IGN AU interviews Pete Hines

[Jimmeh]

What makes me sad is this straight business approach to something, that is art of some degree to me.

1) I mean Beth says they aim for "mature audience", yet dont think that audience is smart enough to understand, that if NPC is killed a quest may become broken. So they come up with awesome inovashun like unkillable NPCs.

2) If you play Fallouts for 2-3 times, you still can and will miss some content. But Beth approach to this is: "if you user can miss it, its worthless waste of resources". So now you can "decide" how do deal with a single quest, but not worry what would happen next (as opposed to slaver tattoo in F2). They dont want the "game become broken" and "player lose content". This just shows their incompetence to design the game well.

 

[sarfa]

Why the hell did bethesda buy the fallout license just to make Oblivion 2?

To make more money. Another IP increases sales, income etc etc. Not sure why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

Actually, the law of sequels says otherwise. Generally with many sequels you find that sales are dependant on the previous parts. By calling it Fallout 3, Bethesda will cause many people to not buy it, on the basis that they didn't play the first 2. Bethesda fan boys/girls won't care, but a lot of the casual gamers (Who are, ironically, Beths target audience here) won't buy it for that reason.

Bethesda would have made much more money if they didn't call it Fallout at all, or named it in such a way as to suggest it was an Elder Scrolls spin off (but not sequel).

 

[4rekl]

Actually, the law of sequels says otherwise

Don't agree with you. More likely people will be intrigued by the notion of a classic being redone after all this time, based on marketing and reviews. Fans won't like it, but I doubt that will have a huge hit on sales.

Do you really believe that the only people who buy sequels are those that bought the previous iterations?

 

[bazola]

Well it seems to me that their target audience is the people who bought oblivion, and their marketing suggests that they want to convince those people that this is a better version of oblivion in a different universe.

My point stands though, I don't understand why the hell they had to use fallout to do this. I think the people who are going to buy this game would have bought it regardless of the setting.

 

[4rekl]

I don't understand why the hell they had to use fallout to do this

More IPs = more new releases = more sales. Just like with ID or Blizzard having similar games in different universes. It makes good business sense for Bethesda to have another IP they can develop alongside TES.

Why Fallout? I don't know, maybe they hate Fallout fans. More likely they just see it as a business opportunity. That and they don't have to think too much as the setting is already pre-developed.

 

[grayx]

Water? Hmmm.

Same could be said for food, electricity, guns, ammo, laws, armor, stimpacks… survival in general. Maybe as in “find water chip, ours broke”, but I do not remember some major pressure about water… In desert, anything is “focal”

I thought [and still think] the focal point was radiation. All was deriverd from that.

How many focal points there could be, anyway? By that logic, any survival isssue could be focal point to a degree.

But, yes, I’m nitpicking here… Interesting interview tho.

 

[4rekl]

Same could be said for food, electricity, guns, ammo, laws, armor, stimpacks… survival in general

Agreed. IIRC, water was a quest item, not a survival item. Maybe Bethesda devs got the idea when they were LARPing around some vacant toilet blocks.

 

[sarfa]

Actually, the law of sequels says otherwise

Don't agree with you. More likely people will be intrigued by the notion of a classic being redone after all this time, based on marketing and reviews. Fans won't like it, but I doubt that will have a huge hit on sales.

Do you really believe that the only people who buy sequels are those that bought the previous iterations?

No, but the casual crowd that Bethesda are aiming for are unlikely to buy a sequel to a game they've never played, just as they are unlikely to go to the cinema to see the sequel of a film they've never seen. They're attempts to link the game with every other game the console crowd have played is to counter act this. The whole classic being redone thing tends to only really cause sales is when said classic is an obscure game whose impact on the gaming world is well known, it becomes a sort of 'holy grail'. The fact that Bethesda are getting away with taking the whole 'classic being redone' tact with Fallout 3 is simply because the general public don't know Fallouts impact like we do- or they'd be calling bullshit as well by now. After all, Bethesda are re doing the classic without redoing the classic.

