Game News Tim Cain is dead

[Naked Ninja]

What the fuck are you doing here? I thought you had a game to develop.

Was at work and bored. *shrug*

And NN, while I appreciate your adoration of Bethesda from a business standpoint

You're mistaking objectivity with adoration. You are all too keen to interpret everything Bethesda through a haze of nerd rage.

You keep saying that and yet Interplay is still here and they're still using the Fallout license.

And the Atari we see today is the same Atari of yesteryear Your trickiness, it's still failing. But hey, keep up the clever arguments when you're out farming radscorpian claws.

Yes, I thought it was quite good pointing out how they broke a successful formula which worked quite well in the originals, only to have their game suck.

It was quite good. And by good I mean stupid. Point out the forums/links (not the Codex) where there is proof the game perspective played the slightest factor in the games tanking. Because it didn't. Repetitive level design, non-existant plot and shooting themselves in the foot by charging for multiplayer did them in. Keep telling yourself that players left because the camera wasn't isometric and the lore wasn't as "deep" as Diablo's, lol . Yeah, deep. Most players probably never even bothered to read the manual, so you must mean the intro cutscene in D1 (OMG, demon in teh church!) and the 4 cutscenes in D2. Lol, nice try. And by nice I mean...well, you get it.

Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel as well then along with the planned Fallout MMO? I'd say those are attempts to continue using a licence right there.

Quite the time jump there, between BoS and the MMO. Oh, and "attempts to use the license"? That must be why they sold it. Because they planned to use it. Or are you claiming Bethesda Ninjas Todd and Pete rappelled down into Interplay HQ and made off with the docs? That would be pretty awesome. Hint, if you're planning to use a license you don't sell it.

Yeah because we all know companies spend millions of dollars on a license when "nobody gives a damn about it".

It's a drop in the bucket compared to expected returns from the next Bethesda game, whatever that might be, Falllout license or no fallout license.

I know that's cute for an indie developer but it doesn't work in the real world.

Oh wait, did you just imply that I'm "small time" so I don't have the necessary perspective? Yes, yes I think you did. Ahaha. Nice try. And by nice I mean...

Cheap Shots : Ineffective.

You know, if this is all too much for you, you can just give up. Again.

You'd have to bring more than those straws you're clutching at.

Wow, it took less than a page for you to do a complete Flip-Flop.

How is that a flip flop exactly?

Like I said, the clout Bethesda has due to their success means they can convince publishers to go against their first choice. So yes, I believe Zenimax would have wanted to make more of the same (this is a well known trend amongst Publishers) and Todd and crew could have convinced them that a post apoc game could be just as huge. Fantasy is popular but it's not like guns are unpopular. Publishers trust the instincts of developers with a string of hits behind them a lot more. This idea BN has that Zenimax "didn't trust Beths creativity and bought the Fallout license because of that"...I can't see any grounding for that notion in reality.

Oh, and just to clarify, another single player RPG just with a different setting isn't anywhere near the risk of an MMO, especially with Beths track record in single player RPGs. Anyone who thinks they are equivalent is mad. MMOs have like a 80% failure rate and any publisher is going to look at competing with the colossus of WoW, and all the other projects that have tried and failed...and judge it as a major risk. A very tempting one, given the potential profits, but a concept like "if they really trusted them they would have given them the MMO they are making!!!" is false.

 

[Shannow]

it was quite good pointing out how they broke a successful formula which worked quite well in the originals, only to have their game suck.

Repetitive level design, non-existant plot and shooting themselves in the foot by charging for multiplayer did them in.

Well, if that wasn't breaking away from a successful formula...it must have been staying true to said formula

Why am I even wasting time with responding to NN? Oh right, I'm at work and bored.

 

[Blind Eye]

Sorry guys, but NN logic is just kicking your asses. You tell em NN.

 

[Naked Ninja]

@ Shannow :

There is a difference between poor execution of a formula and changing the formula.

