Jeff Gardiner on DLC again

[Marx]

I try to make my opinion fit reality. Some people prefer it the other way around.

Don't line chain store shelves with your product and say that you're not trying to appeal to the mass market.

And again, Fallout sold well for its time, why do you continue to ignore that you cant DIRECTLY compare todays numbers of sold units in 3 platforms, to those sold 11 years ago on one platform.

You can, no matter what way you try and sway the view - Fallout 3 has struck a commercial 'success' that the original and its sequel never had. Sure, the games market is alot different now than it was a decade ago - there's alot more competition.

Whether you like what that means for the franchise and it's future - welp, everyone's different.

Ah yes, the average gamer, they are such a misunderstood lot, barely getting any games that are aimed directly at them while we elitists get all the best stuff.

Hm, which crowd should I make a game for: the forum of self-proclaimed elitists which number in the hundreds? Or the average gamer which numbers much more than that?

If I do cater the game to the elitists, I'll have to go over everything with a fine comb since their expectations have fermented to almost unreasonable levels over the past X years. If it doesn't measure up and word spreads, I'll lose my entire consumerbase since there will be little interest from the average player group.

If I do cater the game to the average gamer, I'm given more leeway in how I do things - and ultimately the elitists will either like the game or not, we as the producing company get the paycheck from the average crowd either way.

I guess it is sort of the "If its not meant for me, its a failure." mindset that is at play here.

I actually enjoyed Fallout more than any of its other incarnations including Fallout 3, but then again I was also tolerant of FO:T and can recollect the shit people used to talk about FO:2. I said it in another post that has long since been deleted, this community (DAC/NMA) is toxic and has been toxic since ~'00.

I mean, this is the community that has determined that they are the folks that decide what is and isn't Fallout rather than the game designers, which is so pompous it's borderline funny.

It would be full on funny if it wasn't serious.

But hey, you're right - you're better than me, better than everyone, the sheeple that bought and enjoyed Fallout 3 are unenlighted retards that can barely breathe and walk at the same time.

So to you, the quality and "Falloutness" of future fallout releases is secondary or non-important ?

FO:BOS was a horrible game, you'll never see me defend it. FO:Tactics had merits - enough so that you guys have finally gotten around to embracing it here, took awhile though.

For me, 'falloutness' isn't defined by gameplay mechanics - and while the writing and such here wasn't as strong as it was in previous incarnations, I don't expect every writer to be a Shakespeare. It wasn't great but it was far from horrible.

Feel free to disagree though, impressions of a game differ from person to person.

 

[Ausir]

I wonder when they will bring up the Commonwealth/Institute DLC, like the Pitt it has been mentioned several times so its probably on the list.

I think it's more likely to be the setting of FO4.

 

[sonicblastoise]

i can't help but ask Marx if he feels just a TINY bit disingenuous about equating commercial success, "preserving the franchise," and "mass market appeal," with actual gaming quality.

do you really believe that bethesda has preserved the vision of the original developers? and no, dont' mistake our view for something that is our own.

NMA has gone out of its way numerous times to define the original games by the design documents written by the developers themselves, not their own irrational fantasies of what the game ought to be like.

when bethesda said they would make a fallout that "stayed true to its roots," we took it to mean "stay true to the vision and quality of the first. made with the same intent as the original."

what they gave us was "you can have whatever you like"

and i'm calling bullshit.

 

[Ranne]

@Marx

Fallout 1 sold more than 100,000 units within the first eight months of its release. It received the Editor's Choice Award and RPG of the Year 1997 by PC Gamer, and the CG Choice Award and RPG of the Year 1997 by CGW. Number 4 on PC Gamer's 2001 list of Top Games of All Time. Number 5 on IGN's Top 25 PC games of All Time and number 33 on IGN's Top 100 Games of All Time 2007 lists. It has avg. ratio 92% on Gamerankings, won numerous RPG of the Year awards and gets invariably listed one of the Greatest Games of All Time on GameSpot.

As for Fallout 2...

Since Fallout was almost universally heralded as 1997's best role-playing game, it's not surprising that developer Interplay Productions decided to quickly follow up on the success of the original game with a sequel using a substantially similar game engine.

If I recall the number correctly, Fallout 2 (one year in the making) sold about 300,000 copies within the first year of its release and has an average ratio of 87% on Gamerankings. In the year of Baldur's Gate, Might and Magic VI, Final Fantasy VII, EverQuest, Half-Life, The Legend of Zelda and Starcraft, it didn't get nearly as many awards as its predecessor. Still, it was a constantly mentioned runner-up in almost every single RPG of the Year award and was universally considered to be one of the better games of the year.

