Is NMA wrong about Fallout?

[Einhanderc7]

Something that confounds me is this need to "adapt" established intellectual properties for new audiences. Yet the means in which they do so not only ignore the source material, but attempt to manipulate it in such way to generate the maximum amount of profit.

While the likes of Shakespeare have indeed been adapted in more modern imaginings, those still remain true to the original source material. I bring this up because from my perspective art, is art. A narrative, experience, and the meanings we as human beings derive from exposing our senses to these man made creations not only impact who we are, but how we as people consider the world around us.

I use Shakespeare as a comparison as his works are either remade true to their intention, imagined in more modern comprehensible ways, or referenced. While there are plenty of "garbage" attempts to completely derail the source material, in this case they fail due to the robust nature of the source material.

Then we come to Fallout, while it sure isn't Shakespeare it is an intellectual property that we here (from my perspective) consider a worth while work of art, and possibly consider protecting the source material a worth while endeavor.

My question is "why?"; Why is it necessary to not only ignore an intellectual properties' source material, but change it in such a way that it is no longer recognizable?

The argument could be made that this could possibly be due to the IP itself not belonging to it's original creators, but instead a company. However I find myself asking: "Is that really a fair assessment to make?"

From my perspective any time an IP loses it's source or core material then the IP itself is crippled. There are so many examples of well received stable franchises utterly decimated all in the push to incur additional profit. However those that maintain the source material tend to weather through difficult times often resurfacing to recapture their fan's imaginations.

Have we as consumers, content creators, and business men/women become so artistically bankrupt that no matter the cost or what is lost. Would we prefer an IP to be rendered defunct all in the name of short term profit?
To be honest I wish I was making this all up, yet the various husks of profound and influential intellectual properties that were adapted and changed to such an unrecognizable degree say otherwise.

Do I personally think that "accepting" an established intellectual properties adaptation for the sake of modernization unacceptable? No, not at all. However what I do find unacceptable is to ignore the source material, basis of design, and it's original intention in the effort for greater profit.

Once the core of the IP is gone, is it really the same IP?

 

[naossano]

As a company, you just want to sell your shit. You shit has to have some appeal to the current demographic that you want to sell your shit to. So you see what makes the most selling shits more appealing at the moment. Is it their smell ? Is it because they are brown instead of black ? Are they soft or hard ? Once you figurated out what made appealing, you emulate them, copy them.

But those shits that you sell must be a bit different. They must have some specific flavor, so people won't accuse you of selling the same shit as the others. But they shouldn't be too different from the other shits. You want to make the same amount of profits than the other shits that you try to emulate. So your shit are almost the same shits as the others, but not 100%.

But what will makes your shits a bit different than other shits, but not too much ? Will you bother spend too much time finding ideas ? You aren't an expert of shit. Your only area of expertise is selling. Your job is to sell shits, not make them, not think too about them, not even use them yourself.

The quickest way to make your shit a bit different than the other shits, but not too much, is to pick an already existing shit from the past, and shape it to make it look as close as possible from the shits that are already in the market. If that shit from the past already has brand recognition, it will mean that you will not only sell it to the current market, but also to the fans of the old shit. And you have almost nothing to think about. You are just mixing aspects of the new shits with aspects of the old shit.

Even better, the old shit is part of the brand. Only you can sell this brand. Let's say you are selling S shaped shits, it means that you are the only one who can sell S shaped shit. If someone else tries to sell them, you can sue them and take their money. It doesn't matter is their S shaped shit smells better than yours. You are the only one selling S shaped shits. As long as S shaped shits remain appealing, you have nothing to do but sell them. It doesn't matter if they took no efforts to make. You know people want them. And if they no longer do, you still have T shaped shits in your catalogs. And while you were making profit with S shaped shits, you took the opportunity to buy out the U shaped shits brand and the V shaped shits brand, just in case.

Use the same logic to any kind of shits. Movie shaped shits. Videogames shaped shits. Clothes shaped things. The idea is the same. They don't care about what is inside the shit. They just want to sell it.

In short, the already existing IP is just a way to give your shit a little bit of different flavor than the competting shits, while not being Too different than the other shits, and not having to make extra efforts to think on how your flavor should be different. You just pick what you need from the old shit, and leave the rest.

And the trend is increasing. 99% of the AAA shits come from preexisting IP, old shits to take what they need for, and leave the rest. Fresh ideas only come from indies, people who care more about making shits than selling them. (but who still have to sell them to make a living)

 

[Einhanderc7]

@naossano I really enjoyed the contrast in tone between our two posts. Both are well thought out positions, however the transition from mine to yours was not only jarring, but hilarious in it's execution. Well done!

