The Trouble with Fallout

[CannibalKid]

I'm a new member here, but i've been reading a lot of the posts concerning the cancelling of Fallout 3, and it raised a few questions about the game and it's incarnations.

For me, Fallout 1 was the best story i have ever had the pleasure of experiencing from a video game, and i don't think i'm the only one who thinks so. I've seen articles talking nothing but good praises about the Fallout universe, and i even remember the Master Mutant winning the best villain on Gamespot a few years ago. However, it seems that have the best story in video game history, doesn't nesscessarily mean that it will be a lucrative franchise.

At the university i attend, most of the students go there because there is a video game development degree, and because of this people from the various game development studios show up. Last semester one of the Higher up guys from Red Storm (Rainbow Six games) showed up and talking about stuff... To get to the point, franchise games are VERY important to them.

When you look at the spectrum of Fallout games they seem to have trouble pinpointing the actual genre they want to market the game. FO1 & 2 were RPGs. FOT was labeled a Tactical game when it wasn't a very big departure from the previous RPGs, and now the new action game that carries the Fallout name...

It sounds like they want to do something with the Fallout Franchise but don't what to do. FO started out with a very similar feel to those original RPGs from the mid 80's that told great stories and were impacted by the players actions. The gameplay wasn't the best thing on the market, but you played because you loved the experience of such a innovative game. Even the manual's design had tons of extra crap that just added to the immersion of the game (remember the recipes?). FO2 was very similar, but had a lot of bad things that were required to do, much like an Anti-Ultima game.

Then Fallout Tactics show up. This felt like a FO game that finally had it's combat system reworked at the cost of a story. I guess this was an attempt at a multiplayer FO... But it still got "Tactics" in its title...

Now Theres Fallout: BOS, which seems like 1 of two things happened. One Interplay had a less than spectacular game, so they affiliate it with the Fallout series so it will have increased sales. Or they decided that Fallout Franchise is unique enough to warrant "Spin Offs". The producers know that Franchises will always sell some games on their affiliation alone.

Even if the developers returned to the roots and made FO3 as the pinnacle of video game RPGs, and we start seeing all these reviewers raving about it like they did from the first game, it doesn't nesscessarily mean there will be plenty of cash to go around for everyone.

I read a post that showed involvement of companies like Vivendi in some audit for Interplay. If that means Vivendi is a player in Interplay's producing aspects, you can be sure they are not interested in providing a game that pretty much caters to a small niche, as they are trying to monopolize the PC market much like EA has the consoles...

If you look at the trends of popular "RPGs" that came out recently, i can't think of very many that aren't MMORPG, and the ones that aren't (Neverwinter Nights is all i can think of at this time), even they have multiplayer gaming. The FF games are one of the few RPGs for consoles that still make good money, but they're often terrible games, and now Square has jumped on the MMO boat.

Is the trouble with Fallout simple the fact that the FO that everyone here wants is not economically viable in the current gaming market?

 

[Longinus]

The problem is developers want to make as much money as possible. I see no reason why Fallout 3 couldn't have been a nice profit earner for Interplay; it was widely anticipated after all. Needless to say, Interplay has shot itself in the leg by cancelling what it perceived to be a less than viable investment.

If Interplay wants to focus exlusively on console games, then it shouldn't make spin off games to famous PC RPGs. Doing so is an insult.

 

[welsh]

agreed.

 

[Dan]

The problem is developers want to make as much money as possible.

Those are publishers, not developers.

 

[CannibalKid]

But thats the point i'm talking about. The publishers want to make as much money as possible, and using the time that it takes to design a new engine and then a game on top of that could be better spent on some other title, because the Fallout franchise may not be as easy to sell as new Baldurs Gate games and these types of things.

Keep in mind, that i'm refering to the majority of FO games and not the recent FO3 and Interplay money problems.

The first two games came out in 97 and then 98. Indicating that there was probably high interest in the game, but after FO2, we didn't see a game till 2001 and then it was re-genreized as a Tactical Combat game. Then there was another action Fallout game that comes out this month, three years after the Tactics relase.

If the FO series sold very well, i doubt any of the publishers would want to alienate the audience by creating different games with the Fallout title if they didn't think these routes would be more lucrative for them.

Then you combine the less than spactacular sales of Fallout games with the changes of the interests that favor multiplayer games. To the average gamer the a Fallout RPG might not looks as attractive.