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.

Troika and the Fallout rights - where did I read that?

Greatatlantic

Erudite
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
1,683
Location
The Heart of It All
You know, I think there is a term for what Bethseda may have done-- "Bush league". No my European cousins accross the pond, it has nothing to do with our current president. Its a term from baseball that historically referred to minor league amateurs. These amateurs have a tendency to do things no major league pro would consider doing... either out of it being bad baseball or just goes against the tradition of baseball.

For Beth to buy the lisence when people with a great emotional and personal investment in it are trying to buy it is bush league. Something professionals shouldn't do out of respect for each other. That is, if thats what Bethseda really did. Briosofreak seems to speak with confidence, but I hate convicting someone on hearsay.

P.S. Indians in the World Series in 2006!
 

Fintilgin

Educated
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
83
Kalle said:
Just because Bethesda doesn't share your vision of the perfect Fallout doesn't meant you get to define what is and isn't Fallout. But do you know who does? The one who owns the rights to the franchise. Which would be Bethesda. Whatever they make will be Fallout 3, a Fallout sequel, because they are the ones in charge of the franchise. Tough cookies for you.

So the fans are just supposed to bend over and like it, huh? It's totaly unreasnoble for us to dare to question Bethesda's vision for Fallout?

I see you didn't bother to respond to the hypothetical situation of ex-Bethesda developers losing the rights to the Elder Scrolls. Would you be telling all the Elder Scrolls fans 'tough cookies' if Bioware was turning Elder Scrolls 5 into a linear, area-based, KOTOR-sytle RPG where you had to gather the 4 peices of the Staff of Chaos to save Tamriel? Would Elder Scrolls fans be bitching and whining because it didn't live up to their hopeless 'platonic ideal of the perfect' Elder Scrolls?

Would the ex-Bethesda developers at 'Silver Springs Studios' have absolutely NO legitimate reason to feel cheated out of what they had created? Would Elder Scrolls fans be crazy and stupid for wishing the ex-Bethesda developers had control of the rights? Would Elder Scrolls fans be whiney, immature, fanboys for being suspicous of Bioware's plans and attitudes to both THEM and the Elder Scrolls series?

Seriously. I'd like to hear your answer.

Or is all this just how you feel about Fallout fans in particular
 

kingcomrade

Kingcomrade
Edgy
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
26,884
Location
Cognitive Elite HQ
That would be justice.
You all are arguing about morality and whatnot. I just want a fucking Fallout game. I don't care who deserves the rights. My own desires are paramount. I don't buy RPGs very often. I haven't played very many cRPGs besides Baldur's Gate and Fallout (I didn't like Baldur's Gate. I really don't enjoy D&D). If Fallout 3 turns out the way I fear it will, I just won't buy it. That's not a threat, I doubt Bethsoft would care, but I would LIKE a Fallout game, I WANT a Fallout game, and I'll feel free to talk about the mothers of the people who turn my favorite RPG franchise into something that I don't want.
 

Kalle

Novice
Joined
Nov 29, 2005
Messages
12
Fintilgin said:
So the fans are just supposed to bend over and like it, huh? It's totaly unreasnoble for us to dare to question Bethesda's vision for Fallout?

Nobody says you have to like it. It's only a game. You can make your complaint by not buying it. And no one is saying that you can't criticize Bethesda for what changes they make. You're free to say whatever the hell you please. That doesn't mean you should expect the devs to listen. What you, me or anyone else but Bethesda thinks about the critical direction of Fallout 3 is irrelevant until the game is released and we all have to decide if we want to buy it or not. And you should realise that. Complaining about what could have been and what should be when you can't do anything about it is just wishful thinking at best and downright delusional at worst.

You bought a game, got yourself hours of fun, but that's it. You're not entitled to anything else. If you want to call the shots, make your own damn game.

I see you didn't bother to respond to the hypothetical situation of ex-Bethesda developers losing the rights to the Elder Scrolls.

