Fallout 3, who is this for?

[Roachypops]

At this point it boils down to an all or nothing battle, the results of which can be one of two things:

1: FALLOUT 3 can be a good game that actually caters to FALLOUT fans and has something to do with FALLOUT beyond ripped-off images of the pipboy.

2: FALLOUT 3 can suck and not be relevant to the franchise and not be what fans want and not have shit to do with FALLOUT.

So, it can't be a good game if it doesn't cater to you specifically?

The more I read about this issue, two things become abundantly clear. The first is that Bethesda isn't really interested in catering to the fanbase of Fallout with this game. They figure that they either already have your money simply by calling it Fallout and throwing in some fan service or they don't care what an extremely vocal minority has to say when they are trying to sell a game to the mainstream base. The second thing is that I really can't blame them. I don't think Bethesda (or anyone) could make a game at this point that will satisfy this group of people. I was going to add something like "and still be profitable" to the end of that sentence, but it seemed unnecessary.

But aspiring to make Fallout 4 a better game is a worthy goal, and I hope for your success.

 

[Black]

I don't think Bethesda (or anyone) could make a game at this point that will satisfy this group of people.

What, 'you can't be pleased' again? This is getting old.

I was going to add something like "and still be profitable" to the end of that sentence, but it seemed unnecessary.

Because there are no sequels in production that stay true to their roots, pleasing old fans and making money WITHOUT consolization...
*coughstarcraftcough*

 

[Roachypops]

It may have been said a hundred times already, and I hate to contribute to such a broken record, but I get the impression that much of the outcry is because the fanbase is too close to the original material. That's a poor sentence and I'll try to clarify. I think it's fair to say that everyone who would take the time to read this site loves Fallout. And, when people love something to the extent that this community loves Fallout, it's hard to be objective on the subject. Not impossible, mind, but very difficult.

Someone is going to be left out in the cold here, in some way, shape or form. The only way to produce this game that would meet all the criteria that everyone has for it is to simply repackage the original game and call it a day. Does it deviate dramatically from the formula in a move seemingly calculated to attract the FPS market? Sure. No argument there, and many of the concerns of Fallout fans are perfectly justified on that count. That doesn't mean it's going to be a horrible game, just one you have decided (prematurely, IMO) that you don't want to play.

You know what's older, though? The elitist attitude that some PC gamers have toward console gamers. Since I don't have the interest or the patience to keep up with hardware trends to maintain a gaming rig, I'm somehow less of a gamer?

Bullshit. I've been playing PnP games for nearly 20 years and you don't hear me bitching about how these damn kids today play their video games and think they're deep or compelling. Hell, Fallout's probably the best example of a PnP system being implemented effectively, and I still find myself wishing that I could have more choices in what to do. But it was the best we had in the limited framework of a video game. Prior to this, Interactive Fiction was it for me and CRPGS (though, obviously, the structure is vastly different).

Me? I like social gaming best. I enjoy having people over to my home every weekend to play some games. And, when there aren't too many of us, we'll occasionally pop in a multiplayer game on a console. I'm not particularly into online play, don't enjoy playing games with people I can't see and hear in front of me. And when I'm playing alone, I tend to play games utterly devoid of online content because then I never feel like the developer decided to skimp on the single-player that actually interests me to focus on the multiplayer aspect. So, consoles work well for what I enjoy playing. Little upkeep, ease of use (I'm still having problems running Fallout, despite a good month or so of near-flawless performance) and (up until the online networks got going) I never had to patch anything.

And, Starcraft? Really? It's not even a comparison. Starcraft has millions of active fans currently playing around the world. Hell, Blizzard could have created it solely for the Korean market and they'd make a shit ton of cash. I don't even like the game or genre all that much and it's readily apparent to me that making Starcraft 2 identical to the last is a no-brainer.

How large and how active is this fanbase? Not enough to earn the kind of money to justify the production, I bet.

 

[Stag]

The title of this article reminds me of an old SNL line...

Milli Vanilli, what is this faggot crap?

Bethesda could, and still may, make a game which falls under the criteria articles by people such as Brother None have written, which describe what Fallout is, and still make a profitable game.

They just haven't shown us that they are very much interested in this.

 

[Sander]

Someone is going to be left out in the cold here, in some way, shape or form. The only way to produce this game that would meet all the criteria that everyone has for it is to simply repackage the original game and call it a day. Does it deviate dramatically from the formula in a move seemingly calculated to attract the FPS market? Sure. No argument there, and many of the concerns of Fallout fans are perfectly justified on that count. That doesn't mean it's going to be a horrible game, just one you have decided (prematurely, IMO) that you don't want to play.

No, one that we've deduced won't be a true Fallout game.

