Interplay announces Fallout 3 licensing deal with Bethesda

[Darque]

That's hilarious..."That's not what we do well"...THEN WHY the frick did you buy the license??!!!

The same reason FOPOS was made.... percieved $$$s.

The further it gets from Fallout the more likely it's going to tank... they need to be made to see this.

 

[Capelworth]

I have three questions for anyone who may know the answers...

1. How much and when does Bethesda pay Interplay for the license?

2. Does the inclusion of publication rights and the specific title "Fallout 3" in this license agreement not violate Interplay's distribution deal with Vivendi? It is my understanding that Fallout 3 was previously specified as a partner product covered under the agreement and that Interplay was expressly prohibited from farming out specific partner products for distribution by another entity for the duration of that agreement. If it does violate the agreement, do you think Vivendi will take legal action here?

3. If Interplay goes bankrupt before Bethesda releases the game, what will happen to this licensing deal and the resulting game?

We may have to wait for Interplay SEC filings to get answers, but those were some of my first questions. Unfortunately, ZeniMax is a private holding company and doesn't file.

 

[Jabbapop]

Wow. I've been playing morrowind lately, and one of the things that i've liked about the game is the extensive set of skills in the game. the ability to create 'potions' and scrolls and 'enchant weapons'. i wonder if they'll abstractly 'port' this over to the fallout universe, ala weapon customizations, or 'drugs'.

one thing i can only speculate on is if they will have those little in-game 'books' with 9 page short stories ala morrowind. : "You pick up a seedy romance novel."

i really hope they don't end up making another huge world that just feels dead and at times uninvolving. speaking of which, morrowind really had no 'party' system, and while a party system wasn't really the focus of the fallout rpgs, it would be a shame to see it nonexistent in fallout 3

IGNPC: Interplay is still working on the Fallout MMORPG it had announced. Does this mean Interplay still owns the Fallout intellectual property?

Pete Hines: Yes. We've licensed the rights to Fallout 3 as well as sequels -- Fallout 4, Fallout 5.

I wonder just how confident bethesda is in their ability to produce fallout games?

i'm pretty sure there won't be much fallout exploitation, as in senseless profanity and penis jokes. bethesda seems to have been really mature when it comes to dealing with adult subject matter. i predict they'll make a pretty decent game, but i am sure it won't play like the fallout that we know of.

 

[Sarkus]

Sure times have changed but where does it say that you need to change a winning formula?

"Winning Formula"?

I love Fallout 1 and 2, but I'd never call it a winning formula. I've always viewed their creation as incredible luck. I mean, who greenlights a post-nuke RPG years after the fall of communism? This is business, not some art project. The Fallout RPG's were marginal successes, even at their "B movie" budget. Telling me they sold hundreds of thousands over ten years doesn't qualify them as a "winning formula."

Its way too early make any judgements about what Bethesda will do. Fallout is a setting - it's not any technical requirments. It's not about isometric views or turn-based combat. If you believe Troika can create a first-person RPG with Vampire, then you are de-facto admitting that RPG's can work in any perspective.

 

[Roshambo]

Well, thank you for your response, albeit it rather harsh.

I am a huge Fallout fan. I have played them countless times, and my group of friends even played a tabletop version of it. It's just that times have changed since 1998, and I think Bethesda could do great. What I want is more than likely not what we will get, but Bethesda knows how to make an RPG.

I'll refrain from adding more of what YOU would consider flamebait however, but I find this as being a good move for the Fallout games.

It's wonderful that you consider yourself a Fallout fan.

It's also amusing that you have displayed no clue about the game's design. Maybe you need to spend a little bit more out of the hype machine and look a bit more at where such changes have fucked over game series MASSIVELY in the past. In fact, it's the main reason why most of the long-running sequels tended to flop.

Nice try, but you're now either an idiot or a liar (perhaps both), proven by your own words.

It will not be Morrowind with guns. It won't be because we are not idiots. We are game developers, and we're good at what we do.

That is what everyone is worried about. People who think we will never progress beyond Morrowind are going to be in for one hell of a wake-up call.