Poor level design isn't a change in forumula, it is a failure to execute the forumla well. The equivalent Fallout 3 comparison would be an isometric camera...that gets stuck or lags or something.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

And NN, while I appreciate your adoration of Bethesda from a business standpoint

You're mistaking objectivity with adoration. You are all too keen to interpret everything Bethesda through a haze of nerd rage.

Objectivity? Coming from a guy who reckons they spent millions of dollars because they love Fallout so much? I always did like your failed attempts at humour. That's a particularly nice one right there. You should use it more often.

You keep saying that and yet Interplay is still here and they're still using the Fallout license.

And the Atari we see today is the same Atari of yesteryear Your trickiness, it's still failing.

So hang on, you willingly accept that George Lucas is the be all and end all when it comes to the Star Wars license (ignoring hundreds and thousands of other special effects people, writers, directors and so on) and yet neither Interplay nor the people behind Fallout matter? When it comes to Fallout, it's some kind of package "all or nothing" deal. Wow, you are insane because according to you, Fallout was dead the minute any single one of those people left Interplay. I'd really like to know what it'd take for you say otherwise. I mean, clearly it needs the entire team staying behind at Interplay to ensure the integrity of this precious "entity", which is apparently the only thing through which it could've survived, ignoring the key role certain staff played in Fallout's development (the same way in which George Lucas would be a key staff members to the Star Wars franchise).

Yes, I thought it was quite good pointing out how they broke a successful formula which worked quite well in the originals, only to have their game suck.

It was quite good. And by good I mean stupid.

Awwww... shucks. There's that failed attempt at humour again.

Point out the forums/links (not the Codex) where there is proof the game perspective played the slightest factor in the games tanking. Because it didn't. Repetitive level design, non-existant plot and shooting themselves in the foot by charging for multiplayer did them in.

Hmm.... They all sound like "breaking the formula" to me. And it seems to me that in your own anti-nerd-rage, you left off the part where I said "and comes across as a shallow clone".

Keep telling yourself that players left because the camera wasn't isometric and the lore wasn't as "deep" as Diablo's, lol

Do you know where plot comes from? Nope, didn't think so. It comes from having some nice lore, a story. You don't pluck plot out of your ass without a decent back-story. Oh wait, Diablo had one of those and Hellgate: London didn't.

Yeah, deep. Most players probably never even bothered to read the manual, so you must mean the intro cutscene in D1 (OMG, demon in teh church!) and the 4 cutscenes in D2. Lol, nice try. And by nice I mean...well, you get it.

I see you're talking out of your ass again. Can you point to a forum (and not the Codex) where anyone says the plot doesn't matter? If you'd actually played the game, you'd know that the original Diablo was heavily criticised because it didn't have much of a plot or story and that they fixed it in Diablo II. Seems they dropped the ball with Hellgate. You even said so yourself. If that depth from the plot doesn't matter, then why would "non-existant plot" be a reason for Hellgate: London's failure? Or is this you FLOP-FLOPPING again? And wow, within two paragraphs... That's a new record!

Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel as well then along with the planned Fallout MMO? I'd say those are attempts to continue using a licence right there.

Quite the time jump there, between BoS and the MMO. Oh, and "attempts to use the license"? That must be why they sold it. Because they planned to use it. Or are you claiming Bethesda Ninjas Todd and Pete rappelled down into Interplay HQ and made off with the docs? That would be pretty awesome. Hint, if you're planning to use a license you don't sell it.

That was raised because you keep going on about this entity and insisting that none of the people behind Fallout mattered and that all of them had to stay at Interplay in order for some comparison to be made between George Lucas and Tim Cain. Personally, I think you're so caught up in your own anti-Fallout fan vendetta that you're flip-flopping as fast as you can just to try and maintain your point.

Yeah because we all know companies spend millions of dollars on a license when "nobody gives a damn about it".

It's a drop in the bucket compared to expected returns from the next Bethesda game, whatever that might be, Falllout license or no fallout license.

Oh right, and you speak for Bethesda now? Hey, whatever happened to that "objectivity" you said you had? Oh that's right, you never did have any.