You know what's older, though? The elitist attitude that some PC gamers have toward console gamers. Since I don't have the interest or the patience to keep up with hardware trends to maintain a gaming rig, I'm somehow less of a gamer?

Yep, that's a ridiculous attitude. It stems mainly from the (perceived) dumbing down of games for the console market. Most console games are fast, unintelligent action games.
And there's also the inherently limited interface capabilities consoles have.

And, Starcraft? Really? It's not even a comparison. Starcraft has millions of active fans currently playing around the world.

Fallout still sells thousands of copies every year.

As for the 'you can't be pleased' line: utter bullcrap. See Van Buren.

 

[Roachypops]

That doesn't mean it's going to be a horrible game, just one you have decided (prematurely, IMO) that you don't want to play.

No, one that we've deduced won't be a true Fallout game.

Now you're confusing me. You actually do want to play this game? Or do you think it will be not be horrible, but also not Fallout?

You know what's older, though? The elitist attitude that some PC gamers have toward console gamers. Since I don't have the interest or the patience to keep up with hardware trends to maintain a gaming rig, I'm somehow less of a gamer?

Yep, that's a ridiculous attitude. It stems mainly from the (perceived) dumbing down of games for the console market. Most console games are fast, unintelligent action games.
And there's also the inherently limited interface capabilities consoles have.

No denying that there are limitations, and I'm often more than a bit impressed when a developer makes a control scheme that would have necessitated twice as many buttons were it on PC and still manage to make it work well.

Fallout still sells thousands of copies every year.

Really? I'd like to see some documentation supporting that. It's not that I believe it to be out of the realm of possibility, mind you. That just seems surprising to me.

As for the 'you can't be pleased' line: utter bullcrap. See Van Buren.

Seen it, checked out the tech demo, read the leaked design docs. And there's a good chance it could have been a great game. We'll never know. Interplay (i.e. the corporate masters, lest you think I'm being unduly sympathetic to them; I'm not trying to be), whose already dire financial situation by this point is well-documented, likely did not believe that the demand outweighed the expense of creating it after BoS failed to sell[1]. It's not difficult to imagine that accountants would have Van Buren axed on the assumption that enthusiasm for the franchise had waned[2].

Therefore, it stands to reason that no developer who is in the business to generate profit, particularly on the scale and with the production costs Bethesda routinely incurs, is going to create that game. So, again, you won't be pleased.

And that's really the word that I should have used in the first place. I'm sure you can be pleased, I just do not believe you ever will.

[1]As it should have. I happen to enjoy playing the game, but I'm the sort of guy who finds pleasure in applying mailing labels to hundreds of postcards too. With the glut of games in the genre of gauntlet-clones at the time of it's release, BoS really didn't have anything to make it exceptional other than some unnecessary coarse language and crude humor.

[2]Which, let's admit, it had waned after the two spin-offs. The diehards may never lose interest, but let's not kid ourselves that the same massive audience would suddenly show up again if Van Buren were released on schedule, a full six or seven years after Fallout 2. Also not to say that it could not have been successful, but it wasn't going to save Interplay either and the bean counters needed to invest their resources into something that might.

 

[Sander]

Now you're confusing me. You actually do want to play this game? Or do you think it will be not be horrible, but also not Fallout?

I doubt I'll like the game, but that doesn't mean it'd be a bad game an sich. Just a bad Fallout game.

Really? I'd like to see some documentation supporting that. It's not that I believe it to be out of the realm of possibility, mind you. That just seems surprising to me.

I don't have any links, but yes, it's a steady seller to this day.

Seen it, checked out the tech demo, read the leaked design docs. And there's a good chance it could have been a great game. We'll never know. Interplay (i.e. the corporate masters, lest you think I'm being unduly sympathetic to them; I'm not trying to be), whose already dire financial situation by this point is well-documented, likely did not believe that the demand outweighed the expense of creating it after BoS failed to sell[1]. It's not difficult to imagine that accountants would have Van Buren axed on the assumption that enthusiasm for the franchise had waned[2].

Ehm, the guy who cancelled it was Herve Caen. The moron who thought Fallout: BOS 2 was a better idea than Van Buren and effectively ran Interplay into the ground. You can't really look at that decision and go 'Nope, never would've been succesful'.w

Therefore, it stands to reason that no developer who is in the business to generate profit, particularly on the scale and with the production costs Bethesda routinely incurs, is going to create that game. So, again, you won't be pleased.

And that's really the word that I should have used in the first place. I'm sure you can be pleased, I just do not believe you ever will.

Which annoys the piss out of us.

 

[Sorrow]

Sure. No argument there, and many of the concerns of Fallout fans are perfectly justified on that count. That doesn't mean it's going to be a horrible game, just one you have decided (prematurely, IMO) that you don't want to play.

