Interplay SEC filing on court filing

Darkform said:
have a major game company build me a engine
Click to expand...

It would be funny to read in the paper that Blizzard or some other developer had taken a year to build an engine, not for some project of their own, but just to hand over to a random rich person who randomly paid them to do it. There are rich people in the world, why doesn't this happen more often?

EXTRA EXTRA

PETER MOLYNEUX TAKES A FEW YEARS OFF TO DO A RANDOM THING

IT WON'T ACTUALLY BECOME A GAME OR ANYTHING

BUT HE GETS PAID PRETTY WELL IT'S SAID

SAYS RICH PERSON, "LOOK AT IT THIS WAY IT KEEPS HIM FROM DOING ANYTHING ELSE"

ROOMFUL OF JOURNALISTS NOD UNDERSTANDINGLY AT EXACTLY THE SAME TIME

EXTRA EXTRA

ALSO THERE'S A WAR ON SOMEWHERE
 
I would do sorta a cross between indistry and indy game. where everything posable would be indy and the ther stuff outsourced to indistry gameing, like 3d graphics and engine building. I would probably hire the Fallout 1, 2 and Arcanum moders first then have a brainstorm for what type of engine and what it will need to be able to do. then get the indistry build the engine, then have the (moders) develipment team make the story and everything they can wile outsourceing the graphics they need to profetionals. that way we have a good all around game of corse I would probably also buy the rights to Arcanum and have the team make a new one for that line also and probably register a group name so we could sell the games we mad as if we was a main gameing indistry company.

you are right tho it would be kinda strange for a game company to build a engine that they would never use themselves BUT they would get payed and maybe even get a prsentage of royalts (without being able to use the engine themselves).
 
Darkform said:
I would do sorta a cross between indistry and indy game. where everything posable would be indy and the ther stuff outsourced to indistry gameing, like 3d graphics and engine building. I would probably hire the Fallout 1, 2 and Arcanum moders first then have a brainstorm for what type of engine and what it will need to be able to do. then get the indistry build the engine, then have the (moders) develipment team make the story and everything they can wile outsourceing the graphics they need to profetionals. that way we have a good all around game of corse I would probably also buy the rights to Arcanum and have the team make a new one for that line also and probably register a group name so we could sell the games we mad as if we was a main gameing indistry company.

you are right tho it would be kinda strange for a game company to build a engine that they would never use themselves BUT they would get payed and maybe even get a prsentage of royalts (without being able to use the engine themselves).
Click to expand...

I know this could never happen but in the unlikely event that it did you should know that paying for a custom engine is a waste unless you have extremely specific needs. You could license a proprietary engine for a much lower cost then building one or you could use something free.
 
all that would be decided while brainstorming so we might not custume make a engine. it would depend on if there is one that can work (I personly would like to see a 3d isametric trun based with the optin of real time used and for aimed shots to come up like VATS in Fallout 3 but when it is turn based have time stoped on the VATS. I think the VATS is the best representation of aimed shots of all Fallut games so far [almost the only thing I think was improved other than graphics and I can think of BAD things to say about the graphics, new doesn't always meen improved.].).

I don't know a engine that can do that tho.

I'm thinking take the best of Fallout 1-2-3 and Arcanum engines and makeing one like that or finding one that can do it.

mostly Fallout 1-2 with Arcanums turn or real time combat and Arcanums tell your party members what to do IF they are close enough to hear you (mayby a new perk? that says you know cmbat handsighns and can comunicate to non dumb party members from a distance and or letting you use a radio in combat 2 actionpoints to tell another party member out of normal talking range that has a radio what to do.) and Fallout 3 s VATS for realistic aimed shots (I have to roll my eyes at the fact I can get a aimed shot at someones eyes when behind them in Fallout 1-2 or that you can aim at someones legs when your car is between you and them in Fallut 2.).

(LOL aimed shot to someones eyes from behind when you are useing melle and are sneeking and have silent killer perk isn't to unrealistic. and sounds about like a instant kill shot to me if you hit.)
 
you'll find that to many people here, this is like saying "well, getting raped by a supermutant is better than having no sex-life at all".


Well, I think you'll find to many people who aren't crazy that mentality seems something like "I'd rather take my toys and go home to sulk in the corner than share them with the other kids".