You know what I would do? I would reserve judgement until the game was released and base my opinion on the game on it's own merits. I realise that this is an outrageous statement in this thread, but what I care about is playing good games. If it is well made and I enjoy playing it then I'll be happy, no matter who is developing it. If it is a good game then all is well. If it isn't I might try to analyse what went wrong and wonder if the choice of devs was to blame. And then I'd be more apprehensive about buying games from that dev in the future.

It might just be me, but I think that's a far more reasonable position than getting up in arms years before a game is released over a licensing issue.
 

Greatatlantic

Erudite
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
1,683
Location
The Heart of It All
Did Kalle call Fallout "just a game", cause unless I need my prescription changed thats what the monitor said. Othello is just a game, Fallout is a work of art and genius, and a pretty fun cRPG to boot. The best games are always works of art, and Fallout is no exception. Maybe I'm being overly dramatic, but let me throw out another hypothetical situation to show the error of your thinking.

J.R.R. Tolkien created the Middle Earth setting, with all of its personalities (with some help from previous litterature). Then, he gets drafted as a war correspondent and goes off to far away places where he cannot write. However, due to a clause in the contract his publisher actually owns the Middle Earth intellectual property. Should the publisher hire another writer to create novels while Tolkien is away? No, that would be highly unprofessional and even ethically questionable. The publisher should just sit on the property until either Tolkien returns or he makes it clear he isn't interested in continuing his work or is dead.


There a couple of differences, key of which is Troika's situation really occurred. Sort of like Bill Watterson's run in with his "publisher" (I'm not sure what the equivalent term is for cartoonists). If you didn't know, Watterson created the highly popular and reputable Calvin and Hobbes comic strip. You might also have noticed the lack of any sort official Calvin and Hobbes merchandise, excluding anathologies. This is because Watterson hated the idea of his art being used as cheap gimmicks on underpants, or anything other than art. But in order to get a deal with a syndicator (thats the word!) he had to sign over merchandising rights, anyone looking to break into the business does. He fought tooth and nail to stop this from happening, but he didn't have a "legal" right. Only at the end did the syndicate decide to renogiate his contract, and that ended the dispute. One of the reasons why I respect the man so much--Integrity.

Society overwhelming supports an artist's right to what they create, to a limited degree. The only question is whether the key developers in a game constitute artists creating an work of art. I wouldn't say a guy who drew some backgrounds has a right to those backgrounds... though I might feel sympathy if he felt some close connection to them.

Though one argument I haven't seen made yet is Troika already willing gave of the Fallout lisence when they left Interplay, though I've skipped several pages. Even though Interplay was an financial trouble even back then, they probably knew Interplay was going to keep making Fallout games. Heck, they had already created some background stuff for FO2 when they decided to found Troika. Interplay should be under no obligation to stop in the middle of a project because some key personnel wanted to go elsewhere. That was there decision. However, once Interplay clearly had no further interest in creating FO3, should Troika have gotten a chance to finish what they started if they wanted to? I think so.
 

Kalle

Novice
Joined
Nov 29, 2005
Messages
12
Greatatlantic said:
Did Kalle call Fallout "just a game", cause unless I need my prescription changed thats what the monitor said. Othello is just a game, Fallout is a work of art and genius, and a pretty fun cRPG to boot. The best games are always works of art, and Fallout is no exception.

Is Fallout art? Yes, in the same way that any creative effort is art. Does that matter for the sake of this argument? No.

You are being overly dramatic, but that hardly sets you apart from the pack here.
If Tolkien's publisher wants to print Middle Earth books then why is that a problem? Tolkien's books still exists, and if the new ones are bad you don't have to read them. If I enjoy Tolkien's writing I'll read other books by him.You and I don't magically deserve to read Middle Earth books by Tolkien, and Tolkien doesn't magically deserve to get his cookie back if he's already sold it for a fair price.