I've heard better claims and boasts. Are we to expect a Baldur's Gate quality speech style rip in lieu of the usual speech options? After all, Morrowind's speech system wasn't anything special (and it's not hard to come up with something better than that) and now we're expected to believe that Bethesda can pull a hereto unproven aspect of game design (in regards to Bethesda) out of their ass. That's a fair stretch. The design differences between Fallout and what Bethesda has done before are both numerous and wide, not just in terms of role-playing, either. Mechanics and the setting are also quite important.

I glanced into the thread in question and saw this lovely snippet, among many.

Basically the SPECIAL system to me is about how it was for Baldur's Gate..and to an extent..Morrowind.

Basically you don't just run rampant and shoot like any normal FPS game..your strength or endurance or intelligence helped you to make decisions kinda how it does in D&D and Morrowind.

But the perks/feats you get every few levels is pretty much the same as Baldur's Gate..you gain a few levels then you learn something new..gain more, learn more..and so on.

I think that's why they flip burgers instead of game design. With arguments like that, Fallout's future is fucked into some lobotomized design. Uh...so why should the fans want to play it differently than before? It's funny how these kids think that a game can be thrown into other genres and mechanics and still try to resemble the setting. Most of them just understand that "Fallout = post-apocalyptic". After that, their ignorance doesn't allow them to pick up upon the finer aspects of the setting nor allow them to see why Fallout was designed the way it was. RT, FP, console, and much more would pretty much destroy the original design intent behind the game and would likely result in the franchise dying or an undead abomination of a title.

That's hilarious..."That's not what we do well"...THEN WHY the frick did you buy the license??!!!

Bingo, folks, we have a winner.

I find the possibilities for this outcome to be:

Bethesda designs a game that more suits their proven design ability. It catches on and Fallout is forever known as some post-apocalyptic game where you kill things. (Possible, depending upon the integrity of Bethesda.)
Bethesda designs a game that tries to be like Fallout, but with Bethesda being unfamiliar with the design particulars of Fallout in a large-scale project, it turns out to be more like Baldur's Gate. In addition, their unfamiliarity with the setting may lead to a repeat of FOT or FOS. (Most likely outcome.)
Bethesda only half-ass follows the design as set previous, and as a result the game is regarded as less than Fallout or less because of some mechanic(s) that Bethesda wants to be in there because they are "trendy", except for those few crackhead game reviewers that just doesn't have the concentration to play a turn-based game. (Very likely.)
Bethesda pulls it off and does as their boastful spokesman claims to be able to do. (See above crackheaded game reviewers remark.)
Development drops off when Interplay finally dies, Bethesda pockets the money. (Likely.)
Developers blame negative fans, a la Chucky. (Might be possible, though many of them do have a sense of humor.)

Its way too early make any judgements about what Bethesda will do. Fallout is a setting - it's not any technical requirments. It's not about isometric views or turn-based combat. If you believe Troika can create a first-person RPG with Vampire, then you are de-facto admitting that RPG's can work in any perspective.

It's also way too early to see where your ignorance of game design originates from. Was it due to not being aware enough of the games, or playing with your eyes blind so that you have no idea as to why the game was created in the style it was? It wasn't for looks, Chuckles.

 

[Sarkus]

Its way too early make any judgements about what Bethesda will do. Fallout is a setting - it's not any technical requirments. It's not about isometric views or turn-based combat. If you believe Troika can create a first-person RPG with Vampire, then you are de-facto admitting that RPG's can work in any perspective.

It's also way too early to see where your ignorance of game design originates from. Was it due to not being aware enough of the games, or playing with your eyes blind so that you have no idea as to why the game was created in the style it was? It wasn't for looks, Chuckles.

Fallout is more than just an isometric view. I recall FOBOS was isometric too, but it sure as hell wasn't a Fallout game.

I'm not going to argue that I would prefer that a new Fallout RPG be isometric, but that doesn't mean it's the only solution to a good RPG. Especially with 9 years of computer technological advancement behind us since the original Fallout was designed. Who's to say that Tim Cain today, starting from scratch, would make the same choices? Right now Troika is working on a 1st person RPG. When this project was announced, many of the people who are writing off Bethesda already were arguing vehemently that what Troika was doing was a legitimate RPG.

Bethesda's Fallout 3 will likely not be the game you would have liked to see. Nor would BIS's Van Buren project, nor would the Fallout 3 produced if Troika had acquired the rights. That doesn't mean it will be crap. Just different. Stop living in the past.