I'm seriously at a loss as how to explain somebody who likes PC games saying they'd rather have no decent games at all than games that they don't feel live up to the standards of a title that was released 10 years ago. Maybe you should consider a new hobby? I mean, I'm pretty effing disgusted by the low quality and the deliberate shallowness of PC games the last... hell, 10 years or so... but when people start saying they'd be happier if even the best game to come out in a couple years had never been released? Time to move on!

sorry, doesn't work that way. we'd rather keep the integrity of the games and the setting by playing the old games and new mods, than getting a new game that rapes the setting.

And how many times have you played Fallout 2 in the last 10 years, man? And I though I had it bad with replaying old games! You can't possibly still be entertained by the original game content and since that's the part that made the game great than what is the point of investing 100% of your gaming time in it? Are you seriously trying to claim that the setting is all that matters, and you don't care about who does the content or how they do it?

I'm not going to tell you what I really think of that because I don't have any interest in insulting you but please do me the same favor, and don't act like yours is the only reasonable opinion.
 
programmer.craig said:
I'm seriously at a loss as how to explain somebody who likes PC games saying they'd rather have no decent games at all than games that they don't feel live up to the standards of a title that was released 10 years ago.
Click to expand...

Seriously? You can't imagine a Star Wars fan expressing the sentiment that it would be better if George Lucas had not made the prequel trilogy?
 
What is the goddamn deal with you people that you want the majority of the board here to accept that Bethesda taking over the Fallout franchise was a good thing and that Fallout 3 is some kind of natural progression of the genre. (apologies in case I misunderstood it)

Then I have a question, why do all games these days have to appeal to people with a very short attention span who are mostly into it for pseudo hollwood esque story lines and explosions.
Not just the new franchises, but also the old franchises have to appeal to them.

Because they are the new generation with money, well I am still around and I have money, so why do developers not once in a while try a title more focused on gameplay and good storytelling (good story telling, not a rehash of an old plot) instead of delivering a short 'interactive' movie.

Why are we older gamers always portrayed as the 'bad guy' because we don't go allow with the flow of 'thinking like everyone else'.

Edit: the post I tried to respond on seems to be gone.
 
Seriously? You can't imagine a Star Wars fan expressing the sentiment that it would be better if George Lucas had not made the prequel trilogy?

Right. I can't understand that. And I'm a starwars fan who watched the original when it first came out (which was when I was in elementary school) at least 10 times. And I still remember hearing the ads for it on the radio before it came out. Only radio ads from the 1970s that I can recall at all.

If we're going to play that game, he should have stopped at the first movie. The second two were pretty piss poor, and to be honest if it hadn't been for the record smashing success of the first movie I doubt anyone would have paid them much attention.

I guess I'm just not the type of person to feel I have more right to determine what an artist should do with his creation than the artist does.

And by the way, I'm a big Star Trek fan too, from way back. Not the kind who dresses up like a dork and goes to conventions, though... I'm the other kind who just watches the shows. Only conventions I ever went to were D&D ones back in the 1970s. And no I didn't dress up like a dork for those either, I just went. My friends dressed up like dorks but I don't think they did it on purpose. So anyway, I loved the hell out of Voyager. Deep Space 9 was blah. Next generation was blah. Enterprise was < blah. Should I hope that in order to honor the original series that no other Star Trek show is ever made? Nope, I can't relate to that. Some people actually liked those shows I called "blah" - they must have, because they ran for over 5 years. Who am I to say what is worthy of being made with the Star Trek name?

And by the way, Fallout 2 is just one of many great games that I'm a huge fan of. And I'm hugely disappointed nothing further was ever done with it, by the original team. But that doesn't mean I want the franchise to vanish for all time. That's been the fate of a lot of other games I used to love, and it doesn't make me feel any better than nobody (ever) did anything more with them.

The Dutch Ghost said:
What is the goddamn deal with you people that you want the majority of the board here to accept that Bethesda taking over the Fallout franchise was a good thing and that Fallout 3 is some kind of natural progression of the genre. (apologies in case I misunderstood it).
Click to expand...

I don't know if you're talking about me, but for one thing I'm hardly a majority here! I'm not even a regular! :)

For what it's worth, my opinion is that the FO franchise died almost a decade ago when Interplay started mumbling about how they couldn't afford to devote resources to games like Fallout. I think Bethesda resurrected it - for their own selfish interests, of course. Two separate issues, for me.

