Zippy's Thread

[UncannyGarlic]

<steam>

DRM is DRM and I don't care how you dress it up or what other features you give it, it still eats up unnecessary resources. Again, it's as simple as not requiring it to run in order to the play their games.

Many haters of popular media, FO3 haters included, like to think that a massive majority of opinions are wrong and their opinions are right. They have to justify their opinion to try and give it some kind of factual basis. They have to prove their opinion. They have no way to come to terms with the fact that their opinion differs from most people's and can't see that that's actually alright.

Opinions without factual support are wrong, especially when opposing opinions have such support.

As far as sales go: neither KOTOR2 nor NWN did well - certainly not in the way that Bethesda has.

They acchieved their sales goals and thus they did well.

Bethesda has been putting deeper and deeper RPG experiences in to the hands of gamers who otherwise wouldn't play them.

What "deeper and deeper RPG experiences" are you speaking of? And it isn't reaching the broadest audience, FFXII sold more in it's first week in Japan and the US individually than Fallout 3 had sold in America by January 2009. WoW has over 10million players playing it, so if you're going to talk about a RPG reaching more players who wouldn't otherwise play RPGs, WoW would be the game to sight. That said, sure, Fallout 3 got some FPS players to play it but just because it attracts customers doesn't mean it attracts long term customers.

Plenty of bad games with huge marketing have done poor as one would expect. Ask EA.

I assume you mean Spore? It sold 2 million in it first three weeks and has an 84 on metacritic. That is not doing poor. Now since then, a lot of customers have criticized it and that criticism has been heard, but keep in mind that EA doesn't have the same type of marketing or defensive fans as Bethesda. It's like criticizing Ron Paul, if you say something nasty about him you can damn well expect a couple of his supporters to find the post and respond to it. So here's a question for you, is Spore a good game?

EDIT:

Morrowind was a somewhat hardcore niche action-RPG.

No, not really. Certainly less so than Fallout 1&2, which also weren't all that niche (they were targeting RPG players in general).

Morrowind was a somewhat hardcore niche action-RPG. Oblivion was not. Oblivion was a little like baby's first true RPG, especially at first. And Fallout 3 did a lot less hand holding than that.

I will agree that Oblivion was less hardcore than Morrowind simply because it was easier and simpler (and worse). As for Fallout 3 doing "a lot less hand holding," not really as you still have the quest compass and they are still extremely explicit about what you need to do and they never trick you. That said, situations don't always have the result you were going for but that was generally implemented in a shitty manner. That said, I think most will agree that Fallout 3 was a step up from Oblivion.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

That's not what I'm talking about, and you know it. I meant personal insults.

Oh it very much is what you're talking about, you just misunderstood what I was talking about. As long as people talk about how great people are I see no reason to disallow people from insulting them. For example, labeling Todd, Pete, or Emil as genius, visionary, or great is no different from labeling them as stupid, greedy, or an asshole.

I've seen TV commercials and the game has gotten a ton of press. But the more time you spend at NMA, I guess I'm not surprised. GTA = Grand Theft Auto. Heard of that?

Oh wow, how clever. If I haven't seen commercials or ads for it then it wasn't as well advertised as Fallout 3 or many other games which I see banner ads for, even games which are fairly niche unlike GTA and Fallout 3.

That is also an opinion - from someone being modest.

No it's a fact, a fact admitted by a not so modest producer. Fallout 3's FPS gameplay can be measured against other FPS games on the market and it is clearly worse for a combination of gameplay reasons (AI, controls, RPG elements, cone of fire, cover options, etc.).

The Utility suit had tools in the pockets to help you with repairing and lockpicking. There, explained. Who cares anway? This is the kind of nitpicking I was talking about.

It's plain stupid and it's far too powerful. You get get up to an additional 45 skill points to a number of skills with this equipment, which is equivilent to 90 in Fallout 1&2. You can get up to a 20point boost in a single skill with equipment, which is equivalent to 40 which was what you got to Lockpick with the best lockpicks in Tactics (so it may be alright). Also keep in mind that one of Bethesda's main goals and criteria for their games is "immersion" and magic clothing instead of tools in the Fallout setting breaks this. How does a lab coat increase the player's science and medicine skills? How does a hat increase the player's explosive and melee weapons skills? This isn't about realism, it's about cohesion and what is realistic in the game world. If something is clearly logically out of place, I'll note it. For example, why does project purity require a GECK, which only has a small waterchip, and not a much larger waterchip like that in the Vaults? Granted, these are smaller issues when compared with some of the larger problems the game has, but there are a shitload of problems around this size that make quite a large pile.