 

[l0s7 4 lyf3]

*grabs nails and cross*
I'm ready if those punks screw up my beloved!

 

[Roshambo]

Fallout is more than just an isometric view. I recall FOBOS was isometric too, but it sure as hell wasn't a Fallout game.

Semantics and feeble uses of twisting word logic games will not work on me, kid. I've had quite a lot of experience in dissecting them. Fallout is more than an isometric view, yes, but that doesn't mean it needs to change from it.

Maybe you're a little too ignorant or young to notice the number of other game series that have flopped or became crap because the base mechanics of the series was drastically changed. Of course, you probably haven't put much thought behind how it would have to require drastic changes in the character system, resulting in a further change in gameplay, more towards what Bethesda is used to doing instead of what made Fallout good and in why Fallout was designed in that manner.

I'm not going to argue that I would prefer that a new Fallout RPG be isometric, but that doesn't mean it's the only solution to a good RPG. Especially with 9 years of computer technological advancement behind us since the original Fallout was designed. Who's to say that Tim Cain today, starting from scratch, would make the same choices? Right now Troika is working on a 1st person RPG. When this project was announced, many of the people who are writing off Bethesda already were arguing vehemently that what Troika was doing was a legitimate RPG.

Viewpoint is irrelevant to the "tech" of the game. In fact, many of the first games were first person, as were most dungeon crawlers.

Mechanics also has a LOT to do with how the game is considered. Instead of Fallout's combat system, you'd probably have (in order to accomodate Bethesda's development style)...

Click, click, click, click, click. Keep going, crackhead.

Bethesda's Fallout 3 will likely not be the game you would have liked to see.

Think about that for awhile. Then ask yourself if that wasn't what I wanted when I considered a CRPG called Fallout, why would I buy it? I didn't buy it solely because you could hire hookers and shoot guns, so I'm sorry if our interests are a little more separate than you from the nearest clue.

Nor would BIS's Van Buren project, nor would the Fallout 3 produced if Troika had acquired the rights. That doesn't mean it will be crap. Just different. Stop living in the past.

So the "future" is Bethesda's design? Keeping to a good design that had a distinctive style of its own and not becoming a mere facade in some other game's engine would be more aproppriate.

Also, a bit of curiousity, are you that moron that tried to sell us "First-Person is the future!" at RPGCodex? Sorry, but that idiocy was debunked then and it's going nowhere now. I find it amusing when some people think that whatever jean cream they think is good would become the wave of the future, especially when they have proven they have no clue about the genre and possibly even less about development, if that were possible.

 

[Macaco]

Okay people, shouldn't we start moving these discussions to the fallout 3 discussion forum? for good or for worse, that´s what it is...

There´s nothing i´d like more than to see fallout 3 being isometrical, TB, SPECIAL and all of that, but sadly we are going to have to make some concessions.

Thankfully, the developers seem to be intent on taking fan opinion into consideration, so that´s a plus, if they can get our input this early on, we could help shape the game to our desires quite a bit.

What we CAN´T do is give a bad impression, make them see us as spoilt brats. we can´t say anything theyve done is crap,. anything they will do will be crap and then write a huge list of what you think a true fallout 3 would have to get a shot at suceeding.

I think its time we start moving these discussions to the fallout 3 board, so i´m gonna make two topics there: one for positively critiscizing morrowind (okay, bashing, but with the intent of showing what could be better) and another one where people can post their vision for a bethesda fallout 3, what they think is acceptable and what simply cant be done...

I think if these work they would be a great way for the devs to get a general opinion from the good ole fallout fan base, so please lets try to keep it civil, and avoid much discussion in these threads so we get more info on players opinion with as little flame tossing and cursing as possible.

*P.S.: if the mods would like to make something official along those lines, i´d be glad to comply.

 

[Poodle Tosser]

I'd just like to know where the brotherhood is among game developers?

