Tim Cain, aki a Fallout első részének atyaúristene volt, az RPG Codexnek nyilatkozott az új részekkel kapcsolatban:
"Given that you left Interplay midway
through Fallout 2's development, how did the resulting game differ from
the original design you had in mind for it?
I don't remember the specific details of my plans for Fallout 2, but I
do remember playing the game and seeing it was different from the
storyline I had proposed for it. I think my biggest disappointment with
the game is that each area was made in almost complete isolation from
the others. There was no over-arching theme and no attempt to make sure
the different areas were cohesive. It felt like a lot of Fallout-y
areas, placed adjacently and connected with a storyline. Those areas
were individually well-done, but they suffered from the lack of a strong
central design.
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."