Making games is a collaborative effort, how do you define "key" developers? Why would one of these "key" developers own the whole work while background artists # 1, 2 and 3 get nothing, isn't their contribution valued in this little morality play you are devising?
 

Twinfalls

Erudite
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
3,903
Kalle said:
Is Fallout art? Yes, in the same way that any creative effort is art.

Wrong. Art is not merely creative effort. Creative effort can amount to commerce, and nothing more. Go and learn about what art really is before making dumb sweeping rhetoric.

You are being overly dramatic, but that hardly sets you apart from the pack here.

You're being overly pompous and ignorant, but that hardly sets you apart from the pack of trolls that frequent this site.

If Tolkien's publisher wants to print Middle Earth books then why is that a problem? Tolkien's books still exists, and if the new ones are bad you don't have to read them.

Tolkien's publishers have a responsibility to ensure that any extension to Tolkiens' work is not made purely for commerce, but respects the art of the original, and is made to the highest standard possible.

If I enjoy Tolkien's writing I'll read other books by him.You and I don't magically deserve to read Middle Earth books by Tolkien, and Tolkien doesn't magically deserve to get his cookie back if he's already sold it for a fair price.

Well bully for you. Others have higher standards than you.

Making games is a collaborative effort, how do you define "key" developers? Why would one of these "key" developers own the whole work while background artists # 1, 2 and 3 get nothing, isn't their contribution valued in this little morality play you are devising?

A group of original developers has more claim over the moral rights to a work than a group of completely unrelated developers.
 

Kalle

Novice
Joined
Nov 29, 2005
Messages
12
Twinfalls said:
Tolkien's publishers have a responsibility to ensure that any extension to Tolkiens' work is not made purely for commerce, but respects the art of the original, and is made to the highest standard possible.

And this is a moral claim on Tolkien's publishers then? Why?

If I enjoy Tolkien's writing I'll read other books by him.You and I don't magically deserve to read Middle Earth books by Tolkien, and Tolkien doesn't magically deserve to get his cookie back if he's already sold it for a fair price.

Well bully for you. Others have higher standards than you.

Good for them. That still doesn't entitle them to new Middle Earth books written by Tolkien.

Making games is a collaborative effort, how do you define "key" developers? Why would one of these "key" developers own the whole work while background artists # 1, 2 and 3 get nothing, isn't their contribution valued in this little morality play you are devising?

A group of original developers has more claim over the moral rights to a work than a group of completely unrelated developers.

Leaving aside that you either missed the point here or ignored it completely, what would those moral rights be again? The right to sell your cookie and demand it back? What moral rights are at play here and *why*?
 

Sol Invictus

Erudite
Joined
Oct 19, 2002
Messages
9,614
Location
Pax Romana
You shouldn't be arguing that position, Kalle. If you insist on arguing your position, then you should know more than anyone that writers, game developers and musicians are often screwed over and usually end up selling the rights to their product at a loss, if only to make ends meet. The industry can often be an amoral, harsh place, especially with big players like Electronic Arts and Vivendi Universal. I can think of several companies that were screwed over by their publishers with their blood, sweat and tears taken away from them, with their jobs in the wind once the company has deemed them expended.

Al Lowe - Sierra - Leisure Suit Larry series. They did not even bother to consult him on the creation of the new LSL game, yet claimed he was involved if merely to appease the angry fans. His personal blog states that they never even bothered to approach him until after the QA process had been completed. He was not given a single word in the development of the series of his creation.

The Sierra Adventure Team - Sierra - All of Sierra's adventure games.

Volition - Interplay - Freespace series. Interplay didn't pay them for the European sales of the games. They sued, I don't know what happened. Either way, they left and became a part of THQ. Since then they've developed crappy games. Not a good ending to that story.

Bioware - Interplay - Baldur's Gate series. Interplay didn't pay them for European sales of the game. Don't know what really happened after that. Bioware partnered up with Atari for NWN, and has been making success after success since then. Good ending to that story. Next stop? Dragon Age and Mass Effect.