Morrowind fans, don't take this as a bash against ES, I love Morrowind too, but if it's true that Troika was in a position to aquire the Fallout license (the word is that Troika had a winning bid in place until Bethesda came in with something unbeatable), then why did they have to one up them? I know everyone is in the business to make money, but Bethesda's got a winner in the Morrowind series already and they do what they do well. Why steal someone's baby out from under them? If Troika didn't have any chance to aquire the license, then I would've been glad to see Bethesda keep the series alive, but knowing that they did only to have a fellow developer take it away leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

If Bethesda wanted to make a post-apocolyptic rpg, they should've just done one. Why not do something that they could do however they wanted to without worrying about tons of fans breathing down their throats? Morrowind has a totally unique flavor that another developer probably couldn't emulate. Like I said, I'm a fan of Morrowind, but I'd be upset if someone like Troika bought the Morrowind license to do a game...it just wouldn't be the same.

This whole thing reminds me of when Michael Jackson outbid his "friend" Paul McCartney for the rights to the Beatles catalog...

 

[Roshambo]

Poodle Tosser: Exactly my sentiment.

Macaco: Unfortunately, according to Pete, they are going to do what they do best. As that has little to do with Fallout, as are the designs of Fallout and TES different, Bethesda would likely have little to do with fan input except for some fanservice items. As BioWare has proven, it's easier to add Drizzt than write well.

It would take a very long time to go about the differences and what makes Fallout so special (and you might as well write a new Fallout bible from scratch), but that still doesn't remove that fact that it takes away from the artistic design intended for the series, at least in part. It's meant to look a bit like a particular style comic book because of the heavy pulp influences (take a look at the loading screen). Morrowind has little resemblence to that. That also involved a lot more mechanics than just view.

Until they get their own people on the same page, then I'm going to be skeptical about anything they say. This goes especially for Pete and his claim that they are going to do what they do best.

 

[Sarkus]

Fallout is more than just an isometric view. I recall FOBOS was isometric too, but it sure as hell wasn't a Fallout game.

Semantics and feeble uses of twisting word logic games will not work on me, kid. I've had quite a lot of experience in dissecting them. Fallout is more than an isometric view, yes, but that doesn't mean it needs to change from it.

Nor does it mean that changing from an isometric view destroys it as a Fallout game. Look, do you accept that the first-person point of view can work for and RPG or not? If you do accept that, then you can't say it won't work for Fallout because it hasn't been tried. What results might be different, but not necessarily bad.

. . . ask yourself if that wasn't what I wanted when I considered a CRPG called Fallout, why would I buy it? I didn't buy it solely because you could hire hookers and shoot guns, so I'm sorry if our interests are a little more separate than you from the nearest clue.

So does that mean that you are only interested in Isometric turn-based RPG's? That's certainly your choice, but you are missing out on some fine titles.

So the "future" is Bethesda's design? Keeping to a good design that had a distinctive style of its own and not becoming a mere facade in some other game's engine would be more aproppriate.

Well, the future of Fallout IS Bethesda's design, because they now own the rights.

I've made no comments on RPGCodex. I simply do not dismiss 1st person as a legitimate RPG point of view.

Yesterday it looked like Fallout was dead. Today a company far more likely than Interplay to produce something interesting has it. It's a new developer and if they take it in a new technical direction that's fine with me, as long as they keep the setting, mood, humor, and canon of the originals.

 

[Roshambo]

Nor does it mean that changing from an isometric view destroys it as a Fallout game.

The failure of your semantic bullshit has little bearing upon the discussion.

Look, do you accept that the first-person point of view can work for and RPG or not? If you do accept that, then you can't say it won't work for Fallout because it hasn't been tried. What results might be different, but not necessarily bad.

Look, you dumb shit, I've already told you why it wouldn't work for Fallout. Now uncouple your head from your ass and stop replying with your own same dry disproven rhetoric that has absolutely no basis with how Fallout was designed. I think I already have called it when I called you clueless.

"If you do accept that, then you can't say it won't work for Fallout because it hasn't been tried." What kind of pathetic newbie to the game industry do you have to be to believe that self-delusional drivel?

.
So does that mean that you are only interested in Isometric turn-based RPG's? That's certainly your choice, but you are missing out on some fine titles.

Try reading next time, moron. I said, when people think of Fallout, they usually have a clear picture of what to expect. It usually isn't an action-based dungeon crawler, they're expecting a CRPG. This has no relevance to my personal preferences, which are varied.

Face it, you're too busy drooling and mentally jerking off to give any consideration as to the design. Your pathetic use of a straw man argument wasn't unexpected.

I've made no comments on RPGCodex. I simply do not dismiss 1st person as a legitimate RPG point of view.

