Kieron Gillen interviews Pete Hines

[Briosafreak]

The atmosphere was of expectation in general, with some people more optimistic, and others more afraid of what was coming out. Even Rosh made some conciliatory posts in the first days after we found out about the deal. Pete Hines even joined the forum.

The discussions became more heated after a Game Informer article, and the hostility Sarkus talks moved from being something by half a douzen guys (mostly from DAC that posted here from time to time) to being predominant in NMA's members after the Hayt incident at Something Awfull.

Still both the ideas that Bethsoft and NMA never tried to find a better relationship are wrong.

Gary Noonan made a post lending a hand to Fallout fans already in 2004, MrSmileyFaceDude was always showing up and being friendly, Todd and Pete gave tips that they understood the fears of fallout fans to many people, and that there was respect.

Emil also hopped in later on, but all of this ended when Oblivion was released the feedback on NMA's Gaming and hardware forum was more negative than positive (a few defended the game though, like Montez). I believe they took that personally, and things were never the same from their side.

And like BN said there was a rule of wait and see for a long time in this forum, people got warnings for badmouthing Bethsoft and calls for calm and to wait for more data to be released were sent many times.

It was only after the second Game Informer article with pics and the first info was released that things changed.

There were ups and downs on the relationship, as one can see here, but things are more complex than what is told in places like Qt3, where Sarkus came, or the Bethsoft Fallout 3 forum.


P.s.: I had an article with a storyline of the events since (and before) Beth got the license in an advanced state, but it was lost in my computers problems a few weeks ago, I already started over but I don't have the time to develop it much for now, it has to wait a few months.

 

[Bernard Bumner]

My point is that there is no point in Bethesda listening to your complaint about things that have already been decided. You've made it very clear that wanted 3rd person iso TB. Great, Bethesda knows that. They went a different direction. What is complaining more about it serve? It's not going to change. If that's a deal killer, then take Fallout 3 off your list of games to watch and move on. Didn't we all do that after the crappy Brotherhood of Steel game?

Is anybody really complaining about the switch from iso TB any longer?

You're doing a great disservice to people who have spent time composing much more sophisticated critiques of the information now available. Don't pretend that there is a simple line being toed; people are much more intelligent, and better informed than that.

The discussion has moved on from what is wrong with ditching iso TB combat (which were intelligently dissected in terms of the effects on tactical combat and SPECIAL), toward the potential pitfalls of the VATS realtime system (once again raising thoughtful and knowledgable concerns about SPECIAL and the general effects on gameplay).

The argument has come a long way since the wait-and-see days. I was one of the steadfast fence-sitters, so I was very aware of the manner in which my comments - and those of others - were treated. There were a few people who were vociferous in their pessimism, but as it has turned out, they were almost always correct.

If there was ever a problem with the treatment of post-ers to these boards, then it was probably that the new wave of join-ers (presumably there was an inflow motivated by the new game) were treated harshly for displays of ignorance (specifically as in, lack of knowledge). However, this arose from people being continually forced to defend and explain the same points and problems over and again.

This isn't about vicitims or anything else. It's about moving on because there is nothing you can do about Fallout 3 now.

Critics of the world, cast down your pens and keyboards, it is too late...

It may fail miserably, in which case it will likely disappear forever. Or, it may do well because not all Fallout fans have the same ideas as the vocal folks on this board.

Shouting the loudest has never made anybody right and correct, but organizing a fansite and spending time thinking about it probably indicates investment, enthusiasm, and knowledge of the thing.

Also, if there are diverse views about the game, then they are represented here - you, for example, continue to articulate an opinion which may be contrary to the majority, and yet there is no censorship.

In reality if it sells it will be mostly to people who never played the first games and who will be swayed by the usual things that sway people: previews, reviews, and word of mouth about gameplay.

So?

Anyway, a good Fallout game will sell to everybody, including those who bought the first games. Only Bethesda portrays this in terms of struggle between new- and old-school.

People here have mouths and words, and importantly, brains. They will judge the thing on its merits. Opinions are only bad things if they are inflexible; it would be strange indeed if NMA and its users had not commented on the development of Fallout 3 by Bethesda. With opinions.

 

[Brother None]

(snip)

All you just said is "Bethesda's vision doesn't match up with NMA's opinion, so they should ignore you."

Notice how I remarked on that attitude in my post. You're not telling me anything new.

You may have taken that view, but saying you "enforced" that rule is an exagerration.

No it isn't. The rule only lasted for a year or so, and it wasn't in place yet when Bethesda announced the purchase (hence not being applied to that thread), but the Vats are littered with posts removed because of "jumping to conclusions".

