Interplay SEC filing on court filing

[Sander]

I'm no saying it's good because it got cancelled, I'm saying it's good because I like what I see. It expanded the Fallout universe in interesting, consistent directions, had a lot of unique, creative content and a staggering amount of choices available to the player.

Yes, it looked like it had potential. But at the same time, there were a lot of changes to the SPECIAL system that didn't necessarily make sense, and there was a lot of criticism on it throughout the development cycle.

Look, I'm not saying it would not have been a good game, but the near-worship of an unreleased game that faced quite a lot of criticism from those same people is annoying and counter-factual. It's a result of idolisation.

 

[Dionysus]

Frymuchan sounds like that little kid talking about how his father is better than the other kid's. So passionate .....

Well, i guess this will force bethesda to spend a little bit more money on the case than they wished to.

I'm sure that this was part of the plan. I think we all knew that IP wouldn't raise the 30 million, and that this would end up in court.

I'm no saying it's good because it got cancelled, I'm saying it's good because I like what I see. It expanded the Fallout universe in interesting, consistent directions, had a lot of unique, creative content and a staggering amount of choices available to the player.

I think Sander is generally right on this one. If game development was as simple as coming up with some great design docs, then we'd probably be crowning the Afterfall devs.

When it comes to Van Buren, it's perfectly reasonable to think about what could have been, but you always have to remember that it never was. VB wasn't "awesome." It didn't offer "a staggering amount of choices." It didn't get canned after it was finished, like Thrill Kill. It never really existed.

But I think NV will be great as long as Obsidian doesn't get too ambitious with their limited time-frame.

 

[Brother None]

But I think NV will be great as long as Obsidian doesn't get too ambitious with their limited time-frame.

This.

Pay attention to this.

So far Obsidian is batting a perfect 0 for finishing polished games within the budget and time set for them. Even assuming delays, which we should, no reason to assume we'll get a finished game this time.

An Obsidian-developed game gone through Bethesda's Q&A? That's a perfect shit-storm of technical incompetence.

 

[Tagaziel]

Yes, it looked like it had potential. But at the same time, there were a lot of changes to the SPECIAL system that didn't necessarily make sense, and there was a lot of criticism on it throughout the development cycle.

Criticising something doesn't mean something is automatically bad. I can start pointing out glaring flaws and unbalanced elements in Fallout, but that doesn't change the fact that it's one hell of a game.

Look, I'm not saying it would not have been a good game, but the near-worship of an unreleased game that faced quite a lot of criticism from those same people is annoying and counter-factual. It's a result of idolisation.

I'm not worshipping it. I'm pointing out the things I like, but nobody asked me to point out things I didn't.

When it comes to Van Buren, it's perfectly reasonable to think about what could have been, but you always have to remember that it never was. VB wasn't "awesome." It didn't offer "a staggering amount of choices." It didn't get canned after it was finished, like Thrill Kill. It never really existed.

So basically, I can't praise good design choices and plans just because they weren't finished? Uh, okay.

 

[Sander]

Criticising something doesn't mean something is automatically bad. I can start pointing out glaring flaws and unbalanced elements in Fallout, but that doesn't change the fact that it's one hell of a game.

Criticising something does mean it automatically isn't perfect, and every single time you hear Van Buren here (and I'm not talking about (just) you), all you hear is how perfect and awesome it was. There's a total lack of balance to those discussions.

I'm not worshipping it. I'm pointing out the things I like, but nobody asked me to point out things I didn't.

Nobody asked you to point out the good things either. In fact, you decided to hold up Van Buren as a reason why New Vegas was going to be awesome. When you do that, it's good form to actually look at it objectively, instead of only looking at the good points (in a design doc none the less).

So basically, I can't praise good design choices and plans just because they weren't finished? Uh, okay.

You can't hold it up as a great example of a finished game, no.

This.

Pay attention to this.

So far Obsidian is batting a perfect 0 for finishing polished games within the budget and time set for them. Even assuming delays, which we should, no reason to assume we'll get a finished game this time.

An Obsidian-developed game gone through Bethesda's Q&A? That's a perfect shit-storm of technical incompetence.

Yep. In fact, they had a great concept for KotOR II, only to have to cut a lot of the final product because of time and budget constraints, while also producing a really buggy result.

 

[Dionysus]

So basically, I can't praise good design choices and plans just because they weren't finished? Uh, okay.

You have to be careful about your phrasing. VB could have been good. It also could have been a buggy and unfinished PoS. Ultimately, Sawyer doesn't deserve any credit for heading the development of a game that was "awesome" or offered the player a "staggering amount of choices."

I'm sure that the design docs for KotOR2 didn't say anything about pushing out an undercooked turkey just in time for the last-minute X-mas rush.

