Pete Hines affirms that he can say nothing

[welsh]

This all reminds me of a story-

The people in the village were real poor, so none of the children had any toys. But this one little boy had gotten an old enema bag and filled it with rocks, and he would go around and whap the other children across the face with it. Man, I think my heart almost broke. Later the boy came up and offered to give me the toy. This was too much! I reached out my hand, but then he ran away. I chased him down and took the enema bag. He cried a little, but that's the way of these people.
- Jack Handy

But one should also consider-

I hope if dogs ever take over the world, and they chose a king, they don't just go by size, because I bet there are some Chihuahuas with some good ideas.
- Yet another deep thought by Jack Handy.

 

[VDweller]

Which is meaningless shite, but still pretends to sell a point.

What point would that be? The fact that Beth might do RT FP Fallout doesn't need selling, does it?

Most of the other quotes can be dismissed along the same lines, although that doesn't mean there isn't some truth to them. One of them is a single dev professing his preference, another is Todd preparing the public for the possibility that there may not be an isometric view. It's PR spin, and trust me when I say I know PR spin.

PR spin of what? If Beth was hinting that FO3 could end up being TB after all, then your point could be valid, otherwise...

But let's try that from a different angle. Give me a single reason why Beth might want to make an isometric, TB Fallout.

EDIT: Note that I'm not saying what they will or will not do. I'm saying that it's impossible to come to a definite conclusion based on the information we have now.

Sounds suspiciously like "it's impossible to know what Oblivion will be like". With all due respect, of course, Sander.

 

[Sander]

What point would that be? The fact that Beth might do RT FP Fallout doesn't need selling, does it?

Answering a question in an interview is important, even if you answer it in a senseless manner. However, Pete isn't the most capable PR man in an interview, judging by the way he talks in interviews. So that leads to...speculative answers that are purely speculative.

PR spin of what? If Beth was hinting that FO3 could end up being TB after all, then your point could be valid, otherwise...

But let's try that from a different angle. Give me a single reason why Beth might want to make an isometric, TB Fallout.

Because that's what the established market would want.
I'm not saying that it's likely they'll try that, though. Because it isn't likely. It is possible, though.

Sounds suspiciously like "it's impossible to know what Oblivion will be like". With all due respect, of course, Sander.

Well, that's because that's essentially what I'm saying. PR hype and spin is only that, hype and spin. And it's impossible to base any solid conclusion off of that.
Saying what is and isn't likely is, though.

 

[VDweller]

What point would that be? The fact that Beth might do RT FP Fallout doesn't need selling, does it?

Answering a question in an interview is important, even if you answer it in a senseless manner. However, Pete isn't the most capable PR man in an interview, judging by the way he talks in interviews. So that leads to...speculative answers that are purely speculative.

Or that leads to bluntness like "we won't do an isometric game because we have no fucking idea how that works", based on what's already been decided.

Because that's what the established market would want.

What market? The hardcore Fallout fans? That's 2-300,000 tops, on a very good day. Comparing to almost 2 mil Oblivion copies that aint much. For every hardcore Fallout fan, there are 20 people who enjoyed the game, but hated that "awful TB combat". I quoted that dumbfuck (developer who thought that FOT improved the series) for a reason. They are the established market, not us.

 

[Ion Flux]

What market? The hardcore Fallout fans? That's 2-300,000 tops, on a very good day. Comparing to almost 2 mil Oblivion copies that aint much. For every hardcore Fallout fan, there are 20 people who enjoyed the game, but hated that "awful TB combat". I quoted that dumbfuck (developer who thought that FOT improved the series) for a reason. They are the established market, not us.

Dude. Your honesty is hurting my brain. I am convinced that you are correct, but it's really freaking sad. I'm going to have to go back on antidepressants if I keep reading these forums.

 

[Sander]

Or that leads to bluntness like "we won't do an isometric game because we have no fucking idea how that works", based on what's already been decided.

Yes, that's also a possibility. Note the word also.