There's nothing "wait and see" about that.

Yes there is. You consider it a preposterous preposition to make. It isn't. It's simply a request to keep the sequel as close to the originals as possible. "I want Sean Connery in the next Bond" would be the equivalent of "I want Fallout 3 to be 2D", but guess what, nobody is asking for that.

What is complaining more about it serve?

I'm sorry, do you see us actively complaining about the whole FP RT thing. It's still there, but it's rarely even mentioned.

Or, it may do well because not all Fallout fans have the same ideas as the vocal folks on this board.

You think its success or failure depends on Fallout fans? You've got to be joking me. They're selling on 3 platforms to the Bethesda audience. They're not targeting Fallout fans at all.

I know NMA detractors love to talk about this mythic huge fanbase of Fallout that disagrees with us but somehow can never be found, but the thing is: you don't know how many Fallout fans there are that think like Bethesda, in setting only. Neither do I. But the sales of Fallout 3 will not prove anything about that either way.

but things are more complex than what is told in places like Qt3, where Sarkus came, or the Bethsoft Fallout 3 forum.

The BGSF still looks like a mess, last time I checked, B, but plenty of people actively standing up for NMA there, as opposed to the...uhm...somewhat one-sided attitude of QT3 and its big bro NeoGAF.

Apropos, I think I remember Sarkus once defended F:BoS here (though he now thinks it's crappy, I guess). As I've said many times before, I'm happy there are posters willing to come here and talk to use rather than just believe the boogyman fairytales blindly.

 

[Autoduel76]

Yes there is. You consider it a preposterous preposition to make. It isn't. It's simply a request to keep the sequel as close to the originals as possible. "I want Sean Connery in the next Bond" would be the equivalent of "I want Fallout 3 to be 2D", but guess what, nobody is asking for that.

I think both these examples of "wait and see" are extreme, but fine.

However, I think the real point is that there is no "lie" in the (very slight) changed attitude coming from Pete in these interviews.

The first stance says that Fallout fans were mistreated and they want to listen to them and see what they want.

The second stance says that they listened to them, but have to go in the direction they are going.

There's just no lie in those two stances. In the beginning they had more room to listen to the fans. But once all of their decisions were made, they aren't taking the fans considerations as much. It seems that there (slight) stance change is more of a simple matter of the development moving forward than it is any change in attitude towards the fans themselves.

I know NMA detractors love to talk about this mythic huge fanbase of Fallout that disagrees with us but somehow can never be found, but the thing is: you don't know how many Fallout fans there are that think like Bethesda, in setting only. Neither do I. But the sales of Fallout 3 will not prove anything about that either way.

This fanbase of Fallout that disagrees with you is not nearly as mythic as you are making it out to be. We are here, and have always been here. Sure, most of them show up only once or twice and never come back, but I've seen enough "hit and run" posters over my time here that, if they stuck around like the regulars do, these threads would all be a lot closer to a split opinion than they are now.

 

[tfp]

on a sidenote, how well did fallout 1 and 2 sell? comparatively to other games from that time? (related to a statement made in this thread so not totally OT.)

 

[whirlingdervish]

autoduel,
should we assume that this dissenting group of people who agree that Fallout 3 should be a RT FPS game with minimal choices with even fewer consequences, exist and just dont post at the biggest and oldest Fallout fansite on the net based solely on your anecdotal evidence of the observed frequency of "drive-by posters"?

Assuming they exist, how much could they have really liked Fallout if they want the next one to be about as close to nothing like the original as it could possibly be?

If you're actually a fan of baseball, would you really want someone to reinvent the game to be played without a bat, by a bunch of trained monkeys, who kick a basketball instead of throwing a baseball, while only retaining the bases and the grass on the field?

Those "fans" who would chose something like that over an option closer to the original, are pretty much in the same boat as the "big fans of Fallout" working at Bethesda:

Fans in Name Only.

 

[Bofast]

This fanbase of Fallout that disagrees with you is not nearly as mythic as you are making it out to be. We are here, and have always been here. Sure, most of them show up only once or twice and never come back, but I've seen enough "hit and run" posters over my time here that, if they stuck around like the regulars do, these threads would all be a lot closer to a split opinion than they are now.

Even if that was to be the case, there are also a number of us fans, who may not be very vocal in any of these threads (or on NMA at all) either, who agree with the general opinion herein. I have a number of friends and relatives who are fans of the original Fallout games, but not one of them are very excited about what Bethesda is doing with Fallout 3. Especially, I might add, after having played the newer TES games...

