Why Bethesda needs Fallout like Vault 13 needs a Waterchip

Silencer

Silencer

Night Watchman
Staff member
Admin
Mr. Teatime has us publish an article by him, which, 35 years after the Watergate (not watershed), should cast some luminence on the intricate dependencies that are the stuff of Fallout 3's success or ignomious failure.

Also, a nice read.<blockquote>A few weeks ago, Kieron Gillen predicted that Fallout 3 “will disappoint Fallout fans and delight everyone else”. He questioned why Bethesda bought the license if they could have an easier time of it just developing their own post-apocalyptic RPG from scratch. Why bother with a sequel if the fans of the series will be disappointed? His conclusion: “Bethesda are just dirty big Fallout fans and would love to play in the Sandbox.”

I think there’s more to it than that; ultimately, Bethesda needs Fallout. What’s more, they need Fallout 3 to please the fans. They didn’t need Fallout before announcing they had started work on the game, but they do now. It’s quite a journey getting to that conclusion, but take a seat next to this burning oil drum, help yourself to some rotgut… well, it’s mostly rotgut; don’t worry about the lumps… and let me explain.

There’s a fundamental key that any developer or publisher bravely striding into the Fallout universe should know, and if they don’t, they’ll learn it by the time their game is released: Fallout is all about the fans. The decent games stopped coming almost ten years ago; what’s left is a fanbase that’s notorious amongst geek and gaming culture for being rabid, mutated, angry, discordant, for infighting and for being argumentative and perverse. </blockquote>Read the full article here: Why Bethesda needs Fallout like Vault 13 needs a Waterchip?

Thanks Mr. Teatime!
 
I like this. I now remember why Mr. Teatime is such a great fan. I know he serves a position at DAC, but I had no idea he wrote as well.

Great job!

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
 
Wonderful read, and 'simple to get' as well. Not overly complex nor confrontational, but with a good message.

what’s left is a fanbase that’s notorious amongst geek and gaming culture for being rabid, mutated, angry, discordant, for infighting and for being argumentative and perverse.
Click to expand...

I might steal that for a sig, haha.
 
Fair enough read but I don't agree with it at all. Oblivion is mainstream but Daggerfall and Arena were cult, presumably. Oblivion took the existing franchise, chiseled off the rough awkward edges and was made to be mainstream (arguably Morrowind was as well but not as much). The same will happen with Fallout. Has to to justify the money involved.
 
Thanks for the compliments guys. And you might have a point about Arena and Daggerfall - I don't know their sales figures, but wasn't there huge hype for Morrowind? I guess, if Daggerfall was a cult game (which is debatable, wasn't it pretty big at the time?), MW was the transition process to mainstream, and Oblivion completed the process. Maybe the same path will be followed with Fallout 3 and 4?

And to The Vault Dweller - I do write quite a bit actually - if you're interested, you can check out my (mainly) gaming blog at <plug>http://www.mr-teatime.co.uk and hitting the, erm, 'words' option. While the <plug> tag is still open, I may as well mention the option to Digg this story. I've never been dug properly before and, well, if you like the article, go for it :) </plug>
 
Cool writing Mr. Teatime
It made me feel as if I was there sitting next to a burning barrel listening to the mysterious stranger talk. Good read and it was informative too.
 
Good article, Teats, could have done without the forced jokes, but to each his own, I guess.

IMO Morrowind was full on mainstream, no doubt about it.
 
I agree, the reason the Fallout license was worth anything still is because of the fallout fan base, period.
 
Re: Why Bethesda needs Fallout like Vault 13 needs a Waterch

Silencer said:
A few weeks ago, Kieron Gillen predicted that Fallout 3 “will disappoint Fallout fans and delight everyone else”. He questioned why Bethesda bought the license if they could have an easier time of it just developing their own post-apocalyptic RPG from scratch. Why bother with a sequel if the fans of the series will be disappointed? His conclusion: “Bethesda are just dirty big Fallout fans and would love to play in the Sandbox.”
Click to expand...
I don't share that conclusion.
If I look at current comments in game magazines or in the Beth forums, I read, that many people are expecting an Oblivion-like game, and so are the expectations of many of the current Oblivion fans. Those guys are ignored in the past, because we haven't counted them as 'fans'. But they are fans - fans of Beth, fans of TES, but not fans of Fallout. They're expecting a game that is similar to Oblivion, other possibilities are beyond their imagination. Many of that guys don't have a clue about what Fallout is, and they see it as a game which could shorten the time 'til next TES release.
Bethesda has to avoid irritations among them not to alienize their current fanbase, and an "RPG" of different gameplay style would result in such irritations.
Bethesda need fans - right, but Bethesda has fans already.
 
taxacaria said:
Bethesda need fans - right, but Bethesda has fans already.
Click to expand...