I know that's cute for an indie developer but it doesn't work in the real world.

Oh wait, did you just imply that I'm "small time" so I don't have the necessary perspective? Yes, yes I think you did. Ahaha. Nice try. And by nice I mean...

I'm saying an indie who makes a game whether or not they make money out of it, is vastly different to a multi-million dollar studio which needs to make several million a year just to pay employee salaries. Bethesda didn't buy Fallout on a whim. It was a business decision. The sooner you realise that, the sooner you'll get out of your "but they're doing it for love!".

Cheap Shots : Ineffective.

Hey, maybe that's why your posts aren't working?

Wow, it took less than a page for you to do a complete Flip-Flop.

How is that a flip flop exactly?

Naked Ninja on page 2, where he shows his love for Bethesda:

Oh please, a tiny percentage of their customer base give a damn about the Fallout license. After Oblivion they could just as easily have made anything else. I genuinely believe they paid that money and have gone to that effort because they actually loved the games and want to take a go at it.

Paraphrased: "Nobody cares about Fallout, they bought it because they loved it." (The sad truth? Very few Bethesda developers have actually played Fallout - and that's according to their own interviews)

Do you honestly believe Zenimax paid 6 million dollars to purchase a license which wasn't amazingly profitable and which the majority of the present market, especially the lucrative console section, doesn't really remember or care about?

Come on, your average Producer, on discovering that a fantasy game made lots of profit, goes to their developers and says "make another fantasy game"

Paraphrased: "This isn't about the money, this is about love."

For the vast majority of the world Oblivion was an overwhelming success. You think Zenimax doesn't trust Bethesda's creativity? Come on. From their point of view Todd is a creative genius. Producers measure these things in dollars. I've little doubt that they (Beth) have won themselves the clout necessary to make requests like this, due to Oblivion. In the same way that Will Wright had the clout due to past success to prevent EA from killing a game they thought would sink (Sims).

Paraphrased: "Todd's a genious. I love him to bits."

If ZM trusted Todd/Bethesda to that extent and saw him as a real creative genius, why didn't they hand him the keys to their valuable MMO division (which, let's face it, has the potential to be their biggest earner)?. Instead, they've ground up created a new studio nearby and cherry picked external talent, who they've no experience in working with, and have given them their most important project.

That doesn't say much regarding their faith in Todd/Bethesda to me, espescially if it really is TES:O they are creating.

Well, I suppose you could break up a team of people who are producing products which make you large amounts of money for a large gamble. Or you could get them to keep making large profits on investment to offset the risk of your gamble? Thats what I'd do. Thats the smart thing to do.

Also, maybe Todd likes being at Bethesda and making sp RPGs.

Paraphrased: "Oh wait, maybe they bought it because they thought it would make money because you know, that's the smart thing to do. It's certainly what I'd do and I'm a geenyus hyuk hyuk."

You once complained that Kharn was "projecting [his] negative bias". I think all you're doing is projecting your own positive bias. After all you still can't get over the fact that Pete has, once again, made a dumb statement. It's just your unquestioning love for all things Bethesda that's clouding your mind. After all, they make smart business decisions just like you, the indie guy who's not making any money out of his game! You're not half full of yourself.

Like I said, the clout Bethesda has due to their success means they can convince publishers to go against their first choice. So yes, I believe Zenimax would have wanted to make more of the same (this is a well known trend amongst Publishers) and Todd and crew could have convinced them that a post apoc game could be just as huge.

Hang on... a minute ago, wasn't it because they loved Fallout? How does "we love Fallout, money's got nothing to do with it" become "we love all the money Fallout is going to make us!"?

Fantasy is popular but it's not like guns are unpopular. Publishers trust the instincts of developers with a string of hits behind them a lot more. This idea BN has that Zenimax "didn't trust Beths creativity and bought the Fallout license because of that"...I can't see any grounding for that notion in reality.

So then it wasn't love that resulted in them getting the license. It was their ability to make a business case. You seem to understand publishers quite well so you'd know there's no way in hell they could've gone into that meeting saying "well, we only want to do this because we love it".