 

[Tagaziel]

Criticising something does mean it automatically isn't perfect, and every single time you hear Van Buren here (and I'm not talking about (just) you), all you hear is how perfect and awesome it was. There's a total lack of balance to those discussions.

I'm not saying it was perfect. I'm saying it had some awesome design.

Besides, VB is usually pitted against Fo3. In that fight, creativity of VB's designers mops the floor with Fo3.

Nobody asked you to point out the good things either. In fact, you decided to hold up Van Buren as a reason why New Vegas was going to be awesome. When you do that, it's good form to actually look at it objectively, instead of only looking at the good points (in a design doc none the less).

I'm looking at both and I'm still saying that VB would be a better Fo3 than Fo3.

And that the quality of its design documents indicate that Sawyer's work on F:NV will be just as good.

You can't hold it up as a great example of a finished game, no.

I'm not doing that?

You have to be careful about your phrasing. VB could have been good. It also could have been a buggy and unfinished PoS. Ultimately, Sawyer doesn't deserve any credit for heading the development of a game that was "awesome" or offered the player a "staggering amount of choices."

Because lead designers are always figureheads, right.

I'm sure that the design docs for KotOR2 didn't say anything about pushing out an undercooked turkey just in time for the last-minute X-mas rush.

Which is the publisher's fault, not Obsidian's?

 

[Sander]

Mikael, you are twisting the discussion away from what you actually initially claimed. You never said that Van Buren had great design, but we can't say anything about its execution. What you said is that New Vegas will be awesome as a game, not as a design doc, because J.E. Sawyer did the design for Van Buren.
Here, let me quote you:

I can't quite comprehend why people think that Obsidian can go wrong with NV.

Christ.

J. E. Sawyer is the project lead. He was the project lead on the awesome Van Buren.

Do the math people.

You said that Obsidian can't possibly go wrong with New Vegas, because Sawyer led Van Buren. You're not putting any disclaimers there about just talking about the design docs being awesome or whatever, you are taking a couple of design docs as evidence that Sawyer will make an awesome finished game. Stop trying to twist those statements into something they aren't.

 

[Corith]

Sawyer offering the player a "staggering amount of choices."

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

Well, that gave me my laugh of the day.

 

[Verevoof]

Of course things can go wrong. While I myself have hopes for New Vegas, I'm not going to think of it as the "true" Fallout 3 or anything like that. Just because he's J. E. Sawyer doesn't mean he can't go wrong. And who's to say that his design will be approved from the get-go. New Vegas is going have basically the same gameplay as Fallout 3, that much we know. So it's all up to the folks at Obsidian to do something new, interesting, and improved with that gameplay style.

As for what would happen to New Vegas if Interplay were to win the case, who knows. Obsidian has a contract with Bethesda, so those two would have to settle that matter.

 

[Brother None]

As for what would happen to New Vegas if Interplay were to win the case, who knows. Obsidian has a contract with Bethesda, so those two would have to settle that matter.

No.
The contract would become void and with no damages done by Bethesda upon Obsidian that would be the end of it, issues such as finishing up eventual unpaid fees nonwithstanding.

 

[4too]

Vertical Insertion Of Rhetorical Shoveling!

Vertical Insertion Of Rhetorical Shoveling!

...Yep. In fact, they had a great concept for KotOR II, only to have to cut a lot of the final product because of time and budget constraints, while also producing a really buggy result.

Out side the confines of one's fuzzy rationalized beliefs,
and the harder edged dogma cooked up under peer pressure,
and the incense and candle rituals of the marketing media cloud consciousness ,
will have to wait and see if Obsidian has any managers that can negotiate the learning curve.

Seem to be burdened with 'artists' and 'marketeers' and too few leaders that can encapsulate a finished product at time t.

Not necessarily endorsing Der Furhrer Princeps -- aber -- maybe not a great dictator but a great director/producer like in the film industry.

Entertainment as seen in past, present, future professionally produced movies appear to manage a level of quality and continuity;
why is it always a 'happy accident' in video games?

There's a possible absolute for the cosmos, "why is 'it' ALWAYS a 'happy accident' in video games?"

So what if the product is only the first chapter? Isn't that how franchises and dynasties are built? Potential that there is always more of this quality to come.
The holy BRANDING of another commodity! Wow, this cool feature can be in chapter 2, and this awesome plot twist will mature by chapter 3 ...

If the nex gen apologists are so hot about the big buck comparison with motion pictures why do many games fail in some form of story telling and Q and A?
OH -- it's only about THE MONEY to be skimmed off, NOT the quality of the product.
The comparison is for selling a corporate image. Billions and B-B-Billions of purloined profits!

By what criteria do the purveyors of shovel ware justify their pay checks ... the accelerated rate of profit --->> ""to the moon Alice!""