A first-person view would be fine, in other games. When you change into, which I had already pointed out, thus making it clear you're not really reading a word I'm writing. With games that change their mechanics without real cause and are supposed to be part of the series, which require chances to the core mechanics (changing the viewpoint basis, and it would most assuredly be real-time), enjoy suicidal results. Even Origin was bright enough to label UU as a spin-off because the design was different. Ultima nearly died because they changed their formula, and then look at the piece of shit that Ultima is today. A crappy online game that has little relevance to the original, and a development house that is pretty much dead.

Yesterday it looked like Fallout was dead. Today a company far more likely than Interplay to produce something interesting has it. It's a new developer and if they take it in a new technical direction that's fine with me, as long as they keep the setting, mood, humor, and canon of the originals.

Funny that you mention "setting" and "mood" and have little to no comprehension of what they mean in terms of game design. Flavoring has been a recipe for failure in the game industry before and it looks like it might be measuring up for a good dose now.

 

[Macaco]

okay people, we need to start getting over the fact that bethesda bought the game, we cant stop them making the game, cant give the license to someone else, so lets try to make the best out of this situation, try to find the bright side, and start trying to get to a consensus about what we expect from them in fallout 3...

before anyone takes me wrong, take a look here http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7986 for my opinion.

 

[alec]

It bodes not well for the continuity of the series, if they change the winning formula: Fallout 3 should become a 2D isometric RPG, the setting should be respected as should the game mechanics: TB combat, SPECIAL system, and so on. This means, basically, that Fallout 3 should be developed for the fans of the series, not for a potentially bigger/newer/younger audience. If the game is good enough and close to brilliant, it will attract a bigger audience by itself.

From what I've read on the newsboards, it doesn't look as if Bethesda is going to do that. 2D is simply out of the question, I know (and sorry I asked), but now I read that even the isometric view is not really being considered. I dreaded this: if FO3 will have a 3D engine, it'll be bye-bye fixed isometric view. I'm sure Van Buren would ultimately have gone the same way (it's too bloody tempting not to include rotate and zoom and hell, why not, first person point of view when you've built a good 3D engine). I'm all against it, of course. I'd rather have the amount of detail and atmosphere that a state-of-the-art 2D engine can deliver, then the so-called freedom those 3D "universes" have to offer. I want a whole gddmn continent to explore, not just a few maps. And I don't want Bethesda to touch any of the game mechanics. I want TB combat, gddmnt, and it'll be RT, no doubt.

Jeez. Troika almost got it. Troika. Troika that did Arcanum. Jeez.

 

[Roshambo]

3D isn't so much an issue as is the mechanics and the feel of the game. 3D can do isometric and offer a few more things, but instead of features, maybe people need to pay attention to design before their apologising turns this game into Fallout: The Post-Apocalyptic Scrolls.

If it's how Bethesda develops, as Pete said, then it doesn't look good.

 

[Joe Mama]

My reactions in order of appearance: WOW! Yes! No wait, wtf, hmm... It bothers me so much to know that Troika came SO CLOSE, but no friggin cigar... Now just hopin for the best and fearing the worst.

 

[victor]

Go Roshambo! Bethesda fans who have joined this forum, go ahead and at least LEARN the sacred 3:

-Isometric view
-S.P.E.C.I.A.L system
-Turnbased combat

Now lots of Fallout fans have urged you to listen in your own forums, why won't you? You're really not entitled to an opinion as how the game should be, now that I think of it, since you've been Fallout fans for about 2 days, i.e since your precious company got their greedy FPS hands on the holy license. You heathens have no respect for those who have been playing Fallout since day 1, and should, quite frankly, STFU. M'kay?

 

[Brutulf]

3D isn't/wouldn't be bad at all, as long as an (locked) isometric view is an option.

Technology and data-sotrage has come a long way since 1998, you probably could keep the same level of detail and size with a 3D engine now, as you could with a 2D engine in 1998.

For my part, they can throw in as much zoom and rotate they please as long as they keep the option for a isometric viewpoint.

 

[NCR_Ranger]

Heres a good analogy:

What their apparently going to do to Fallout is like taking KISS and changing them into Nickelback. Their both still "rock and roll" but I bet there's not too many KISS fan's who listen to Nickelback. Destroy the foundation, and the rest comes crumbling down.