Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Recently, a lot of NMA members have blown their tops after statements such as, "We may or may not use the SPECIAL system," and, "A top down isometric view isn't what we do well." Some would say that they're overeacting, and I certainly think they could do with some more tact, but they're more than justified.
But why? Bethesda payed the money to acquire the license, surely they should develop the game as they see fit. While this may be true, people have certain expectations about a sequel. And that's what this is, a sequel to Fallout 2. Not Fallout: Wasteland, or Fallout: Crappy Subtitle, Fallout 3. Sequels are supposed to stick to the original formula, while possibly adding new features to aid or improve upon the original design.
Would people want a Baldurs Gate 3 that didn't use D&D rules? Or an Elder Scrolls game that wasn't First Person? Would Panzer General 2 been as beloved as it was if it was a tank simulator? Even with the last example, though, Panzer General 2 was in many ways inferior to it's Panzer General and Allied General predecessors, due to the linearity of it's campaigns, and the loss of several neat features.
People expect a sequel to be like its predecessors. They expect Fallout 3 to have an isometric view, and they expect it to use the SPECIAL rules system. Any game that didn't just wouldn't be like Fallout. They also expect it to have turn based combat, branching dialogue trees, and an abundance of 50's pop culture influence. Fallout: Tactics and Fallout: BOS didn't have these things, which was why they weren't called Fallout 3. They were different games.
Following the original design formula is the difference between making a proper Fallout sequel, and just a game with Fallout's name. Of course, Bethesda doesn't have to do this. The property is theirs, and they can do what they want with it. But making a true sequel will cement Bethesda's reputation as a company that's faithful to the fans, instead of a company that's simply out to make a cheap dollar.
I'm not saying that Bethesda is incapable of making a good Fallout game, or a good game period. But why change something that works? If it isn't broke, don't fix it.
I'd encourage Bethesda employees not to be afraid of Fallout fans, but to consult them, and former Fallout developers, on how to make a great Fallout sequel. I'd also encourage Fallout fans, and NMA members especially, not to freak out and act like idiots with the slightest provocation. You'll catch more bees with honey than vinegar.
But why? Bethesda payed the money to acquire the license, surely they should develop the game as they see fit. While this may be true, people have certain expectations about a sequel. And that's what this is, a sequel to Fallout 2. Not Fallout: Wasteland, or Fallout: Crappy Subtitle, Fallout 3. Sequels are supposed to stick to the original formula, while possibly adding new features to aid or improve upon the original design.
Would people want a Baldurs Gate 3 that didn't use D&D rules? Or an Elder Scrolls game that wasn't First Person? Would Panzer General 2 been as beloved as it was if it was a tank simulator? Even with the last example, though, Panzer General 2 was in many ways inferior to it's Panzer General and Allied General predecessors, due to the linearity of it's campaigns, and the loss of several neat features.
People expect a sequel to be like its predecessors. They expect Fallout 3 to have an isometric view, and they expect it to use the SPECIAL rules system. Any game that didn't just wouldn't be like Fallout. They also expect it to have turn based combat, branching dialogue trees, and an abundance of 50's pop culture influence. Fallout: Tactics and Fallout: BOS didn't have these things, which was why they weren't called Fallout 3. They were different games.
Following the original design formula is the difference between making a proper Fallout sequel, and just a game with Fallout's name. Of course, Bethesda doesn't have to do this. The property is theirs, and they can do what they want with it. But making a true sequel will cement Bethesda's reputation as a company that's faithful to the fans, instead of a company that's simply out to make a cheap dollar.
I'm not saying that Bethesda is incapable of making a good Fallout game, or a good game period. But why change something that works? If it isn't broke, don't fix it.
I'd encourage Bethesda employees not to be afraid of Fallout fans, but to consult them, and former Fallout developers, on how to make a great Fallout sequel. I'd also encourage Fallout fans, and NMA members especially, not to freak out and act like idiots with the slightest provocation. You'll catch more bees with honey than vinegar.
