Guardian Interview: Fallout 3 and the problem with Armageddon

Guardian blog writes: "Last month I blogged about the dearth of decent post-apocalyptic games -in other words, games that deal with the apocalypse as a true human calamity rather than as an excuse to have a lot of people in leather fighting each other on modded trucks. However, a few readers name-checked Fallout 3, the forthcoming open world adventure from Bethesda, as a positive example, so I got some questions to the game's director, Todd Howard, about his vision for an interactive post-nuclear wasteland.

Fallout 3 does indeed sound like a promising exploration of archetypal themes, building massively on the foundations of the two two titles. Citing everything from the science of Hiroshima to Children of Men as influences, Howard puts forward a compelling case...

Q: Can you tell us how your vision of an apocalyptic environment has changed since previous Fallout titles?

A: I think it's changed only in terms of, this one is on the east coast. We wanted to have a large, expansive wasteland, but also a dense, destroyed urban jungle of rebar and concrete, complete with all the major DC landmarks. I might say Fallout 3 has more survivalhorror elements in it then the previous ones. I think it needs to be scary sometimes."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
MK_Red3957d ago (Edited 3957d ago )

Hey, nice to hear the Raiders are back.
"several different endings, so all of them have some level of darkness in them" Loved this part.

Still can't shake the feeling that Todd and his team really didn't make the game too much like the originals. The Batman Begins example was a bad one. Original Batman films were decent to crappy so a great film like Begins was needed for them while Fallout 1 and 2 are essentially the best western RPGs ever made.