Plus, you're ignoring the fact that even in hard times for Interplay, the Fallout license wasn't cheap. Bethesda did spend a lot of money getting that license, which will eat into the profits. Additionally, considering the amount of damage that BOS and Tactics did to Fallouts good name, the license probably didn't look like a good investment two nyears ago (Didn't Zenimax have doubts about the purchase?).

My theory? Bethesda do love Fallout. They did buy the license because they genuinly wanted to make a Fallout game. However, their love is only superficial, it's simply a game they played and enjoyed. They didn't scour the wasteland reading every bit of fluff in the setting the way we did, and thus don't know the setting as well as they should. Basically they're casual fans who don't quite 'get it'. It's not that they hate us, or that their Evil, they just don't understand.

 

[4rekl]

the casual crowd that Bethesda are aiming for are unlikely to buy a sequel to a game they've never played, just as they are unlikely to go to the cinema to see the sequel of a film they've never seen

Really? I bet a lot of people who hadn't seen the originals went to see Phantom Menace, and that sequel was fucked up. Sales wise the new movies were a success, even though a lot of the original fans hated them. Not a bad parallel to FO when you think about it.

My theory? Bethesda do love Fallout

We'll never know if the beancounters who purchased the license are diehard fans or not. My theory is that it's all dollars and cents.

 

[sarfa]

the casual crowd that Bethesda are aiming for are unlikely to buy a sequel to a game they've never played, just as they are unlikely to go to the cinema to see the sequel of a film they've never seen

Really? I bet a lot of people who hadn't seen the originals went to see Phantom Menace, and that sequel was fucked up. Sales wise the new movies were a success, even though a lot of the original fans hated them. Not a bad parallel to FO when you think about it.

My theory? Bethesda do love Fallout

We'll never know if the beancounters who purchased the license are diehard fans or not. My theory is that it's all dollars and cents.

With the Phantom Menace- I couldn't disagree more. Firstly, it was a prequel which is a very different kettle of fish (A lot of folk on the street' are of the mind that sometimes it's better to see the prequel first, even if it was made 22 years later), and those that had seen the Phantom Menace without seeing the original trilogy I think were very few in number. If they were into that kind of film, they'd have seen Star Wars before 1999.

Due to the amount of money a license costs, I'd still say that Bethesda would have made much more money from Fallout 3 by making the exact same game (minus the copyrighty bits) and called it The Elder Scolls 5: Imitation, or even had the game as part of an original (sic) series or a stand alone. Either way the same target audience would be reached, they'd still have the 'building on Oblivion' tack and would thus sell roughly the same amount of copies (Perhaps slightly less) without having to shell out for the license.

By calling it Fallout 3 Bethesda are trying to get the Fallout fans to buy it, which a lot of us won't because of what we've heard already. The extra sales from calling it Fallout will make Bethesda a lot less than the cost of the license.

 

[Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude]

Don't agree with you. More likely people will be intrigued by the notion of a classic being redone after all this time, based on marketing and reviews. Fans won't like it, but I doubt that will have a huge hit on sales.

A classic being redone? What?

Fallout:

Oblivion with guns:

Do you really think gamers are going to buy another generic shooter with games like Spore, Diablo 3, Starcraft 2, Stalker: Clear Sky, Left 4 Dead, Far Cry 2, Red Alert 3 being previewed and hyped?


I predict its gonna be another Haze.

 

[4rekl]

With the Phantom Menace

It was a classic trilogy (some would say duology). 22 years later something was made with the same name that was a piece of shit. The number in the series is irrelevant.

Bethesda would have made much more money... The Elder Scolls 5

They want another IP. TES 5 will be produced later.

By calling it Fallout 3 Bethesda are trying to get the Fallout fans to buy it

No. They're taking it mainstream and marketing it as a classic reborn. I think they have greater ambitions than hoping FO fans will buy it.

Do you really think gamers are going to buy another generic shooter

Oblivion was successful, and is a pretty ordinary attempt at a generic fantasy RPG. As long as they don't fuck up FO3 completely I think it will be sucessful. We won't really know until it's released.

 

[MrBumble]

If they make a good impression at the E3 ( i.e : nice scripted demo, "great" trailer and funny areas playable during hands on ), with a little help from the press it will probably be a huge success.

