Polygamia editorializes on Fallout 3

[Jesuit]

The flip side of that is that when it went out of business, all Interplay was producing were console RPGFPSs, namely BGA and F:BoS.

Fallout doesn't even remotely have anything to do with Interplay's eventual demise. In fact, Interplay treated Fallout exactly as you say investors would like to see it treated, hacked into cheap console ports.

Two things I didn't say:
1)Never said Fallout caused interplay to go out of business.
2)Never said Investors want to see cheap console ports.

Things I will now say:

Investors want to see and emulate games and companies with a track record of success (sequel syndrome). When Interplay went down a fallout style game still made sense and as you know, one was being developed. But it's been 10 years since 1998 and the fate of Troika games (who never managed to make a game that raised more than 8 million in revenue) pretty much ended that era.

In rather stark contrast everyone got to see open-world games with shiny graphics and real time whatever like GTA IV and Oblivion break retail records.

Even the most successful TB isometric games don't even come close to what Oblivion did, and in most cases all of the companies that made them are now defunct. You can blame whatever mystical forces you want but people with good sense are able to recognize patterns.

It's not like there's a shortage of greedy bastards looking to make money in the games industry. If there really was a profitable market for these types of games they'd be getting made more often. Occasionally they do get made, those games typically have mediocre returns (especially in the all-import US market) see: Silent Storm. If there is going to be a game that is going to take a risk in an attempt to break that stigma it isn't going to be a game that's already a million the hole just for a license like fallout.

Finally, if you think Bethesda is doing a screwed up thing by taking the fallout license and screwing around with it to make a profit you're very right. If you really expect any company to ignore profit opportunities out of a sense of honor or sensitivity to communities like this one you're delusional. If you really don't know why Bethesda is doing what it's doing you haven't been paying attention. The amount of free press and hype Bethesda continues to receive is worth well over the million dollar license fee.

 

[Ausir]

It's not like there's a shortage of greedy bastards looking to make money in the games industry. If there really was a profitable market for these types of games they'd be getting made more often. Occasionally they do get made, those games typically have mediocre returns (especially in the all-import US market) see: Silent Storm. If there is going to be a game that is going to take a risk in an attempt to break that stigma it isn't going to be a game that's already a million the hole just for a license like fallout.

Civilization? Heroes of Might & Magic V?

Finally, if you think Bethesda is doing a screwed up thing by taking the fallout license and screwing around with it to make a profit you're very right. If you really expect any company to ignore profit opportunities out of a sense of honor or sensitivity to communities like this one you're delusional.

Troika? Yes, I know it's dead now.

 

[Brother None]

Finally, if you think Bethesda is doing a screwed up thing by taking the fallout license and screwing around with it to make a profit you're very right. If you really expect any company to ignore profit opportunities out of a sense of honor or sensitivity to communities like this one you're delusional. If you really don't know why Bethesda is doing what it's doing you haven't been paying attention. The amount of free press and hype Bethesda continues to receive is worth well over the million dollar license fee.

How does any of this apply to anything I said?

Except my point is that most people don't consider it a spinoff. They consider it the sequel to Panzer Dragoon (Panzer Dragoon Zwei is a prequel to the first game) and the only spinoff is Panzer Dragoon Mini.

That's because in the end, money makes right. People will call Fallout 3 a sequel too because that's what the money says it is.

 

[welsh]

You know its a sad world to live in when its simply profit or investment that allows us to decide the meaning of art.

In the classic flick, the Agony and the Ecstasy, Michelangelo is pissed off because he's getting paid to make art that he thinks is demeaning and he doesn't like working for others. He wants to give his vision life. Then he is told, I think by Rafael, that all artists are essentially whores to their patrons, hired and paid for by rich people to make art. Later, Michelangelo gets a vision that inspires the painting of the Sistine Chapel. The Pope goes for it, and contributes the money to make it happen. But the Pope grows impatient. "When will it be done?" The pope demands. "When I am finished." Replies Michelangelo. And in the end, we have an artistic masterpiece known throughout the world, commission by a Pope most have forgotten.

I think its safe to say that few artists can pay for their art themselves, and that many must work day jobs to achieve artistic vision. But I also think its safe to say that artists have the license to create meaning and vision based on their talent, while their patrons are rewarded by their contributions with the visions they receive.

So while there is a relationship between art and the money that pays for art, I think its important to distinguish the difference between the two.

