Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Bethesda's Fallout game, not named "Fallout 3"

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
33,052
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
ViolentOpposition said:
I don't know how Fallout Tactics screwed the series, since it was entitled Fallout Tactics.

It made itself clear that it wasn't going to try to be Fallout 3 or whatever. Maybe you mean that it set the precedent for other genres of games under the Fallout name.

It screwed the lore. There were things in it that didn't really fit into the universe established by the original Fallouts.


I also strongly believe Fallout 3 won't give a shit about the previous lore. Oblivion also didn't give a shit about previous lore. It just needs to be "cool", not be true to the setting.
 

Delirious Nomad

Scholar
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
118
Location
Limbo
The only thing that confuses me about Bethesda getting the Fallout licence is why they'd even bother. Fallout, while important and brilliant, was never a runaway sales success. At the moment, Bethesda are arguably the most commercially successful western-style Role-playing Game developer on earth. It'd actually be far smarter for them to develop their own post-apocalypse setting from scratch rather than trying to raise Interplay's child from the nuclear ashes.

The idea of Bethesda doing a post-apocalypse game is as big a story as Bethesda doing Fallout 3. Perhaps even a bigger story. Since it'll be presumably be appearing on the consoles, where it'll have no history whatsoever, the "3" is going to make people back away slowly. (Don't
expect it to come out under the name "Fallout 3" but "Fallout: Some Extra Subtitle")

So what have they bought with the licence? Just the enmity of the hardcore Fallout fans who'll hate any game Bethesda make with it just on principle.

So why did they do it? Only reason I can work out is Bethesda are just dirty big Fallout fans and would love to play in the Sandbox. Which is a good a reason for the rest of us to be very excited indeed.

from Kieron Gillen
 

Section8

Cipher
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
4,321
Location
Wardenclyffe
I don't get Bethesda Logic. "Let's buy commercial licenses with rabid, unyielding fanbases who epitomise everything the casual gamer is not, and then make games that aren't for them!"
 

Zomg

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
6,984
Why are they making energy drinks with the names of sodas from the '80s?
 

Texas Red

Whiner
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
7,044
Zomg said:
Why are they making energy drinks with the names of sodas from the '80s?

Stop the press! How about Oblivion sodas and T-shirts, Todd's Potato Chips and other TES merchandice? This is gold, pure gold!
 

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
33,052
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
The Walkin' Dude said:
Zomg said:
Why are they making energy drinks with the names of sodas from the '80s?

Stop the press! How about Oblivion sodas and T-shirts, Todd's Potato Chips and other TES merchandice? This is gold, pure gold!

They could make a fortune selling simple porridge as nirnroots.
 

taxacaria

Scholar
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
343
Location
Waterdeep
Section8 said:
I don't get Bethesda Logic. "Let's buy commercial licenses with rabid, unyielding fanbases who epitomise everything the casual gamer is not, and then make games that aren't for them!"

An interesting question. It looks like Bethesda has bought the Fallout franchise without thinking about possible fan based problems. I'd call it mismanagement.
Pete's comments "some people will hate it" are a novum in gaming industry marketing.
Why making a game which people, especially Fallout fans, will hate?
An "Oblivion with guns" is easier to sell without such Fallout franchise troubles.
So the franchise isn't advertising, it will be a drag.
 

User was nabbed fit

Guest
JarlFrank said:
It screwed the lore. There were things in it that didn't really fit into the universe established by the original Fallouts.

That's true. But like I said does it really matter if it wasn't aiming to be 100% faithful to Fallout anyway? Unless they said that it'd be faithful to the Fallout universe? Then, yes, it'd be wrong.
 

Kingston

Arcane
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
4,392
Location
I lack the wit to put something hilarious here
It'll be fun though, when Beth announces the real-time fps Fallout 3 because Fallout fans could really be a fucking pain.

I can already see the hundreds of rant topics at the Bethseda forums, the disguised tubgirl links, the esf fanbois crying their eyes out... Yes, TONIGHT WE DINE IN HELL!
 

Drakron

Arcane
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
6,326
I like to take stupid things apart.

Kieron Gillen said:
The only thing that confuses me about Bethesda getting the Fallout licence is why they'd even bother. Fallout, while important and brilliant, was never a runaway sales success.

Neither was any of Bethsoft developed games before Morrowind.

At the moment, Bethesda are arguably the most commercially successful western-style Role-playing Game developer on earth.

Well it seems Canada was relocated to outside Earth then since I take BioWare as being more successful.

It'd actually be far smarter for them to develop their own post-apocalypse setting from scratch rather than trying to raise Interplay's child from the nuclear ashes.

What stupid comment.

I give you this evidence:

Silent Hill 4: The room started development not as a Silent Hill title and only became Silent Hill 4 because someone in Konami panicked and forced the slapping of Silent Hill 4 to boost sales.

New IPs sell less that established IPs ... any freaking idiot with half a brain cell knows that, that is the reason why every year we get all those "movie:The game" since they sell despite the (usually lack of) quality.