 

[naossano]

Sadly, we all wish culture was more like Shakespeare than the next door shit with a slightly different smell. But it is a bit pointless making an argument about some people that have so widely different objectives that ultimately, you just don't even speak the same language.

Even with someone who actualy tries to emulates Shakespeare mindset, it isn't always easy.

More to the point, it have spend years and years enjoying community contents and Fallout spiritual successors that i can still consider myself a Fallout fan enjoying new content, without the need to give too much attention to the stuff branded by a shit seller, who we all know isn't the real deal and won't ever be. The only new actual Fallout games that will keep being made are the Fallout made by the fans, not those by the shit seller. I wish those shit sellers weren't given that much focus here. They won't ever surprise us in a good way.

 

[TorontoReign]

Sadly, we all wish culture was more like Shakespeare than the next door shit with a slightly different smell. But it is a bit pointless making an argument about some people that have so widely different objectives that ultimately, you just don't even speak the same language.

Even with someone who actualy tries to emulates Shakespeare mindset, it isn't always easy.

Ain't that the truth.

 

[SquidWard]

I like both of your posts a lot. Reminds me of what I've been saying a lot. Bethesda isn't going to try to make a game even like New Vegas, it won't sell as well. Old school RPGs are a niche market and Bethesda/Zenimax is huge. They acquired Doom, Quake, Wolfenstein, Fallout, they've built up TES (also look how many dev companies they own). They're all brands that will be recognized and are loved by many people even if the new game isn't that great. Brand recognition is huge. A person who loved Fallout 3 when they were 12 just sees the Fallout name alone and wants to buy and try the game. They can be upset about some things but they'll likely keep buying the games as long as the formula works enough. That's all that matters. Maybe avoid franchise fatigue too because that's just super short term massive profit to lose interest in an IP. If they space out Fallout and TES like they have, every time a new one comes out people will have been waiting for so long they'll accept what they can get. It makes the series feel special. Things like Assassin's Creed will drop eventually because they're overdoing it. Bethesda is in it for the long run, they want to make you love their games and they'll do it carefully.
Bethesda's even pushing their own PC platform now, so that should tell you a lot.

They don't care about the insane minority, like us, who dislike most of what they're doing with an IP and even some of us in that minority end up trying the game anyway and part of that is curiosity and part of it is that brand. You like the styles of Fallout and they have just enough of it to catch your eye. We'd never even talk about something like ARK or 7 Days to Die here the way we talk about Fallout 76. It has that name and it has our attention.

EDIT: I'm not saying New Vegas is an "old school RPG" but the fact they probably won't even head in that direction for Fallout should say enough about trying to be faithful to the original designs and visions of the old Fallout games.

 

[TheHouseAlwaysWins]

Sadly, we all wish culture was more like Shakespeare than the next door shit with a slightly different smell. But it is a bit pointless making an argument about some people that have so widely different objectives that ultimately, you just don't even speak the same language.

Even with someone who actualy tries to emulates Shakespeare mindset, it isn't always easy.

More to the point, it have spend years and years enjoying community contents and Fallout spiritual successors that i can still consider myself a Fallout fan enjoying new content, without the need to give too much attention to the stuff branded by a shit seller, who we all know isn't the real deal and won't ever be. The only new actual Fallout games that will keep being made are the Fallout made by the fans, not those by the shit seller. I wish those shit sellers weren't given that much focus here. They won't ever surprise us in a good way.

Thing about shakespeare is that kind of work isn't appreciated at first. A lot of people either don't buy and support it or want it outright not happening as in the case of the impressionist art movements in Germany before WW2. It's only decades or centuries after that people are able to see and appreciate the influence these artpieces have on later media down the line or something.

A lot of the companies that make media are businesses first that need to make a living hence why streamlining is so prevalent. So why should companies try to make Picasso if there is no appreciation for it?

 

[naossano]

Thing about shakespeare is that kind of work isn't appreciated at first. A lot of people either don't buy and support it or want it outright not happening as in the case of the impressionist art movements in Germany before WW2. It's only decades or centuries after that people are able to see and appreciate the influence these artpieces have on later media down the line or something.

A lot of the companies that make media are businesses first that need to make a living hence why streamlining is so prevalent. So why should companies try to make Picasso if there is no appreciation for it?

Some smaller companies try to make innovative stuff, with more or less success, and more or less streamlining to sell it. They might not all try to make work of art, but at least something new and fresh. Some of those people joined their specific field because they have some level of love for the shit they are trying to sell, being movies, video-games, or other stuff.

