Gametrailers.com videos

[Leon]

I elect that Mane be christened "Megaposter" or something equally or more fitting to his talent.

 

[kyle]

wow ... i wanna be like you when i grow up

also, sorry, TLDR - would you be so kind and provide an abstract / summary next time, thanks

 

[Sander]

Troika went out of business long ago. If they couldn't afford to put out anything else after the license went elsewhere, how do you think they would finish development of Fallout 3? It would have been Van Buren all over again.

I don't think you understand how the gaming business works, and the Van Buren reference makes even less sense (Van Buren was cancelled by Interplay because Interplay thought FOBOS had more potential).

What would've happened, is Troika going out and seeking a publisher to finance their making Fallout 3, hence preventing a future cancelled game, although it wouldn't have prevented another buggy Troika game.

Other than that, the point was that Bethesda wasn't the knight in shining armor for the Fallout franchise you made it out to be. Fallout was barely on the market when Bethesda bought it.

Investors aren't dumb. I know it's cliche to present them as mindless suits but they don't get to be investors with millions of dollars to throw around by being idiots. They know when something is a good risk. The fact that Troika couldn't land any is telling. No one had the confidence in them to pull something off that was worthwhile. Maybe it was justified based on their past examples, maybe it wasn't.

Troika didn't have much time to find an investor before Bethesda bought the game, and had a history of getting fucked over by investors (forcing them to release VTM:B while still buggy and at the same time as Half-Life 2, which is just mind-bogglingly stupid marketing wise, for instance).

 

[Dionysus]

I'll stand by mine, without Beth we may have never seen another Fallout game. To some that might be okay, but to me I'll gladly give this one a whirl. If it sucks, oh well.

I think that's unlikely. Without Beth, it's possible that a more orthodox Fallout sequel would be released, and that's all that really matters to some fans. With Beth holding the license, there's really no possibility of a more orthodox sequel.

 

[Stoveburner]

Other than that, the point was that Bethesda wasn't the knight in shining armor for the Fallout franchise you made it out to be. Fallout was barely on the market when Bethesda bought it.

Which doesn't make much sense. Unless IPLY just put a price sticker on it and sold it to the first person through the door. I'm fairly certain that's not how it worked.

The Van Buren reference was to the likelihood that something would be started and not finished and cancelled as yet another company closed its doors.

Which I think would have been the most likely outcome, short of Troika getting a huge backing out of nowhere based solely on the Fallout franchise. Which ties into the first part. Either not many people wanted it, weren't willing to pay much for it, or Interplay just put a sale tag on it at a flea market.

 

[Sander]

Which doesn't make much sense. Unless IPLY just put a price sticker on it and sold it to the first person through the door. I'm fairly certain that's not how it worked.

Ding ding ding that's how it worked, for as far we know.
Look, Interplay was in dire, dire, dire financial straits. It needed money, and it needed it fast.
Hell, it still had to pay back pay to employees (search for some of Corith's posts for some clarification on that).

The Van Buren reference was to the likelihood that something would be started and not finished and cancelled as yet another company closed its doors.

Which I think would have been the most likely outcome, short of Troika getting a huge backing out of nowhere based solely on the Fallout franchise. Which ties into the first part. Either not many people wanted it, weren't willing to pay much for it, or Interplay just put a sale tag on it at a flea market.

All 3 games released by Troika made a profit and they certainly weren't some losing development house.
It would not have been crazy for any publisher to back Troika, and what you think is 'crazy' (publishers backing developers for millions of dollars) is exactly how the gaming industry works: developers get money from publishers to make games. And yes, that's where the developers usually get *all* their money from.
It's similar to the movie industry, where big publishing houses are usually financiers for movies putting up significant parts (usually all of it) of the budget for the publishing rights and a huge part of the profits.

 

[Stoveburner]

Oh, I'm well aware that's how it works.. but I also am aware that the money goes where the money is. You don't throw good money after bad.

I'm sure Troika had reasonable sales, but I have yet to see an explanation of why if they were supposedly doing as well as you present that they closed down? Why wouldn't they get money somewhere else?

Bottom line: if some group with a few million thought Troika could pull it off with Fallout then they could have made a play for it. At least a serious one.

Unless the flea market theory is actually the right one. In which case.. well, I'm not shocked. Interplay was full of idiots.

 

[Sander]

Oh, I'm well aware that's how it works.. but I also am aware that the money goes where the money is. You don't throw good money after bad.

I', sure Troika had reasonable sales, but I have yet to see an explanation of why if they were supposedly doing as well as you present that they closed down? Why wouldn't they get money somewhere else?