Besthesda will also be hoping to pull in some of the FPS fans who want to try something a bit more "deep & meaningful". Fans of games like Half-Life 2 could be coaxed over to FO3 with the promise of the same dark/gloomy setting, but with the "thinkyness" of Oblivion.

Mick
 
Mr. Teatime said:
I suspect, however, Bethesda are becoming increasingly aware of the rock-solid umbilical cord between Fallout and its fans. The company is not as stupid as Interplay was in its final days, and Brotherhood of Steel still serves as a shining example of how the misapplication of thongs, hookers and drugs – all one would need, you would think, for a good time – can devastate a Fallout game.

It boils down to this. Bethesda have sunk enough time and money into Fallout 3 that they can’t back out without facing awkward questions from both gamers and shareholders. They need to finish it, and, given the lifeline between Fallout and its fanbase explained above, if they want a success and to keep their reputation, they need the fans to like it.

With the company’s gradual realisation comes this niggling hunch that dares us to think the unthinkable, to dream the impossible dream: Bethesda might get it right.
Click to expand...


Hey, that's neat. You know what else is neat? Bethesda needed Star Trek fans to like ST: Legacy, as well. But what they did was pressure Mad Doc Software into releasing it so prematurely that the PC port remains virtually unplayable, offer barely extant product support, and blackball the largest Star Trek gaming community as the coup de grâce.

While it could be argued that Todd'n'Pete are learning from their previous mistakes, I'd have to point out that to this day, both of the adorable little chuckleheads swear up and down that TES: Oblivion, level scaling included, has never dissapointed anyone, STG is still blackballed, and Ashley Cheng is giving out free lessons in the art of dodging criticism the Bethesda Way.

So I'm wondering where their 'gradual realisation' and 'increasing awareness' comes from, especially when Bethesda is following in Interplay's footsteps to the point of taking a realtime swords and sorcery console hack-n-slash, retooling it into a post-apoc setting, and calling it Fallout. Not to mention their attitude towards feedback, which consists of ignoring negative buzz until it rises above the comfort zone, then suspending forum posters, locking threads, and blackballing fansites.

And who could forget the growing mountain of quotes from Pete Hines stating that Bethesda is designing Fallout 3 using the same creative process they used with Oblivion, which according to Peteyboy, resulted in a game that moved The Elder Scrolls forward while... *Snicker*... staying true to the series?

Your article does quite a good job of illustrating why shitting out yet another Tactics or FO:BoS and calling it Fallout 3 is commercial suicide, but I really am puzzling over this idea that Bethesda is slowly hatching a clue when nothing, aside from the usual lipservice spouted by Pete and Todd, even remotely suggests that they are.
 
Well, ST Legacy wasn't made by Bethesda, so there's clearly more to the story there. Fallout will, and is, be hyped as the next big game from Bethesda, currently the darling-child of RPGs. And when people ask 'what's Fallout? What was fallout 1 and 2?' they'll look to the net, to their friends who played those games, to find out what the games were about, and fallout 3 will be judged accordingly.

The more I think about it, the more I think Fallout 3 can't be sold on Bethesda's name alone, especially if they intend to keep the '3' tagline, and the canon and setting in tact (which I've seen every indication that they plan to). A post apocalyptic wasteland crossed with 1950s advertising and a distinct lack of heavy metal is too obscure a setting to instantly appeal to the gamer looking at games on the shelf.
 
RPG of the year!! said:
Your article does quite a good job of illustrating why shitting out yet another Tactics or FO:BoS and calling it Fallout 3 is commercial suicide, but I really am puzzling over this idea that Bethesda is slowly hatching a clue when nothing, aside from the usual lipservice spouted by Pete and Todd, even remotely suggests that they are.
Click to expand...

Let's call it a positivist assumption, shall we? After all, if it's a dichotomy, which you seem to agree on, and the two options are danger-land of trying to pull another Oblivion or good-land of making a decent game...well, if they pull another Oblivion, we know where they are, and will be heading. The article covers that too
 
RPG of the year!! said:
While it could be argued that Todd'n'Pete are learning from their previous mistakes, I'd have to point out that to this day, both of the adorable little chuckleheads swear up and down that TES: Oblivion, level scaling included, has never dissapointed anyone, STG is still blackballed, and Ashley Cheng is giving out free lessons in the art of dodging criticism the Bethesda Way.
Click to expand...
Not really on topic, but as I see it again here the repeated use of the Bloody Mess image (also in Fallout's Wikipedia article) is starting to become aggravating.
Like there were no other perks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top