What market? The hardcore Fallout fans? That's 2-300,000 tops, on a very good day. Comparing to almost 2 mil Oblivion copies that aint much. For every hardcore Fallout fan, there are 20 people who enjoyed the game, but hated that "awful TB combat". I quoted that dumbfuck (developer who thought that FOT improved the series) for a reason. They are the established market, not us.

No, the established market is the one interested in a Fallout title. Now, what happens if you change the principle of the Fallout series? You lose a lot of potential buyers, namely the established market. See, for instance, Fallout: Tactics. For a broader perspective, see also Ultima.

Why does this happen? Because tapping into a new market with a title that's been established in a different market is a waste of the money spent on the title and won't attract any people based on the franchise.
See Morrowind, for instance. It fared well, but not because of its franchise, more because it was one of the few (if not the only) 'RPG' on the X-Box, and was advertised to be free-form and expansive.
It would've been pretty much just as succesful had they used a new license.

 

[vasilimst]

Anybody ever think that Fallout 3 just may never come out? Maybe they are not even working on it and really have not planned to. Everything Pete is saying could be a load of brahmin shit stringing us along just in case they decide that someday they should look into this game... Could be that we hear something bout the game in 3 months... Could be in a year... Could be 10... Or it could happen when were too old to play a computer game because o arthritis.... Could be never....

 

[VDweller]

No, the established market is the one interested in a Fallout title. Now, what happens if you change the principle of the Fallout series?

Fallout is a well known game, unlike something new that nobody's ever heard of. What Bethesda needed was a brand, not the content. The Fallout name will generate enough attention from people who've heard that the game was good, but never played it. You know, like Citizen Kane. Many people have heard references, but nobody's eager to watch a b/w movie with meaning and shit. Instead they are waiting for someone to buy the rights and make a modern day adaptation Citizen with a Cane with funny jokes and cued laughter.

You lose a lot of potential buyers, namely the established market. See, for instance, Fallout: Tactics. For a broader perspective, see also Ultima.

Fallout Tactics kinda sucked, even from the massmarket point of view. Oblivion was praised (90%+ reviews) like the first coming of Jesus.

See Morrowind, for instance. It fared well, but not because of its franchise, more because it was one of the few (if not the only) 'RPG' on the X-Box, and was advertised to be free-form and expansive.
It would've been pretty much just as succesful had they used a new license.

I tend to think that it fared well because of all the preview frenzy. There is a difference between:

1. "hey kids, here is a new cool game" and
2. OHMYFUCKINGGAWD!!! IT'S TEH ELDAR SCROLLZ GAME! BATHESDA HAS DONE IT AGAIN!!!HURRY THE FUCK UP AND BUY THIS FUCKING MASTARPIECE NOW!!!

What do you want to bet that reviewers will be drooling and praising the original Fallout, thus establishing the "OMG! You missed it, you stupid bastard!" mood, followed by some "it's your lucky day 'cause Beth made a new and *cough* improved Fallout game - will you look at teh graphics?" histeria?

 

[PhredBean]

Anybody ever think that Fallout 3 just may never come out? Maybe they are not even working on it and really have not planned to. Everything Pete is saying could be a load of brahmin shit stringing us along just in case they decide that someday they should look into this game... Could be that we hear something bout the game in 3 months... Could be in a year... Could be 10... Or it could happen when were too old to play a computer game because o arthritis.... Could be never....

Yes, because successful companies pay thousands of dollars to buy an IP they aren't going to milk.


VDweller, would you stop putting words to my fears. I expect the same treatment from Beth, but each time you say it, it's a stab in the heart.

 

[Sander]

Fallout is a well known game, unlike something new that nobody's ever heard of. What Bethesda needed was a brand, not the content. The Fallout name will generate enough attention from people who've heard that the game was good, but never played it. You know, like Citizen Kane. Many people have heard references, but nobody's eager to watch a b/w movie with meaning and shit. Instead they are waiting for someone to buy the rights and make a modern day adaptation Citizen with a Cane with funny jokes and cued laughter.