Most AAA companies, their point is only selling. There is nothing else that enter the equation. They might be selling movies or videogames today, but maybe they were selling real estates or clothes yesterday and maybe tomorow they will sell insurances and bank accounts. There isn't any kind of possible discussion about the quality of the shit, because the quality of the shit is not even relevant in the equation. If they could sell the idea of the shit, without even having to produce the shit, it would be just as fine.

 

[SquidWard]

Some smaller companies try to make innovative stuff, with more or less success, and more or less streamlining to sell it.

This is truly where most of the more artistic oriented stuff will be. Crowdfunded, smaller players, and/or independents. I'd say the same goes for movies. The 90s for artistic vision in gaming was different just how movies used to have more artistic vision. Films released back in the 70s and whatnot wouldn't compete with the Marvel and Transformers titans. Transformers don't even get well reviewed but tons of people still like watching them despite their quality. I'm guilty of this too, I like some bad action movies (but not Transformers). Both industries share a lot of similarities in my opinion.
Games are still not being treated as if they should be preserved much like the film industry was treated this way in the early 1900s.
Blockbuster films and games are fine, but when people try to tell me that some Marvel movie could ever compare to Apocalypse Now, Alien, or Stalker is when I start to talk shit. I love Marvel comics but to act like the MCU is some next level film area is silly. They're fun action movies, they should be enjoyed as such.

 

[Einhanderc7]

To be honest on the topic of "brands" Fallout isn't what I would consider a stable one. Not the name itself, but what the name represents. I state this because the brand has changed so much it no longer represents the same thing. Anyone still remember what happened to coke when they tried to push "new coke"? Granted in this case it was a well thought out marketing ploy, however the argument persists and is valid in this case.

What is the brand, if it loses it's identity? From my perspective I don't even know that Fallout is trying to represent or sell anymore.

What is Fallout? Seriously, what is Fallout supposed to be now? Is it supposed to be a role playing game, a first person shooter, a settlement building simulator, an economy simulator, a survival game, an exploration of ethics, a multiplayer game, a hording simulator, what even is it supposed to be?

Does Bethesda even know what they want it to be?

My point is how is a brand supposed to sell if the seller obfuscates the brand to such a degree that the customer can no longer understand what it is they are selling?

 

[SquidWard]

What is Fallout? Seriously, what is Fallout supposed to be now? Is it supposed to be a role playing game, a first person shooter, a settlement building simulator, an economy simulator, a survival game, an exploration of ethics, a multiplayer game, a hording simulator, what even is it supposed to be?

Well, when I say it's a brand like I have been. I mean that it's a name and a general style (visually speaking). Comics are a great example to compare to because they've been expanded and redone and rehashed in so many ways. Marvel has TV shows, movies, comics, games, etc. The thing with something being so big like that, is that you have to take certain things at their own value, not as the brand. The brand is just there to draw your attention. I'm not saying praise Fallout 3 and 4 because they weren't meant to be 1 and 2. I'm saying that Fallout 4 sucks on its own merits, not the Fallout 1 and 2 merits. Fallout 4 was supposed to be an RPG and it's not (in my opinion). At least Fallout 3 was a mediocre one. Neither did something as amazing as the other titles but I don't judge it based off that, I judge it based off the fact that they made plenty of bad mistakes in certain ways regardless of how Fallout 1/2/NV were designed. Sure I want some consistent genre(s) but I don't see it happening.

I feel like I'm just letting my thoughts flow on that, in essence, I'm saying that the brand isn't about a Post-Apoc RPG that studies the moralities of a post apoc world and other themes (anymore that is) but it's about 50s music, shooting mutants, radioactive stuff, collecting junk items, jumpsuits, and Vaultboy. If that makes any sense?

 

[Einhanderc7]

Well, when I say it's a brand like I have been. I mean that it's a name and a general style (visually speaking). Comics are a great example to compare to because they've been expanded and redone and rehashed in so many ways. Marvel has TV shows, movies, comics, games, etc. The thing with something being so big like that, is that you have to take certain things at their own value, not as the brand. The brand is just there to draw your attention. I'm not saying praise Fallout 3 and 4 because they weren't meant to be 1 and 2. I'm saying that Fallout 4 sucks on its own merits, not the Fallout 1 and 2 merits. Fallout 4 was supposed to be an RPG and it's not (in my opinion). At least Fallout 3 was a mediocre one. Neither did something as amazing as the other titles but I don't judge it based off that, I judge it based off the fact that they made plenty of bad mistakes in certain ways regardless of how Fallout 1/2/NV were designed. Sure I want some consistent genre(s) but I don't see it happening.