Oh, and just to clarify, another single player RPG just with a different setting isn't anywhere near the risk of an MMO, especially with Beths track record in single player RPGs. Anyone who thinks they are equivalent is mad. MMOs have like a 80% failure rate and any publisher is going to look at competing with the colossus of WoW, and all the other projects that have tried and failed...and judge it as a major risk. A very tempting one, given the potential profits, but a concept like "if they really trusted them they would have given them the MMO they are making!!!" is false.

Interesting fact, Fallout development was almost cancelled when Interplay picked up the D&D license because they thought releasing two RPGs at the same time would be "a bad thing". Tim Cain managed to convince them that a post-nuclear RPG with guns was different enough from swords and fantasy that they wouldn't compete with each other. Given that, what do you think the real reason is Bethesda aren't making another single-player fantasy-themed RPG, at a time when they're working on their own multi-player fantasy-themed RPG?

 

[elander_]

Sorry guys, but NN logic is just kicking your asses. You tell em NN.

Joined: 10 Apr 2008
Posts: 4

I think you are mistaking the codex for one of those game sites that worship games and game companies for how much games they can sell.

You're mistaking objectivity with adoration. You are all too keen to interpret everything Bethesda through a haze of nerd rage.

Not really. You are being very naive. It gets tiresome to debate anything at this level of nobeness and lack of properly informed argumentation, which can be summarized in you trying to pin others as pessimistic and biased and repeat your romantic whishful thinking add nauseum.

Todd convinced them to acquire the Fallout license? Complete wishful thinking without any information to back up your romantic views of Bethesda the publisher, when Todd himself already said that the license just fall in their office one day. They were not even consulted in the process of acquiring the license. Sure Todd said he loves Fallout. He also said he loves Ultima VII and Ultima Underworld and a load of other games in the many interviews he made before.

There is a difference between poor execution of a formula and changing the formula.

At least you seam capable to understand our little dilemma here if you try really hard. If Fallout formula didn't worked so well as people wished for the mainstream then why not improve the formula instead of throw half of it away and replace it by something familiar to Oblivion players. Design by commission and marketing data is not compatible with making a Fallout game.

Maybe Bethesda has changed their ways. Maybe Santas really exists. Perhaps Fallout 3 will be both a well executed game and sell well (unlike Oblivion that just sold well). Maybe game reviewers are just guys who write about their opinion. Maybe exclusive content and denial of information for bad reviews is only an invention of haters and nerds. Maybe Santas really exist again. Does this meens that all of us will suddenly be happy because Bethesda is making Fallout 3? The answer is obviously no.

One advise if you want to be a game designer, be humble and respect the classics and those games who are deservedly praised for being great games and try to learn from them. Don't think that you can mess up with the receipt and then arrogantly claim (like Beth did) that you are evolving the game. First make a great game like Fallout and then you can give people lessons on how to handle a classic and don't take any chances of messing up what you are doing.

 

[Longshanks]

Was at work and bored. *shrug*

Posting at work in your spare time, developing a game "on your own", self-important, repellant internet persona - could these things somehow be connected? :wink:

You're mistaking objectivity with adoration. You are all too keen to interpret everything Bethesda through a haze of nerd rage.

(Unlike DU, I think you could make it as a comedian)

And the Atari we see today is the same Atari of yesteryear Your trickiness, it's still failing. But hey, keep up the clever arguments when you're out farming radscorpian claws.

Seeing as you are attempting to develop a game yourself, you surely understand games are developed by people, who "work" for companies. The original Fallout developers are still around. Many of the original creators of the IP were very interested in obtaining the rights.

There is little difference between the vast majority of those involved in creating the Fallout IP, wanting to work on the sequel, but the license being bought by Bethesda, and Peter Jackson buying the rights to make the next Star Wars movie, while George Lucas is still alive and interested in doing so.

Anyway, as Bethesda have said so often, they are fans of Fallout's world and tone, and that is all. Their intention was always to add a Fallout layer to their standard RPG model. This is the reason so many were rightfully sceptical.

