Glittering Gems of Hatred

Brother None

This ghoul has seen it all
Orderite
<center>
villified.gif

Glittering Gems of Hatred
Eleven angry guys on a website

Written by Brother None
Edited by welsh</center>

In gaming terms, Fallout is a lifetime ago. So it's not that surprising that when people think Fallout they try and look for something to judge in the here and now. But that view is not without problems. People who never played Fallout but claim it is a boring, tedious game purely on hearsay can quickly be called out for judging something without having ever tried it. But the Fallout fanbase has cultivated an angry, embittered reputation, which is also based on hearsay, but harder to unmask.

Is this "fair"? This article will take a look at that and several other things, it will try to see what this bitterness is all about, if it is really there, what effect the fanbase has had on the franchise and will have in the future. We will mostly leave open the question of what kind of Fallout Bethesda is making, instead looking at the result their choices will have. In short, the article will try to do two things: encourage a wider audience to reconsider their opinion of the hardcore Fallout fans and urge Bethesda to foster a healthy, BIS-esque relationship with the fanbase.


<center>The Decline and Fall of Fallout Fans
A brief history of Fallout fandom</center>
This is not a complete history of the Fallout fanbase. It has been drawn up to illustrate the main point of this article and will thus focus on fan reactions to developments in the Fallout franchise. This history will take examples out of NMA's archives to illustrate its points, because most if not all of the other sites and/or their archives are long gone.

The Fallout fanbase was born with Fallout 1. Interest in the game before the release was nearly non-existent, which is not surprising when you consider it was not an A-list game and cRPG at the time was not a hot genre. As the spiritual descendant of Wasteland, there were some fans of that game and its genre showing interest in Fallout.

<table align="right" width="25%" bgcolor="#333333" border="1"><tr><td>Glittering Gems of Hatred
Glittering Gems of Hatred is a popular description of Fallout fans first used by Something Awful poster elpintogrande (ref): "That's easy: All of the normal people are no longer a part of the "Fallout Community", they're just fans of the games. The people who are a part of the "Fallout Community" have been refined and distilled over time into glittering gems of hatred." The term has been embraced by the fan community as a beautiful, poetic description of their demeanour.
Eleven angry guys on a website
Much like Glittering Gems of Hatred, this oft-used phrase comes from an outside source. Futureshop, a Canadian webstore, put up Fallout 3 for pre-order in June of 2006 (ref), with the following comment: "Fallout 3 may not please you if you are one of eleven angry guys who may or may not frequent No Mutants Allowed." This comment was considered pretty funny and consequently stolen for general use (ref)

</td></tr></table>The time between Fallout and its sequel was fairly short, thanks to Fallout's surprising success. Excitement reigned on the official Interplay forums, which was where most of the vocal fanbase was camped. Interaction between the fanbase and the developers was of a high level, something BIS would become well known for.

Rumors about Fallout 3 being in production had been bouncing around like wildfire in the early months of 2000. On May 7, 2000, BIS' David Hendee noted "Fallout 3 is not currently under production." (ref). On May 11, 2000, Interplay announced Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel. The initial reaction was worded well by Miroslav: "I'm a bit confused here. I won't talk anymore but wait to see more about this." This initial confusion was caused by the fact that everyone had been waiting for Fallout 3 and a lot of people still believed BIS' "secret project" was in fact Fallout 3. However, if you scroll through the news archives going on from May 2000 (ref), you will find interest rose, especially after Fallout 1 developer Chris Taylor was revealed to be tied to the game. The NMA archives of this time do not reflect completely the fan reaction, as the game was being covered much more intensely elsewhere, especially on Duck and Cover.

In December 2000 the demo for Fallout Tactics was released (ref). Again we will have to use Miroslav for reference; "I won't speak much about the demo right now, as I'm busy playing the damn thing :) It's looking good. Continuos Turn Based mode is what I was eagerly waiting for, and it proved great!" Some critiques were brought up on the original forums, quickly adressed by Tony Oakden (Tactics producer), mostly to point out that this was, in fact, a pretty rough demo.

