Company News Silver Style wants Fallout?

[Ausir]

Tags: Fallout 3 (Van Buren); Silver Style

<a target=_blank href=http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=966>Carsten Strehse</a> of <a target=_blank href=http://www.silver-style.com/>Silver Style</a>, developer of a post-apocalyptic cRPG <a target=_blank href=http://www.the-fall.com/>The Fall</a> revealed in <a target=_blank href=http://www.silver-style.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1416>in this thread</a> that it is not impossible for them to purchase the rights to... Fallout 3, if Interplay is willing to sell it. Here's what he says:
<br>
<ul>Well, we are definatly interested in hiring some of the former Balck Isle staff. I try to get in contact with them.
<br>
I also disclose no big secret if I tell you that we have found a mayor partner for The Fall and that money wouldn't be the biggest problem when we would try to get the FO licence.
<br>
My biggest concern is the reaction of the FO community. We're all huge fans of FO here and have deepest respect for the achivements of the dev team. However, we are no Black Isle, we are Silver Style. And I'm afraid that the community wouldn't be pleased with a FO3 that wasn't developed by the original team. Even if I'm very sure that we could deliver a real stunning game.</ul>
<br>
<br>
Frankly, I'm not sure if a foreign developer can handle such game as Fallout, rooted deeply in the 50s of the United States (not to mention their language needs some polishing...) Anyway, I think the best candidates for FO3 would be Troika or Obsidian. But if they can't do it or are not interested... maybe we should give Silver Style a chance?
<br>
<br>
Spotted this at <a target=_blank href=http://www.nma-fallout.com>No Mutants Allowed</a>.

 

[EEVIAC]

There's no reason why a foreign company couldn't do a good Fallout game, all they'd need to do is adequate research into the FO timeline, and the popular icons its based on. What I don't understand is why they'd even really want to buy the Fallout licence - there's nothing wrong with the Fall, if the game is good and the have a "major partner" who gives good support and advertising, there's no reason the game couldn't be better.

By the way, the question above is obviously rhetorical - they want the licence because it will help them shift units and make money. Hasn't this happened enough already? Which is exactly why I'd rather someone like EA buy it do nothing with it. (I can't believe I'm saying that.)

<edit> Actually, while we're bandying names around for developers to make a FO3, I'd like to make a nomination - Blizzard, or whatever that new company Bill Roper set up. It'll take them years, we probably won't be able to pick at the details, we won't get a carbon copy game of the first two, but my guess is that it would invariably be something very good.

 

[triCritical]

I don't see why a foreign company can't do FO! They know as much about 50's pop culture as the crew at BIS knew. Just get LIFE magazine archives from that period, or something.

I think the only thing that would concern me is the combat playing out like in restricted area, where the developers are bone-headed enough to say that Diablo did bows and arrows in RT why can you do guns? Despite the fact that the comment is idiotic, I would hate to see the combat to be perverted in such a way.

I would love for Nivel to take a stab at it, however.

 

[Spazmo]

Screw Silver Style. They just flat-out suck. Soldiers of Anarchy was ass and The Fall doesn't look any better. I don't trust them to make any good game, let alone an FO one.

 

[undead dolphin hacker]

Man, I hope Silverwhatever doesn't get VB. Obsidian needs it. Or Troika.

 

[triCritical]

How about a new Fallout Tactics using the Silent Storm engine?

 

[undead dolphin hacker]

How about a new Fallout Tactics using the Silent Storm engine?

How about Fallout 3 with a (revamped) Silent Storm engine? :wink:

Seriously though, FO:T with the Silent Storm engine would be a pleasant distraction, if not the Van Buren we all want...

 

[triCritical]

How about Fallout 3 with a (revamped) Silent Storm engine? :wink:

Seriously though, FO:T with the Silent Storm engine would be a pleasant distraction, if not the Van Buren we all want...

I guess it depends on how it revamped. Siltent Storm seems to focus on tactics. But I imagine you could build a pretty damn good CRPG with that engine. I just don't want FO3 to be too tactical, because I think that would in ways force the developers to make it too combat oriented.

One of the great things about FO is that combat was held to a few encounters that were somewhat well thought out for the time. Such as the main battles at the hub and the boneyard. In some ways it would be nice if the were a bit more tactical. However, it would seem to be a waste of a tactical engine, for the players who chose to go the diplomatic or rogue route. Anyhow, out of all the foreign devlopers I would choose Nivel over all.

 

[Ausir]

Is any of their games turn based, by the way?

 

[EEVIAC]

I would love for Nivel to take a stab at it, however.

I second that, but I'd still rather them work from something original. They've proved they can do the combat right at the very least - and they have a beautifull and very effective engine rearing to go.

 

[mr. lamat]

i do believe the fall is real-time with a pause option.

i'd imagine that most every company who has made rpgs is looking at the fallout liscence with great interest. alot is going to be said and alot of rumours are going to be flying around, so it'll probably be at least a year before it's even announced who won the rights.

a new fot with the silent storm engine would be great.

 

[Human Shield]

i do believe the fall is real-time with a pause option.