Dynamix - Sierra - Starsiege series. They lost their jobs when Havas Interactive took over. Havas kept their work but fired them because Havas didn't think the world was ready for another Starsiege game at the time.

Westwood Studios - EA - C&C series. EA made them make crappy games, those games tanked because they sucked and the fans hated them because they were shitty spinoffs of the C&C series. They got fired, and the big game that wasin development was shitcanned, much to everyone's dismay. Tiberian Twilight will never see the light of day, except under EA's bastardized EALA office. BFME provides very little hope for the series. BFME2 might be better, but the jury's out on that one. Either way, it doesn't interest me, I'm looking forward to Warhammer: Mark of Chaos.

Blizzard North - Vivendi Universal - Diablo series. The fathers of the series lost all creative control over their creation: the Diablo series, when Vivendi Universal decided that the Blizzard label would be better suited on selling MMORPGs and Console games like the several times cancelled and subsequently remade StarCraft Ghost. The big dogs at Blizzard North tendered their resignations, thinking VU would rethink their decision, deny their resignations and return to them their creative control over the company. That did not happen. They left, and founded Flagship Studios. Many would soon leave Blizzard, joining companies like ArenaNet, and founding new ones like Red5, Castaway Entertainment and the newly announced Hyboreal Games. This is the only story that actually turned out for the better, and not for the worse.

Last but not least - Troika. You know the details.

There's many more companies I could mention. Hell, I could bring up authors and talk about the number of times Neil Gaiman got fucked over as a screenwriter, because idiotic movie producers would tell him to rewrite the story a million times until enough was enough. Never mind that, they'd keep all the drafts he made and screw him over on that, too. I wonder how many good books didn't get written because of things like this happening.

Anyway, it's all good and legal, but it's fucking morally repehensible and that's all that matters, really.
 

DarkSign

Erudite
Joined
Jul 24, 2004
Messages
3,910
Location
Shepardizing caselaw with the F5 button.
Human Shield said:
Breaking a contract would be fraud and is immoral as well as illegal. And if the contract is broken because of the encouragement of the businessman, he can be tried as an accomplish.

That's an incorrect usage of the term fraud, btw. Breaking a contract is usually a breach.
 

Twinfalls

Erudite
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
3,903
Kalle said:
Twinfalls said:
Tolkien's publishers have a responsibility to ensure that any extension to Tolkiens' work is not made purely for commerce, but respects the art of the original, and is made to the highest standard possible.

And this is a moral claim on Tolkien's publishers then? Why?

Why? Because I see society as founded on morality, not amorality.

Leaving aside that you either missed the point here or ignored it completely, what would those moral rights be again? The right to sell your cookie and demand it back? What moral rights are at play here and *why*?

See VD's posts about moral rights. If you can't see how the ideas and expression contained in a work of art can be different to a mere chattel such as a cookie, then there's no point in arguing with you.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Kalle said:
No, the employee sold his rights to whatever he created when he took the job. Same principle, except the employee gets a monthly wage up front. Seems like a fair deal for everyone involved.
It's not about fair as neither Troika nor anyone else claimed that it's unfair that Interplay owned the license. As for that selling business, no. The employee gets a monthly wage not for giving away the rights - that's an extra bonus, but for doing work that needs to be done at the moment.

So on one hand you want the franchise improved and further developed, on the other hand, when someone is trying to do so you cry foul. Make up your mind.
Again, pay attention. There is a difference between developing a franchise and making something else out of it. Hint: HoMM and M&M.

Just because Bethesda doesn't share your vision of the perfect Fallout doesn't meant you get to define what is and isn't Fallout.
What's with making shit up? It's not about my vision or me defining anything, it's about a fundamental difference between 2 different game styles.