I am in complete agreement with the rest of your post. And you said it better than I could :)
 
programmer.craig said:
I guess I'm just not the type of person to feel I have more right to determine what an artist should do with his creation than the artist does.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, the artist's prerogative indeed. So, uh...whose creation would Fallout be? Bethesda's?
 
Brother None said:
programmer.craig said:
I guess I'm just not the type of person to feel I have more right to determine what an artist should do with his creation than the artist does.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, the artist's prerogative indeed. So, uh...whose creation would Fallout be? Bethesda's?
Click to expand...

I fell over laughing.

I like the idea that Interplay shows it's logo in Fallout and Fallout 2 while it says "for players by players". I have thought up some "for X by X" qoutes for Bethesda but I shouldn't EVER speek them and I don't know Bethesda people that well so most of them may just be slander anyways (I try to beleave everyone has good in them untill I'm proven otherize and even tho I think they came off on a bad foot I haven't known them enough to say they are not just ignorent of thier mistakes and did any wrong on purpose.).

(about Bethesda with how well non-Fallout fans like Fallout 3 they very well would just look at how well it is doing and how much praise they are getting and think to themselves we did a good job so with that path they will just stay ignorent of how the old fans fell. I know fans tryed to give input to them and that they seemed to ignore them BUT they might have thought that the changes they made would make the fans even happyer instead of makeing them angry. yes a few old fans have said they like what Bethsda did but I for one just tolorate it. I think ANYONE could have done just as god a job if not better but when I get another PC [I'm on a backup now that can't even run Fallout 3 and haven't played it since my good PC crashed and burned] I will load Fallout 3 and play hopfally by then the moding comunity will have fixed Fallout 3. so I do say they did a bad job but like someone else also said it's the best new thing out there. says ALLOT about all the other choices of entertainment there is to chose from now a days doesn't it?)
 
The modding community will never have fixed Fallou 3. Never. Graphic changes, yes. Maybe some new house and nude mods, yes. But they will never ever fix the game. It's just too much that needs to be changed. And no, I am not talking about adding turn based combat and such. The game has far more problems in it, just like the horrible karma system that works like shit and says really nothing. (They changed elementar things by the way-- the karma titles as example are not really based on your karma points, it's based on your characters level. So you always have good, neutral, bad and the title will always become higher with your level) Also stuff like interactions with the NPCs is way way too bad developed. The same goes to really big quests (where you don't have to talk to just two people with 10 dialogue sentences) and so on and so on.

It's just not possible to fix everything that is crap in there. Sorry. It wasn't even possible yet to fix Oblivion. Sure, the community added a lot of new stuff, but they didn't fixed the old. The biggest thing I can think of right now are the skill changes and how this system works. But the quests, the horrible storyline and all the connections inside are still like on the first day.
 
programmer.craig said:
Well, I think you'll find to many people who aren't crazy that mentality seems something like "I'd rather take my toys and go home to sulk in the corner than share them with the other kids".
Click to expand...
Gizmo always had a good example using TMNT. The original comics were, to a degree, a parody of ninja comics but they were still fairly serious and targeted at an older audience. In comes the TMNT cartoon and all of the old TMNT fans were embarrassed to admit that they were fans because it had become a horrible children's cartoon. Fallout is much the same way, if you talk to people about it, most will assume that you're talking about Fallout 3. When you tell them otherwise they get lost, when you tell them you don't like Fallout 3 or that Fallout 3 is nothing like Fallout 1&2, the conversation breaks down.

It's more of a "I'd rather play with toys I like than knockoffs with the same name but which are completely different." Think GIJoes action figures vs. the big dolls or Hot Wheels toy cars vs. remote control cars.

programmer.craig said:
And how many times have you played Fallout 2 in the last 10 years, man? And I though I had it bad with replaying old games! You can't possibly still be entertained by the original game content and since that's the part that made the game great than what is the point of investing 100% of your gaming time in it?
Click to expand...
Who said that anyone here invests 100% of their gaming time in Fallout and Fallout 2? Everyone here plays multiple games and people have an issue with Fallout 3 not being anything like Fallout 1&2 because they like games like Fallout 1&2 and generally think little of Oblivion. What don't you get about people wanting sequels to follow the setting and gameplay of the previous games in the series?

programmer.craig said:
Are you seriously trying to claim that the setting is all that matters, and you don't care about who does the content or how they do it?
Click to expand...
"We'd rather keep the integrity of the games and the setting," note what's before the "and".
 