Don't know if you realize that, Nuka Cola Dude, but until know, we are almost the only ones not praising their game...

 

[steppenwanderer]

quote:
"We do want to make sure you can continue along the main quest and not fundamentally break your game..."

now that's bethesda. "wrong" quests simply crash the game. if thats not oblivion, what is

 

[kebn]

If they make a good impression at the E3 ( i.e : nice scripted demo, "great" trailer and funny areas playable during hands on ), with a little help from the press it will probably be a huge success.

Don't know if you realize that, Nuka Cola Dude, but until know, we are almost the only ones not praising their game...

That is what is more than likely going to happen, a few good words from the likes of Gamespot is all Fallout 3 is going to need to sway masses of previously uncertain Oblivion fans.

I quite like the idea of a survival aspect but I doubt the Vault Survival Guide would be too quick to recommend drinking stagnant, festering water that's been sitting in a public toilet for 200 years. Aside from catching a bad case of the death it's probably more rat piss than water, but hey it'll heal that bullet in your head right up! I wonder if you can boil it?

That laser rifle just looks silly, it doesn't even look like a gun. I don't think I had seen that screenshot before now that I come to think about it.

 

[Imperial Guard]

Law of sequels works OPPOSITE in regards to video games as it does to cinema. Gamers would love nothing more than to newly discover a successful classic. Thrilled. Don't blindly stick to the textbooks. Video games are a new and different genre.

Things change and there's a reason we have textbooks. And there had to be someone to write those textbooks. Now you know.

If someone newly hired is attached to gaming companies and trying to decide and plan out company policy, spewing out cliche catchphrases from the classroom, I've just done them a favor.

 

[Glowing Ghouls]

Need I say more ?

 

[sarfa]

With the Phantom Menace

It was a classic trilogy (some would say duology). 22 years later something was made with the same name that was a piece of shit. The number in the series is irrelevant.

No. Sequels and prequels are by their nature different. The number is crucial. you say something is Episode 1, newbies think "This is a good place to start", you say it's number 3, newbies often say "Maybe I should start with 1 and 2". That is infact how the law of sequels works.

Bethesda would have made much more money... The Elder Scolls 5

They want another IP. TES 5 will be produced later.

[/quote]

And an original (sic) would have made more money due to not having to pay for a license.

By calling it Fallout 3 Bethesda are trying to get the Fallout fans to buy it

No. They're taking it mainstream and marketing it as a classic reborn. I think they have greater ambitions than hoping FO fans will buy it. [/quote]

And by calling it Fallout 3 they've moved their "starting point" a step or two backwards in making it mainstream. If they didn't care about Fallout fans buying it, they wouldn't have gone with Fallout. Creating a game in a series makes no sense if you care about the series fans buying it.

ORLY Imperial Guard? Then why do first games in computer game series tend to sell better than sequels? Take the Ultima series, by Ultima IX so few people who had played the first games were still interested, and those who hadn't didn;t think 9 was a good place to start. Thats one of the main reasons why EA didn't care enough to make another one.

What typical casual gamers want today is something that tricks them into believing it is innovative while it's really everything they've played before. They want something simple. The classic redone well with Fallout has already been poisoned by BOS, Fallout 3 isn't going to benefit much from being 'Fallout 3', it's going to benefit more (sadly) from being Bethesda doing what they do 'best'.

 

[4rekl]

I admire your pig-headedness sarfa. Perhaps it would be better to wait for FO3 to be released and then discuss why it failed or suceeded. We could then postulate on whether it stuck with the law of sequels/prequels or broke them.

If they didn't care about Fallout fans

I think you're overestimating the general public. FO fans care. The general public only care if they're going to get bang for their buck.

Take the Ultima series

Ultima is a different kettle of fish. They never waited 10 years to release a sequel.

Fallout has already been poisoned by BOS

See above comments regarding general public.

 

[Section8]

We do want to make sure you can continue along the main quest and not fundamentally break your game...

Who needs player to fundamentally break your game when the developer can do it in advance?