If all of the above doesn't convince you that Fallout 1 and 2 weren't exactly the dismal failures you paint them to be, please recall that Bethesda bought Fallout IP rights for no less than for 5.75 million US dollars. I'm not a financial expert per se, but $5.75M seems a bit too much of a figure to pay for a failed franchise with no name recognition, wouldn't you say?

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Games that directly simulate a tabletop environment don't do that hot these days, so the simple remedy is to take the story and run.

The NWN games did fairly well and are the only games I can think of that have tried to do so in recent years. Do tell, what other games tried to do this and failed?

What does "P" in "PDLC" stand for anyhow?

Priced? Purchasable?

If all of the above doesn't convince you that Fallout 1 and 2 weren't exactly the dismal failures you paint them to be, please recall that Bethesda bought Fallout IP rights for no less than for 5.75 million US dollars. I'm not a financial expert per se, but $5.75M seems a bit too much of a figure to pay for a failed franchise with no name recognition, wouldn't you say?

Also note that there is speculation that the IP never had any bidding wars and that Herve sold it to the first offer they got due to the short time frame in which it was sold. Thus, the actual value of the IP as determined by other developers and publishers may have been even higher.

 

[Marx]

If all of the above doesn't convince you that Fallout 1 and 2 weren't exactly the dismal failures you paint them to be, please recall that Bethesda bought Fallout IP rights for no less than for 5.75 million US dollars. I'm not a financial expert per se, but $5.75M seems a bit too much of a figure to pay for a failed franchise with no name recognition, wouldn't you say?

Nowhere did I say that Fallout 1 or 2 were dismal failures, I did say that they sold less than expected - I recollect folks admitting this someplace but I'm too lazy to dig for it. This was where the whole 'people didn't understand our art' bit came from, blaming the consumer base that didn't buy your product is awesome.

Whileas Fallout 3 shipped 4.7 million units in its first week and netted 300 million in sales, also first week.

I'm not saying that Fallout 3 sold more because its a better game, but it certainly is being managed better.

NWN

Not exactly the same type of turnbased experience. As many folks have said, the only place you really see stop-turnbased games are indy projects and some european titles.

i can't help but ask Marx if he feels just a TINY bit disingenuous about equating commercial success, "preserving the franchise," and "mass market appeal," with actual gaming quality.

You need money to be artistic, just the reality of the situation these days.

 

[TheWesDude]

marx, still waiting for a reply to my post on page 2...

your contention is that the goal/ideals of the creator is meaningless to how its accepted by the people who experience it.


most of everyone else's contention here is that the goals/ideals of the creator is far more important than the people who experience it.

 

[Trithne]

Heck, Fallout 1 and 2 STILL sell well, courtesy of gog.com .

And this statement of "the market has moved on, no-one plays turn-based (or even RTwP) games anymore, they won't make them, get over it" is disingenious and basically groupthink. They won't make them because you believe their statements that no-one plays them. No-one plays them because no-one gets the chance to because they never make them.

You need money to be artistic, just the reality of the situation these days.

Doesn't mean you need to cater to the lowest common denominator. That's not 'being artistic', that gets called 'selling out'.

 

[AskWazzup]

I'm not saying that Fallout 3 sold more because its a better game, but it certainly is being managed better.

I think that with the money that bethesda, or rather zenimax puts into marketing, they could probably sell pretty much any game in seven digits, turn based or real time. With enough brainwashing, people will believe in everything.

A good example of this is Fallout 3, a game that fails miserably as a FPS and an RPG. But if you look at the reviews, both by unprofessional journalists and casual gamers, you will see that they are constantly sprouting the same BS lines that Pete Hines and other bethesda boys said previous to the games release, while also neglecting all the flaws in the game which are numerous....

If people think that the story, voice acting, animations, A.I are briliant in F3, i can't see how they wouldn't like a great rpg that would be similar to the original Fallouts, they are already delusional, so a few PR gimmicks would do the trick.

Alas, bethesda is not capable of making great games, so what we get is a ruined franchise that will be raped further by the talentless people at bethesda...