Because when art becomes informed or changed for money, the danger is that it becomes crap.

Consider for instance that the game industry is much like the movie industry. The best films, the most critically appreciated films and the ones that become classics, are not often the big blockbuster, but smaller, more modestly produced products with more modest budgets but with grander visions. In contrast, big blockbusters that we get in the summer often turn out to be sequels or formula hits.

Why? Because if you are to invest in a big movie, you want a safe bet to earn rewards. The price of this is that you take fewer risks because your investors can't afford them. Your investor wants a profit- and the more you spend, the more you have to play "safe" and the less artistic your film becomes.

On occasion you have a modest film that becomes a big commercial success. But much depends on your aims- are you looking for commercial success or artistic creation.

Fallout has remained one of the top CRPGs of all time not because it was a big commercial success or even because it was supposed to become that success, but rather because it had artistic vision and aims that were unique.

Doubt me? Check out the history here, and other parts- [ur=http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/album_page.php?pic_id=485] here [/url], here[/url, and [url=http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/album_page.php?pic_id=487] here. Note that the importance is about the drive to achieve an artistic vision rather than a commercial success.

Fallout was created to be art, not a financial blockbuster.

Investors want to see and emulate games and companies with a track record of success (sequel syndrome). When Interplay went down a fallout style game still made sense and as you know, one was being developed.

Actually, look at the 4th page. It didn't make success. CRPGs were largely dead or in the dungeon. Few were interested in it and FPS were popular.

But it's been 10 years since 1998 and the fate of Troika games (who never managed to make a game that raised more than 8 million in revenue) pretty much ended that era.

So you are saying a good game is one that makes money? Or is it a good game because it stands up to the test of time?

Which is harder to achieve? Time or money?

In rather stark contrast everyone got to see open-world games with shiny graphics and real time whatever like GTA IV and Oblivion break retail records.

Which means that those times of games are now the status quo. But that's not what Fallout is about. Fallout was a small game that was created to broaden the idea of what CRPG gaming could be. Not to limit it to something more constrained or to follow the norm.

FPS where highly popular back then too.

Even the most successful TB isometric games don't even come close to what Oblivion did, and in most cases all of the companies that made them are now defunct. You can blame whatever mystical forces you want but people with good sense are able to recognize patterns.

So again, its about what the profit incentive is rather than the artistic gains.

I know, you're going to respond- "But why make the compromise between art and money? Can't you have both?"

And with so few words, you compromise art for money.

It's not like there's a shortage of greedy bastards looking to make money in the games industry. If there really was a profitable market for these types of games they'd be getting made more often. Occasionally they do get made, those games typically have mediocre returns (especially in the all-import US market) see: Silent Storm. If there is going to be a game that is going to take a risk in an attempt to break that stigma it isn't going to be a game that's already a million the hole just for a license like fallout.

But who invested the million in the hole? Bethesda- why, because they wanted to make more than that. That's why its also a console game, a FPS, the dialogue "hasn't been worked out yet(?)" and why they have made so many compromises on Fallout.

Do I care if Bethesda makes a profit. No. What I care about is that they have made a good Fallout game.

I admit that this won't go over well among Bethesda stockholders or investors. But I am not interested in the patron of the art's preferences to make a profit. What I am interested in, as a stackholder, is the artistic vision.

The greater the compromises, the more pissed off I get and the less I am interested in buying this game and the more angry I get that Bethesda compromises art for money.

I don't care if those Bethesda assholes want to be pimps. What I care about is what they wish to pimp. This game and the universe that was created by the original developers aspired to art.

Bethesda aspires to profit. And because profit matters more, they sell of art.

Fuck them and their compromises.

You ask most Fallout fans what would they prefer
(1) - a big company making a block buster Fallout game with all the newest devices so the game can be played on a console with lots of cool bloody mess moments.

or

(2) - a smaller boutique company that can make a game that is more loving devoted to maintaining and advancing the Fallout universe in ways artistically consistent with the originals-

I would bet most Fallout fans would vote option 2.

Bethesda knows this. This is why we don't see a demo. This is why their pitch is to their own Oblivion fans. This is why their relationship with the fans is crap. They believe they can patiently wait for the old Fallout fans to lose interest and die away and allow them to recreate a new spanking vision of Fallout that they can pimp into more sequels.