Except that it doesn't work that way. People aren't going to buy a Fallout 3 just because they've heard of it, especially if they could also try it out for free (heh). A name only goes so far, and a name won't attract many new people.
See the Ultima franchise for the best example of this.

Fallout Tactics kinda sucked, even from the massmarket point of view. Oblivion was praised (90%+ reviews) like the first coming of Jesus.

Yes, erm, so?

I tend to think that it fared well because of all the preview frenzy.

Morrowind had a lot of preview frenzy? Morrowind, eh, not Oblivion.

There is a difference between:

1. "hey kids, here is a new cool game" and
2. OHMYFUCKINGGAWD!!! IT'S TEH ELDAR SCROLLZ GAME! BATHESDA HAS DONE IT AGAIN!!!HURRY THE FUCK UP AND BUY THIS FUCKING MASTARPIECE NOW!!!

What do you want to bet that reviewers will be drooling and praising the original Fallout, thus establishing the "OMG! You missed it, you stupid bastard!" mood, followed by some "it's your lucky day 'cause Beth made a new and *cough* improved Fallout game - will you look at teh graphics?" histeria?

I think that depends entirely on how the game will turn out. Reviewers don't generally praise really sucky games.
But yes, Fallout 3 will receive extra hype because it's being made by Bethesda.
But, since it is a new Fallout game, it will also receive extra criticism based on how much it resembles the original game. Crap dialogue a la Morrowind or Oblivion, for instance, will not fare well, while this may have passed with a new franchise game.

 

[Roshambo]

Because that's what the established market would want.

What market? The hardcore Fallout fans? That's 2-300,000 tops, on a very good day. Comparing to almost 2 mil Oblivion copies that aint much. For every hardcore Fallout fan, there are 20 people who enjoyed the game, but hated that "awful TB combat". I quoted that dumbfuck (developer who thought that FOT improved the series) for a reason. They are the established market, not us.

I have to disagree here.

Really, folks, most "series" lately are cheesy bullshit that doesn't live past one, maybe two sequels. By then, people are a bit worn out on them, or they have died for other reasons. They are mostly disposable garbage that has no real lasting value or purpose for remembering them. Existing series have become weak, cheapened for the cause of being "modern", using that as an excuse to not do real design work. Might and Magic went that route.

The real longevity in sequels lies in giving what the customer expects. I have cited Ultima so many times, and it had TB gameplay until it jumped the shark. Fallout was a TB game while Interplay also had RT games released previous. Maybe it's time for the "Old-School Champion", as Fallout has been coined ever since 1997, to resurface again and breathe more new life into the genre as Fallout initially did. That depends if Bethesda is telling the truth, or lying.

The real hallmark of failure, as we have all seen with FOT and FOS, is lacking faithfulness to the game concept and core gameplay, which for Fallout includes strong P&P ties and associated feel with the pulpish art style. It was one of the games that truly appealed to the RPG enthusiast that might not like the overdone stock fantasy setting; it was one of the games that truly appealed to the RPG enthusiast that might like a good combat set together with excellent role-playing, regardless of setting. There are many role-players out there, many don't play CRPGs any more BECAUSE most of them have become formulaic and uninspired SHIT.

Folks, it has less to do with mechanics and more about game cohesion and vision. Cheaply putting together pieces from Box A with some from Box B and a few scraps from Box C, isn't going to give you the same results as a good vision around a solid title. They are called "solid" for a reason, and that is what draws in repeat customers, and those who have discovered the game over the years. If they don't want to play TB, then why are they buying a Fallout game?

Also, we know that the marketing chimps believe that all games must be like a big seller (hard to actually tell how Fallout would do now, since it has word of mouth and a lot of people are anxiously awaiting it given the news reactions, but then it's starting to look like another name-whoring), and therefore Fallout's numbers in the MUCH SMALLER MARKET IN 1997 and the time of recognition and word-of-mouth since, OBVIOUSLY puts it behind a current game that appealed to any moron owning an X-Box version of the game.