Great. You are totally ignoring the moral factor. There's no point in rewarding Bethesda for not being mature enough to make a good Fallout game.
Because that's the truth. They lack maturity to faithfully bring the Fallout setting to Oblivion engine. Instead they create their own world on their own intellectual level (toilet drinking, nuclear catapult and fuck, fuck, fuck) that pretends to be Fallout - i.e. FoPoS 2.
If they had enough maturity to faithfully recreate the Fallout setting, they would have enough maturity to understand that making a Fallout sequel that isn't a cTRPG isn't an appropriate idea.

 

[Roachypops]

Now you're confusing me. You actually do want to play this game? Or do you think it will be not be horrible, but also not Fallout?

I doubt I'll like the game, but that doesn't mean it'd be a bad game an sich. Just a bad Fallout game.

I appreciate your saying this.

Fallout still sells thousands of copies every year.

Really? I'd like to see some documentation supporting that. It's not that I believe it to be out of the realm of possibility, mind you. That just seems surprising to me.

I don't have any links, but yes, it's a steady seller to this day.

Hm. Well, if anyone does have any links, I'd greatly appreciate the sating of my curiosity.

Interplay, whose already dire financial situation by this point is well-documented, likely did not believe that the demand outweighed the expense of creating it after BoS failed to sell. It's not difficult to imagine that accountants would have Van Buren axed on the assumption that enthusiasm for the franchise had waned.

Ehm, the guy who cancelled it was Herve Caen. The moron who thought Fallout: BOS 2 was a better idea than Van Buren and effectively ran Interplay into the ground. You can't really look at that decision and go 'Nope, never would've been succesful'.

Actually, after reading over some things I hadn't in quite some time, I have my facts wrong. So, apologies all around for that. That said, what I now know actually supports the argument I was trying to make better than the misinformation I previously submitted. If you'll indulge me in some conjecture:

I won't speak as to whether or not Herve Caen is a moron. Interplay's quarterly statements for the past several years can speak for themselves on that count. And, again, maybe Van Buren could have been very successful (still have my doubts, though; in the words of Roland of Gilead, "the world has moved on" and, even if a success, I don't think it would have been the salvation Interplay desperately needed). I can't help but try to look at it from his perspective, though. He needs his company to produce revenue, not only for his own benefit but the benefit of the stockholders to whom he answers and the employees that depend on him. So, one month before the release of BoS, he cancels Van Buren in order to produce BoS 2.

Why? Because cranking out a sequel to BoS would have cost them next to nothing in comparison to Van Buren. The engine on which BoS was based (the same used for Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance II, I believe) was already available to them. Most of the design elements necessary to create BoS 2 had already been completed for BoS. Create a new story, some new maps, dialogue, alakazam! BoS 2. It could have taken them less than a year to produce and be on store shelves. The negligible expense of the game could be easily recouped and profit could come streaming in.

Of course, this all hinged on BoS actually being a success. We know it was not, but I can completely understand how an executive could assume in the climate of the time that it would sell well. It was, without doubt, a poor move in terms of the legacy Fallout had created but had the potential to be a shrewd business decision. And I would suspect that, under the circumstances (and, no doubt, some board pressure), the business decisions were the only ones on Herve's mind.

Again, all in the hypothetical. It's merely the most logical explanation I can think of.

I'm sure you can be pleased, I just do not believe you ever will.

which annoys the piss out of us.

I've noticed.

Great. You are totally ignoring the moral factor. There's no point in rewarding Bethesda for not being mature enough to make a good Fallout game.
Because that's the truth. They lack maturity to faithfully bring the Fallout setting to Oblivion engine. Instead they create their own world on their own intellectual level (toilet drinking, nuclear catapult and fuck, fuck, fuck) that pretends to be Fallout - i.e. FoPoS 2.
If they had enough maturity to faithfully recreate the Fallout setting, they would have enough maturity to understand that making a Fallout sequel that isn't a cTRPG isn't an appropriate idea.

I'm not trying to offend you with this response (I have a tendency to come off as snide when I'm tired, which I am), and I'd like you to be aware of that from the outset. I think I've chosen my words fairly carefully (and self-edited a couple of times when I thought myself harsh) but sometimes I fail to see something inflammatory.

I don't think morality has anything to do with it, unless you're speaking of morality in terms of the gameplay of Fallout (which might be a little non-sequiter at this point in the conversation, but you never know). Nor does maturity, for that matter, but we could certainly discuss the merits of prostitutes and pop-culture references abounding in Fallout 2 (when only a few here and there would have sufficed quite nicely, as they did in the original) as an example.

The nuclear catapult is a horrible idea and I have a hard time imagining anyone thinking otherwise, despite the evidence to the contrary. The language I can even agree with you on (though, didn't Fallout 2 have a higher quantity of cursing than its predecessor?).

