RM Milner- Welcome to our forum. I salute you for braving the community, something that Bethesda's folks have shown little spine for.
I wish I could say I have read your thesis. I have not, although I have printed your thesis and it sits waiting for me to finish my dissertation. I have read some of the articles on your thesis, and am looking forward to reading it.
I have a few thoughts I'd like to share. This is my 2 cents.
That makes sense. From there, we get into the tricky issue of what exactly would be acceptable to change. I'd love to hear what NMA thinks on this, since it was something I never got a consensus on as I observed (it may be that there isn't one). Some seem to think that gameplay mechanics (tb, iso, text box, point an click, etc.) would be the most important to keep similar to the past.
Others feel like it's more an issue of tone (plot, choice and consequence, dialogue, dark humor, etc.). And I can't get away from this, but some people may just want all that left alone Smile, which I guess would mean a Fallout with more graphical polish and a larger world to roam in, but not much else different. So what do you guys think would be the most acceptable to update?
You're right- the fans disagree on the particulars but generally not on the basics. As our people have suggested, not Fallout 1 and 2, but something more refined, developed- yet consistent with the themes and elements of the originals. Most of us were fairly happy with Van Buren after we saw what the plan was, and we were willing to give Tactics a shot, even if it wasn't the Fallout game we wanted. FOBOS, got slammed from the start.
But you are right to point out that there is disagreement on particulars, but not the basics.
More importantly, that division has been exploited by Bethesda to make something Falloutish. Whether they have succeeded at that will depend on the final product. No hint exists as no demo exists. But that's Bethesda's monopoly of info at work.
More importantly- if Bethesda really wanted to know what the Fans wanted, they could have asked and did the market research. A review of some of their older polls on their own forums would suggest what fans wanted. A better examination of NMA might have led to similar conclusions. So why create a game that is more like Oblivion and less like Fallout? Maybe it comes down to who they asked when trying to find out what they were going to make? Or perhaps what they were capable of making?
This raises a question of intentions, goals and the origins of preferences.
As BN points out- why listen to fans when you don't have too? It also raises the question of the fundamental differences between fans and developers. The fans want a good fallout game consistent with their prior expectations (yet also one that grasps innovation).
The developers? Unless you buy the BS about art, they want a profit. To be fair, if I was sinking big money in a game, I would want to make a buck at it too.
Can these goals be reconciled? Perhaps.
But reconcile means compromise and all compromises entail some sacrifice. The question then who makes the sacrifices and where are the compromises made?
To understand choices one needs to consider power- who gets to choose. Sadly, the fans have little power if the developer ignores them except to voice their outrage.
Whether that outrage will affect sales, is still to be seen- that's a question of consequences, not cause. I would suspect that Bethesda has done its homework and, consequently, doesn't feel the need for further compromises to the fans.
And NMA? Our community survives because it appreciates the Fallout universe. Our community creates mods, writes walkthroughs, writes reviews, studies similar games and watches business news. We are hardcore.
But like all such fan communities or forums, we are also institutionalized- and all institutions exist to mobilize bias. NMA has prided itself on being a critical, if frequently harshly, source of news and opinion for the community and a gathering place for the fans. Our origins go back to the original games when community interaction was somewhat different.
That matters- NMA and other fans are used to significant interaction with fallout developers Interplay and Black Island. This interaction helped not only create a better Fallout game, but also created standards and expectation within the community.
With Bethesda taking FO 3 there has been a change in focus and the creation of more competitive interaction. As you know, our community frequently gets slammed as being the most rabid of hardcore fan communities (how we get that label and DAC doesn't - is a bit curious). Its an interesting attack against our members, which I suspect is largely (but not completely) undeserved.
There were other issues of fan interaction that, well, were odd. Bethesda is willing to pay thousands of dollars to foreign media, but then undermines the communities ability to circulate or gain information or even contribute- unless its on their terms?
Why has Bethesda played this game? Why have they not used our resources? Why have they not tried to cultivate excitement among the hardcore fans.
Perhaps, because that would have entailed too great a sacrifice. It might have required that they reimagine what they would do with Fallout. That it would require them to move away from Oblivion style gaming to something more traditional to the Fallout universe?
That's risky. The more you spend, the less you are willing to risk.
I personally can't believe that they didn't anticipate the reaction of the community to their designs. When company purchases the assets of another, it will frequently salvage what it wants, discard or sell off what it doesn't. It keeps what it hopes to profit from. Bethesda bought the license, they get to adopt the style, control the copyright, but the rest... well, perhaps that was too expensive to maintain.
Also, @ Brother None. I've been thinking a lot about your original critique. That Bethesda has no financial incentive to listen to fans. You really do seem to be right there. It's like they've had to reinvent their fanbase with every new TES game. Yet they still make skads of cash. Something of an anomaly. If Marvel overhauled Spider-man the same way every four years, would they be so lucky? I wonder if isolating their fans will eventually catch up to them, financially speaking.
Reinvent- not quite. They seek to acquire both the traditional fallout fans, satisfy the Oblivion fans, and draw a new group of fans into their community. Their ambitions are great- thus the hype.
What Bethesda seeks is to profit, not just of Fallout 3, but for the expansions and further sequels and their other genre games. They want repeat customers. It sees its deep investment as potentially generating a long profit stream. What it does for its game engine, it may utilize in future games.
As owner of the license, it has the power to draw in Bethesda's Oblivion fans, acquire new fans and perhaps capture older fallout fans- if only driven by the hype of playing a new "Fallout." The game is merely their vehicle for the acquisition of wealth.
If profit is the goal, hegemony is the mechanism. In this, I suspect that Bethesda seeks to frame fan expectations and desires in order to continue producing products that those fans want in the future. In the process, its willing to ignore past expectations.
It therefore moves away from game play like we saw on Fallout 1 and 2, and moves towards Oblivion style game play because its cheaper, it knows the Oblivion engine, and therefore the amount of initial investment is limited as is the technical risks. It reduces costs and also has a fan base that it can rely on for its profit. In the process, it chooses to move away from the expectations of older fans and create new expectations among a new generation of gamers.
Hegemony is its power to frame what fans expect and desire and then be rewarded by satisfying those 'constructed' desires. It creates the expectations and the rules of the game, and players consent by purchasing it.
Bethesda has tremendous power to achieve that hegemony. It alone controls whether another Fallout will be made, and its either their Fallout or no Fallout. This is, in a way, coercive- you play our game or not all.
To be fair, I expect they will make a wonderful post- apocalyptic game- but not a wonderful Fallout game. That will be enough to satisfy most fans who want to play a post-apoc game.
It won't satisfy the hardcore Fallout fans. Those fans, however,can be marginalized by calling them rabid fans of an antiquated technology. The older hardcore fans are so few that Bethesda believes they can be jettisoned. And if Fallout 3 is popular enough, than they might get converts and there may be few of the hardcore fans when Bethesda makes Fallout 4.
Bethesda hegemonic capacity include the flow of information. Our penetration and our review of Fallout last year, achieved by sneaking past their gatekeepers, was one of the few opportunities for a Fan community to breach Bethesda's information barriers. We also know that Bethesda has used other forms of control to limit the flow of information. It strives for good news and favorable reviews. Why? Because the naysayers cut into their profit.
Fair enough. Bethesda has sank a lot of money into Fallout and hopes to make more. Because of its influence and money, as well as the self-interests of the gaming media- its able to curry some very favorable reviews. They can generate hype for their game, creating what is in many ways a new game while relying on the Fallout brand name to draw fans.
Which raises the question- why the Bethesda Forums at all? Because its must satisfy most fan expectations. Because the community provides an opportunity for hype, to dispell the argument that Beth's fan interaction is crap, and to create its own fan community for the future. That said, its not surprising that many of the "hard core" fans initially went to Bethesda's forums and then left. BN, for instance, has been banned from that forum. Other fans were blacklisted for being critical. The Bethesda forums allow Bethesda to control information and repress criticism.
NMA exists basically with an ideological agenda- we celebrate Fallout and the Fallout universe. We make no money at this, we gain nothing for our efforts except the pleasure of helping the fans. Perhaps there is some benefit in terms of prestige and community status, but that and a $1 won't get you subway token in NYC.
What about our future? As long as fans enjoy Fallout 1 and Fallout 2, we'll be around. And we'll still be critical and difficult. While Bethesda may wish to see us gone, frankly they can fuck themselves. I hope that our community will still churn out mods that will draw fans to Fallout, and that the mods will be more expansive and interesting. Killap's mod, for instance, suggests what is possible within our community.
You're point on Spiderman is correct, but sadly Fallout doesn't have quite the fan strength of Spiderman. Whereas Marvel continues to sell spiderman products for return, Fallout as an RPG is about a decade old. Many of the old fans have tired of waiting for a sequel and are willing to make many compromises to see a new Fallout, that is, if they are still waiting. How many will be willing to compromise most of what Fallout was about in order to get "something" like they saw a decade ago?
If Marvel fans were waiting a decade to see Spiderman, what kinds of compromises would they be willing to make?
Edit: @ horst. And if we are to discuss what's actually in the paper, not Fallout specifically, then let me point out that this whole thread has been about information and interpretation. Which is encouraging for me to see. It means that maybe my general conclusions about fan interaction weren't utter crap.
No, they are not. They are, from what I have read, quite insightful.
However, to understand why these interactions exist as they do, a few suggestions-
(1) understanding the causal logic of why Bethesda has followed the policy it has for fan interaction is critical. It seems you are looking at consequences more than cause.
(2) To understand causality, you must understand motivation and preferences- what are the interests between the communities. Then you have consider power and information. What power does the community have in shaping Bethesda's designs. In a sense, this is about compromise and conflict between two communities- each with different types of power and different resources.
(3) comparison case study- you can look at other gaming systems, but to understand fan interaction in the fallout community, you need comparisons with Interplay and BIS.
)