Troika had made a significant profit over its existence, also for its publishers. But Troika wanted nothing to do with their previous three publisher (IIRC) after the problems they had with Sierra (Arcanum), Atari (ToEE) and Activision (VTM:B), revolving around pushed deadlines and failure to support patches. I'm not privy to the details and my memory is a bit foggy, but I recall one of the Troika people saying they were negotiating with a publisher for financing to buy Fallout 3 when it was snagged by Bethesda, leading to the myth that Bethesda cheated Troika which is really not fair to Bethesda.

That isn't to say that the publishers were all bad, and certainly Troika was at fault for missing deadlines.

The point is, Troika had made 3 games that were succesful and turned a profit, but they weren't making huge blockbuster games. Publishers didn't want to give them money, because publishers were (and still are) looking for *only* those huge blockbusters (which is a ridiculous strategy, as anyone with even the slightest experience in financial markets can tell you).

The video game industry is very young and inexperienced. You see basically only a slew of high-budget high-profile games being released, and a few small-budget indies. Nothing in between. Publishers don't spread their risks and are basically very shitty investors putting their eggs solely in the high-profile mainstream baskets.

Bottom line: if some group with a few million thought Troika could pull it off with Fallout then they could have made a play for it. At least a serious one.

Unless the flea market theory is actually the right one. In which case.. well, I'm not shocked. Interplay was full of idiots.

Interplay was basically just Herve Caen at that point. For as far as we know, the flea market theory is correct.
Although, obviously, $1 million is a ton of money for a bankrupt company.

 

[Stoveburner]

The point is, Troika had made 3 games that were succesful and turned a profit, but they weren't making huge blockbuster games. Publishers didn't want to give them money, because publishers were (and still are) looking for *only* those huge blockbusters (which is a ridiculous strategy, as anyone with even the slightest experience in financial markets can tell you).

I'm not sure that's always the case. Atari did publish The Witcher which is borderline indie and considering the content and target audience was never going to be a huge seller.

I don't think it always has to be the next big seller to warrant production, it just has to be a safe bet. Lots of safe bets trumps gambling on who will be the next Blizzard.

 

[Sander]

I'm not sure that's always the case. Atari did publish The Witcher which is borderline indie and considering the content and target audience was never going to be a huge seller.

I don't think it always has to be the next big seller to warrant production, it just has to be a safe bet. Lots of safe bets trumps gambling on who will be the next Blizzard.

Actually, the Sharpe ratio usually suggests a mix between a lot of different investments, more or less regardless of risk/return/variance involved.

But that's beside the point. The Witcher is only one of a very few non high-profile games released, over the years. And at the time, publishers were doing barely any non high-profile games. Hell, Troika was one of the few development houses that wasn't doing those mainstream, high-profile games.

 

[Stoveburner]

But that's beside the point. The Witcher is only one of a very few non high-profile games released, over the years. And at the time, publishers were doing barely any non high-profile games. Hell, Troika was one of the few development houses that wasn't doing those mainstream, high-profile games.

I think you underestimate the sheer number of games that get released.

And there are a lot of smaller publishers out there, granted they may not be able to bankroll a huge studio for 3 years.. they could at least help as long as the studio had some of its own money as well.

 

[Quaid]

But that's beside the point. The Witcher is only one of a very few non high-profile games released, over the years. And at the time, publishers were doing barely any non high-profile games. Hell, Troika was one of the few development houses that wasn't doing those mainstream, high-profile games.

I think you underestimate the sheer number of games that get released.

And there are a lot of smaller publishers out there, granted they may not be able to bankroll a huge studio for 3 years.. they could at least help as long as the studio had some of its own money as well.

Most of the games that get released are garbage IMHO. I agree with Sander that most of them are big names attempting to ride off of blockbusters, which are typically shallow and empty in my gaming experience. I would take Fallout 1, Planescape: Torment, VtMB, or Arcanum over any of them in a heartbeat.

If you have specifics on the games that fit into this type of niche being released, please reference them - as I am very interested in knowing. For those of us attempting to game on a console, it is even more of a wasteland in niche games (ala strategy or RPG). There is a definite glut of platformers and action titles though.

 

[Stoveburner]

But that's beside the point. The Witcher is only one of a very few non high-profile games released, over the years. And at the time, publishers were doing barely any non high-profile games. Hell, Troika was one of the few development houses that wasn't doing those mainstream, high-profile games.

I think you underestimate the sheer number of games that get released.

And there are a lot of smaller publishers out there, granted they may not be able to bankroll a huge studio for 3 years.. they could at least help as long as the studio had some of its own money as well.