Toilet drinking, on the other hand, I'm completely in favor of. Not from the perspective of base humor but because it's as practical as drinking water from any other receptacle, given the circumstances of a post-nuclear world. Hell, the water in your toilet right now is perfectly fine for drinking, provided you have a basic sense of how to care for your home. Even if you didn't, the water in the tank is just the same as the stuff that comes out of your tap (granted, this could be questionable in its own right), even if what's in your bowl might be contaminated. So long as you aren't using a chemical tablet to manage bacteria (and, if the water in your bowl is contaminated, you aren't) you can drink from a toilet.

As far as what's appropriate, I do not believe that it is impossible to properly marry the concepts of a cTRPG (which is really a horrible acronym... the more I look at it, the more it makes my stomach churn) with a gameplay style more consistent with Oblivion. This may not be what Bethesda is doing here; they could very well be fucking the dog. I personally haven't seen enough to make that call for myself. To say that it is not "an appropriate idea" when we have yet to see actual implementation smacks of a certain superiority. It may work, it may not.

Truth is often subjective, particularly in this circumstance as we really don't have all the facts yet. The evidence does not point to them creating something high-brow, no. I'm just maintaining a "wait and see" attitude about it. I have no plans to reward Bethesda for putting the Fallout title on a game, nor will I condemn them if it does not exactly reflect the games that previously bore said title. The reward comes when they make a game that I've decided I want to play, and that's it.


On an unrelated note, I'd just like to say how much I have been enjoying this conversation, particularly in this last page. It is my sincere hope that I've assuaged the concerns that I came in here with the intent of trolling. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Salkinius]

Great post, Roachypops!

 

[Sander]

Actually, after reading over some things I hadn't in quite some time, I have my facts wrong. So, apologies all around for that. That said, what I now know actually supports the argument I was trying to make better than the misinformation I previously submitted. If you'll indulge me in some conjecture:

I won't speak as to whether or not Herve Caen is a moron. Interplay's quarterly statements for the past several years can speak for themselves on that count. And, again, maybe Van Buren could have been very successful (still have my doubts, though; in the words of Roland of Gilead, "the world has moved on" and, even if a success, I don't think it would have been the salvation Interplay desperately needed). I can't help but try to look at it from his perspective, though. He needs his company to produce revenue, not only for his own benefit but the benefit of the stockholders to whom he answers and the employees that depend on him. So, one month before the release of BoS, he cancels Van Buren in order to produce BoS 2.

Why? Because cranking out a sequel to BoS would have cost them next to nothing in comparison to Van Buren. The engine on which BoS was based (the same used for Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance II, I believe) was already available to them. Most of the design elements necessary to create BoS 2 had already been completed for BoS. Create a new story, some new maps, dialogue, alakazam! BoS 2. It could have taken them less than a year to produce and be on store shelves. The negligible expense of the game could be easily recouped and profit could come streaming in.

Of course, this all hinged on BoS actually being a success. We know it was not, but I can completely understand how an executive could assume in the climate of the time that it would sell well. It was, without doubt, a poor move in terms of the legacy Fallout had created but had the potential to be a shrewd business decision. And I would suspect that, under the circumstances (and, no doubt, some board pressure), the business decisions were the only ones on Herve's mind.

Again, all in the hypothetical. It's merely the most logical explanation I can think of.

It is a good and probably the explanation of what was going on in Herve's mind, but again that doesn't mean that he was right on that part. Which he clearly wasn't.

As for Van Buren not being succesful: it might not have been. But it probably would have been succesful, since it would have been essentially the *only* game that a pretty big 'niche' market would like to see: the people who've played cRPGs for years.
See, it's a rather interesting trend that every single developer aims their game at the biggest market possible. However, if you think about it, everyone following this trend is ridiculous. It means that everyone aims their game at the same market, which has a limited buying power and is completely saturated. Aiming a game at a niche that's been waiting for a decent game for years is essentially a shitload of guaranteed sales.

I'm not trying to offend you with this response (I have a tendency to come off as snide when I'm tired, which I am), and I'd like you to be aware of that from the outset. I think I've chosen my words fairly carefully (and self-edited a couple of times when I thought myself harsh) but sometimes I fail to see something inflammatory.

I don't think morality has anything to do with it, unless you're speaking of morality in terms of the gameplay of Fallout (which might be a little non-sequiter at this point in the conversation, but you never know). Nor does maturity, for that matter, but we could certainly discuss the merits of prostitutes and pop-culture references abounding in Fallout 2 (when only a few here and there would have sufficed quite nicely, as they did in the original) as an example.

The nuclear catapult is a horrible idea and I have a hard time imagining anyone thinking otherwise, despite the evidence to the contrary. The language I can even agree with you on (though, didn't Fallout 2 have a higher quantity of cursing than its predecessor?).