But do you know who does? The one who owns the rights to the franchise. Which would be Bethesda. Whatever they make will be Fallout 3, a Fallout sequel, because they are the ones in charge of the franchise. Tough cookies for you.
That goes without saying. However, keep in mind that it didn't work out very well the last 2 times someone was in charge of the franchise. Tough cookies for you.

No, I see you dodging the issue. Why is Bethesda immoral for making Fallout? What standard of morality are you basing your argument on? Is Bethesda hurting anyone?
Again, it's been explained so many times, that I don't see any reason to repeat that. As Twinfalls said, if you don't see it, then there is no point in arguing with you.
 

Fintilgin

Educated
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
83
Kalle said:
You're free to say whatever the hell you please. That doesn't mean you should expect the devs to listen. What you, me or anyone else but Bethesda thinks about the critical direction of Fallout 3 is irrelevant until the game is released and we all have to decide if we want to buy it or not. And you should realise that. Complaining about what could have been and what should be when you can't do anything about it is just wishful thinking at best and downright delusional at worst.

You bought a game, got yourself hours of fun, but that's it. You're not entitled to anything else. If you want to call the shots, make your own damn game.

Hey, did I say I expected them to listen? No. I didn't. I'm not writing them nasty e-mails, am I? I'm not tearing up their offical message boards, am I? I'm not picketing their work place, am I? Hell, (as far as I know) I'm not even talking to them, and they stopped reading this thread way back when. I'm just bitching about RPGs on a message board dedicated to, well, bitching about RPGs.

Now, maybe that's a total waste of my time, but let me ask you something? Have you ever followed a sports team? Have you ever questioned a play? Talked to a friend about your team loosing or winning? Theorized about how they'd fair during the season? What a waste! You couldn't change anything! Idiotic, am I right? Anyway, if you'd wanted your team to win, why didn't you just pick up a damn bat and hit some homeruns yourself? Delusional fanboy.

Why do sports fans talk about sports? Not because they think the coach is going to listen. Not because they think the Red Sox are going to invite them to be a pinch hitter and they're going to win the game for Boston. They talk about sports because they're passionate about the game.

Guess what? We're passionate about games too. I don't think anyone here thinks Bethesda is going to change their mind about anything or that the licence will magically drift back to a resurected Troika. We're just chatting about something we care about, the same way a sports fan might chat about an umpire's bad call or a missed shot.

You know what's even sillier then complaining about an unreleased game though? Complaining about the people who are complaining. Seriously. That really is a bit of a waste.

Kalle said:
You know what I would do? I would reserve judgement until the game was released and base my opinion on the game on it's own merits.


Really? You'd have no opinion at all? Maybe. But I doubt it. That's the sort of rhetorical high-mindedness that sounds good, but I'm skeptical of. You still dodged the meat of the question. You might reserve judgement, but would you be so critical of Elder Scrolls fans disraught that their series was being turned into a KOTOR-style clone? Would they have any legitimate reason to complain about Bioware, or would they just be being whiny fanboys as long as Elder Scrolls 5 was a 'GOOD' KOTOR-clone; despite the fact it bore little resemblence to Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind, or Oblivion? Maybe I'm imagining things, but I can't shake the impression that is really a Fallout/Fallout fan thing to you.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Human Shield said:
Creating doesn't imply owning property.
True. Have I implied that?

The question of who owns property is what morals and rules come from.
No, that's where legal stuff comes from. Morals are based on something else. Something that can't be touched, much like faith.

I don't understand. The "right to know" is a moral right? How? What are "moral rights"?
Let me elaborate. A wife asks her husband about his business, claiming that she has a right to know. What right does she refer to? Legal? No. Purely moral. The husband may or may not agree based on his system of moral values.

And if the role is a transfer of property, the only basics for moral decision rests on the new owner.
The role of the artist? You gotta be kidding. The main role of the artist is to create art. Anything else comes second.