Finally, if you think Bethesda is doing a screwed up thing by taking the fallout license and screwing around with it to make a profit you're very right. If you really expect any company to ignore profit opportunities out of a sense of honor or sensitivity to communities like this one you're delusional. If you really don't know why Bethesda is doing what it's doing you haven't been paying attention. The amount of free press and hype Bethesda continues to receive is worth well over the million dollar license fee.

Exactly. But don't expect anyone here to like it or to support Bethesda. People here didn't want a big new Fallout game. They wanted a good Fallout game.

Bethesda made a lot of promises but also "we're going to make the game we want." Or - fuck you fans.

Now, Bethesda has come up with something new yet by calling it Fallout 3, is basically saying "hey you guys who loved Fallout 1 and 2, well, guess what, fuck ya. Because you'll never see the Fallout 3 you want because we hold the license. And we're going to pimp it for all its worth. "

That's enough to piss off most Fallout fans. Personally, what really pisses me off is the lies.

Seriously, had they created a post-apocalyptic game that had some fallout elements and called it something other than Fallout 3, but Fallout Apocalpyse, Fallout East Coast, Fallout Oblivion, Fallout Washington Wasteland... I might buy the game or even support it.

But Bethesda said they were going to make Fallout 3, and instead came out with this piece of crap. I mean, even the assclowns that made FOBOS knew better and had more class than that.

 

[Jesuit]

Civilization? Heroes of Might & Magic V?

Any computer geek knows that the civ series is special, and that it really isn't the same type of game we're talking about in regards to fallout(tactical). Ignoring that point, two examples of IPs that were created decades ago is sort of a drop in the bucket if you're talking about all the games that get released. It's also worth mentioning that neither of those series experienced a ten year hiatus.

Troika? Yes, I know it's dead now.

I don't know. Bethesda behaves a lot more corporate than Troika ever did. Perhaps that is a comments on their relative fates though I'd like to not think so...

How does any of this apply to anything I said?

The last paragraph specifically was aimed at the "business and profits" shouldn't matter argument that I saw a lot of people making in this thread.

 

[Brother None]

I don't know. Bethesda behaves a lot more corporate than Troika ever did. Perhaps that is a comments on their relative fates though I'd like to not think so...

Oh, it does, but perhaps not in the sense you think. Bethesda behaves like they're EA, PR/marketing-wise, they're a small fish acting a big fish. That's helpful for them, I guess, but not really necessary. Troika didn't just lack that, they lacked a lot of business acuity, and they had a lot of bad luck and bad experiences with different publishers (most noticeably in the unnecessary delays of both Arcanum and Bloodlines).

The last paragraph specifically was aimed at the "business and profits" shouldn't matter argument that I saw a lot of people making in this thread.

Oh right. Got confused 'coz you was quoting me. Sorry.

 

[Jesuit]

@Welsh

That was a great post. I don't think there HAS to be a compromise between business and art. There are lots of indy games, and passion projects floating around and I've followed a few them. They usually end up better for their target niches than the mainstream counterpart, but they never really rise to the production values that will garner their makers enough success and/or notice to 'breakthrough'. This makes me sad.

However, your choice between a mega company like Bethesda and a small boutique company is a false one. At a hefty price tag of over a million dollars, the fallout license was never going to end up at a small development firm. This price tag alone brings the profit margin considerations into the development of the game, as much as you and I hate it, the Fallout series is now officially a victim of its own success in this regard. The fallout series was one of Interplay's most successful series. Combining that value with the fact that TB isometric has largely gone out of style, and Interplay's unwillingness to develop the game in house... well this is sort of what you're gonna get.

I for one am pretty intent of making the best of the situation. If fallout 3 can manage to make me feel like I'm wandering the wastes again for just 10 minutes I'll appreciate it, because, unfortunately, I'm pretty sure this is all that can be achieved at this point. If fallout 3 is a dismal failure maybe Bethesda will jettison the license at an affordable rate, but given this level hype I don't see that happening.

 

[welsh]

@Welsh

That was a great post. I don't think there HAS to be a compromise between business and art. There are lots of indy games, and passion projects floating around and I've followed a few them. They usually end up better for their target niches than the mainstream counterpart, but they never really rise to the production values that will garner their makers enough success and/or notice to 'breakthrough'. This makes me sad.

Well Jesuit, forgive the pun, but you're showing a lot of faith here. And this is faith despite what we've thus far seen and heard.