 

[Public]

The Utility suit had tools in the pockets to help you with repairing and lockpicking. There, explained.

If you designed something, that needed to be presented to people who are willing to buy it, would you say something like that when someone asked you a quastion?

You: So yes, any quastions?

Guy1: How can it work on the long distances?

You: Hell I know? Maybe you use a remote controler, duh.

Guy1: But...

You: You are being nitpicking mister!


The point of a sci-fi setting in movies, books, novels, games (like in Fallout), is to stick with a reasonable explanation for the world's design. Fantasy setting doesn't need that kind of a design, because of use of the magic, that doesn't need a scientific explanation.
In Fallout 3 there is no reasonable explanations, for example why a lab coat makes you a better scientist or why a hat give you an ability to see at night.

Who cares anway? This is the kind of nitpicking I was talking about.

Sure, who cares? This is just a game right? Who cares if it doesn't fit with the setting (sci-fi =/= fantasy). Who would care if they put Pokemons in the game?

Who cares if The Dark Knight wasn't true to the comic books? They're just comic books, and everyone who's complaining, not liking the movie, is being nitpikcking!

Who cares about freedom of speech on the net? It's just an internet and if you don't like having less freedom, then don't use it at all!

People are just being nitpicking about stuff.

If you don't like war in Iraq, then ignore it! Jeezzz.



Welcome to the 21st century...

 

[UncannyGarlic]

One of these things matters. One of them does not.

One of them matters for a game in general, both of them matter for a Fallout sequel, particularly one meeting the expectations and desires of Fallout fans. Keep in mind that the original comment was about the game being what Fallout fans have been waiting for.

I had a blast playing Oblivion and Morrowind last month. They're damn good games. Please refute.

Great for you, if a sample size of one was sufficient to speak of the lasting appeal of a game then you'd have proved that both games have such an appeal. Since that's not the case, you have not proved that they are good games. Suggesting that people have to prove that a game is not good rather than prove that they are is a bit absurd, in something isn't something until it is proved to be that something, thus a game is not good or bad until it's proved.

But the actual point is that I don't let those games ruin my experience of every damn game that comes out since, something that some people here seem to have a real problem with.

I don't let another game ruin my experience of a sequel or spin-off, I simply note what is true. I like Fallout Tactics for what it is and it does an adequate job at it. It's a bad Fallout game but I'd say that it does more right than, say, Fallout 3 or PoS. You assume far too much about people.

It was sappy and annoying and not really my kind of film, but it was a fantastic movie for millions of people. That's what makes it good.

It's a shitty movie and critics have come around to getting past some of the initial glamor and found it's flaws, as have many consumers. There were a lot of jokes about the movie at the time because some people saw then what most people see now, it's a crappy movie.

Considering some of the opinions here that it's unbearable after five minutes, I thought that argument would have some impact on them. Clearly it doesn't on you.

It takes some people longer to see flaws than others. See the Titanic example or Spore.

You ever actually look at ads on most game sites? Most are general internet-based. The lion's share is most definitely not from game publishers. There have been some highly publicized issues on a couple sites, but I can counter any Kane & Lynch example with an IGN McGriddles example.

Yes but you're leaving out magazines the the information they publish. All of those exclusive articles and interviews on IGN are there because of how well they treat and review games by big game companies. IGN has been known to edit out sections of reviews or even take them down if they are too negative or if they get complaints from developers, they even took down part of the Fallout 3 review mentioning the bugs, though I believe they put it back up after getting shit from their competitors for it.

General advertising is where the funding comes from, not game companies. If a publisher puts you up in a hotel for a night or two to preview a game out in California, that's a business trip. It's not a lavish vacation. It's work.

Much of their advertising revenue comes from advertising games and when a company puts a journalist up in a hotel, many times that hotel is a 5-star hotel, that's more than a business trip, it's a bribe. When a company pays for journalists to get taken on a ride in F16s, that's a bribe. When a company sends someone to help a journalist play a game, that's manipulation.

Many game publications and sites, including quite a few who gave Fallout 3 a good review because they *gasp* enjoyed it, do just fine without this.