This idea BN has that Zenimax "didn't trust Beths creativity and bought the Fallout license because of that"...I can't see any grounding for that notion in reality.

Just as much as for your claims that Todd Howard himself requested the license "out of love". Bethesda have not created an original IP since TES (over a decade ago), there is no-one currently on staff who has experience doing so, it's quite logical really. Certainly more logical than your loony love line.

 

[Blind Eye]

I think you are mistaking the codex for one of those game sites that worship games and game companies for how much games they can sell.


My join date is irrelivant, I've been comming here for about two years now, and know what the Codex is all about. I just happen to think NN's right in this case. I do happen to think that Beth bought it for the love. It's just what they've done to it turned out to be more like rape.

What I mostly agree with is his original point of dissmissing peoples opinions that act like bile spewing rabid lunatics. Who wouldn't what to ignore that.

You guys may have had a chance to help steer the development of the game, but you fucked it up.

 

[Naked Ninja]

Coming from a guy who reckons they spent millions of dollars because they love Fallout so much?

No, because they loved fallout and are convinced they can make a massive profit on a game set in that setting. Which is a fair assessment, given Bethesda's track record.

Sound business decision + passion = win.

Shall we wait and see if the part I've highlighted comes true? I think it will.

and yet neither Interplay nor the people behind Fallout matter?

Of course they matter. And it's great that they are alive and kicking in some form. If we took the entity known as DarkUnderlord, cut it up into 15 pieces and somehow kept those pieces alive yet separate from each other, using Frankenstein-like science, could we then conclude DU as an entity is alive? No. You've got a gutted, pitiful husk of the former Interplay and many of the core members behind Fallout scattered to the winds, the closest thing that resembled them (Troika) liquidated. You got nothing.

They all sound like "breaking the formula" to me.

Because you don't understand the difference between breaking the formula and failing to execute the forumla well. I explained it above.

Do you know where plot comes from? Nope, didn't think so. It comes from having some nice lore, a story.

Except that Hellgate's "Templars working in the background throughout history to protect humanity" was enough of a back story seed to result in decent in game storyline if they'd actually hired a competent writer. Easily. You've got the entire wealth of the Templars and Freemasons history to tap into. Any 3rd year varsity student could have pulled a spiel about mysticism and deviltry during the Crusades out of their ass in an afternoon. Hellgate had a sufficient base, it failed in the execution. It's not the only thing failing here.

If you'd actually played the game, you'd know that the original Diablo was heavily criticised because it didn't have much of a plot or story and that they fixed it in Diablo II.

Played the game plenty, loved the backlore, blizzard are champs in that department. But I'm an exception, I doubt the majority actually read the manual. Links to this "D1 heavily criticised for lack of plot" proof please. Most action RPGers were there for the looting and leveling.

If that depth from the plot doesn't matter, then why would "non-existant plot" be a reason for Hellgate: London's failure?

Because in Hellgate there is no sense of direction or goal. This is what even a totally minimal plot offers, a reason to go from A to B. Hellgate has zero reason. Not giving the player a sense of purpose or direction in a game is a cardinal sin, tsk tsk Flagship.

That was raised because you keep going on about this entity and insisting that none of the people behind Fallout mattered and that all of them had to stay at Interplay in order for some comparison to be made between George Lucas and Tim Cain.

No, it was raised because you're trying to be tricky and convince people that Beth swooped in and stole a license that was "going to be used, real soon!". No.

Oh right, and you speak for Bethesda now?

I need to "speak for Bethesda" in order to be able to predict their next game will be a smashing financial success?

I'm saying an indie who makes a game whether or not they make money out of it, is vastly different to a multi-million dollar studio which needs to make several million a year just to pay employee salaries. Bethesda didn't buy Fallout on a whim. It was a business decision. The sooner you realise that, the sooner you'll get out of your "but they're doing it for love!".

A business decision? No shit. Every game that gets made is based on a "business decision". That doesn't mean studios don't make games because they really want to, you know, out of passion for their subject matter. Or perhaps that is a sentiment limited to your hero's at Interplay? Fail.