 

[Roflcore]

Civilization and Sid Mieir have a brand recognition that Fallout never had because it fell off the face of the earth instead of pumping out lots of sequels and expansions.
.

the many many sequels and expansions of Civilization..haha great

Till the 3D move Civ had 2 sequels and 2 expansions. Within 12 years. Did you actually thought that it had many or did you just try to make something up?

Anyways, thanks for the laugh.

Oh and of course Fallout was a commercial succes, if you believe otherwise, you are wrong, because the salesnumbers give you facts which contradict to your believes. Story, reality is harsh, I know

 

[Relentless666]

A goes to the Fallout restaurant and buys a pizza.
A goes to the Fallout restaurant again and buys another pizza.
A goes the third time and orders a pizza, but they give him a hamburger.

A: But I wanted a pizza.
B: I'm sorry, says the manager, this restaurant is under new managment.
A: But I wanted a pizza!
B: We make hamburgers. We are good with hamburgers, we made hamburgers before and it's really easy.
A: But I wanted a pizza!
B: Just imagine this hamburger is a pizza, ok? It has mostly the same products - cheese, meat and some red stuff.
A: But I wanted a pizza!
B: We own the restraurant and we sell burgers. No one likes pizza anymore so we don't make any.
A: But I wanted a pizza!
B: You are just one guy. As I said everyone else likes burgers.
A:Mother $^%#s !
B: Come back later. We'd also sell DLCheeseburgers in a few weeks.

 

[taag]

What does "P" in "PDLC" stand for anyhow?

Probably?

Nowhere did I say that Fallout 1 or 2 were dismal failures, I did say that they sold less than expected

Get your facts straight. Fallout 1 sold more than expected as did Fallout 2. FOT and FOBOS sold less than expected.

 

[Trithne]

The P is "Purchasable", or "Purchased". As opposed to "Free".

 

[taag]

I was also tolerant of FO:T and can recollect the shit people used to talk about FO:2. I said it in another post that has long since been deleted, this community (DAC/NMA) is toxic and has been toxic since ~'00.

To some extent that may be true. I know a lot of F1 and F2 fans that love the game for reasons other than 50s stuff (for example) which has been vocally defended over here for years. Personally, I think F3 took it over the edge since the game feels like playing a 1950s PA game and not a 2277's PA game.

The reason for them being so loved (and still being much loved) is simple, they were different.

So, those buzzwords, the mass market appeal, and the average gamer, killed the Fallout in Fallout 3 and left us with only 3. That's sad.

 

[Per]

Were you people serious about the P? A brief Google search shows that it stands for Premium.

 

[Trithne]

How is it Premium? Premium implies it's better than other DLC. Adding an adjective doesn't make the adjective apply.

I hate marketers. I really do.

 

[M-26-7]

Were you people serious about the P? A brief Google search shows that it stands for Premium.

What does google stand for again?

 

[taag]

Were you people serious about the P? A brief Google search shows that it stands for Premium.

No surprise there. Pete strikes again!

P stands for Piss.

 

[Per]

I'm fairly sure Microsoft is to blame for this one.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Nowhere did I say that Fallout 1 or 2 were dismal failures, I did say that they sold less than expected - I recollect folks admitting this someplace but I'm too lazy to dig for it. This was where the whole 'people didn't understand our art' bit came from, blaming the consumer base that didn't buy your product is awesome.

Whileas Fallout 3 shipped 4.7 million units in its first week and netted 300 million in sales, also first week.

I'm not saying that Fallout 3 sold more because its a better game, but it certainly is being managed better.

The numbers cannot be compared because the market has changed and expanded drastically in the past 11 years. It's like comparing the box office reception of modern movies with that of movies 50 years ago, it's pointless and tells you nothing other than what movie made the most when adjusted for inflation, but even that's sketchy.

Not exactly the same type of turnbased experience. As many folks have said, the only place you really see stop-turnbased games are indy projects and some european titles.

I never said it was turnbased but it was meant to bring DnD to the PC and is one of the best if not the best PnP emulation due to it's online play (turn based with large numbers of players online tends to cause problems), though it's obviously been adapted for the PC and is still far from perfect. That said, you're admitting that your former comment is complete bullshit as there haven't been any PnP emulating games in many years (except indies which we can not include for obvious reasons). You're comment:

Games that directly simulate a tabletop environment don't do that hot these days, so the simple remedy is to take the story and run.

You need money to be artistic, just the reality of the situation these days.

You always need money to be artistic, what's you're point? Fallout 1&2 were financially successful and there is no evidence that a game of such type would be unsuccessful in today's market.