And, in the end, you miss the point. Fallout was an artistic game that was aimed at a niche. It wasn't designed to be a big mainstream game that would appeal. Rather, it was aimed at broadening the nature of CRPG and the artistic vision of game playing. It was meant to be an application of a GURPs style game in a post-apocalyptic world vested with a unique vision based on themes of the Cold War and the Sci Fi of that era. Everything from the engine to the style reflected those artistic choices.

It wasn't about making sales. It was about vision.

Remember what the good book Jesuit, you can't have two masters. Either its about the money or about the art. With luck, you do great art, you might create a blockbuster. But if you sell to the market, you may have a better chance of bringing home a return, but you're not aiming for great art. You're aiming for a lower common denominator that will make you a profit.

However, your choice between a mega company like Bethesda and a small boutique company is a false one. At a hefty price tag of over a million dollars, the fallout license was never going to end up at a small development firm.

Oh come on now. $1 million in Maryland buys a really nice house. then gain, FOBOS probably made about 1/2 that but was also a commerical failure. (Maybe it it had as much hype as FO3). I'd be curious to see how much Bethesda has spent on the game. Of course the more you invest, the more expect, and the more constrained your choices. This is the problem of Hollywood blockbusters and why most of the best movies are small independent jobs.

That said, the Fallout license had such a strong business value not because it could be a FPS (FOBOS and FO3) but because it was a CRPG with a great reputation within the gaming community for its high artistic standard (if not its commercial value) and for the loyalty/ devotion of its fans. Why were the fans (like those here) so devoted? Because of the game's artistic merits.

This price tag alone brings the profit margin considerations into the development of the game, as much as you and I hate it, the Fallout series is now officially a victim of its own success in this regard. The fallout series was one of Interplay's most successful series. Combining that value with the fact that TB isometric has largely gone out of style, and Interplay's unwillingness to develop the game in house... well this is sort of what you're gonna get.

I am not really sure isometric has gone out of style. Rather, I think its a matter of what is more popular for console audiences (where the money is). I am going to skip over the Diablo but should we skip Baldur's Gate- another isometric game, which also has a huge fan base that wants a sequel. I suspect you have a huge audience that wants an isometric game.

Are you saying that these audiences don't have value? Or is it a matter that Bethesda considers the value of Oblivion fans/Console fans superior? I mean, if Bethesda really cared about what its fan will think- it would make a demo. But it doesn't and thus controls criticism through use of the press. Poor bastards who criticize are criticized for 'smearing' Bethesda- because its ok to have a free opinion as long as its a good one?

Interplay's unwillingness to create the game in house had a lot to do with its financial problems.

What bothers me about this most is the lies. For one, this isn't really Fallout because its game play, style and inconsistent relationship to the prequels. Bethesda took Fallout elements and jumbled them around and made a new game. But Fallout isn't Boggle.

But more importantly, Bethesda said that they loved Fallout and that they wanted to make a game that was true to the originals. But I don't see much truth here.

If Bethesda really wanted to be true they would have shown some balls and did something new, and in the process, give their company new potential. I believed that Bethesda could make a good isometric game that was more similar to Van Buren than what looks like a modified Half Life (And I like Half-life, but its not Fallout). It could be turn-based or not. It could have been rich in roleplay action (with dialogue that didn't need to get kinks out three months before release?). It would have given Bethesda more depth as a company and greater ability to do new and different things.

They had the potential to do it right. But they chose to do what they knew- Oblivion. To reformulate that, they cannibalized Fallout elements, pimped out the Fallout brand name, hyped the game, fucking over the fans, and created not a fallout game, but a Fallout Oblivion hybrid.

And sure, they will sell it well to the Oblivion fans, of which there are probably more than there are Fallout fans.

I would be cool with this if they had said that this wasn't Fallout 3 but a Fallout first person game. I would have been happier if they would have gone with more generic post-apocalyptic elements (mutants, zombies, disease, radiation, vaults, violence, chaotic social systems- are found in a lot of post-apoc games) and given it a new name- create a brand name of their own.

Had they done that, I might have been willing to buy the game.

But they crapped on Fallout.

So they can go fuck themselves.

I for one am pretty intent of making the best of the situation.

You missed the discussion about hegemony. You might want to look at that.

You can't really make the best of the decision when you don't have much choice. Your choices are simple- buy the game or don't buy the game. That's about as much compromise as you're allowed.