Naked Ninja on page 2, where he shows his love for Bethesda:

If I don't jump aboard the Beth hate train I must love them, right? Fail.

The sad truth? Very few Bethesda developers have actually played Fallout - and that's according to their own interviews

I wonder if the tea lady has played it? If she hasn't more fuel for your fiery hatred! Sorry, we're talking decision makers and designers here. I don't care if the art team lead hasn't played it. Retro 50s sci-fi meets post apoc, wow, that will be hard for any competent artist to figure out. Fail. What percentage of the Beth decision makers and designers have played it?

Paraphrased: "Todd's a genious. I love him to bits."

Is cheap shots all you have left?

Paraphrased: "Oh wait, maybe they bought it because they thought it would make money because you know, that's the smart thing to do. It's certainly what I'd do and I'm a geenyus hyuk hyuk."

You once complained that Kharn was "projecting [his] negative bias". I think all you're doing is projecting your own positive bias. After all you still can't get over the fact that Pete has, once again, made a dumb statement. It's just your unquestioning love for all things Bethesda that's clouding your mind. After all, they make smart business decisions just like you, the indie guy who's not making any money out of his game! You're not half full of yourself.

Seems so.

Hang on... a minute ago, wasn't it because they loved Fallout? How does "we love Fallout, money's got nothing to do with it" become "we love all the money Fallout is going to make us!"?

Where do you get this crap, because it isn't from my posts? How is it hard to imagine that Bethesda loves the license, believes they can make a commercially successful game based on it and then in turn convinced their publishers of this fact? It is possible to be passionate about material and be convinced it can make you a large profit. And then to convince your financiers of this fact. But you only want to believe Bethesda capable of the money part. Bias.

So then it wasn't love that resulted in them getting the license. It was their ability to make a business case.

Every game a developer wants to make, no matter how passionate they are on the subject matter, will require them "making a business case" to their publisher, unless they are indie. How does this prove they weren't motivated by enthusiasm for the license? Fail.

Given that, what do you think the real reason is Bethesda aren't making another single-player fantasy-themed RPG, at a time when they're working on their own multi-player fantasy-themed RPG?

This is the Interplay which made such wonderful business decisions that it collapsed from within right?

MMOs and RPGs aren't the same market. Interestingly Bioware is currently making a fantasy RPG (Dragon Age), a sci-fi RPG (ME 2) and an MMO...want to bet it's either fantasy or sci-fi? Seems not everyone thinks like that. And it's even less relevant if the games aren't planned for a similar financial cycle.

At least you seam capable to understand our little dilemma here if you try really hard. If Fallout formula didn't worked so well as people wished for the mainstream then why not improve the formula instead of throw half of it away and replace it by something familiar to Oblivion players. Design by commission and marketing data is not compatible with making a Fallout game.

What an amusingly contradictory statement. So if the game failed in the mass market (you'd realize this by analyzing marketing data) you should not then go and design based on feedback provided by marketing data? The criterion you use to judge success of a game shouldn't be used to design the game hey?

 

[elander_]

At least you seam capable to understand our little dilemma here if you try really hard. If Fallout formula didn't worked so well as people wished for the mainstream then why not improve the formula instead of throw half of it away and replace it by something familiar to Oblivion players. Design by commission and marketing data is not compatible with making a Fallout game.

What an amusingly contradictory statement. So if the game failed in the mass market (you'd realize this by analyzing marketing data) you should not then go and design based on feedback provided by marketing data? The criterion you use to judge success of a game shouldn't be used to design the game hey?

You don't understand very well what i said. Fallout is game that fallows a strong design philosophy, it's not just another crpg with Fallouts setting. Design driven by commission and marketing doesn't follow any strong design philosophy, it follows the latest tendencies in game mechanics.

It's obvious that Beth doesn't want to follow Fallouts game mechanics and there is no indication that those same game mechanics could not be improved to made it more mass marketeable and a success as you think a successful game should be.