The Dutch Ghost said:
... so why do developers not once in a while try a title more focused on gameplay and good storytelling (good story telling, not a rehash of an old plot) instead of delivering a short 'interactive' movie.

Why are we older gamers always portrayed as the 'bad guy' because we don't go allow with the flow of 'thinking like everyone else'.

Edit: the post I tried to respond on seems to be gone.
Click to expand...
Cause it is a lot easier to make a game which appeals to the people that can be entertained very easily. Not that it is bad to make "main stream" games or any kind of "light" entertaiment. Hell I love this kind of stuff as well sometimes.

But its inherently easier to come up with a game like Oblivion that can be sold to all sorts of players as either a "first person" game (comparable to a shooter) and to people that love RPGs. And if one side is not satisfied you can always that its not meant to be a either a "shooter" or "RPG".

To make a story or gameplay and RPG (or any other kind of game) that has a long lasting effect is a very time consuming work that needs much skill. To make a plot like in Fallout 3 with all its holes is easy work. Of course I am just talking about the brainstorming, not the real programming, that is "work" but with all seriousness how hard would it be for someome to get the idea that you should not have companions that are save from radition in the end where radition is the thing that kills your character ...
 
@Lexx: I was sorta hopeing a group of moders would go in and fix the dialogs and make the story interesting. I know it all can't be fixed but maybe put in a few more dialg trees that sound good and take out that damn notice in dialog that says it is there because you have a int >6 or because you have a speech >25% and take out the skill notification saying it takes 25% traps to disarm this.

did the people that made Fallout 3 even play Fallout 1 or 2? they should have multiple times but I get the sense that all they did was borrow the notes from a trained monkey that played them only one time and had to give the monkey the notes back after only 15 min to review them. I would point out the bad points but I will just shake my head and say it is at lest playable and a ok game for a FPS (when I play it I try not to think of it as Fallout 3 tho but some sort of spinoff.).
 
Oh yes, the artist's prerogative indeed. So, uh...whose creation would Fallout be? Bethesda's?

The "artist" (as in the creator in this case) chose to let the product languish. And then 10 years later they decided to sell it to somebody else. Are we also the "deciders" of who people can sell their own intellectual property to? I understand you are upset, but Bethesda didn't force Interplay to have such massive brainfarts back in the late 1990s did they? The fact is that the ONLY franchise Interplay ever created (and they created a lot of stuff) that is worth anything at all right now is fallout. And that's only because Bethesda was willing to pay for it, and to invest in it. And now that Fallout has brand recognition again, Interplay is trying to capitalize on it? As if Interplay couldn't have capitalized on it 10 years ago?

I liked Jagged Alliance 2 as much as I liked Fallout. Nobody will touch it the franchise. Jagged Alliance has changed ownership 547 times in the last 10 years, and there's still no game on the horizon. And everyone who has owned it has been some fly-by-night operation with no money. Am I supposed to say "I'm glad nobody ever did another version that wasn't true to the franchise! I'd rather have no squad combat games named Jagged Alliance at all than something that was a sellout! At least now everyone remembers how great it was!"

What do I care what everyone else remembers? I want some freaking decent games... they are in short supply, in case nobody noticed. Fallout 3 was a decent game. At least it wasn't crap, like most the other stuff I've wasted money on the last couple years.
 
The "artist" (as in the creator in this case) chose to let the product languish. And then 10 years later they decided to sell it to somebody else.
Click to expand...

I'd generally call the people behind the game the creators, not the company producing it.

I'd rather have no squad combat games named Jagged Alliance at all than something that was a sellout!
Click to expand...

Yup, I'd rather not myself.
 
With Jagged Alliance it is a bit different than Fallout, imo. It's really not a big deal to make a game where you command some mercs (and such games have been released in the last time too). Except the "you are some dude who commands mercs and got a mission" there is no other background in the game at all. Everything is separate and each game doesn't need a real connection to each other. You doesn't even need to make a unique game each time because people want stuff like take over rocket base x and city y in this games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top