Some did and some didn't, some of the articles were pretty negetive and the score clearly didn't match up with what was said. Regardless, the score is overinflated and it's well known that many developers have deals with media publishers not to publish a pre-release review if it's less than a certain score (usually 9 though sometimes it's 10). The more you play ball, the better treatment you get, the more information and coverage you are given access to, the more information and coverage you can provide, the more readership you will get. It's all about making money and if it so happens that being less than honest and/or objective is the best way to make that money, then that is the route media companies will take.

Journalism != game journalism. A normal journalist covering game stuff very rarely gets things right. Additionally, there is no Game Journalism degree. The qualifications in game journalism come from experience in game journalism - they build their skills as they do the job.

"Rules of journalism" (the rules journalists are taught in school when they get their degree) are universal to whatever information you may cover. Most game journalists don't even have an English degree, let alone a degree in journalism. The only reason these people are called "professional game journalists" is because they are getting paid to cover information about games. Yes, many journalists do not have much experience with video games so don't have some of the required background in order to be a game journalist, just like many game journalists don't have any journalism background which are required in order to be a proper game journalist. Again, I listed other critics with a community which mostly does a proper job covering their subject.

There have been no multi-million-selling games the way I described in the last few years.

No one wants no voice acting, that has never been listed as a criterion. That aside, there have been games which fit that description and have sold that well, namely Pokemon (though battle is in a different perspective). I have no numbers for Civ 4 and all I have for Civ Revolutions is the horrible VGChartz but they list that game as having sold over a million copies. Still, there have not been many big budget Iso TB games with massive ad campaigns in that time period either.

Nor have any gotten any kind of universal acclaim.

Civ 4 has a 94 on metacritic, Civ Rev has an 85, and Pokemon Diamond and Pearl have 85s. Chrono Trigger sold 2.65 million for the PS and SNES combined and another .71million for the DS, which isn't half bad for the third re-release.

There are some exceptions on mobile platforms where you just can't pack in full 3D environments and voice dialogue.

The only mobile platform that doesn't have the power to support 3D is mobile phones, and that's quickly changing.

Meaning that they won't have the same audience as a Western game.

Oh yes, what a tragedy that is for Final Fantasy and Pokemon games.

Game sales are a good metric to determine whether they're good or bad. Or at least, combined with critical acclaim, better than the opinions of a few hundred jaded gamers.

No, they are both metrics for popularity not quality. Quality can be measured by separating a game into it's different parts and analyzing the individual elements. Long term appeal is also a good measure of this as games which are high quality generally have better long term appeal.

Sounds rather subjective. Maybe a review would do?

Not at all, it can be compared against other games with those elements and thus placed accordingly on a quality scale. Reviews would be nice if they were of decent quality and did any of this, most don't and most that do, do it poorly.

I remember reading this. It's like he had to put on his fanboy hat and grit his teeth to say anything nice at all. It's a far cry from what I'd say is a pretty damn significant cross-section of what's being said on this forum.

No, not really and it clearly shows how much of his comments you've read. He's brutalized it for being a sequel elsewhere and decided to ignore that criteria from the start for the very reason that it fails at that (which he states in the review).

If I was in the minority, I would. I have, in the past. Can you admit that you're in a vast minority by saying Fallout 3 is mediocre at best?

Quality isn't a popularity contest or a poll, it's measurable. WoW, no matter how big of a playerbase it gets, will never be an extremely high quality game without many changes. It is, comparably, a high quality MMO of it's type. Fallout 3 is not a high quality game. Fallout 3 is an average quality FPP RT FPS-ARPG hybrid, as it falls in the middle of it's competition. Fallout 3 is a below average or poor quallity FPS and RPG, as it falls below center when compared to other products in those groups.

 

[Trithne]

Why are we having this argument again?!

Civ4 is still selling copies, is something like 14th on the charts currently. The entire claim that an isometric, text-dialog game wouldn't sell is disingenious. Of course it would. NMA and countless other sites prove that fact, as do the isometric, text-dialog games that still come out. Neverwinter Nights not exist in your worldview?

Don't get what you mean by 'those games are japanese'. Japanese RPGs have immense popularity in the western world.

Mediocre means 'below average'
Fallout 3 is a mediocre FPS. Any dedicated FPS game does it better.
Fallout 3 is a mediocre RPG. Any dedicated RPG games does it better.
Therefore, Fallout 3 is mediocre. FO3 gets by on doing two things badly to total okay.