Fallout Tactics went gold on March 9th, 2001, accompanied by the following comment from Odin; "Yes my friends the moment we all been waiting for, Fallout Tactics has gone gold" (ref). On March 12, it turned out Interplay had promised Micro Forté support to make Tactics patches as well as Tactics 2, but had miscalculated and cut off the deal and funding to Micro Forté, forcing the company to lay off half its Tactics staff, the remaining staff taking paycuts. Odin commented; "Our heart and soul go out to the Micro-Forté team that have done a great job on Fallout Tactics and have also done a great job at interacting with the fans!!" It came as quite a shock to Fallout fans, many of whom had had good contact with the Micro Forté staff, but turned out to be a sign of things to come. Micro Forté expressed hope to continue in their March 13 press release, to which Odin commented "We here at NMA hope Micro-Forté have a smashing success with the upcoming MMORPG, and we hope to hear more from them (ala FOT2 style)!!!"

In this time, when FOT 2 was cancelled, Fallout 3 not in production and BIS taking up the later-cancelled TORN, the Fallout fanbase was focusing on playing and modding Fallout Tactics. Although reviews and first impressions of the gaming media were positive, the Fallout fanbase was starting to sour considerably. While many didn't think Tactics a bad game, there was some disappointment at the game. Miroslav's first thoughts, posted March 23; "Anyway, Tactics is not that good as I anticipated, it laks a lot of original Fallout." On March 29, Miroslav stated; "A lot of you don't think [but Miroslav did - ed] that Microforte did a bad job of implementing Fallout's retro look into Tactics. (...), but the quality of the game as a strategy game is quite nice". This opinion could be seen as a rough draft to what the Fallout fan opinion of Tactics would become.

It's important to keep in mind that from the release of Fallout 2 until the present there have always been murmurings of a Fallout 3. This ended with Van Buren and Bethesda's Fallout 3, but click on any random month before that time and chances are you'll see a comment on Fallout 3 rumors. In december 2001 it was confirmed that Fallout Tactics 2 had been started but cancelled by Interplay, a petition was started to restart development. However, a sequel to Tactics was never seriously considered after this date. Interest among Fallout fans had sunk to a new low and Tactics, a game that broke Interplay's record for most pre-ordered game, did not turn out as succesful as Interplay had wished, partially due to the high number of returns. There were also a lot of rumors about Interplay's economic status as it was running towards bankruptcy (a run that is still dragging on) and BIS projects were cancelled (including a rumored brief startup of, you guessed it, Fallout 3) (ref).

The time between the cancelling of Tactics and the announcement of the console version of Fallout calling Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel was a boring and quiet time. Fallout's SPECIAL system was used for Lionheart, badly according to some, and BIS started and cancelled project Jefferson (Baldur's Gate 3).
<table align="left" width="350px" bgcolor="#333333" border="1"><tr><td>
codexcry.jpg
</img>
<center>Popular perception of hardcore RPG fans, of which Fallout fans are a part, as drawn by Chris Avellone. (source: RPGCodex)</tr></td></table>In March 2003 word of Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel surfaced (ref). By this time, the Fallout fanbase had a year to dissect Tactics and to come to the conclusion that Tactics did a fairly bad job at keeping to the Fallout setting, no matter its quality. Fallout 3 had at this point been rumored and unrumored several times and Interplay was thoroughly mismanaging BIS. After a year of this, most fans were kind of fed up, and it's no small surprise Rosh worded this irritation well; "Interplay raises the middle finger to Fallout fans again: (...) Top on the list, they say "The game play is more attuned to the console platform, stressing more action and combat than the PC versions which placed a greater emphasis on RPG elements or strategy." More combat? As Fallout Tactics was just combat, why not just be honest and say it's going to be a combat system with wastelandish graphics? The setting is just about guaranteed to have been lobotomized." The general response to the game was so negative that on May 15 2004 Interplay had to close the Fallout: BoS forum (ref)

Missing christmas of 2003, Brotherhood of Steel was released in january 2004 (ref). Reviews ranged from EDBIS' "The most compelling thing about Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel is the question it raises: What the (*(#^*! was Interplay thinking?!" to Into Liquid Sky's ".....this is exactly the same game you played 2 years ago in BG:DA. From the interface, to the traits/skills you learn, to the quest types, everything feels like it was just ripped from that game and given a new name to sell more copies." The former is a widely held opinion amongst Fallout fans, the latter is the general opinion of reviewers, that the game offered "nothing new". The opinion of BoS fans is unknown, which is unsurprising as the game turned out to sell only 19,000 copies.