The idea of Bethesda doing a post-apocalypse game is as big a story as Bethesda doing Fallout 3. Perhaps even a bigger story. Since it'll be presumably be appearing on the consoles, where it'll have no history whatsoever, the "3" is going to make people back away slowly. (Don't
expect it to come out under the name "Fallout 3" but "Fallout: Some Extra Subtitle")

Too bad there was another Fallout title in consoles and did poorly, even even if I do believe Bethsoft will not use "Fallout 3" I will not be surprised they do it to get away from "Fallout:Brotherhood of Steel" association.

So what have they bought with the licence? Just the enmity of the hardcore Fallout fans who'll hate any game Bethesda make with it just on principle.

What games?

Oh you mean that once every 5 years Elder Scrolls title they come out with since that is pretty much what Bethsoft actually DOES, they publish more games but that "publishing" is a bit different that "making".

So why did they do it? Only reason I can work out is Bethesda are just dirty big Fallout fans and would love to play in the Sandbox. Which is a good a reason for the rest of us to be very excited indeed.

And here we see the utter idiocy of gaming journalism.

I already pointed out that new IPs do not move that many units, established IPs however do and just because Fallout was not a big seller in the 90's does not mean the name have no value, it does and Bethsoft is certainly going to cash in on that.

Bethsoft is also going to cash in on the fact gaming journalists are usually idiots and will even go as far as saying Bethsoft CREATED Fallout (yes, they can be as stupid) and after seeing how almost nobody pointed out the glaring flaws of Oblivion ... well ...

Better still we have Star Trek as a example, they got the rights and even if they did not develop in-house they certainly followed up what were the gender ST games had more success with the results we all seen.

Could that NOT be said the same? that Bethsoft "loved Star Trek and loved to play it on a sandbox".

I sooner trust the word of a member of the Bush Administration that of a gaming jornalist ...
 

dagorkan

Arbiter
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
5,164
JarlFrank said:
Fallout was good.
Fallout 2 was not as good, but still, it was good.
Fallout: Tactics screwed the series.

Fallout: Tactics was not meant to continue the series, faggot. It had a totally different focus and a new 'sub-franchise'. It was a strategy game and a pretty decent one. Strategy games don't give a shit about 'lore'. It's about shooting mutants in kewl power-armor.

It's like somebody saying WoW destroyed the Warcraft series or X-Com:Interceptor destroyed the X-Com series...
 

kingcomrade

Kingcomrade
Edgy
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
26,884
Location
Cognitive Elite HQ
The Walkin' Dude said:
Zomg said:
Why are they making energy drinks with the names of sodas from the '80s?

Stop the press! How about Oblivion sodas and T-shirts, Todd's Potato Chips and other TES merchandice? This is gold, pure gold!
Which your character can wear and consume in-game (+99 bonus to all stats!)! All for $4.99
 

7th Circle

Scholar
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
144
Location
The Abyss
Section8 said:
I don't get Bethesda Logic. "Let's buy commercial licenses with rabid, unyielding fanbases who epitomise everything the casual gamer is not, and then make games that aren't for them!"

It's a calculated risk.

Fallout has a reputation for being an old-school RPG but among those who publicly say it was a great RPG, I reckon that there are quite a few people who:
  • - never really played it.
    - played it but didn't really like it that much.
These people would like to be able to play "a Fallout" to show that they too "like real RPGs" (just got a horrible vision of the post-Fallout 3 Bethsoft fanboy invasion...but that's another story...). However, since they don't actually like RPGs, Fallout: Oblivion will be perfect for them.

Now, tbh, I don't think there is enough of these individuals to drown out the Fallout fanbase mainly because of how vocal NMA etc are. However, Bethesda's real target is the gaming journalists (for lack of a better term...) whofall into one of these two categories.

Fallout is being targeted so that is dumbed down enough to engage the masses but still has some street cred (as being sophisticated) with the mainstream gaming sites. Combined with some graphic whoredom and exceptional reviews are in the bag already.

I also think that Bethesda assumes that many of the Fallout fanbase will buy the game anyway...if only so they can whinge about how yet another company screwed over Fallout. The point being that, to Bethesda, a sale is a sale.

Of course, it might just be that Hines is a masochist...
 

Mr.E

Novice
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
7
I'd suppose you'd rather they call it Fallout 360...

A name is a name, and it has very little to do with how the game will be received. Calling it Fallout 3, or any other name, does not make Bethesda any more or less likely to have the proverbial caca tossed at them by rabid fans, regardless of how poor or how good the game may turn out.
 

Section8

Cipher
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
4,321
Location
Wardenclyffe
These people would like to be able to play "a Fallout" to show that they too "like real RPGs" (just got a horrible vision of the post-Fallout 3 Bethsoft fanboy invasion...but that's another story...). However, since they don't actually like RPGs, Fallout: Oblivion will be perfect for them.

But wait, who are they proving their RPG cred to? The fucking Codex? Liking RPGs doesn't make you cool in anyone's books, so why try to prove the point?

Fallout is being targeted so that is dumbed down enough to engage the masses but still has some street cred (as being sophisticated) with the mainstream gaming sites. Combined with some graphic whoredom and exceptional reviews are in the bag already.