 

[zippy1]

Uncanny:

Ah yes, Titanic is an objectively shitty movie and here let me show you something that undoubtedly proves i... wait. That's impossible because it's an OPINION.

I think you've done a good job letting your experience of past Fallout games ruin the rest for you. It'll likely ruin New Vegas for you as well, even if the game has better dialogue and a more solid plot than FO3, because it'll almost surely be real time, first person, and use VATS. And the whole experience will feel wrong because it's been infected by those Bethesda people that you say you're justified in calling names like a child.

As far as your extensive knowledge of game journalism, yes you're repeating the same line said over and over on NMA but those are the remote exception and not the rule. Believe it or not, almost all game journalists think that giving a game a 90 when it deserves an 80 is WRONG and won't do it. And if some executive tells him to go in and change it to a 90, then that relationship/dynamic doesn't ever last long. It's not some inherently corrupt business that is trying to make $1.00 today at any cost, not when they can make 97 cents today and keep readers coming back so they can make another 97 cents tomorrow. The kind of corruption you talk about in game journalism is highly rare and always fleeting at most.

Almost every Fallout 3 review posted was after the release date, and I don't know of Bethesda sending "someone out to help a journalist" play the game. Was it some other game? Where the hell did you read about this? Regardless, your thoughts on these lavish trips publishers send game journalists on are grossly overstated in almost all cases. Although I hear the Capcom event that went on earlier today was pretty goofy.

Civilization games are strategy games, not RPGs. The rules are different. People expect something out of a slow and plodding strategy game like the Civ series, and it's funny that they increased the pace significantly when they did Civ Rev. Nostalgia fuels a game like Chrono Trigger, plus there's the whole portable platform as well. That game would hit Virtual Console or XBLA if it was on a major console. I maintain that trying to make a turn-based, isometric RPG would find neither the critical nor retail success of Fallout 3. (Feel free to revert back to the "that doesn't mean it's a good game" argument)

As for the rest of your post, this notion that the "quality" of a product can be objectively measured by some kind of empirical scale with no disagreement possible is completely ridiculous. Ever disagree with one of these sites' top 100 game lists?

 

[zippy1]

I really don't know where to put this, but has anyone come up with any type of reason why Bethesda had to fly out the gaming press to London to make these announcements? And yes Bethesda is picking up the tab for everyone there.

It was a combo thing with Capcom. A lot of the costs were shared.

DRM is DRM and I don't care how you dress it up or what other features you give it, it still eats up unnecessary resources. Again, it's as simple as not requiring it to run in order to the play their games.

Hate on DRM because it's annoying to re-activate after a Windows reinstall (or a crash... or buying a new PC... or installing on a laptop) and be forced to call a publisher and beg for more activations, not because it takes up a few CPU cycles upon startup.

Opinions without factual support are wrong, especially when opposing opinions have such support.

Now you're getting it. And the opinion that has no factual support is that Fallout 3 is a bad game.

They acchieved their sales goals and thus they did well.

KOTOR2 didn't do as well as the first game. I don't have any numbers on NWN2 versus the first.

What "deeper and deeper RPG experiences" are you speaking of? And it isn't reaching the broadest audience, FFXII sold more in it's first week in Japan and the US individually than Fallout 3 had sold in America by January 2009.

First: FFXII has real-time combat with attack options coming from menus. It also has full voice acting and a third-person, not isometric view. So I'm still waiting.

Second: apples, meet oranges. PS2 had a much larger install base. Compare me some current-gen stuff if you feel like it. As far as the deeper RPG experiences, yes, I'm talking about getting people into RPGs that wouldn't usually play them. And guess what: those people's opinions, and their dollars, are just as valid and usable as the hardcore players'.

WoW has over 10million players playing it, so if you're going to talk about a RPG reaching more players who wouldn't otherwise play RPGs, WoW would be the game to sight.

You're absolutely right. This is what makes WoW a fantastic game, whether or not your opinion holds it in high regard.

That said, sure, Fallout 3 got some FPS players to play it but just because it attracts customers doesn't mean it attracts long term customers.

Here we go assuming that most of them hated it. They HAD TO, right? Because it's such a dull, boring game?

I assume you mean Spore? It sold 2 million in it first three weeks and has an 84 on metacritic. That is not doing poor. Now since then, a lot of customers have criticized it and that criticism has been heard, but keep in mind that EA doesn't have the same type of marketing or defensive fans as Bethesda. It's like criticizing Ron Paul, if you say something nasty about him you can damn well expect a couple of his supporters to find the post and respond to it. So here's a question for you, is Spore a good game?