Back to May 14th, 2003, when one of the few people remaining at BIS, J.E. Sawyer, started mentioning the project to follow the cancelled Jefferson; Van Buren (ref), which turned out to be Fallout 3. Van Buren was covered intensely over the next few months and featured a number of controversial features, such as TB/RT (ref1 ref2). It fluctuated back and forth and often gave of an impression of J.E. Sawyer versus the Fallout community, but noticeable is the intense interaction. Sawyer expressed his opinion on this as follows; "Look, man, seriously: there are a lot of people with really useful ideas here, at NMA, and at DAC. (...) When a person's only function seems to be to complain, their feedback becomes kind of useless because it all seems like a vendetta" (ref).

Important to note that while the RT/TB-combination was highly controversial (people feared too much attention would be paid to the RT-version, thus making TB unbalanced, much as happened to Tactics) and rumored to have multiplayer coop (again much like Tactics), the response of a vocal part of the Fallout fanbase to Van Buren was critical, especially when debating with the devs, but in general the Fallout fanbase was excited and looking forward to the game.

This is best expressed by the cry of outrage and despair at the cancellation of the game and the firing of all BIS devs in December 2003 (ref) shortly after J.E. Sawyer left (ref). The following months were spent on covering the decline of Interplay, including the cancellation of Fallout Brotherhood of Steel 2 (the game which Van Buren had been rumored to be cancelled for) after the flop of BoS. Leaked screenshots and design documentation of Van Buren were also being released. Part of the fanbase was fed up and wanted to move on, but part was reading the documents with interest and while controversy never stopped, the documents in particular brought realisation that this might have been a proper sequel.

On July 12, 2004 Bethesda Softworks announced it had purchased the rights to Fallout 3 from Interplay (ref). This news was met with what some call unreasonable anger or distrust from the core of the Fallout fanbase (ref). Part of the anger was caused by rumors that Troika, founded by core members of the Fallout 1 dev team, had almost purchased the license, rumors which later turned out be incorrect (ref), as well as knee jerk mistrust that Bethesda would not hold true to the Fallout license, based on their track record of cRPGs.

However, the situation was marked by how different it was from Van Buren's announcement. Knowledge of Van Buren had been slowly built up as rumors had spread, but the license deal to Bethesda hit the fallout fanbase like a bomb. BIS had been ready to talk to the fans quite openly, while Bethesda would stay quiet about their project for years. It was soon evident that the deal had been announced for the sake of Interplay, whereas Bethesda has a policy not to announce games until they were ready for it. After an initial flurry of questions and rumors things started to quiet down fast (ref), most people settling into a wait and see attitude.

As of the writing of this article in early 2007, the deafening silence has been steadfast for years despite Fallout 3 being in full development for some time. Some fans view this as a bad sign, others still want to wait and see. Prevailing rumors suggest that Bethesda will release a console-PC game using the Oblivion engine, replace turn-based play with real-time and transform Fallout into a first person game. These rumors are as controversial as were prior rumors about Van Buren. Many people have given up on the game as a consequence. Others wait to see how true Bethesda will stay to the franchise.

<table align="right" width="100%" border="0"><tr><td align="right">Go to part 2</td></tr></table>
 
Very nice article. Reading a summary of ours and Fallout's history is kind of depressing. It does well to convey the feeling of the fans, I think. I'm looking forward to parts 2 and 3.
 
I wouldn't say that the interest in FO1 was non-existant before release, there was a lot of buzz on the demo and I know a lot of people who played it to death while waiting for the game. I pre-ordered and picked my copy up the day it was released in the USA.

Nice article, but I think it should have spent a sentence or two on the terrible state of the bugs of FOT and how it was basically untested before release (I'm sure we all recall the HUMVEE gettting stuck in the garage). While FO and FO2 had their share of bugs, FOT demonstrated that the quality of work of the developers was sinking fast.
 
Nice article about the history of the fan base. I guess I'm a bit different though in that I trust Bethesda to make a quality game. And I wouldn't be so disappointed to see it in a drastically different fashion from the original Fallout(s). I mostly love the world and the story and would be interested in seeing it carry on in any form.
 
We want nothing more than looks of fifties, slang languge, adultry, non-linear gameplay.

Fallout means carrying a Gattling Laser while using a radio that has vacuum tubes instead of transistors.

Fallout means attacking a Power Armored man with a sharpened spear.

Fallout means lack of technology in al High-Tech planet.
 
Great work, a really interesting read. Having a history of the Fallout fanbase is quite useful to a Fallout newbie such as myself.
 