 

[Autoduel76]

Even if that was to be the case, there are also a number of us fans, who may not be very vocal in any of these threads (or on NMA at all) either, who agree with the general opinion herein. I have a number of friends and relatives who are fans of the original Fallout games, but not one of them are very excited about what Bethesda is doing with Fallout 3. Especially, I might add, after having played the newer TES games...

Well, I have a number of freinds and relatives who are fans of the original Fallout game, as well, and all of them are excited about Fallout 3.

I'm not assuming anything about the people that don't post.

However, I've seen plenty of people here that disagree with the common view. I know that, personally, I'm excited about Fallout 3 and that I've been a Fallout fan since day 1.

I also see lots of people on other message boards that, in total, would be more than the number of regulars on this site. You can choose to believe, or not, if they fit your definition of a "true fan", but they are clearly there.

Fallout 3 is getting a lot of press and hype and is being talked about on the boards of every mainstream website out there. And granted a lot of that talk is from people that never played the originals, but in every thread I've seen on those boards you also have quite a few posts from people saying "I loved Fallout 1 and 2 and this looks awesome!"

Now, you may not like that kind of fan, or feel that they are as good of a fan as you. Or maybe you believe thay they are even just lying when they say they are a fan. I don't know. And, you also do see those Fallout fans that are opposed to Bethesda's Fallout 3 in those threads as well. But if you go to any of those mainstream sites and read the Fallout 3 threads, the opinions are split between the Fallout fans, and in my experience might even be leaning towards the positive.

All of this, is of course, a small sample size, but then so is this site.

 

[Yellow]

I loved Fallout 1 and 2 and this does look awesome. It looks like it will be a great game.

It just doesn't look like it will be a great Fallout game.

 

[Seymour the spore plant]

It's pretty pointless debating how many fans think what and who really are the "true" fans, not only because the statistics will always be made up, but mainly because it doesn't matter at all. Simply put, this status doesn't give anyone the right to decide anything - Bethesda and fanbase alike. The only people who get a say in what really is Fallout are the original developers, since they, you know, created the damn game in the first place.

And that is precisely in what I think the "hardcore" fans are right. You might have noticed how their argument always revolve around the original devs intentions, whereas Bethesda conjures up this babble about being huge fans and loving Fallout SOOOO much, "doing what they do best" and finally this thing about making it enjoyable for everybody, which is as much an admission of selling out as there will ever be.

There is always all sort of fans for pretty much anything. Go look at the sheer amount of gay Star Trek fanfiction out there, or furries who like Sonic. But that most certainly is no excuse for actually making a Star Trek sequel involving time-travel and Kirk and Picard getting it on.

 

[Autoduel76]

The following 2 statements are in conflict with each other.

It's pretty pointless debating how many fans think what and who really are the "true" fans, not only because the statistics will always be made up, but mainly because it doesn't matter at all.

that is precisely in what I think the "hardcore" fans are right.

I agree with you that it doesn't matter.

 

[Xenophile]

I know NMA detractors love to talk about this mythic huge fanbase of Fallout that disagrees with us but somehow can never be found...

Found!

 

[Seymour the spore plant]

The following 2 statements are in conflict with each other

I don't think they are. First, I state that fans' opinions about the core of Fallout don't matter in face of that of the original developers. Then, that I think the hardcore fanbase is right in trying to stick to that vision.

Putting statements in their original context usually works wonders to their understanding.

 

[sonicblastoise]

However, I think the real point is that there is no "lie" in the (very slight) changed attitude coming from Pete in these interviews.

The first stance says that Fallout fans were mistreated and they want to listen to them and see what they want.

The second stance says that they listened to them, but have to go in the direction they are going.

There's just no lie in those two stances. In the beginning they had more room to listen to the fans. But once all of their decisions were made, they aren't taking the fans considerations as much. It seems that there (slight) stance change is more of a simple matter of the development moving forward than it is any change in attitude towards the fans themselves.

if you reallt believe there is "no lie" in those stances, i think you can at least concede there is an undeniably obvious amount of DISINGENUOUSNESS in those statements.

"tell us what you think! we'll consider it!"

"we decided what we're going to do. it has nothing to do with what you suggested, but we think you'll like it. okthxbai!!"

it's really this attitude that leaves a terrible taste in my mouth about the way bethsoft is treating fallout as an IP. they really are taking everything superficially attractive about it and exploiting it, leaving the depth and real lasting strength of it in the dust.