You do realise that Fallout 2 is seen as vastly inferior to its predecessor, setting-wise?

Toilet drinking, on the other hand, I'm completely in favor of. Not from the perspective of base humor but because it's as practical as drinking water from any other receptacle, given the circumstances of a post-nuclear world. Hell, the water in your toilet right now is perfectly fine for drinking, provided you have a basic sense of how to care for your home. Even if you didn't, the water in the tank is just the same as the stuff that comes out of your tap (granted, this could be questionable in its own right), even if what's in your bowl might be contaminated. So long as you aren't using a chemical tablet to manage bacteria (and, if the water in your bowl is contaminated, you aren't) you can drink from a toilet.

Erm, water that's been stagnant and irradiated for 200 years isn't going to be even near safe. Drinking from water like that is tantamount to suicide.
Having magical healing toilet water doesn't exactly fit with the setting either.

As far as what's appropriate, I do not believe that it is impossible to properly marry the concepts of a cTRPG (which is really a horrible acronym... the more I look at it, the more it makes my stomach churn)

Heh, I have to agree with you there.

with a gameplay style more consistent with Oblivion. This may not be what Bethesda is doing here; they could very well be fucking the dog. I personally haven't seen enough to make that call for myself. To say that it is not "an appropriate idea" when we have yet to see actual implementation smacks of a certain superiority. It may work, it may not.

Well, part of the core design of Fallout is the turn-based combat and the perspective. Bethesda's already shown that they have no interest in maintaining those aspects, so it's pretty clear to us that they've already screwed the pooch.

EDIT: Don't spam, Salkinius.

 

[Per]

Toilet drinking, on the other hand, I'm completely in favor of. Not from the perspective of base humor but because it's as practical as drinking water from any other receptacle, given the circumstances of a post-nuclear world.

There is the question why toilets would be more appropriate than anything else for holding water. Presumably in a 200-years-old ruined subway the plumbing no longer works at all. Rubber seals would crack so any water in the tank would leak into the bowl, where it would rapidly evaporate unless replenished. If the source of replenishment is rain, there's no reason why anyone would choose a deep, narrow receptacle to try to drink from over any other. It's possible that the construction of toilet bowls somehow makes them collect air moisture effectively, but I've never heard of it. It sort of leaves the Jackass-type "toilets! gross! ha ha ha!" juvenile angle for introducing the concept in the first place.

concepts of a cTRPG (which is really a horrible acronym... the more I look at it, the more it makes my stomach churn)

Yeah, you're not alone there.

I'm just maintaining a "wait and see" attitude about it.

Interestingly enough, so are we (the official NMA), except we get to take flak from two different directions. Along the way, we comment on what we do see and compare with what we do know.

 

[eZRider]

I don't want to sound like a complete bitch, but, from the article(really good btw) I get the impression that the guys making this game aren't very ... oh... how do I say this... cool.

They're trying to hard to be cool and failing cos they're not.

I want quality dialog. I wanna few laughs.

I can laugh at a guy getting blasted to bits (like the T1000 in Terminator2 except with guts) all day long. Its just funny. The posted screenshot doesn't raise a chuckle.

I guess this game is for kiddies that have no imagination left.

 

[Black]

Actually, they are cool and they're doing to Fallout whatever is cool.
You know, 'cool' as 'jackass cool'.

 

[Roachypops]

...again, maybe Van Buren could have been very successful (still have my doubts, though; in the words of Roland of Gilead, "the world has moved on" and, even if a success, I don't think it would have been the salvation Interplay desperately needed).

It is a good and probably the explanation of what was going on in Herve's mind, but again that doesn't mean that he was right on that part. Which he clearly wasn't.

Of course it doesn't make him right, but a little niggling voice in the back of my mind keeps saying, "that's only because BoS didn't sell." I have to agree with that voice because he's a businessman, not a designer or project manager. His responsibility is not to the fans of his company's products but to the continued existence of the company. He makes decisions based solely on a bottom line and I can easily see how such decisions could not include Van Buren.

As for Van Buren not being succesful: it might not have been. But it probably would have been succesful, since it would have been essentially the *only* game that a pretty big 'niche' market would like to see: the people who've played cRPGs for years.
See, it's a rather interesting trend that every single developer aims their game at the biggest market possible. However, if you think about it, everyone following this trend is ridiculous. It means that everyone aims their game at the same market, which has a limited buying power and is completely saturated. Aiming a game at a niche that's been waiting for a decent game for years is essentially a shitload of guaranteed sales.