People who never played Fallout but claim it is a boring, tedious game purely on hearsay can quickly be called out for judging something without having ever tried it

i had 19 years when i first time tryed fallout.. i mean i played a DEMO countless of times coz i live in the ass of the world and before a got the full game ... i mean how th f....its everything exept BORING.... even now ith one of the most interesting games on the planet
 
tindrli said:
People who never played Fallout but claim it is a boring, tedious game purely on hearsay can quickly be called out for judging something without having ever tried it

i had 19 years when i first time tryed fallout.. i mean i played a DEMO countless of times coz i live in the ass of the world and before a got the full game ... i mean how th f....its everything exept BORING.... even now ith one of the most interesting games on the planet

yea, the demo was funny, but cant be compared with the whole game...

and in my opinion the article is very well written, and very useful for all fans...
 
fallout means a little something different to each of us...

I have been a fallout fan for about... hm... not more then half a year. :oops: And it took awhile to get into it... I think when i stopped by Hub before stopping by junktown did i realize what Fallout was. I stole some superior technology at the hub (namely the 9mm smg) and when i arrived at junktown somebody had to piss me off. I became the end of junk town. Well.... that's what fallout means to me, among other things.

Attacking a power armor man with a spear? Really? Did that fair well for the one with the spear??
 
Excellent article.

I think I've said this before on The Forum Of The Great Fan Battle Of 2007, but if Bethesda don't feel at least slightly threatened by the fact that Fallout fans for a large part consists of literate, well-spoken people with the ability to write compelling articles as well as forum posts, they are even more arrogant than... well, than I've been hoping - which is entirely possible.

It's one thing to dismiss the screaming of lollotrons who want "moar l00t lol", it's something else entirely to ignore well-shaped points that poke into the choices you've made and the reasoning behind them. No doubt, you can hype a game into selling well without fan support - but why on earth would you want to?

Anyway, cheers. I always enjoy reading your articles and posts, even though I don't necessarily agree with everything you say.
 
digging is rewarding...
that was composed very well. Should society survive it through the upcoming depression, and tyranny that is quickly closing in on the walls of personal freedoms, this is sure to be the study base for a future religion. not having roots to freemasony, of course!

I am actually rather disappointed by somethingawful. I used to frequent that site for cliff yablonski, but can now say I dont care much for their opinions any further.
 
BunkerBud said:
I am actually rather disappointed by somethingawful. I used to frequent that site for cliff yablonski, but can now say I dont care much for their opinions any further.

They dislike us for...uh...whatever reason, but I can't say it strikes me as a not-nice place to be otherwise. I'll be damned to pay just to post on a forum, that's stupid, but otherwise whenever I read it, it strikes me as an ok place.
 
Well, there were quite a few cross-forum members before the Infinite Crisis of Dev Quotes hit, so it's not surprising we return to status quo after a few years.

I dunno, as long as they don't get singled out, who cares?
 
Briosafreak said:
There are quite a few regulars at NMA that are also members of the SA these days, funny enough.

I might not hav ebeen an active forum poster at NMA before now, but I have used the site for years :P. I liked the descriptions of fallout fans :)
 
So, let me get this straight... you're basically claiming that the complaints about Fallout 3 go much further than the surface view - that there is a deeper psychological scar among the fallout community that goes far deeper than complaints about the change from an isometric view to a pseudo-FPS perspective? And that this really goes back to how Interplay mishandled the franchise and alienated the fanbase by taking the franchise and tanking it with the Tactics and BoS titles?

More or less... right? I mean, I saw some other complaints in there, for sure - but that is a fairly accurate synopsis?

Man... I'm not going to be popular around here...

Post-Nuclear Apocalyptic fiction franchises are non-existent. Name one successful modern (post 1970) franchise besides Fallout.

Ok... now name another one that Mel Gibson didn't star in.

Really. The Road Warrior, Planet of the Apes, and Fallout and a handful of B-movie Zombie flicks or real non-mainstream comic or fiction titles (Canticle for Liebowitz) and you're done.

Now, I know that most of the Gamma World and Wasteland fans are also Fallout fans by default, but the difference seems to me to be that Gamma World and Wasteland fans are also "Genre fans". That is, we know that Post-apocalyptic goodness is rare, precious, and fleeting. You take it where you can find it, and most often, it is really disappointing. Even when it isn't just horrible, it hardly ever lasts. Post-apocalyptic entertainment is often a 1 shot deal. The protagonist gets through or doesn't, the story is resolved and things improve or the message is that the situation is what it is and will go on much the same. In either case, how compelling is a sequel? If things are improved, a sequel is necessarily boring. If things aren't improved, things are necessarily depressing. The Road warrior was really a rare and compelling story in that it supported 3 installments (although, arguably, it started with post-collapse and ended with tribal primitivism - it was really one big story broken up into 3 parts). But the fact is, and I mention this in my blog, but it is worth repeating...

