SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
Heheh, "wrong Frenchies". XD
But when I think of the phrase "if only Interplay still owned Fallout", like my above disclaimer of the differences between what I think of a "remake" versus what others seem to be commenting, it ALSO comes with its own stipulations. For one, it's NOT a wish that the current face of Interplay simply "reclaim" the licensing rights. It's an entire rewrite of history. Simply put, the terrible decisions never happened, Interplay didn't make the crap games that cost them too much and made them too little, they didn't get bought out, they finished developing Fallout 3 and things would be very different, today. But it's a BOLD question that demands a ton more questions. Would there even BE an Obsidian if Black Isle was never canned? Would Brian Fargo still have made InXile? There's possibilities, seeing as Black Isle wasn't ONLY broken up by Internplay; it was bit-by-bit breaking apart as more and more prominent members left the company to start new ones. But again, if Interplay hadn't been doing those poor decisions, would this have happened? It's a lot to wonder and to consider, and it's ALL mere speculation, hence why I don't care to dabble in that line of thinking much at all.
I just stick to the really easy questions and the decent possibilities, versus the remote-to-non-existent ones. Like, "What if X nabbed the rights to Fallout instead of Bethesda?" No matter how much people dogpile on it, things WOULD have been 100% better had Bioware (and yes, by extension, EA) acquired the rights, because EVERY alternative (that was available at the time) would have been better than what we got. Note, "Interplay fails to sell off the rights, goes under, and Fallout as a brand dies forever" is NOT one of the alternatives. That's just trying to justified flawed thinking. People WANTED the rights to Fallout. There was a bidding war. The possibility of the rights not getting sold didn't- couldn't exist. Would it have been WAY more preferable for someone else BESIDES Bioware (and thus EA, again) to have bought the rights? Oh sure, I'm not saying otherwise. But I am saying, of the groups that had the cash to make a strong offer during the bidding wars, Bioware was THE best bet. We got screwed.
I also see a ton of people who excuse/pardon/apologize what happened because, as they put it, "At least Bethesda brought back to life a dead/dying series. So let's be grateful for that." ALSO flawed, false thinking. This is just not true, in any sense, at any point in the thought process. Van Buren was IN DEVELOPMENT (dev limbo, because of Black Isle's dwindling presence, but still development) up until its final cancellation, and that IMMEDIATELY preceded the license's sale. So, at the time, the series was alive. Van Buren was ALSO largely completed at the time, so we're not talking about waiting another 4 years for the game to come out... Maybe 1 or 2 (depending on how rushed it was versus how much QA was placed on it). In the MEANTIME, directly prior to all this, we got FOBOS. Now, before you start your irrational frothing at the mouth, dear haters, stop and think for a moment. I'm not saying "FOBOS was a great game." I am ONLY saying "FOBOS came out." That means yet another title in the Fallout line was released, so the franchise was still VERY alive by 2004, having a recent title release only a year prior. Then, within another year, we'd get Fallout 3, whether it was by Interplay miraculously staying afloat by some crazy means, or by a BETTER buyer acquiring the rights and continuing what was left unfinished.
INSTEAD, what we got was Bethesda winning the bidding wars, scrapping what existed of Van Buren because they wanted to make their game from scratch, POSTPONING any amount of development because they were working on Oblivion at the time, and delaying the release of ANY Fallout game for a solid 4 years. So, in effect, Bethesda killed Fallout, leaving it in the oh-so-oft-labeled "dying/dead franchise" state before they "breathed life into it". HOW people don't understand this quite truly bewilders me. But that's the way it is. We got a shit deal, no matter how you slice it. We got a shit game, a new shit owner, and said shit owner killed off the series by scrapping what was left and delaying production of any new title until they felt like getting around to it, and SOMEHOW people feel like looking at this situation and saying both "at least it's better than EA getting it" and "at least they breathed life back into a dead/dying franchise". Both woefully, abysmally, catastrophically FALSE.
So, in short, THIS is why I don't associate these fantasies with Bethesda. It's not because I think some crew WILL come around and create a TOTALLY FREE (to avoid lawsuits) remake of FO1 and/or FO2. It's not that I think time CAN be rewound. It's just that... all I have is FONV and dreams. They're both nice. Fuck all the rest.