I hate trend and ambulance chasing about equally. Still, if the alternative to chasing a trend is to rely on what is perceived to be a highly critical, very biased niche that you hope is only foaming at the mouth out of desire for your game, that can be a huge, intimidating risk. Especially if everyone in the industry is watching vultures circle over your head and your investors are wringing their hands. If that niche doesn't wind up liking it, you're fucked. They'll all talk to each other and none of them will buy it.

I hate to keep going back to this example, but here I am at BoS again (and likely about to stroll headlong into a minefield). Had BoS been a better game, perhaps not a true Fallout, per se, but something that added elements to the setting rather than contradicted them, had a more complex and satisfying gameplay experience, less advertising for Bawls, things could have turned out a lot differently. Instead of being universally panned amongst the fan communities for Fallout, it probably would have made a good chunk of change even if the most hardcore still cried foul. The gaming press of the time (which I realize and largely agree with the disdain for) gave BoS largely average reviews as it was.

Now, everyone here did the right thing, don't go reading into this that I'm blaming the fans for Interplay's failure. They did that all on their own. Had it been successful in that format, it probably would have meant the final nail in the coffin for the traditional Fallout design anyway.

As I continue to play devil's advocate, you kinda have to ask yourself if you would have been able to put the livelihoods of hundreds of people, let alone that of your own family, on this group of people loving what you've done. A group of people who have been watching every move your company makes and pointing out every perceived misstep, sometimes in an undiplomatic fashion. And then, after making sure that this core audience is satisfied, you have to worry about what the general public's response will be to a game whose core tenets are vastly different to the mainstream's.

In hindsight, it certainly appears that they were on the right track with Van Buren, so far as the fans were concerned. I won't pretend to know if the masses would have accepted it. Still, at the time and under the circumstances that the decision was made, I doubt I would have done things differently.

You do realise that Fallout 2 is seen as vastly inferior to its predecessor, setting-wise?

Yes, which I also agree with. That said, I think it is somewhat unfair to villify the devs at Bethesda for doing much the same thing BIS did before them, particularly without the complete picture. I'd like to see them do a better job with the setting than was done in Fallout 2, which is looking less and less likely as time goes on. If they par the course, I'll be satisfied. I might even accept as much as a double bogey, but that would be pushing the limits.

There is the question why toilets would be more appropriate than anything else for holding water. Presumably in a 200-years-old ruined subway the plumbing no longer works at all. Rubber seals would crack so any water in the tank would leak into the bowl, where it would rapidly evaporate unless replenished. If the source of replenishment is rain, there's no reason why anyone would choose a deep, narrow receptacle to try to drink from over any other. It's possible that the construction of toilet bowls somehow makes them collect air moisture effectively, but I've never heard of it. It sort of leaves the Jackass-type "toilets! gross! ha ha ha!" juvenile angle for introducing the concept in the first place.

Erm, water that's been stagnant and irradiated for 200 years isn't going to be even near safe. Drinking from water like that is tantamount to suicide.
Having magical healing toilet water doesn't exactly fit with the setting either.

Fair points, both. And while I'm sure perfectly rational explanations for why the water in the toilets could be (or be made to be) potable, I'm equally certain Bethesda won't bother. The idea itself, if properly presented, is not offensive to me. Nor are game elements that simplify the more elemantary aspects of daily life for a character. The real problem being that this is a setting in which (as even Bethesda have noted) simple survival should be a struggle and, if the toilet does indeed contain "magical healing" water, a component like that would detract from the professed intention of the game.

Now, if having access to water were mandatory to simply maintain the health and vigor of the character, if you had to carry it with you (and take up weight in your inventory; ask any backpacker how heavy that shit is) for lengthy journeys and be able to replenish your supply or die, that's a mechanic I wouldn't mind seeing.

Well, part of the core design of Fallout is the turn-based combat and the perspective. Bethesda's already shown that they have no interest in maintaining those aspects, so it's pretty clear to us that they've already screwed the pooch.

I'm not of the camp that says Fallout must be turn-based to be Fallout (I don't know if there's another camp that would take me but I wouldn't want to be a member of it anyway). Again, though, I enjoy a very wide range of games and your milelage will almost certainly vary. Tonight, for example, when my fellow geeks congregate here, we'll be playing a diceless, stat-free, freeform RPG. Other games that I have played or run have used a near-real-time system that limits the amount of time players have to consider the actions of their characters (usually only a few seconds). So, while real-time is not the system most commonly associated with the genre Fallout fits into, my experiences have taught me that these sorts of games can be equally satisfying using any of a wide range of gameplay styles.

As to the perspective, I understand your frustration with that. I was really looking forward to Metroid Prime until I played it and let's not even venture into the travesty that 3D Castlevania games have been. Still. it does not have to be a bad thing, necessarily. A third-person view is available which, while not isometric, does have the feel of Bethesda extending an olive branch in that direction.