I feel like I'm just letting my thoughts flow on that, in essence, I'm saying that the brand isn't about a Post-Apoc RPG that studies the moralities of a post apoc world and other themes (anymore that is) but it's about 50s music, shooting mutants, radioactive stuff, collecting junk items, jumpsuits, and Vaultboy. If that makes any sense?

I get your point, however it feels far too vague to paint a picture. I say that because every Bethesda title has been wildly different in not only art style, but game play rules. For a game, the rules of play are a huge deal as they not only inform the consumer what to expect from the game play, but allow them to retain some skill from previous titles to motivate another purchase from the brand itself.

If Fallout as a brand is intended to be only boiled down to aesthetics such as bottle caps, vault boy, vault suits, pip boys, etc... Then what's the point of marketing a game at all? Why not just sell gizmos and doodads to the customers instead? I feel this point in particular is reinforced as no Bethesda title has a coherent (Overall) or consistent experience for the franchise.

 

[naossano]

Not an Elder Scroll expert, but what makes it different than any other fantasy crap ? From what i have understood, the titles of the series don't have much in common. And that series is their *babies* (at least one they owned since the begining of the company)

The only thing in common is the brand name that allow them to press charges if someone use *Elder* or *Scoll* in their game titles, even if those two words are extremely common words.

 

[Big No]

Not an Elder Scroll expert, but what makes it different than any other fantasy crap ? From what i have understood, the titles of the series don't have much in common. And that series is their *babies* (at least one they owned since the begining of the company)

Not much of a fantasy guy myself but TES's in-game books are pretty good for world building. Most folks just spam them to see if their skill will increase but if one takes the time to read them then you'll find a lot in them. Stuff like a merchant's travels to Blackmarsh to the Emperor's failed invasion at Akavir are described in great detail, not sure if any other fantasy franchise does this.

 

[TheHouseAlwaysWins]

Not an Elder Scroll expert, but what makes it different than any other fantasy crap ? From what i have understood, the titles of the series don't have much in common. And that series is their *babies* (at least one they owned since the begining of the company)

The only thing in common is the brand name that allow them to press charges if someone use *Elder* or *Scoll* in their game titles, even if those two words are extremely common words.

Arena and Daggerfall are fantasy world RPG simulators, Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim are walking simulators where you can explore caves and have nonlinear gameplay

 

[MS Word]

Yh everyone here is wrong about Fallout 76 it's the best game in the series for one reason:

multiplayer

it's just because you all have no friends to play with that you cherish the single player games so dearly.

 

[naossano]

Fallout Tactics and Fonline also have multiplayer. Are they co-best ?
(There is also a multiplayer mod for New Vegas, but i never tried it)

 

[Risewild]

it's just because you all have no friends to play with that you cherish the single player games so dearly.

But Todd said we can play Fallout 76 solo!

 

[SquidWard]

I get your point, however it feels far too vague to paint a picture. I say that because every Bethesda title has been wildly different in not only art style, but game play rules. For a game, the rules of play are a huge deal as they not only inform the consumer what to expect from the game play, but allow them to retain some skill from previous titles to motivate another purchase from the brand itself.

If Fallout as a brand is intended to be only boiled down to aesthetics such as bottle caps, vault boy, vault suits, pip boys, etc... Then what's the point of marketing a game at all? Why not just sell gizmos and doodads to the customers instead? I feel this point in particular is reinforced as no Bethesda title has a coherent (Overall) or consistent experience for the franchise.

I know what you're saying but it's just how I see it now. You're totally right that the games change vastly on each release. Even in TES like someone else said. Tons of people love Fallout now, it's a big market and that big market doesn't seem to care too much about how the game plays rather than it just being an open world maybe RPG, maybe RPG-lite game with whacky cartoon like moments and whatnot.

Not an Elder Scroll expert, but what makes it different than any other fantasy crap ?

I'd say it's the fact that the world focused on different things from other fantasy games. There's cat and lizard people (not saying no one else does this but it's not as common for those to be normal citizens, usually), there was one dragon in game I believe until Skyrim, the way gods and deities work, the way planes work, etc. It's not that it's super different from everything else but that it focuses on fantasy tropes while also avoiding some of them at the same time. Even enemies and wild creatures are usually unique, sure there's trolls, giants, goblins, and other typical ones but they aren't always the most common enemies and since Morrowind, Orcs are no longer just brutes that you fight but playable races with their own culture. I don't know, I used to love TES but I've kinda fallen out of love with the series as I've gotten older.

 

[NMLevesque]

How could we not be salty about it? Bethesda spits on everything that makes Fallout good, and these other fans want us to pretend that it's raining. 'Just headcanon in a better story' they say. Fuck that. They can see us as haters trying to ruin their fun, but Bethesda is literally ruining our favorite franchise.