But when I think of the phrase "if only Interplay still owned Fallout", like my above disclaimer of the differences between what I think of a "remake" versus what others seem to be commenting, it ALSO comes with its own stipulations. For one, it's NOT a wish that the current face of Interplay simply "reclaim" the licensing rights. It's an entire rewrite of history. Simply put, the terrible decisions never happened, Interplay didn't make the crap games that cost them too much and made them too little, they didn't get bought out, they finished developing Fallout 3 and things would be very different, today. But it's a BOLD question that demands a ton more questions. Would there even BE an Obsidian if Black Isle was never canned? Would Brian Fargo still have made InXile? There's possibilities, seeing as Black Isle wasn't ONLY broken up by Internplay; it was bit-by-bit breaking apart as more and more prominent members left the company to start new ones. But again, if Interplay hadn't been doing those poor decisions, would this have happened? It's a lot to wonder and to consider, and it's ALL mere speculation, hence why I don't care to dabble in that line of thinking much at all.
I just stick to the really easy questions and the decent possibilities, versus the remote-to-non-existent ones. Like, "What if X nabbed the rights to Fallout instead of Bethesda?" No matter how much people dogpile on it, things WOULD have been 100% better had Bioware (and yes, by extension, EA) acquired the rights, because EVERY alternative (that was available at the time) would have been better than what we got. Note, "Interplay fails to sell off the rights, goes under, and Fallout as a brand dies forever" is NOT one of the alternatives. That's just trying to justified flawed thinking. People WANTED the rights to Fallout. There was a bidding war. The possibility of the rights not getting sold didn't- couldn't exist. Would it have been WAY more preferable for someone else BESIDES Bioware (and thus EA, again) to have bought the rights? Oh sure, I'm not saying otherwise. But I am saying, of the groups that had the cash to make a strong offer during the bidding wars, Bioware was THE best bet. We got screwed.
I also see a ton of people who excuse/pardon/apologize what happened because, as they put it, "At least Bethesda brought back to life a dead/dying series. So let's be grateful for that." ALSO flawed, false thinking. This is just not true, in any sense, at any point in the thought process. Van Buren was IN DEVELOPMENT (dev limbo, because of Black Isle's dwindling presence, but still development) up until its final cancellation, and that IMMEDIATELY preceded the license's sale. So, at the time, the series was alive. Van Buren was ALSO largely completed at the time, so we're not talking about waiting another 4 years for the game to come out... Maybe 1 or 2 (depending on how rushed it was versus how much QA was placed on it). In the MEANTIME, directly prior to all this, we got FOBOS. Now, before you start your irrational frothing at the mouth, dear haters, stop and think for a moment. I'm not saying "FOBOS was a great game." I am ONLY saying "FOBOS came out." That means yet another title in the Fallout line was released, so the franchise was still VERY alive by 2004, having a recent title release only a year prior. Then, within another year, we'd get Fallout 3, whether it was by Interplay miraculously staying afloat by some crazy means, or by a BETTER buyer acquiring the rights and continuing what was left unfinished.
INSTEAD, what we got was Bethesda winning the bidding wars, scrapping what existed of Van Buren because they wanted to make their game from scratch, POSTPONING any amount of development because they were working on Oblivion at the time, and delaying the release of ANY Fallout game for a solid 4 years. So, in effect, Bethesda killed Fallout, leaving it in the oh-so-oft-labeled "dying/dead franchise" state before they "breathed life into it". HOW people don't understand this quite truly bewilders me. But that's the way it is. We got a shit deal, no matter how you slice it. We got a shit game, a new shit owner, and said shit owner killed off the series by scrapping what was left and delaying production of any new title until they felt like getting around to it, and SOMEHOW people feel like looking at this situation and saying both "at least it's better than EA getting it" and "at least they breathed life back into a dead/dying franchise". Both woefully, abysmally, catastrophically FALSE.
So, in short, THIS is why I don't associate these fantasies with Bethesda. It's not because I think some crew WILL come around and create a TOTALLY FREE (to avoid lawsuits) remake of FO1 and/or FO2. It's not that I think time CAN be rewound. It's just that... all I have is FONV and dreams. They're both nice. Fuck all the rest.