 

[Sander]

I hate trend and ambulance chasing about equally. Still, if the alternative to chasing a trend is to rely on what is perceived to be a highly critical, very biased niche that you hope is only foaming at the mouth out of desire for your game, that can be a huge, intimidating risk. Especially if everyone in the industry is watching vultures circle over your head and your investors are wringing their hands. If that niche doesn't wind up liking it, you're fucked. They'll all talk to each other and none of them will buy it.

I hate to keep going back to this example, but here I am at BoS again (and likely about to stroll headlong into a minefield). Had BoS been a better game, perhaps not a true Fallout, per se, but something that added elements to the setting rather than contradicted them, had a more complex and satisfying gameplay experience, less advertising for Bawls, things could have turned out a lot differently. Instead of being universally panned amongst the fan communities for Fallout, it probably would have made a good chunk of change even if the most hardcore still cried foul. The gaming press of the time (which I realize and largely agree with the disdain for) gave BoS largely average reviews as it was.

Now, everyone here did the right thing, don't go reading into this that I'm blaming the fans for Interplay's failure. They did that all on their own. Had it been successful in that format, it probably would have meant the final nail in the coffin for the traditional Fallout design anyway.

As I continue to play devil's advocate, you kinda have to ask yourself if you would have been able to put the livelihoods of hundreds of people, let alone that of your own family, on this group of people loving what you've done. A group of people who have been watching every move your company makes and pointing out every perceived misstep, sometimes in an undiplomatic fashion. And then, after making sure that this core audience is satisfied, you have to worry about what the general public's response will be to a game whose core tenets are vastly different to the mainstream's.

No, you don't. See, again you go with aiming the game at a *saturated* mainstream market. That is, quite simply, dumb as shit if your game doesn't offer anything new to the saturated market.
The point is not whether or not other people will like it, the point is that millions of dollars have been paid for the Fallout license, yet they are not aiming it at anyone who has a vested interest in that license. That's just throwing money down the drain, essentially.
It's also interesting to note that you call the niche a 'vocal minority', yet the mainstream a non-vocal majority. A large part of the niche is filled with people who really like to play these kinds of games, but don't talk about it.

Unless you're talking about Van Buren, in which case it's a really odd comparison. Interplay was already almost dead when Van Buren got cancelled, but it was being developed by the most succesful Interplay division that raked in the bulk of the profits for Interplay.

In hindsight, it certainly appears that they were on the right track with Van Buren, so far as the fans were concerned. I won't pretend to know if the masses would have accepted it. Still, at the time and under the circumstances that the decision was made, I doubt I would have done things differently.

I'm pretty sure that anyone with a brain would've done differently. Van Buren did most certainly have mass appeal and would've been a good seller, a much better seller than FOBOS ever could have been at the very least. Simply compare Baldur's Gate and Dark Alliance and you have a similar picture, really.

I'm not of the camp that says Fallout must be turn-based to be Fallout (I don't know if there's another camp that would take me but I wouldn't want to be a member of it anyway). Again, though, I enjoy a very wide range of games and your milelage will almost certainly vary. Tonight, for example, when my fellow geeks congregate here, we'll be playing a diceless, stat-free, freeform RPG. Other games that I have played or run have used a near-real-time system that limits the amount of time players have to consider the actions of their characters (usually only a few seconds). So, while real-time is not the system most commonly associated with the genre Fallout fits into, my experiences have taught me that these sorts of games can be equally satisfying using any of a wide range of gameplay styles.

The difference between a real-time RPG and and a real-time computer RPG is that the former never requires reflexes, yet the latter does. Essentially detracting heavily from character skill.

 

[Roachypops]

No, you don't. See, again you go with aiming the game at a *saturated* mainstream market. That is, quite simply, dumb as shit if your game doesn't offer anything new to the saturated market.

What you and I might consider "saturated" could easily be mistaken for a still-thriving trend by someone who doesn't actually know better. It's not as though he was trying to sabotage his company. Maybe more market research could have been done and that might have yielded what was already plain to those of us in the trenches. Who can say how many ways this got screwed up? I'm merely expressing that there are contexts in which canceling Van Buren for BoS 2 was the best of a list of shitty options for the business.

The point is not whether or not other people will like it, the point is that millions of dollars have been paid for the Fallout license, yet they are not aiming it at anyone who has a vested interest in that license. That's just throwing money down the drain, essentially.

And I'm still willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until I see the final result. The just posted interview makes me feel a little better about whether or not they're doing what you say. The story, the world and my ability to interact in that world in a variety of different ways are the paramount concerns to me, not the manner in which I do so. Which is not to say that an unplayable interface with a phenomenal setting and story is acceptable. We just seem to placing different levels of priority on these aspects.