When i first got into fallout 2, the truth is i was totally into the idea of blowing people to bits, melting faces, and disemboweling guys. i lived for those death scenes. but it got old fast. now, though, as i play it through, i focus on different pathways of making it through. the luxury of having those different pathways not only gives the game staying power, but also gives the player a better sense that the world they are playing in is a believable place. and all WITHOUT first-person hyper-realistic graphics. having never played fallout 1, i can only imagine how much more depth that game has than the easter-egg-ridden fallout 2 does.

But, after all, i'm sure fallout 3 will be entertaining. heck, i'll even go so far as to say i'll probably get it. but i really don't, and won't, believe that this is or will ever be fallout.

 

[Sarkus]

but things are more complex than what is told in places like Qt3, where Sarkus came, or the Bethsoft Fallout 3 forum.

You know, it's not that hard to check the details of things before you post. Like the fact that I became a registered member here over a year before I registered at QT3.

However, I have been a lot more active at QT3. In terms of Fallout 3, that's because as others have pointed out, this forum isn't exactly friendly towards differing views about Fallout 3. Many of yo have made up your minds about Fallout 3. There are a lot more of us who haven't.

In terms of the bigger picture, if you read my Fallout 3 related posts at QT3, you will see that while there are a lot people interested in Fallout 3, they don't care about the details that you (and even I) care about. For example, when Emil posted his Brotherhood of Steel post on the official page, I wrote a critical post at QT3, pointing out aspects that were inconsistent with the earlier games. I was almost universally criticized for caring about such details and it was even suggested that I was another "NMA fanatic."

QT3 is just one board, but there are a lot more gaming boards like that then there are like this one.

 

[fedaykin]

However, I have been a lot more active at QT3. In terms of Fallout 3, that's because as others have pointed out, this forum isn't exactly friendly towards differing views about Fallout 3.

Don't confuse differing opinion with unfriendliness. Just because people here at NMA, in particular the newsposters and mods, put up a solid, backed-up argument and dare to criticize Bethesda's work doesn't mean they are hostile to differing views. They just have a differing opinion, which they are very much willing to discuss (BN, for one, has stressed on more than one occasion that debating the same points over again once in a while helps to refresh memory).

On the contrary, it's evident that the more mainstream forums you mentioned, as well as the press, to some extent, has been demonizing NMA as "rabid" and "hostile" fans, just because they happen to voice their opinion on why Bethesda's F3 may turn out to be an improper sequel.

So please don't play the martyr. If you're going to label any kind of opposing argument you get as "unfriendly", why come here at all? Why not stay where nobody will argue with you?

 

[Briosafreak]

You know, it's not that hard to check the details of things before you post. Like the fact that I became a registered member here over a year before I registered at QT3.

You lost me there. I'm the only person on this place that remembers you from those days, and your first posts are public, they can be found through your profile, so I know that.

But you do spend a lot more time there, as you said afterwards, it's more your place of election, a "home", while this place is a rough "inn" that you use in your trips through the tubes.

That's not important though, what I said afterwards, in the end of the sentence, still stands. It's not a libel, it's an analysis.

 

[DGT]

While the fans' expectations are something that a developer should keep in mind, it's not really up to the fans to make the game. That task lies with the developers. With that being said, a "Sequel," which Fallout 3 would obviously be, is rightly expected to be highly similar to the original. (See: Fallout and Fallout 2. Resident Evil 1 on up to Resident Evil 3. So on.)

And in the case of Fallout, we don't even have to rely on fan interpretation to know what the core of the game is: we have statements, direct from the designers (including Tim, the big man himself), stating that Fallout is/was a Pen-and-Paper emulation. Of course, the setting is not irrelevant; with the PnP elements and a different setting, it would not be Fallout... just as having the setting and not the PnP elements wouldn't be Fallout.

There may be this legion of hidden fans somewhere that agree with Bethesda... but since the facts support us, they would be wrong. That aside, even if you only count opinion... who's a real fan, someone who loves the setting, or someone who loves the whole game?

 

[Autoduel76]

So please don't play the martyr. If you're going to label any kind of opposing argument you get as "unfriendly", why come here at all? Why not stay where nobody will argue with you?

I don't think its a matter of playing a "martyr", at all. Its just stating a pretty straightforward view of things. whether you call it closemindedness, argumentativeness, or whatever else I think it is clear that most people with a view that is different than the majority here don't exactly feel comfortable.

Its not playing a martyr and its not looking for pity. Its simply explaining one of the reasons why you don't see as many people stating those views around here.

Your last couple questions answer it pretty perfectly. Most people with those views do stay where nobody will argue with them.