Or, if product quality is lost in the mix, the present litter/gene pool of producers and managers may have standards too low, standards non existent, or standards: mission impossible, Which?

So, those waiting for quality are looking for another happy accident, as what must have happened with FO 1+2, or whatever game supports one's faith in this mystical system.

Meanwhile, corporations pooh out products, games or investment schemes, of dubious quality,
and then have marketing declare an awesome victory and the leadership goes home with their bonuses.

They can because they are TOO BIG TO FAIL!
(The marketing juggernaut and the swarm of commercial writers groom the consumer for the next incarnation of Awesome-(tm).)
A proven dictatorial onslaught that is TOO BIG TO FAIL!

Capitalism held hostage by corporatism.

How is the video game industry any *better* a Ponzi Scheme than the rest of the too big to fail corporations?

And the consumer, "born every minute", is left holding the pig in a poke.
Is the real game the market-eering, or is there a playable game in the box?
Can the holder of the bag, process the contents to the last squeal (FO1+2), or be cut short on quality,and left hungering for the unattainable??
Perhaps computer video games, like some commodity futures , could be overseen by the Department Of Agriculture. Experts in what may be pork, and what may be poop.






4too

 

[Lord Danath]

I'm sure that the design docs for KotOR2 didn't say anything about pushing out an undercooked turkey just in time for the last-minute X-mas rush.

Actually I'm positively sure that this was not the fault of Obsidian.

If I remember right it was Lucasarts that forced them to release the game in the state it was because they wanted it out for x-mas.

Now that's just refering to cut content. It's also true that there were a lot of bugs in the game that Lucasarts had no responsability for.

 

[Sander]

Actually I'm positively sure that this was not the fault of Obsidian.

If I remember right it was Lucasarts that forced them to release the game in the state it was because they wanted it out for x-mas.

Now that's just refering to cut content. It's also true that there were a lot of bugs in the game that Lucasarts had no responsability for.

Yeah, that's still Obsidian's fault. They got a time schedule before they started development, if they can't meet that schedule when they promised they could, it's their fault.

 

[Lord Danath]

Yeah, that's still Obsidian's fault. They got a time schedule before they started development, if they can't meet that schedule when they promised they could, it's their fault.

Did they actually respected the timeline?

I think I read on their forums that they changed it so they could get the game out early at x-mas but I might be wrong.

 

[Dionysus]

Actually I'm positively sure that this was not the fault of Obsidian.

If I remember right it was Lucasarts that forced them to release the game in the state it was because they wanted it out for x-mas.

Now that's just refering to cut content. It's also true that there were a lot of bugs in the game that Lucasarts had no responsability for.

I don't know if LA moved the release date up (which would absolve Obsidian) or if Obsidian tried to do too much within the short dev cycle that they agreed to. But the point is that a lot of stuff needs to happen between writing up some design docs and releasing a great game. You don't get a lot of points for intending to make a great game with your available resources.

 

[Lord Danath]

I don't know if LA moved the release date up (which would absolve Obsidian) or if Obsidian tried to do too much within the short dev cycle that they agreed to. But the point is that a lot of stuff needs to happen between writing up some design docs and releasing a great game. You don't get a lot of points for intending to make a great game with your available resources.

I know that.

It's why I specifically stated in my first post that I was only refering to the content they had to cut before release.

The bugs left in the game have nothing to do with Lucasarts moving the release date or not, they are the responsability of Obsidian.

 

[Dionysus]

The bugs left in the game have nothing to do with Lucasarts moving the release date or not, they are the responsability of Obsidian.

No, the bugs would be forgivable too, at least to some extent. Bug testing is typically stuff that occurs at the end of development.

But I've never heard that LA moved the date (from any reputable source), and I've read an interview from Avellone that suggested that he took responsibility for trying to do too much.

 

[Lord Danath]

But I've never heard that LA moved the date (from any reputable source), and I've read an interview from Avellone that suggested that he took responsibility for trying to do too much.

As I said before I think I read about it on Lucasforums.com but it's been a long time and I really don't remember who posted it.

 

[Tagaziel]

Mikael, you are twisting the discussion away from what you actually initially claimed. You never said that Van Buren had great design, but we can't say anything about its execution. What you said is that New Vegas will be awesome as a game, not as a design doc, because J.E. Sawyer did the design for Van Buren.

You said that Obsidian can't possibly go wrong with New Vegas, because Sawyer led Van Buren. You're not putting any disclaimers there about just talking about the design docs being awesome or whatever, you are taking a couple of design docs as evidence that Sawyer will make an awesome finished game. Stop trying to twist those statements into something they aren't.

I'm not used to creating 50 pages worth of disclaimers. My point is, Van Buren's design is awesome. The amount of creativity and complexity contained in the design documents (which for all we know could've been realized in full) indicates it'd be a great game.

I admit, I am a schizophrenic poster.