Don't get stuck in the marketing mentality, folks, it's killing off all the inspiration and vision in the US development houses. That, and having absolutely no cojones to speak of.

What happens when Bethesda removes FalloutBoy's title belt, then bends him over and gangrapes him?

 

[VDweller]

Except that it doesn't work that way. People aren't going to buy a Fallout 3 just because they've heard of it...

Not talking about buying, but about getting attention of both potential customers and previewers. Quick question: you walk into a game store, there are two games on a shelf: Fallout 3 and Failsafe. Which one you would grab first? There you go.

See the Ultima franchise for the best example of this.

See also all the fuss around the FPS Might & Magic game. The game may suck, but I'm pretty sure it will sell well.

Yes, erm, so?

FOT and FOBOS failed because they left one audience, but failed to appeal to a new one. Heroes of Might & Magic switched audiences successfully. Fallout 3 might be an entertaining - for the usual TES crowd - exploration action game, so I'm pretty sure it would do well too.

Morrowind had a lot of preview frenzy? Morrowind, eh, not Oblivion.

I was a Daggerfall fan, so I had a misfortune to follow the development and pay attention to the previews.

Reviewers don't generally praise really sucky games.

Huh? NWN OC, Fable, Oblivion. Oblivion is a horrible fucking game, yet everyone is literally blinded by the graphics.

But, since it is a new Fallout game, it will also receive extra criticism based on how much it resembles the original game. Crap dialogue a la Morrowind or Oblivion, for instance, will not fare well, while this may have passed with a new franchise game.

You'll be surprised.

................

Really, folks, most "series" lately are cheesy bullshit that doesn't live past one, maybe two sequels.

No arguing here.

The real longevity in sequels is giving what the customer expects.

What do you think all those 2 million idiots who bought Oblivion expect? Aint much. The difference between Beth and most other companies is that Beth already has a huge fanbase that loves the RT FP action/exploring gameplay. FO3 will fit right in.

That depends if Bethesda is telling the truth, or lying.

Considering the track record of bullshit... (see all the developers' quotes in my Oblivion review)

 

[Roshambo]

See also all the fuss around the FPS Might & Magic game. The game may suck, but I'm pretty sure it will sell well.

I doubt it, unless it has the same style. It might work, it might not. It IS different than...

FOT and FOBOS failed because they left one audience, but failed to appeal to a new one. Heroes of Might & Magic switched audiences successfully.

I have to disagree, because of a key design point. Board games and tabletop role-playing games aren't that different. So for Might and Magic's audience to switch over to a more strategic, board-game style of gameplay, but with all the other aspects of the series and setting they loved, it isn't that much of a stretch as taking Fallout's P&P roots and making yet another shitty console game out of it.

Fallout 3 might be an entertaining - for the usual TES crowd - exploration action game, so I'm pretty sure it would do well too.

Yes, it could very well be just TES with guns, and Bethesda could be a bigger bunch of liars than Chuck ever was.

I was a Daggerfall fan, so I had a misfortune to follow the development and pay attention to the previews.

Same here. Since Morrowind, Bethesda isn't even trying, when their modders can spank them easily in quality.

Huh? NWN OC, Fable, Oblivion. Oblivion is a horrible fucking game, yet everyone is literally blinded by the graphics.

And, as a CRPG player, I don't care about graphics, I care about gameplay that separates one steaming pile of shit from another, and the occasional gem of quality.

But, since it is a new Fallout game, it will also receive extra criticism based on how much it resembles the original game. Crap dialogue a la Morrowind or Oblivion, for instance, will not fare well, while this may have passed with a new franchise game.

You'll be surprised.

................

The hype worked for Oblivion.

What do you think all those 2 million idiots who bought Oblivion expect? Aint much. The difference between Beth and most other companies is that Beth already has a huge fanbase that loves the RT FP action/exploring gameplay. FO3 will fit right in.

And reviewing the game, with a list of Bethesda's lies in hand, will be extremely amusing.

