Discussions about Emil Pagliarulo’s interview with Next Gen and his thoughts as posted at the Bethesda Games forum continue, with NMA reporting on diferent reactions at qj.net, Destructoid and Evil Avatar.
On the Bethesda Games Fallout 3 forum Matt “Gstaff” Grandstaff had this to say:
Speaking with Emil this morning, it sounds like it’s something he’s willing to do more often. We’ll see.
Anyways, feel free to continue your discussions from yesterday/today here.
Jay “Radhamster” Woodward brought his idea about what Emil said on the issue of immersion in games:
My point was not the sort of point that needs sources, unless you want me to cite a book of logic. I was just saying that “FPP/RT equals immersion” is a different statement from “FPP/RT implies immersion” or even “for me, FPP/RT is typically the best way to provide immersion.”
On the other hand, quasimodo alluded to a “constant equating of FPP/RT and immersion.” That is the sort of point that needs sources: namely, examples of people saying that immersion in some sense requires FPP/RT. I highly doubt the existence of such examples, but I can’t turn over every rock in the universe to prove that they aren’t there.
The important thing to realize is that there’s actually no disagreement between Emil saying that FPP is the way to achieve immersion for Emil, and Brio saying that FPP isn’t important for immersion for Brio. Both statements are just subjective, personal statements about what’s effective for a particular person. Likewise, the statements, “for many people [FPP] isn’t even the most important way to achieve [immersion]” and “for many people FPP is a very important part of achieving immersion” can both be true. Because there are many “manys” in a “many.”
Usermember Rabish 12 added this to what RadHamster was saying:
I think the “for me” in the quote you brought up really illustrates that. Emil’s surprisingly careful with his words a lot of the time, and seems to go out of his way to make it clear with most of his statements that he’s doing what he thinks works best or what he prefers. I think he tries to make it clear that he’s not saying “either it’s done this way or it doesn’t work”, but rather “this is the way we prefer to do it”.
It’s like what’s been repeated several times by Emil and (I think) others on the development team: they’re making the game that they think will be the most fun. I don’t think they’re ignoring the wants of the fanbase entirely, but at the end of the day it comes down to what they think is going to be the most entertaining way of doing things. That doesn’t mean that it’s going to have universal appeal, but… well, I think that designing a game based on what other people like is a huge mistake. Better that they make something that they’re passionate, and pour that passion into their work, than just make something that they’re pretty much indifferent about but that other people have a passion for, and end up releasing a soulless husk of a game.
And that got the seal of approval by Emil:
Rabish 12 — Very well said. You pretty much nailed it.
Later he added:
Damn, this thread gained some serious momentum.
Just wanted to let you guys know I’m still here. Still reading.
I know since that initial impromtu “interview,” a lot of you guys have posted questions about Fallout 3. I’m more than happy to talk about my opinions on things (well, most things). But I’m still not at liberty to share a lot of Fallout 3 information. I just wanted to make sure we’re all on the same page.
Anyway, great discussion.
That might cool things off a bit.