Most of the games that get released are garbage IMHO. I agree with Sander that most of them are big names attempting to ride off of blockbusters, which are typically shallow and empty in my gaming experience. I would take Fallout 1, Planescape: Torment, VtMB, or Arcanum over any of them in a heartbeat.

If you have specifics on the games that fit into this type of niche being released, please reference them - as I am very interested in knowing. For those of us attempting to game on a console, it is even more of a wasteland in niche games (ala strategy or RPG). There is a definite glut of platformers and action titles though.

I wasn't aware that we were speaking of a specific genre, but you know that the supply adjusts to the demand, right? If RPGs aren't selling well then you aren't going to have many made.

But if you need a strategy/rpg type game from a small studio you could check out King's Bounty if you haven't. I just spent a week straight playing it.

 

[Quaid]

I wasn't aware that we were speaking of a specific genre, but you know that the supply adjusts to the demand, right? If RPGs aren't selling well then you aren't going to have many made.

But if you need a strategy/rpg type game from a small studio you could check out King's Bounty if you haven't. I just spent a week straight playing it.

I think that is the main issue with many people here. The overwhelming demand is from the LCD (least common denominator) as they make up the majority of gamers. Therefore as gaming became more mainstream, let sophisticated and more 'dumbed down' titles began to flood the market.

For those of us with more 'refined tastes' (yes, I know it is elitest) we would like to enjoy the Fallouts and Torments of gaming. I know I don't mind if 2 of these types of games are created per year for every 200 mindless action games, but I seem to see a ratio of even less than 1:100. That is unsettling to me. I would be willing to pay $80 for a gem like Fallout 1, rather than $40 for garbage in a shiny package.

The biggest problem appears to me to be it takes the most effort and skill to create a Fallout or Torment, but will bring in a smaller profit then say Silent Hill 36. So why not create a game that takes less effort and makes more money? Which is what I believe game developers are doing. Back in the day when Wizardry and Ultima were coming out, the elitest gamers and game developers were one in the same - and we had a golden age of gaming. Now that it has become mainstreamed we suffer through the equivalent of animal feed looking for the filet mignon.

 

[Stoveburner]

Well, that's a shame. No sarcasm really.

I personally enjoy a wide variety of games and tend not to think of them in terms of 'dumbed down' or whatever. I can just as easily do a pacifist run through Fallout over a weekend or work on clearing a few dozen levels in Peggle. I don't look at games for spiritual enlightenment or to break new grounds or get me to discover truths about humanity. If that happens during the process then great. But what I really like is just to kick back, do some gaming and have fun. And I don't need to feel like I am special and one in a thousand that can appreciate a title to do that. I don't care how many or how few play the same game. If it entertains me then that is all that matters, and to that 'LCD'? That's all that matters too.

 

[Noneoftheabove]

The vids on GameTrailers were the final straw the broke the camel's back. I canceled my pre-order for the Survival edition on Amazon.

The NPC animations, voicework, level designs left me unimpressed. If the history museum is any indication of what the overall design and enemy encounters will be, then I know I've made the right choice in cancelling an expensive pre-order.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Is this a completely extraneous distraction rather than a point?

The last one is obviously yes. Changing viewpoint an evolution? Are you perhaps using a rather large concept completely erroneously to debate such a simple matter of perspective for no other reason than in a pathetic attempt to derail someone elses question rather than adress their points directly?

That could be called a flanking maneuver.

I'm sorry bethesda AI doesn't support that.

Congratulations, you made quotes.txt.

The video game industry is very young and inexperienced. You see basically only a slew of high-budget high-profile games being released, and a few small-budget indies. Nothing in between. Publishers don't spread their risks and are basically very shitty investors putting their eggs solely in the high-profile mainstream baskets.

Well that's what EA does, they release a lot of low budget games, many of which are assured profit (EA Sports has got to be incredible) in order to ensure that they have the capital to invest in the big budget titles. I'm not a fan of EA but I have to compliment them on doing this.

 

[AskWazzup]

I'm not sure that's always the case. Atari did publish The Witcher which is borderline indie and considering the content and target audience was never going to be a huge seller

Well, The Witcher sold 600,000 copies in first three months and that was almost a year ago. Now that number might be close to a million, i think that's a pretty big seller.

 

[Tycn]

Anyone else think it's weird that the super mutants give 6xp while the feral ghouls give 11?

 

[AskWazzup]

Anyone else think it's weird that the super mutants give 6xp while the feral ghouls give 11?

You expected bethesda to ballance the gameplay properly?