Considering the track record of bullshit... (see all the developers' quotes in my Oblivion review)

I've already read it, and I'm more than aware of the depths of hype hell that Todd and Pete will go to in order to lie about a game.

 

[Sander]

Not talking about buying, but about getting attention of both potential customers and previewers. Quick question: you walk into a game store, there are two games on a shelf: Fallout 3 and Failsafe. Which one you would grab first? There you go.

Most people don't buy games just by the name.
The name is an attention grabber, but if you ignore the original market for which the name means something, that's all it is: something to grab someone's attention.

See also all the fuss around the FPS Might & Magic game. The game may suck, but I'm pretty sure it will sell well.

Erm, there's already a 3d Shooter/action game of Might & Magic. It bombed.

FOT and FOBOS failed because they left one audience, but failed to appeal to a new one. Heroes of Might & Magic switched audiences successfully. Fallout 3 might be an entertaining - for the usual TES crowd - exploration action game, so I'm pretty sure it would do well too.

Possibly.
But, as I said, then that will have nothing to do with it being Fallout, but solely with it being a game made by Bethesda that somehow seems to appeal to people.

Really, again, what's the point of paying for a license, and then not use its established marketshare.

Huh? NWN OC, Fable, Oblivion. Oblivion is a horrible fucking game, yet everyone is literally blinded by the graphics.

Wrong.
Oblivion is a horrible RPG. I still know several people who are genuinely having a good time with the game, though. And not because it was hyped, but because they enjoy its gameplay. The same goes for Fable. The only thing where that wasn't the case was the NWN OC.

 

[VDweller]

I have to disagree, because of a key design point. Board games and tabletop role-playing games aren't that different. ...

Good point. You are right.

And reviewing the game, with a list of Bethesda's lies in hand, will be extremely amusing.

Can hardly wait.

Most people don't buy games just by the name.

No, but it makes them look. Marketing 101.

The name is an attention grabber, but if you ignore the original market for which the name means something, that's all it is: something to grab someone's attention.

Do you really think Bethesda needs more?

Erm, there's already a 3d Shooter/action game of Might & Magic. It bombed.

I know. From the link: "...whereas the fighting and general game play were substandard." According to previews - as silly as that sounds - the fighting is very well done and the gameplay is at least decent. If that's only hype, the game will bomb, if not...

Really, again, what's the point of paying for a license, and then not use its established marketshare.

You'll see when the preview season starts.

Oblivion is a horrible RPG. I still know several people who are genuinely having a good time with the game, though. And not because it was hyped, but because they enjoy its gameplay. The same goes for Fable. The only thing where that wasn't the case was the NWN OC.

That proves nothing. Every game, no matter how shitty has people who like it. Even NWN. Even Dungeon Lords.

Oblivion is a crappy game. Every aspect of it is a vivid example of poor design. It makes Morrowind look like a fucking masterpiece. It also casts a huge doubt on the Fallout 3 design. Anyway, I didn't mean to start an endless discussion and depress the locals. I see your points, you see mine. Let's just wait for the trainwreck to arrive. Popcorn?

 

[Sander]

Do you really think Bethesda needs more?

No, I think this will do nothing a new franchise wouldn't have done for them.
The point is, the name Fallout makes people expect certain things.
A new franchise would have released them from any expectations (and hence a lot of criticism and possibly negative press), while the Bethesda name would have given them about as much attention.

That proves nothing. Every game, no matter how shitty has people who like it. Even NWN. Even Dungeon Lords.

Oblivion is a crappy game. Every aspect of it is a vivid example of poor design. It makes Morrowind look like a fucking masterpiece. It also casts a huge doubt on the Fallout 3 design. Anyway, I didn't mean to start an endless discussion and depress the locals. I see your points, you see mine. Let's just wait for the trainwreck to arrive. Popcorn?