So immoral is not wrong? I don't understand.
Depends on the point of view. Legally no, morally yes; but even then it depends on one's definition of moral values

You are saying it is immoral not to sell to the artist for a lower price, or immoral for the businessman to offer a higher price. Why should this not be done according to morals?
No, I said it was immoral for the businessman to try to get the license knowing that the artist wants to buy it. I said that the artist has a strong moral right to his creation. That's all. I see no fault in the store owner's decision to sell to the highest bidder except for the way he handled the negotiation. That's my position.

What was the first deal and how was it made?
See Briosafreak's post

Breaking a contract would be fraud and is immoral as well as illegal. And if the contract is broken because of the encouragement of the businessman, he can be tried as an accomplish.
The businessman is already being sued by his unpaid employees, but it doesn't look like it's gonna be resolved any time soon. The bastard claims that he has no money and thus can't pay nothing. Looks like he stole what Beth paid as quickly as he stole what Interplay had. Quite a character.

Haven't heard of evidence that Troika had a contract in place before Beth.
It's an agreement. Let's say you are offered a job, you quit your previous job, but then told that the job offer is withdrawn and no longer valid. You may try to sue, but the point is, you are screwed.

But people are offering money. Is it moral to refuse them?
You don't have to refuse, you just need to find a different way to give people what they want.
 

Volourn

Pretty Princess
Pretty Princess Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Mar 10, 2003
Messages
24,924
"Fallout is a work of art and genius,"

No. It's a game. One of the best games ever; but just a game.
 

Imbecile

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
1,267
Location
Bristol, England
Uh..cant it be a work of art, a game and a commercial product? I guess the work of art bit is subjective, but I cant see a reason why a product cant be all three of these things.

Speaking of subjective - arent morals pretty subjective? Doesnt that make this argu..uh debate pretty meaningless...albeit fun to read.
 

DarkUnderlord

Professional Throne Sitter
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2002
Messages
28,343
Kalle said:
Making games is a collaborative effort, how do you define "key" developers?
Usually it's anyone with "lead" in their title. Lead artist, lead programmers, lead designers etc... Beyond that, key developers are those without which, the game either wouldn't have been made at all or at the least, wouldn't have been made the same. As a simple example: A key or lead designer will come up with the idea of making a turn-based post-apocalyptic game based on a certain set of rules. That designer (or designers as the case may be) may then further define those rules to their own whims and desires. A non-key designer will then take what has been created (the setting) and create something within that environment - such as a specific Vault once he knows what a Vault is or a specific group of raiders, once he knows that raiders exist in this theme.

It's similar to how cartoons are made. The Simpsons (as I understand it) are atually drawn by a bunch of hacks in Korea because they're cheap labour but the original characters were created by Matt Groening. Without Matt, you wouldn't have "The Simpsons". Their names would be different (they were named by Matt after his own family members), they wouldn't look the same, their hair might've been normal and so on. They might've been called "The Smith Famiy" and it may not have done as well. Even the style of humour would be different. So the key or lead designers, artists and programmers set the tone and make those decisions which the rest of the team then follow.

Kalle said:
Why would one of these "key" developers own the whole work while background artists # 1, 2 and 3 get nothing, isn't their contribution valued in this little morality play you are devising?
As you can see explained above, the difference between a key person and "background artists #42" are that the key artist (lead artist in this case) created the overall look and theme of the game. The other artists follow his style and lead and develop based on that. While a non-lead artist would develop a sense of the setting and an understanding, he or she may not be aware of why certain decisions were made (such as why the monster's hair is purple) or what affect they have on the game (IE: it's purple because it looks cool vs it's purple because that's the affect FEV had when he was created, as the hair colour cells aren't divided properly during the dipping process).

Kalle said:
Leaving aside that you either missed the point here or ignored it completely, what would those moral rights be again? The right to sell your cookie and demand it back? What moral rights are at play here and *why*?
Selling a cookie back is probably a bad example (actually both sides of the debate so far have come up with some pretty God awful examples). In the case of our computer game, Fallout, it boils down to setting and theme decisions. Many of these decisions likely weren't documented. The reasons behind them kept solely in the mind of the lead designer or artist or prorammer who made that decision. Therefore, only the "key" people who worked on the project have a full and proper understanding of the setting. It then follows that those same people would be the best to create another game based on that setting because they have this information.