Anyone "sophisticated" enough to appreciate Fallout's finer points is invariably cynical enough to see through the litany of falsehood that is the gaming media. The gaming media are pretty much willing to lap any triple A title up, and offer excessive praise regardless of the intellectual property involved. It's all about who, and not about what. Bethesda, Bioware, Blizzard, id Software, Rockstar, et al could release a turd in a box and still get 110% review scores.

I also think that Bethesda assumes that many of the Fallout fanbase will buy the game anyway...if only so they can whinge about how yet another company screwed over Fallout. The point being that, to Bethesda, a sale is a sale.

Maybe that's true, and maybe they're right. I like to believe Fallout fans have more fuckign sense than that, but hey, I'm sure battered wives who stand by their fuckbag husbands are otherwise rational and sensible people.
 

stargelman

Scholar
Joined
Jan 21, 2006
Messages
337
Location
Funky Bebop Land
Claw said:
The great thing about Bethesda not calling their game Fallout 3 is that it leaves a glimmer of hope that somday, someone can make a real Fallout 3 we can pretend Bethout never happened.
See, there's your problem right there. The believe that you just have to sit out the current situation with Bethesda having the rights to all (single player) things Fallout, and that eventually, someone else (better) will come along to make a proper Fallout title again.

What you don't get is that Bethesda will keep the rights, unless they go bankrupt. And considering they're making games with considerable mass appeal now, that seems rather unlikely. Sure, we don't like their games, but other people do. People that shove lots of money into Beth's coffers.

You better get used to Fallout being gone for good. Everything else is wishful thinking.
 

kingcomrade

Kingcomrade
Edgy
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
26,884
Location
Cognitive Elite HQ
But wait, who are they proving their RPG cred to
Gaming "journalists" who will either have a vague recollection or look at the summary on wikipedia and see that Fallout was pretty popular and a great game and thus New Life Is Being Breathed Into The Franchise and It Lives Up To The Original and stuff like that. It's just another way to hype the game.
 

suibhne

Erudite
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
1,951
Location
Chicago
JarlFrank said:
Fallout was good.
Fallout 2 was not as good, but still, it was good.
Fallout: Tactics screwed the series.
Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel was utter crap.

What's disturbing is that Todd's assessment of the series seems to mirror your own (and mine).
 

stargelman

Scholar
Joined
Jan 21, 2006
Messages
337
Location
Funky Bebop Land
suibhne said:
JarlFrank said:
Fallout was good.
Fallout 2 was not as good, but still, it was good.
Fallout: Tactics screwed the series.
Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel was utter crap.

What's disturbing is that Todd's assessment of the series seems to mirror your own (and mine).
Has it occured to you that he's just feeding you what you want to hear? (Or read, for that matter)
 

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
33,052
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
stargelman said:
suibhne said:
JarlFrank said:
Fallout was good.
Fallout 2 was not as good, but still, it was good.
Fallout: Tactics screwed the series.
Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel was utter crap.

What's disturbing is that Todd's assessment of the series seems to mirror your own (and mine).
Has it occured to you that he's just feeding you what you want to hear? (Or read, for that matter)

The whole team is playing the game and looking for what was cool back then! You have to trust them!

[Cool = anything that could have appealed to the teenage mainstream market, like lots of violence and sex]
 

stargelman

Scholar
Joined
Jan 21, 2006
Messages
337
Location
Funky Bebop Land
JarlFrank said:
stargelman said:
suibhne said:
JarlFrank said:
Fallout was good.
Fallout 2 was not as good, but still, it was good.
Fallout: Tactics screwed the series.
Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel was utter crap.

What's disturbing is that Todd's assessment of the series seems to mirror your own (and mine).
Has it occured to you that he's just feeding you what you want to hear? (Or read, for that matter)

The whole team is playing the game and looking for what was cool back then! You have to trust them!

[Cool = anything that could have appealed to the teenage mainstream market, like lots of violence and sex]
Sex? Bethesda? Forget it. Not that I think that it added anything irreplaceable, but it's definitely out.
 

Krafter

Scholar
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
297
Location
Castle Amber
7th Circle said:
...However, Bethesda's real target is the gaming journalists (for lack of a better term...) who fall into one of these two categories.

Fallout is being targeted so that is dumbed down enough to engage the masses but still has some street cred (as being sophisticated) with the mainstream gaming sites. Combined with some graphic whoredom and exceptional reviews are in the bag already.
Well said, I actually agree with this and was fumbling about for a way to say it.

The whole thing always seemed weird to me. That's where I agree with Gillen, there dosen't seem much point to Bethesda buying the Fallout license at all. They are obviously not going to make it Fallout, so why not make a new game completely?
 

suibhne

Erudite
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
1,951
Location
Chicago
stargelman said:
Has it occured to you that he's just feeding you what you want to hear? (Or read, for that matter)

Sorry, I didn't think I needed to spell out the implied second half of my state.

"What's disturbing is that Todd's assessment of the series seems to mirror your own (and mine) - and yet Fallout 3 will still be akin to a 25-car pileup in slo-mo, replete with graphic decapitations and viscera-splattered airbags."
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom