C
ctaylor
Guest
Hiya!
This post is mostly to try and answer some of Roshambo's major concerns and points. While I don't know how useful this will be to anyone, please feel free to follow up and comment.
First off, I'd like to thank Roshambo for being very vocal in his criticism about Tactics. It is actually pretty helpful to me to read his posts. I'm sure he is not alone in his opinions about Tactics. Directly answering his concerns may help reach others. Thus, to be honest, I may either convince people to give Tactics a spin or confirm their opinions and help them purchase another title.
By the way, I feel a little uncomfortable paraphrasing your arguments, Roshambo, please correct me or point out errors. I'm primarily doing this so that I can understand your concerns better.
1. Tactics is only intended to create profit for Interplay
Well, heck, it's mostly true. All games at Interplay are intended to create profit for the company. Fallout certainly was. Descent to Undermountain was as well. In general, this philosophy doesn't affect the actual quality of the games as much as the development team. Yes, I want Tactics to be a best-seller. I'm greedy... but I think that Interplay is certainly willing to take more chances than the usual company. Fallout, Planescape: Torment, Starfleet Command are all examples of non-formula games that I feel would have had difficulty being made at a variety of companies. Tactics actually falls into the same category. It is a little unusual of a title. It was not proposed by senior management (like most games here are), it was proposed by Brian Christian and Micro-Forté. The actual idea isn't that far off from what we talked about during the development of Fallout 1. Jagged Alliance and X-Com were both very inspirational in the development of Fallout. We think Tactics could sell enough copies to generate a profit (otherwise, we would not do it -- that road lies madness), but we certainly do not expect it to be Baldur's Gate accessible, so we don't expect BG numbers.
2. Switching the genre hurts the original
I think this is really debatable. Most sequels do not hold their own, let alone spin-offs raising the quality of the series. There are exceptions (Ultima and Ultima Underworld, M&M and HOMM, FF and FF: Tactics, Wing Commander and Privateer, Dune and Dune II, Warlords and Warlords Battlecry). I think a lot of it depends on the dev team and their passion for the title. Ultima and Dune are probably the two best examples of that. Both of their spin-offs were produced by other teams, who had a strong vision for their game in the heads. It gets really tricky when talking about "vision" and I think it's an overused word, but it does actually exist. With Fallout 1, we had a strong team vision that kept the majority of the team headed in the same direction. Tactics has a similar team vision. There is no hard and fast rule that says we have to make a spin-off that sucks. If you treat the original with the proper respect, while treating the new genre with the same passion that you brought to the first game, there really is no reason why you can't make a cross-genre switch. Could Fallout work in a FPS environment? I think it could, but I admit I have a lot of trouble "groking" it. I do not have that same problem with Tactics. Could we do a racer in Fallout? Sure, we could -- should we is a better question. And I think it's that same doubt that you may see with Tactics. I don't share that doubt. For me, the strategy genre was a strong influence on Fallout to begin with. I certainly enjoy playing both types of games.
3. Tactics will negatively affect the RPG series
I can strongly refute this, but without proof, the refute is fairly meaningless on it's own. Proof will not be forthcoming until FO3 is on the shelves, and that is a question I cannot answer at this time. You will really have to trust me when I say that whatever happens to Tactics, it will not affect the RPG series. Different divisions, teams and resources. Marketing and Sales aren't treating the two as the same. Upper management knows this is an experiment and that Tactics failing doesn't mean the next RPG would fail. They aren't afraid of us failing, however, from what I gather. Response to Tactics is very positive from within the company, and we can be very harsh on a title if it deserves it (for all the bashing DTU got outside the company, that bashing pales in comparison to what we did to do it. cf, Waterworld and Clayfighter 63 1/3.)
4. Fallout Tactics will replace the RPG
Similar to #3. The RPG series will remain standalone. It will not be affected by Tactics, even if Tactics sells x2-x10 as much.
5. Tactics lacks what made Fallout a classic RPG
In some respects, it does. We are leaving out what I consider some of Fallout's best traits (complex dialogue and non-violent solutions). However, we are concentrating on different qualities to promote. And we still have character dependent dialogue and non-violent solutions. It's a different mix. I certainly do not want Fallout Tactics to be a poor RPG clone. There has to be enough differences between the two games to firmly separate them. This is intentional. However, we aren't just using the Fallout name and slapping a different game under the hood without considering the source material. We are very strongly influenced by Fallout, and we are always going "In Fallout, we did it this way..." and "It worked for Fallout because..." We have found several solutions to game design problems that were the exact same solutions to gameplay issues in Fallout. The reason why have is because they work.
I think Tactics does a couple very good things:
A) Keeps the Fallout name in circulation while we wait for FO3.
B) Provides gameplay that the RPG series cannot provide thanks to the different focus.
C) Allows us to explore different aspects of the Fallout world and clarify some of the history of various Fallout factions.
D) Attract a new population of Fallout players.
E) Proves the success of Fallout.
I'd also like to apologize for some of my more emotional arguments. While working on a game, I get very passionate about it. I certainly feel this way about Tactics.
Hope this is helpful. I will be leaving for Micro-Forté for a couple of weeks soon. Hopefully, I will be able to monitor this thread before I leave or while I am there.
Roshambo,
Please feel free to send me your phone number and a time to call, if you would like. E-mail and posts don't always communicate as well as live voice can. My e-mail address is: ctaylor@interplay.com
Thank all of your for giving me an opportunity to understand these issues.
pax,
-Chris
This post is mostly to try and answer some of Roshambo's major concerns and points. While I don't know how useful this will be to anyone, please feel free to follow up and comment.