"Novel fight system for real-time and turn-based battles and countless tactical options develop replay value. "

I don't know what it means, but I don't like the sound of it.

But at least Carsten Strehse seems honest and aware of the fan-base. We'll all see what they can do with the Fall.

 

[Ghetto Goose]

I would hope Troika gets it. If Silver Style did, they had better have their asses firmly planted in the Fallout Community to know what to do with it.

 

[Volourn]

I just hope the FO franhcise cna be laid to rest. Let's enjoy the meories of two fantastic games, and move on to other original stuff from Troika, Obsiain, Bio (for those who, like me, actually can satnd their awfully pathetic games), and the other soon to be announced crpg game makers. Let the past be the past. In conclusion, no one should bother buying the FO license unless they plan to just let it set there in all it's glory.

Rest in peace, FO.

 

[Flarnet]

Yeah lets face it - there aint ever gonna be a decent turn-based Fallout 3. Ever. If it is tb then it ain't gonna be worthy? Why? I'll tell you why:
The Fallout games had amazing production values - truly top notch everthing. That shit costs a lot of money and there aint no way in HELL that any publisher would fork up that kind of cash for something designed primarily as a tb product in this day. No. Way.

Now if only FOBOS could tank so that nobody tries to make another game with the license. Ever. That way it can all slip into our memories. For good.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Well, you know that it's impossible, Volourn, somebody will buy it and make a game called Fallout something. If I had to pick, I'd pick Fallout 3 rather then Fallout: The Mutant Hunter, so...

Now, here is a question: when iply sells the Fallout license would they include VB as well. I mean without the license VB is a dead weight they might as well sell it. Hmm...

[conspiracy theory] What if that's the plan? They need the money to stay in business for the next 6 months, FO3 would still take a year to finish and nobody knows how well it would sell, while if they sell it now "as is" and throw in the PC license, they get the money now and everybody's happy. [/conspiracy theory]

 

[Volourn]

Youa re probably right. Someone is bound to want to get their greedy hands on it. If that's the case; my chocies are unpopular as at least one of these companies are: Troika, Obdsidian, and lastly Bioware.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Troika is obviously the right producer to handle the game in at least two aspects. One, because of Tim Cain (reasons should be obvious). The second because of the roleplaying Troika showed off in Arcanum. The typical idea we tend to get here, that of "Arcanum's roleplay with ToEE's combat", would work great in FO3, if Troika acquired the license.

 

[Major_Blackhart]

I dont know too much about Bioware, except that sofar, what I've played from them (finally) are: BG1, 2, and NWN. All were real time. Do you think that Bio could possibly do a good game, much less TB?

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Well KoTOR apparently is a better game.When compared to their other games its certainly good. As for TB... *shrugs* I dunno. Possibly. I haven't seen them too eager to do it, much less try it.

 

[Volourn]

Considering, when BIO first did the Bg series they had never done anything ressembling games before; they did just fine there.

People were worried about how Star Warsy KOTRO would be; and other than a few things (the lame light sabre vs. normal weapon argument); most people definbitely agree that KOTOR is very much Star Wars in feel.

I beleive that if BIO concentrates on making FO3; they'll do a good job. Will there be difference between their version of FO, and the alreay made games/ Absolutely. There's always is. Hoepfully, they'll be good changes; and any bad changes will be minor ones. Heck, even Tim Cain and Troika would make changes for FO3 to in comparision to FO1&2. Change is inevitable no matter what.

 

[triCritical]

Considering, when BIO first did the Bg series they had never done anything ressembling games before; they did just fine there.

When was shattered steel made?

beleive that if BIO concentrates on making FO3; they'll do a good job.

I disagree. FO is a very non-linear game, and Bio games have just been getting more linear and linear as time goes. Furthermore, Bioware makes games that are story driven with a lot of character development. Not to mention must do mini-plots.

FO on the other hand, is not story driver, as a matter a fact, the story is written you write it. Sure in the end the master's gone, but how the master's gone is depends soley on the player. Bioware would have you go through a very rigorous set of quest and then force a cliche showdown. This is just Feargus' nutty foozle obsession. Furthermore, Fallout is not filled with strong character development with the exception of your own. Its not a party based game, its you exploring a new world and impacting it. Bio essentially stages a play between characters in new worlds, already pre-scripted. IMO this is a waste of resources in a non-linear game, Dave Gayder's approach is just to eliminate the non-linearity. Well that would suck.

Bottomline, if you want a linear adventure game, with bad combat and critical acclaim, justfied or not, then let Bioware do it.

 

[Volourn]

I don't know. I haven't played any of BIO's pre BG games so I presume it was a year or two before BG.

All you basically said was true except the "bad combat" part. Heh. Still, BIO hasn't tried to make a FO type game literally so it's kinda of silly to judge them on it saince they proved with both their DnD games, and KOTOR that they can do other licenses justice.

 

[Sarkile]

I seem to remember getting Shattered Steel sometime around 1996. Maybe '97.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Is any of their games turn based, by the way?

Nope, and they don't know what turn based even is. They think that real pause is basically the same thing.