I was actually talking about several major EA games, the biggest example being The Sims Online. Spore was marketed towards hardcore players and kept that hype going through to release when people quickly realized that it was The Sims With DNA And Space. For people who are all about Sims-style games, yes it is a good game. And those people outnumber the hardcore gamers that felt cheated, even if the hardcore people yell the loudest on the internet.

Spore is a good game because it's good for what's likely to be hundreds of thousands of current players.

Here's another fun example, this time from Microsoft: Too Human.

That said, I think most will agree that Fallout 3 was a step up from Oblivion.

Do you think maybe Bethesda's next game will try to be another step up from that? Maybe pulling people even more fully into a deeper gaming experience? You build loyal and large fanbases this way. Ask Blizzard.

 

[beverageleverage]

many of the vocal people will jump on just about every chance they get to rail on about its failings and how bad Bethesda is and how the guys that made it are terrible people. Actual personal insults toward developers - you don't think that's kind of shitty?

I mean really, just stop with teh personnel attacks, thats just ignerent!

You guys at NMA dont know and love Fallout 3 like I do, the things you say about it are nothing more than jealussy, dilusion, and lies!

Comon guise, we are spose to wait till teh game is released to pass judgment. If you dont liek it well, then your just stuck in the past, your afraid of change!

Excuse me, I need to go sit on Toddy's lap now.

 

[zippy1]

Oh wow, how clever. If I haven't seen commercials or ads for it then it wasn't as well advertised as Fallout 3 or many other games which I see banner ads for, even games which are fairly niche unlike GTA and Fallout 3.

This game got a ton of press for being one of the first Mature-rated and truly hardcore games on the DS. Nintendo announced it at E3 last year with some big fanfare. It had some surprisingly positive reviews. It sold 89,000 copies.

Sometimes the intended audience doesn't quite match the actual audience, and that's what happened with Chinatown Wars. Making a, whatever acronyms you call it, TB ISO NOVOICEDIALOG
whatever RPG on major platforms would be pretty similar.

But now that I think of it, having one on mobile platforms would be pretty cool and would actually match the system requirements pretty well. Fallout 4 on DS made by NMA's dream star dev team, anyone? Of course, that would probably still sell poorly, since M-rated games overall just aren't great on DS. Um, iPhone?

No it's a fact, a fact admitted by a not so modest producer.

The interviewer produced an opinion. Todd Howard actually said "Agreed". That word denotes that there was an opinion. He agreed with it to the interviewer. This is an opinion. And it's your opinion that he's not modest.

Fallout 3's FPS gameplay can be measured against other FPS games on the market and it is clearly worse for a combination of gameplay reasons (AI, controls, RPG elements, cone of fire, cover options, etc.).

Do you know that some people actually think cover systems take away from a game? That having a cover system is not objectively better than not having one? Believe it or not, these things you hold to be absolute truths are actually just more opinions as well, ones that are often disagreed with.

*nitpicky crap about "magic clothing" from a couple posters*

I think we can just drop this, since it made so little difference to the game overall and should make little difference in this thread.

I'm really hoping that Beth goes back to ES, and gives Fallout to Obsidian, but I doubt that will happen, they're having them make New Vegas to silence the original Fallout Fans and to give the Fallout 3 fans something to hold them over until Fallout 4

Oh no, I'm pretty sure the "original Fallout Fans" will be plenty vocal once they see Obsidian is making something a lot closer to FO3 than what they want.

 

[Trithne]

So in short, you believe a good game is one that sells well. That's a fine capitalist viewpoint, and one you're free to have. But that doesn't mean that people can't, and won't, make games for a different reason.

You only have to look at the indie game scene. It's generally characterised by people making games they want to play. It's amazing how great a game someone can make when they don't have to spend 2 years on animations alone.

You argue that Obsidian would be idiots to make a game that isn't an FPS/ARPG because that wouldn't sell well enough. But there's a market for true RPGs, so someone needs to make some and sell to that market. Might as well be Obsidian.

<steam>

I really like Steam, but I agree that it'd be a lot nicer if it didn't have to be installed/running and I could install games where I wanted etc. For this reason I ultimately prefer things like Gamersgate and even EA's digital delivery service, because it keeps my cd-keys safe, but I install where I want, can copy the installers to discs, and don't need them running.