First off, I'd like to thank Roshambo for being very vocal in his criticism about Tactics. It is actually pretty helpful to me to read his posts. I'm sure he is not alone in his opinions about Tactics. Directly answering his concerns may help reach others. Thus, to be honest, I may either convince people to give Tactics a spin or confirm their opinions and help them purchase another title.
By the way, I feel a little uncomfortable paraphrasing your arguments, Roshambo, please correct me or point out errors. I'm primarily doing this so that I can understand your concerns better.
1. Tactics is only intended to create profit for Interplay
Well, heck, it's mostly true. All games at Interplay are intended to create profit for the company. Fallout certainly was. Descent to Undermountain was as well. In general, this philosophy doesn't affect the actual quality of the games as much as the development team. Yes, I want Tactics to be a best-seller. I'm greedy... but I think that Interplay is certainly willing to take more chances than the usual company. Fallout, Planescape: Torment, Starfleet Command are all examples of non-formula games that I feel would have had difficulty being made at a variety of companies. Tactics actually falls into the same category. It is a little unusual of a title. It was not proposed by senior management (like most games here are), it was proposed by Brian Christian and Micro-Forté. The actual idea isn't that far off from what we talked about during the development of Fallout 1. Jagged Alliance and X-Com were both very inspirational in the development of Fallout. We think Tactics could sell enough copies to generate a profit (otherwise, we would not do it -- that road lies madness), but we certainly do not expect it to be Baldur's Gate accessible, so we don't expect BG numbers.
2. Switching the genre hurts the original
I think this is really debatable. Most sequels do not hold their own, let alone spin-offs raising the quality of the series. There are exceptions (Ultima and Ultima Underworld, M&M and HOMM, FF and FF: Tactics, Wing Commander and Privateer, Dune and Dune II, Warlords and Warlords Battlecry). I think a lot of it depends on the dev team and their passion for the title. Ultima and Dune are probably the two best examples of that. Both of their spin-offs were produced by other teams, who had a strong vision for their game in the heads. It gets really tricky when talking about "vision" and I think it's an overused word, but it does actually exist. With Fallout 1, we had a strong team vision that kept the majority of the team headed in the same direction. Tactics has a similar team vision. There is no hard and fast rule that says we have to make a spin-off that sucks. If you treat the original with the proper respect, while treating the new genre with the same passion that you brought to the first game, there really is no reason why you can't make a cross-genre switch. Could Fallout work in a FPS environment? I think it could, but I admit I have a lot of trouble "groking" it. I do not have that same problem with Tactics. Could we do a racer in Fallout? Sure, we could -- should we is a better question. And I think it's that same doubt that you may see with Tactics. I don't share that doubt. For me, the strategy genre was a strong influence on Fallout to begin with. I certainly enjoy playing both types of games.
3. Tactics will negatively affect the RPG series
I can strongly refute this, but without proof, the refute is fairly meaningless on it's own. Proof will not be forthcoming until FO3 is on the shelves, and that is a question I cannot answer at this time. You will really have to trust me when I say that whatever happens to Tactics, it will not affect the RPG series. Different divisions, teams and resources. Marketing and Sales aren't treating the two as the same. Upper management knows this is an experiment and that Tactics failing doesn't mean the next RPG would fail. They aren't afraid of us failing, however, from what I gather. Response to Tactics is very positive from within the company, and we can be very harsh on a title if it deserves it (for all the bashing DTU got outside the company, that bashing pales in comparison to what we did to do it. cf, Waterworld and Clayfighter 63 1/3.)
4. Fallout Tactics will replace the RPG
Similar to #3. The RPG series will remain standalone. It will not be affected by Tactics, even if Tactics sells x2-x10 as much.
5. Tactics lacks what made Fallout a classic RPG
In some respects, it does. We are leaving out what I consider some of Fallout's best traits (complex dialogue and non-violent solutions). However, we are concentrating on different qualities to promote. And we still have character dependent dialogue and non-violent solutions. It's a different mix. I certainly do not want Fallout Tactics to be a poor RPG clone. There has to be enough differences between the two games to firmly separate them. This is intentional. However, we aren't just using the Fallout name and slapping a different game under the hood without considering the source material. We are very strongly influenced by Fallout, and we are always going "In Fallout, we did it this way..." and "It worked for Fallout because..." We have found several solutions to game design problems that were the exact same solutions to gameplay issues in Fallout. The reason why have is because they work.
I think Tactics does a couple very good things:
A) Keeps the Fallout name in circulation while we wait for FO3.
B) Provides gameplay that the RPG series cannot provide thanks to the different focus.
C) Allows us to explore different aspects of the Fallout world and clarify some of the history of various Fallout factions.
D) Attract a new population of Fallout players.
E) Proves the success of Fallout.
I'd also like to apologize for some of my more emotional arguments. While working on a game, I get very passionate about it. I certainly feel this way about Tactics.
Hope this is helpful. I will be leaving for Micro-Forté for a couple of weeks soon. Hopefully, I will be able to monitor this thread before I leave or while I am there.
Roshambo,
Please feel free to send me your phone number and a time to call, if you would like. E-mail and posts don't always communicate as well as live voice can. My e-mail address is: ctaylor@interplay.com
Thank all of your for giving me an opportunity to understand these issues.
pax,
-Chris