As to why I, and the few others here, don't. I can't speak for them, but for me its exactly so that it can't be claimed that I don't exist and that Fallout fans that think like me are just "mythical" creatures, "unable to be found".

who's a real fan, someone who loves the setting, or someone who loves the whole game?

Of course there are those that would argue that the "real fans" are the fans that love every incarnation of Fallout just for being something Fallout. That the fans that love only Fallout 1, or F1/F2 aren't as big of fans as the fans that also loved tactics and BOS.

I don't personally believe that, but its just as valid as your arguing that fans that loved everything about the game are bigger fans than those that loved the setting.

Who's a bigger Star Trek fan? The fan that only loved the original series, the fan than loves all the series', or the fan that loves only a couple of them?

Of course there is no real answer on who the bigger fan is. Only each individual can tell you how much they love something.

All I know is that Fallout is among my top 5 favorite games of all time, so I consider myself a fan.

And its a strawman argument anyway that suggests that if the setting, or any other area, stood out as your favorite part that you didn't like the other parts of the game.

The fact that somebody is OK with them changing parts of the game, doesn't mean that they didn't like those parts of the game.

 

[Brother None]

However, I think the real point is that there is no "lie" in the (very slight) changed attitude coming from Pete in these interviews.

Fine, fine. Jeesh can you push a lot on an insignificant point.

This fanbase of Fallout that disagrees with you is not nearly as mythic as you are making it out to be. We are here, and have always been here. Sure, most of them show up only once or twice and never come back, but I've seen enough "hit and run" posters over my time here that, if they stuck around like the regulars do, these threads would all be a lot closer to a split opinion than they are now.

You mean like the BGSF? Let's be thankful it's not so.

And there have been at least as many hit and run posters who say "I agree" as those that say "I disagree". In any case, we'd be assuming forum population is representative of general population.

Fallout 3 is getting a lot of press and hype and is being talked about on the boards of every mainstream website out there. And granted a lot of that talk is from people that never played the originals, but in every thread I've seen on those boards you also have quite a few posts from people saying "I loved Fallout 1 and 2 and this looks awesome!"

Now, consider NMA is the hub of Fallout info (it simply is, like it or not), then consider I keep a steady eye on the influx of hits, where they come from. I keep an eye on forums on all languages that link to us, including QT3, SA, GameFAQS, but also including obscure Russian forums.

Yes, a lot of people are excited.

A lot of people are also still disappointed with Oblivion, and hopeful Bethesda won't mess up again.

A lot of other people outright hate it.

What, you want me to do a headcount? Not gunna.

Mixed opinions. Mixed opinions. Positive. Mostly negative.

There, just a grab bag.

Since I'm on a roll on noting what amuses/annoys me, it amuses/annoys me how people always assume NMA is insular, while many of us - probably most prominently Briosafreak and I - have our webs spun all over and keep a very steady eye on the public opinion. Both me and Briosafreak are simply exceedingly well positioned to keep our fingers on the pulse, as so much Fallout news and links get tracked back to us. I doubt anyone other than Bethesda's PR people have a better grip on what people are thinking than I or B.

Though I should note I and B disagree a lot. So obviously; not infallible. But "duh", there.

My opinion? People cared a lot less about the last wave of previous, and I saw more negative reactions than to any other bit of Bethesda PR. That's where we at now. But overall? The response has been positive. The most widely spread negative throwbacks have actually come from disappointments at Oblivion, not from Fallout fans.

That's, 'course, NA. European response has been more negative, especially from Eastern Europe, from what I can tell (I can read a number of languages but, well, not all).

In terms of the bigger picture, if you read my Fallout 3 related posts at QT3, you will see that while there are a lot people interested in Fallout 3, they don't care about the details that you (and even I) care about. For example, when Emil posted his Brotherhood of Steel post on the official page, I wrote a critical post at QT3, pointing out aspects that were inconsistent with the earlier games. I was almost universally criticized for caring about such details and it was even suggested that I was another "NMA fanatic."

You express a different opinion, they flame you for it and try to shove you into a preconceived box of "NMA fanatic", and you think we're the unfriendly ones?

Please.

At least we don't allow people to disparage other (specific, as in forum/site) communities. While SA, QT3 and others are near obsessed with NMA, we've never really cared about them, and would never write off anyone based on where he's from, only on how he acts. Yes, we've got some pretty hard-ass moderators who will outright ban on a perceived troll, and we make mistakes at time, but at least we're fair, compared to that kind of behaviour.

Hell, this whole discussion is borderline on/off the rules, but what the heck.