 

[zippy1]

So in short, you believe a good game is one that sells well.

That's part of it, but moreso, one that a majority of the game's players and critics like.

You argue that Obsidian would be idiots to make a game that isn't an FPS/ARPG because that wouldn't sell well enough. But there's a market for true RPGs, so someone needs to make some and sell to that market. Might as well be Obsidian.

It'd sell well enough for them to stay in business - maybe. But at some point they will get (or have gotten) sick of catering to a narrow, increasingly marginalized audience and move onto bigger and better things. And when a big opportunity comes along (say, New Vegas), you go for it. And you leave your old audience behind if they don't make the jump with you.

Anyone hear a whoosh?

 

[Trithne]

Please stop double-posting.

We're having this debate in too many threads. Go to the other one to see why a game can be made to fill a niche and not just to sell copies.

 

[FeelTheRads]

It's not some inherently corrupt business that is trying to make $1.00 today at any cost, not when they can make 97 cents today and keep readers coming back so they can make another 97 cents tomorrow.

That's very funny. Because with readers like you who will gobble up anything they say they are pretty safe on that front.

 

[zippy1]

That's very funny. Because with readers like you who will gobble up anything they say they are pretty safe on that front.

NMA feeds these sites pageviews as well.

 

[zippy1]

Secondly, involving the original developers will actually make many of us, who were against F3, buy the game.

Pretty sure this can be summed up with the phrase "a drop in the bucket".

Saving the same mechanics will help the game not to lose the console audience. That's why I am afraid they will save it.

And they will, because Bethesda wouldn't greenlight a project that didn't hit a wide audience. And the only way to do that right now is with console gaming.

Thirdly, as I've said before, helps them to raise the income without putting too much resources in it. It's an experiment for them. If it works out, it's a pure cashflow source.

Well, unless the New Vegas team is working out of their homes and living on Ramen noodles, it costs Bethesda just as much to pay Obsidian as it would to pay a Bethesda team to make the game. And those costs are significant upfront: a team of 50 people, getting paid an average of, say, $60k a year, means $3 million per year in just labor costs. Sure, it's kind of an experiment, but it's also one that Bethesda's relatively sure to come out as a successful one.

 

[Kashrlyyk]

... and they're pirated far less. ...

46% of the confiscated pirated games in Germany in 2008 are console games.

 

[Trithne]

zippy, why are you doing this? You joined pretty much as New Vegas was announced, and all you've done is carry on your self-appointed crusade to tell us we're all wrong about everything to happen to Fallout since FO2, in an incredibly trollish manner. You come here like you're bearing the torch of enlightenment into the land of the Barbarians, because our desires for a certain type of game are invalididated by technological progress and popularity.

Anything will sell well if it's marketed properly. FO3 is proof of that. So an isometric RPG will too. Or did the new millenium invalidate an entire genre because a new generation of gamers doesn't have the attention span?

Please, stop trying to tell us to change our stance. We're just hopeful New Vegas will be closer to the kind of game we're used to in RPGs, with decent writing, skills and character customisation that are relevant, and gameplay not influenced by the player's skill. I don't think that's too much to ask.

 

[13pm]

Pretty sure this can be summed up with the phrase "a drop in the bucket".

maybe, but still they've chosen Obsidian, and I think this is one of the reasons.

And they will, because Bethesda wouldn't greenlight a project that didn't hit a wide audience. And the only way to do that right now is with console gaming.

sure. I assume noone here has any illusions about Bethesda turning into charity.

Well, unless the New Vegas team is working out of their homes and living on Ramen noodles, it costs Bethesda just as much to pay Obsidian as it would to pay a Bethesda team to make the game. And those costs are significant upfront: a team of 50 people, getting paid an average of, say, $60k a year, means $3 million per year in just labor costs. Sure, it's kind of an experiment, but it's also one that Bethesda's relatively sure to come out as a successful one.

yep. I actually meant, they can simultaneously develop the other game themselves. so this is about human resources first and foremost. and yes, I agree, they wouldn't have tried it if they weren't pretty much sure about it being a success.

 

[beverageleverage]

I'll save everyone some time. Zippy is defending Bethesda's honor by posting "gaem salez + gud revewz = teh awesome!" and in response we declare "no, it doesn't."

 

[zippy1]

... and they're pirated far less. ...

46% of the confiscated pirated games in Germany in 2008 are console games.

On the consoles that Fallout 3 runs on?