It's also interesting to note that you call the niche a 'vocal minority', yet the mainstream a non-vocal majority. A large part of the niche is filled with people who really like to play these kinds of games, but don't talk about it.

In fairness, I never suggested the mainstream were anything more than the mainstream. They can be vocal or not, it's largely irrelevant to my point. And if people don't speak, how can they expect to be heard? So, the niche seems smaller as a result, and even less of a worthwhile target.

Unless you're talking about Van Buren, in which case it's a really odd comparison. Interplay was already almost dead when Van Buren got cancelled, but it was being developed by the most succesful Interplay division that raked in the bulk of the profits for Interplay.

No, you're right, I'm talking about Van Buren here. Interplay, being almost dead, is placed in a desperate situation. That means cutting expenses and attempting to squeeze profit out of less costly efforts. No doubt the BIS group constituted the largest expense in the area of development costs, as their past success would have been met with higher salaries, their more ambitious projects requiring more time and money to accomplish. Neither time nor money were on the side of Interplay.

The difference between a real-time RPG and and a real-time computer RPG is that the former never requires reflexes, yet the latter does. Essentially detracting heavily from character skill.

You should play with my guys sometime. We've calmed down a lot with age, but reflexes were frequently required.

All kidding aside, I concur that their are still fundamental differences because of the platform on which a game is played. I am curious to see how well VATS addresses this issue.

 

[Sorrow]

And I'm still willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until I see the final result. The just posted interview makes me feel a little better about whether or not they're doing what you say. The story, the world and my ability to interact in that world in a variety of different ways are the paramount concerns to me, not the manner in which I do so. Which is not to say that an unplayable interface with a phenomenal setting and story is acceptable. We just seem to placing different levels of priority on these aspects.

Except, that they are unable to create a game on intellectual level of Fallout, including the story and the world.
They already have proven that they can't see subtle things like wars are being fought for resources, even when on surface it seems that it's "a simple psychotic rage". They give us cursing, senseless destruction, mega weapons, etc.
Not to mention inability to create a blue nuca-cola.

 

[Per]

For anyone trying to second-guess Herve's actions on the assumption that he's a rational person:

http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=411894#411894
http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=384096#384096
http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=366872#366872
http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=362918#362918
http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=292886#292886
http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=270799#270799
http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=243307#243307

 

[Roachypops]

Except, that they are unable to create a game on intellectual level of Fallout, including the story and the world.
They already have proven that they can't see subtle things like wars are being fought for resources, even when on surface it seems that it's "a simple psychotic rage". They give us cursing, senseless destruction, mega weapons, etc.
Not to mention inability to create a blue nuca-cola.

Blue Nuka-Cola notwithstanding, Emil Pagiarulo has always seemed to be articulate and intelligent in the interviews and such that I've seen him in. The man also worked on Thief, and I challenge you to find another divergent-history world in gaming that was more mature than that (other than, of course, our favorite divergent-history world).

There's been some poor PR, I grant you, and some people have come off as jackasses. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to make an immature game

For anyone trying to second-guess Herve's actions on the assumption that he's a rational person:

It's interesting, though unconvincing. I would not go so far as to suggest that he's being deceitful. Still, there are a couple of things that would render his statements suspect in my mind:

First is the position he held while at Interplay as a web programmer. It does not seem to me that a person in that job would have a considerable amount of interaction with the CEO. Which you don't necessarily need in order to make the statements that he's made, but it adds another degree of separation that could cloud the veracity of them. Word travels and I'm sure that through encounters with others in the office and in the industry that such things would be expressed, so that isn't really a big deal.

More concerning, however, is the biographical information on his website, specifically the following three paragraphs that concern Interplay (red emphasis, mine; <s>strikethrough</s>, his):

I'd hoped to turn these talents in to a career for myself in computer game design, but that has proven difficult. One day, Interplay Entertainment, the makers of Fallout and D&D computer games, needed a web programmer. I had just the right skills they needed. For once a beam of luck shone through the murky darkness for me, I got the job.

<s>I’m still doing web programming for Interplay. I’ve picked up most of the web languages and tools as its come out: HTML, Cold Fusion, ASP, C#, dot.net, DHTML, java, JavaScript, Flash, SQL, Visual Basic. I still write my stories, and create my game worlds. I keep my ears open for that one break I need to move from writing web code to creating games, stranger things have happened.</s>

Interplay is no more. Due to corporate misgovernace the company folded along with my chance to become a game designer. With the bust of the dot-coms, I've had a great deal of trouble picking up work so I've elected to take a bartending course and change work industries. I'll post the full story of Interplay's demise soon. Stay tuned.

As it is not my wish to make an attack on Corith or his integrity, perceived or otherwise, I'm not going to comment further regarding this. I merely reproduce it here to provide perspective on where he may be coming from and why I am unable to take what he has said simply at face value.