This of course doesn't preclude others from making games or books or other content in the same setting. The same way you or I could write our own fan-fiction. However, we wouldn't have access to all the nitty gritty details and may slip in something which makes sense to us but doesn't fit in with why a certain decision was made, or it may not fit with what the original creators had in mind (such as the exact details on how Darth Vader was actually created, for example). So while our story of Darth being the son of Joe Bloggs the carpenter might be acceptable, it would clash with the immaculate conception idea of the original key creator - a detail which only he would've known for a long time as that background information was not necessary to the original "game" (or movie in this case).

So legally, your purchase of the Star Wars license may be quite legitimate but morally, you've done something "wrong" because you've inadvertantly (even perhaps without meaning to) altered a key element of the franchise (an element I personally think sucks but we'll leave that out of it for the moment). That's the issue we now face with Bethesda. They may have quite good intentions with regard to the Fallout franchise but information or events they construct in their Fallout 3 may clash with what the original designers had in mind for certain aspects of the game.

That's why Troika - the game company where the majority of the key people went - has a "moral right" to the Fallout license. They know it better than anyone else. More importantly, the fans trust them more than Bethesda to make a game that not only keeps in line with the original Fallouts but also breaks new ground and reveals more information which helps flesh out the background of the setting. New ground which only the key developers would be aware of. Plus that and Bethesda's games really, really suck in terms of their linearity, quest structure, dialogue and remarkably cliched monsters and setting.

The only caveat is that this all presumes Tim Cain and Co actually remember a damned thing about the Fallout setting at all, given it's now almost been 10 years since they first came up with the concept. It also presumes they're not going to pull a George Lucas and make some really shitty follow-up because it's been so long and they really just want to add some cool stuff in and while they're there, they re-release Fallout 1 and stop Ian shooting you in the back even though it breaks his character completely, destroys years of legend and denies the fact that the Bounty Hunter NEVER shot first, Lucas you dumb fuck.
 

LeonX

Obsidian Entertainment
Developer
Joined
Dec 5, 2002
Messages
12
I hate to break this up

I would have posted sooner, but you guys seemed to be having too much fun.

For the record:

We never, ever bid on Fallout. One major publisher mentioned Interplay was shopping it around and would be interested in us developing it for them, but theydropped it as too expensive when they found out the asking price (not ours, Interplay's). We never had our own money, and were just beginning to toy with the idea of independent funding near the end of our life as a business - which was after Beth had already gotten Fallout.

I did approach Bethesda about us working with them on Fallout, but they were uninterested. Instead of flaiming them for this however, think about it from their point of view: who among us would want to pay a huge amount of money for a license and then turn it over to someone else? I'm assuming they paid the $$ because they wanted to make a Fallout game, end of story.

Our post apocalyptic game was going to be something new, simply because we loved the genre. We struggled with whether to make it post apoc or not, since Beth already had Fallout, but our love for the genre outweighed other considerations.

I'm not going to go anywhere near the argument of who is responsible for Fallout's greatness, except to say that Scott Campbell never gets the credit he deserves in all these arguments. He wrote alot of the original story and came up with alot of the characters and places as well.

Leonard Boyarsky
----------------------------------
Shameless plug: www.leonardboyarsky.com
 

Jora

Arcane
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Messages
1,115
Location
Finland
Leon, did you make the No Mages Allowed ad for Arcanum? If you did, could you put it on your site?
 

POOPERSCOOPER

Prophet
Joined
Mar 6, 2003
Messages
2,724
Location
California
Bethesda is still a bunch of bucked toothed faggots for not letting you guys work on it. YOu dont have to have control maybe they could of given you shitty stuff to do.
 

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