Fallout 1 was seen by many as a resurrection of the Wasteland "franchise" that was stillborn with Pool of Radiance. People had no hope of Wasteland ever being reprised, and Fallout became a pleasant surprise for them. Fallout 2 gave us hope that it might be a real franchise with continuity and a continuum. That we've had Tactics, Brotherhood of Steel and now Fallout-3 should really be seen as good-God gravy by those who enjoy post-apocalyptic fiction and want to see a genre *series*. That just doesn't HAPPEN in this genre. Instead, it seems like the "fanbase" for Fallout has spent a tremendous amount of effort being angry, upset, disgruntled, and petulant.

Whatever... I mean... far be it from me to try and change your minds... Whoever "you" are.

But I'm also thinking about other fanbases that become upset with the object of their adoration. Metallica, Van Halen and Chris Cornell seem like good subjects. Cornell especially. Loved Soundgarden, hated his solo album, hated AudioSlave, think he has gone NUTS with his latest project with the rap/R&B producer... seems to be the general vibe.

But, although we may support Chris Cornell's rock and roll lifestyle with our discretionary Rock and Roll dollars, there is a mistake in thinking he is beholden to create music FOR us. Nope, Chris (and Metallica, tools that they are, and Van Halen... ditto), probably make music as much for themselves as for US. They're "artists". Weird creatures who feel compelled to create for the sake of creation. If we had never paid them a dime for their efforts, they probably would have still created in their off time. It is just what artists do.

And these guys who write games, they're the same deal, probably. They write games because they have an idea and a story in their head. I didn't like Fallout 2. I don't like the tribalism theme in Post-Apoc. Fiction. Didn't like it in Beyond Thunderdome, didn't like it in Fallout 2. But, that was the idea that the guys who wrote Fallout 2 had in their head. I guess this is a matter of perspective. Does the prospect of commercial success spawn the idea, or does the idea spawn the quest for commercial success? I'd argue people (generally) have a story, and look for an audience, not that people see an audience, and try to write a story for them. That is an important distinction.

And I think the same thing applies with Fallout 3. I imagine somewhere along the line someone at Berth. floated the idea of Fallout 3 as much because they were a FAN as because they thought it was a good shot for a commercial success. You do something like this because you have a story in your head and you're excited about the opportunity to tell it - as much as for the idea of being able to afford a Ferrari from the profits.

In that sense, having your market demographic totally tearing your concept apart and predicting it a failure before you've even released it must not give you a great incentive to want to do that again in the future.

My point is, the "Fallout fanbase community" might want to consider that a radical departure from the Fallout Series that still has the main thematic elements of the genre MIGHT be better than no product at all - even if it is a radical departure from the strict themes and conventions of the particular mythos they are interested in.

If Star Trek goes away, there are dozens of other genre franchises to pick from at almost any time to meet your appetite. Battlestar, Firefly, StarGate, Star Wars, whatever. You can find your fill to suit your particular tastes.

The same isn't true of this genre. You should really make the most of whatever scraps fall off the table.

It is also worth noting that many of these Anti-Fallout 3 fans were possibly MOST smitten with Fallout-2, my least favorite of the Fallout series (I'm not a huge fan of the 50s Atomic Art Deco theme that runs through Fallout, either, although I've grown used to it and understand the reason it is there - I'd prefer a more Road Warrior atmosphere, personally). The point is, you all liked Fallout 2, which I didn't. A lot of you feel that the 50s Art Deco element is critical to the series, I don't. The genre is what satisfies the market demand, not the specific details of a single FRANCHISE in the genre. There are certainly Star Trek junkies who will have nothing to do with Star Wars (and vice versa), but the majority of ticket-buyers for ONE franchise are probably interested in the OTHER, too. I'd rather be one of the guys who can enjoy Star Wars *and* Star Trek without going overboard on either, than one of the uber dorks firmly on one side or the other in regards to these fictional stories about outer space. I see this as being very similar. You guys are riding the fine line between enjoying fiction and actually LEARNING Klingonese or Tolkien Elvish. There is a point where fans take it too far... Seems like some of you have crossed this line, around here.

Although despite all their pre-release whining and complaining, I've got a feeling quite a few of the naysayers are quiet right now because they're real busy exploring the shattered remains of a post-nuclear D.C.
 
Back
Top