them are very basic, like we wouldn't be able to sell the game anywhere to anyone if the children could be killed." If they can't sell the game, it won't get made, which is bad for everyone. |
|
0
"I think the problem is that I no longer have the choice to not kill the children. Not that people can't wait to go around slaughtering kids. It's better to be able to chose to not do something, rather than being forced not to."
This is very well said. In a world which is about choice, being "good" loses its meaning if you're physically unable to do "evil". Anyway, you know there will be mods that make the kids killable. And everyone else nekkid. |
|
0
"Yes, because bending over backwards every time someone complains is exactly how we get past the problem.
/b" I’m glad you agree. I for one would rather see a game released in its entirety than see it censored beyond the point of recognition (case in point, the aforementioned Den in FO2), or worst case, not released at all. |
|
Snidesworth
09/07/08 @ 13:36
0
I may be remembering this incorrectly, but thinking back I could swear the kids were just invisible. Hence you still getting all your shit pickpocketed in The Den and not being able to do anything about it.
|
|
HelloWorld
09/07/08 @ 13:51
0
What makes child killing more wrong than adult killing? Basically you shouldn't kill people at all. In real life that is. In computer games it doesn't really matter.
I tend to ignore the traffic lights in GTA, but not in real life. And what on earth is wrong with nudity? I never really understood that one. |
|
0
@helloworld
read up :) The arguement seems to be that an adult would be able to defend themselves in some capacity whereas a child would just be an easy '10 points', which IMO is a perfectly valid reason for them being ommited. And regarding nudity, there's nothing wrong with it par se, but try walking down your nearest high street naked and tell me how far you get. Then try and use that same arguement on the police that stop you ;) |
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