There would be no fuss if they simply decided to make their own post apocalyptic setting but they are calling it a Fallout game so they should make one and improve on it.

What I mostly agree with is his original point of dissmissing peoples opinions that act like bile spewing rabid lunatics. Who wouldn't what to ignore that.

You guys may have had a chance to help steer the development of the game, but you fucked it up.

This is a games site where people discuss their points of view and comment on game news. I'm not changing my point of view unless i see any good reason for that.

There are rabid lunatics and fanatics in every site, just visit the ESF and read the fanboys posts. Grown up people just ignore them and listen to those who bother to provide their arguments.

 

[Gragt]

You guys may have had a chance to help steer the development of the game, but you fucked it up.

I have trouble believing that but you might be right after all. Some reactions were and are childish though I can understand where they come from (and well the occasional potshot is fun in a desperate sort of way). I must admit I often felt annoyed by Bethesda's declarations which are basically the same things they said for the previous games only with a new coat. It's almost insulting. Same thing with how they approached the Fallout universe, I remember their declarations about the super mutants, ghouls, Brotherhood of Steel...

Yet I believe that if they really wanted to contact the fans, they would have done it. Maybe not by posting here or on NMA but at least contacting some of the admins, having them prepare the way for some exchanges, etc. If the community replied in a negative way they could at least say they tried to enter in communication but it failed because Fallout fans are indeed moon-worshipping savages. I would have had some respect for them if they actually tried that as it would have been a sign of good faith.

It's my humble opinion that they know how to do it and prefer to check their own forum to get a peek at what the fans (the Oblivion fans) want.

 

[tunguska]

Zenimax Media is not a separate entity from Bethesda Softworks.

ZeniMax was founded in 1999 by Robert A. Altman, chairman and CEO of the company and Bethesda Softworks founder Chris Weaver, to make content and technology for interactive television, but potential companies were wary of new investments in the field[1]. The same year, it acquired Bethesda Softworks. In 2002, Chris Weaver's contract with the company was not renewed and the co-founder was forced to leave ZeniMax and Bethesda.

Notice how Chris Weaver was also listed as a cofounder of Zenimax. So this is not a developer-publisher relationship here. It is a scenario where the founder, the man with the original creative vision (VR world simulation RPG) that lead to Arena and Daggerfall, took on a business partner for some much needed cash and was later ousted by said partner. Of course Altman was going to keep the original name, but the company is completely different from the one that made Daggerfall. With Weaver gone there is no creative vision, only the vision of a financial investor with no interest in gaming. So please stop talking talking as if Zenimax is merely Bethesda's publisher. It just isn't so. You are falling for Altman's deceptive naming strategy. To make things even more simple. Weaver = Bethesda. Altman = Zenimax. And Weaver is gone.

 

[Naked Ninja]

To make things even more simple. Weaver = Bethesda. Altman = Zenimax. And Weaver is gone.

Simple indeed. Simple minded. We've talked about this "putting one man on a pedestal and crediting him with the combined efforts of a group of people" thing already. Cut it out. It's very dramatic and all, oh yes, but lame.

And not a developer-publisher relationship? Are you joking? You know EA swallowed up a ton of developers, right? They are now formally a part of EA. For example Bioware has kept its name but is just a name for a division of EA. What you have described is a pretty normal developer-publisher relationship. And a familiar tale of mainstream corporate shenanigans. It changes nothing.

 

[tunguska]

Simple indeed. Simple minded. We've talked about this "putting one man on a pedestal and crediting him with the combined efforts of a group of people" thing already. Cut it out. It's very dramatic and all, oh yes, but lame.