You see compromise happens at three levels.

Bethesda made its compromises with a preference for money over art. It decided to bastardize Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 (which honestly was already beginning to bastardize Fallout 1, but still was generally akin to the original) because it believes it can make more profit. Bethesda is a pimp, and as such, will sacrifice beauty for profit anytime. It doesn't really care about Fallout or the fans, as long as it gets paid. Did I mention that as pimps they can go fuck themselves, and in the end, they probably will.

You, as the buyer, doesn't get much compromise besides what you decide to spend your money on. Once you've bought the game, Bethesda has gotten paid. If, after 10 hours of playing, you think to yourself, WTF? This isn't a real Fallout game... well, Bethesda could give a shit. It got paid to give you pleasure, but if that pleasure wasn't what you wanted, well... it still got paid.

Normally one would think that's about it. The issue of compromise lies between the buyer and the seller. Each makes a decision- art vs profit, buy vs not buy.

But there is an intermediary- the community. If the community gets together and says, this is crap and they fucked it up, and this is why they, Bethesda, are a bunch pimps, then other folks might listen. We, as a community, don't have to compromise. We could have bought out by Bethesda, we might have sold out. But we didn't. That's not to say we couldn't have compromised a bit. But its pretty clear that Bethesda never gave a shit about the fans- and frankly, that means there's no point to it.

So you can give you $40 if you like. But if a lot of folks are saying that you're just getting fucked over, maybe you should think about it first. After all, your $40 is hard earned. Shouldn't they be honest with you when they say they are giving you a Fallout game and not some Oblivion-Fallout hybrid piece of shit?

How far are you willing to go, Jesuit, to compromise?

If fallout 3 can manage to make me feel like I'm wandering the wastes again for just 10 minutes I'll appreciate it, because, unfortunately, I'm pretty sure this is all that can be achieved at this point. If fallout 3 is a dismal failure maybe Bethesda will jettison the license at an affordable rate, but given this level hype I don't see that happening.

Yeah, its a shame you missed the hegemony post. AH, here it is.

Bethesda doesn't give a crap if you are unhappy about the game 10 minutes into it. It just wants your money.

It doesn't care if the Fallout fans care. It doesn't have to. By generating so much hype and playing to its Oblivion audience, Bethesda thinks its going to make a mint. It doesn't have to satisfy the fans- and that's why its been ignoring these communities for so long. Because it doesn't have to listen.

Why? Because enough people are willing to make compromises on issues of value. Already there are lots and lots of Oblivion fans who think that Bethesda's Oblivion was the second coming of Christ in game form and are willing to advance the money to buy the game before it hits shelves. There are plenty of other fans who will say, "You know its been a long time since I have played fallout, maybe I will give this a chance."

Does Bethesda care? Only as far as it makes money.

And if you read the articles I posted to above, than you know that Bethesda misses the point. Fallout was a labor of love. It wasn't about the profits but about taking gaming to a new level.

So, you might be right, its all about money for Bethesda.

But its also about your choices and the compromises you are willing to make, as well as the choices that we as a community are willing to accept.

I've said this before, I could give a rat's ass if Bethesda makes a profit. I don't care. What I want is a good Fallout game. They haven't delivered it. Worse, they have repackaged it in a new dumbed down form that they mass produce and commericalize to the console jockies. They've reduced art to profit and pimped out something that I and a lot of fans really loved. And then they lied about it, just as they have been telling lies throughout the development of Fallout 3.

Fuck them.

 

[ookami]

At a hefty price tag of over a million dollars, the fallout license was never going to end up at a small development firm.

Pretty simple solution there that might even make it a bigger seller. Instead of puffing out their chest and strutting around with the "it's ours now and we're so much better than BIS in our cool modern style hahahahaha" attitude of calling it Fallout 3, they could have called it maybe Fallout: Capital Wasteland (thank you, Ausir ). The 3 could be saved for an actually faithful sequel (which they know that FO3 really isn't no matter how much bullshit they spout about it) while they make their big moneybags console (oh, sorry, I mean 'multi-platform') game to make up for the license cost and bring in the giant casual market profit. Leaving the 3 off of the title seems like it would also prevent some of the casual folks from looking at the number and thinking "I better not get this, I didn't play the first two."

But I know Bethesda isn't conducive to that kind of foresight or reason. The only way they could be pricks any more than already is if they had just called it Fallout.