Of course, every game has some people that like the game. But Fable and Oblivion have a *lot* of people that genuinely like the games. Go to a random internet forum and look for an Oblivion thread. If there is one, it's almost always filled with praise and only a few dissonant voices.
So, by the standard of how many people enjoy it, it's a good game. By RPG standards it's an insanely crappy game, but because it's an action game with frequent rewards in the form of items and character 'development' it keeps most people interested. Kind of like Diablo.

Ah well, the trainwreck shouldn't be long now. Ehe.

 

[Briosafreak]

Sander you are trying too much, try to take a more distant look on what was said. I'll get back to this later.

 

[VDweller]

Do you really think Bethesda needs more?

No, I think this will do nothing a new franchise wouldn't have done for them.

Wait for the previews.

The point is, the name Fallout makes people expect certain things.

Correction: makes a certain group of people expect certain things. I've seen many message boards in my travels where the locals are overjoyed because Bethesda, a grandmaster of RPGs, is making a Fallout game. I've read all kinda posts, from "wouldn't it be cool to explore the FO world in first person" to "turn-based combat is what turned me off when I tried Fallout. Now I can finally play it!". The interest to RT FP Fallout is there.

But Fable and Oblivion have a *lot* of people that genuinely like the games. Go to a random internet forum and look for an Oblivion thread. If there is one, it's almost always filled with praise and only a few dissonant voices.

Really? Morons like dumbed down gameplay and shiny graphics? What else is new?

So, by the standard of how many people enjoy it, it's a good game.

That's a weak argument. By your logic, the new Stars Wars trilogy is amazing, because so many people liked it.

By RPG standards it's an insanely crappy game, but because it's an action game with frequent rewards in the form of items and character 'development' it keeps most people interested. Kind of like Diablo.

The item system/distribution sucks. The character development blows. I can go into more details, if you like, but Diablo it definitely aint.

 

[Sander]

Really? Morons like dumbed down gameplay and shiny graphics? What else is new?

*sigh*
It's an enjoyable game in its own right. As an RPG, it sucks. As an action-y game it is apparently decent, since so many people enjoy it.

That's a weak argument. By your logic, the new Stars Wars trilogy is amazing, because so many people liked it.

Many people liked the new Star Wars trilogy?
Anyway, in this case it is a valid argument. What makes a good game? From a game design point of view, yes, it could very well be a crappy game. The rewards are essentially meaningless because of the scaling monsters, the story is dull and can't be influenced by your actions, the character interaction is generally nonsensical.
The good things are the shininess, the combat and exploration. That's what keeps people occupied in between the (useless) 'rewards'.
However, some people enjoy it. And since that is what Bethesda set out to do, they did a decent job.
If you, on the other hand, look at what they could've done, it is a very poor job indeed.

 

[VDweller]

Really? Morons like dumbed down gameplay and shiny graphics? What else is new?

*sigh*
It's an enjoyable game in its own right. As an RPG, it sucks. As an action-y game it is apparently decent, since so many people enjoy it.

Apparently? Does it imply, by any chance, that you didn't play said masterpiece and refer to the words of other people? If I'm mistaken and you did play it, would you mind presenting some arguments that prove that it's indeed a decent action game?

Many people liked the new Star Wars trilogy?

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=starwars3.htm
$849,997,605 worldwide. That's after watching the first two movies.

Anyway, in this case it is a valid argument.

If you say so.

The good things are the shininess, the combat and exploration. That's what keeps people occupied in between the (useless) 'rewards'.

The shininess? So, a good looking game is a good game? The combat sucks ass and couldn't be compared to that of Jedi Academy, Die by the Sword, or the upcoming M&M game (judging by previews and trailers). The exploration is lame, because everything looks the same (unlike in MW) and there is no reason to explore because the scaled loot/enemy system guarantee that you won't run into a deadly opponent or find anything decent and unexpected that you won't find in a barrel in some house.

However, some people enjoy it. And since that is what Bethesda set out to do, they did a decent job.

Ironically, that's pretty much my entire FO3 argument.

If you, on the other hand, look at what they could've done, it is a very poor job indeed.

No, I looked at what they did.