Okay. Fair enough. It was not only Weaver who was responsible for Bethesda's first two games not sucking completely. But Weaver did have genuine creative vision. He was a VR researcher before he started being a game developer. He wanted to make RPG based virtual worlds. But the tech just wasn't there to do it. Nor did he even have the kind of money that would have been necessary to make a real go at it. So we ended up with Arena and Daggerfall, both of which were pretty good nevertheless, especially for the time. And he owned the company outright. It was his baby. He had complete control over everything. So while he doesn't deserve all the credit, he does deserve some. Especially when you compare him to Robert "Mr. Oblivion" Altman. Altman's only intention was to put gas in his boat and "embrace and extend" was/is his strategy to do it. Appealing to the lowest common denominator works. And he is milking that as much as possible. With a suit like Altman at the helm what else could we expect but a game that is as dumbed down and as cheap to make as possible?

And not a developer-publisher relationship? Are you joking?

No. I am not. Please show me some evidence to the contrary if you have it. Zenimax is not a publisher at all. Can you list even a single developer other than "Bethesda" (who doesn't even exist anymore) that they publish?

You know EA swallowed up a ton of developers, right? They are now formally a part of EA. For example Bioware has kept its name but is just a name for a division of EA. What you have described is a pretty normal developer-publisher relationship. And a familiar tale of mainstream corporate shenanigans. It changes nothing.

That would be true if Zenimax were a publisher. But they are not. Not even close. Not a publisher. Zenimax is the self publishing developer that Bethesda used to be before all of th old employees and the founder were fired. Zenimax has absolutely nothing in common with EA except for EA's penchant for buying companies and destroying them. That is essentially what Zenimax did. Altman destroyed Bethesda. Made them into a kiddie console developer.

Here's an analogy. There is a restaurant that you used to go to because the food was good. It gets bought out and the talented chef who really cared and took pride in the taste of his food is replaced by a cook who used to work at a fast food restaurant and was hired only because he was so cheap to get and knows how to cook hamburgers "just like McDonalds". The new owner doesn't care about food. Maybe he is even one of those rare people born without a sense of smell and so can't taste anything. He just wants to make a profit. He doesn't change the name because that was the whole point of the purchase -- name recognition. The old customers are left wondering what the hell happened and new customers just assume that the restaurant always had bad food. I am an old customer. I remember the old Bethesda and this aint them, just with a new publisher.

 

[Claw]

You've got a gutted, pitiful husk of the former Interplay and many of the core members behind Fallout scattered to the winds, the closest thing that resembled them (Troika) liquidated. You got nothing.

I loathe retroactive justification. Trokia is liqidated now, but wasn't at the time Bethesda aquired the license. In fact, Troika just happened to be working on some "PA RPG" concept and maybe hoped that a Publisher would not only fund them but aquite the Fallout license for them.
Now I'm not saying they stole the license from Trokia. As far as I know it was just unlucky coincidence that Bethesda (or Zenimax) bought the license at the same time and we don't know what would've happened otherwise.
Still, the analogy can't apply in retrospect. Besides, Pete can't be taken seriously anyway. He's a professional bullshit talker who doesn't care or know a whole lot about Fallout. I'm not even sure he has any idea (or cares) of who the George Lucas of Fallout is supposed to be.

 

[Gnidrologist]

In response to this thread: tl;dr.

 

[DefJam101]

Mass hysteria, this is techno
House is not my home but it rocks though
I checked up on the late great T.C.
His death is said on national TV
How when, and why this are the main
Things that I heard when I stroll down the lake
Now memory, man are you with that
Tim Cain is dead

Total chaos, man it's resurrected
I'm confused that things are gettin' hectic
In my brain, what is happenin'
Could this be a big misunderstanding
It is
The hardest working man in show biz is alive so (???)
Don't be mislead, cause the newsman said
Tim Cain is dead

Tim Cain is dead

Tim Cain is dead

Nightmare is over
Now I'm alone
Grab the mike rip shit an go for broke
Music masterpiece release with this
Now I will get much respect from EmCees
Along the way oh I heard him say
This is fly, this cool type of guy
He's total, and I'm so bad
Tim Cain is dead

Tim Cain is dead


Tim Cain is dead

 

[Gnidrologist]

Tim Cain's dead, baby, Tim Cain's dead.

 

[Gragt]

Tim Cain the Knigh of the Wastes, ascended to demigod-hood.

 

[Tychus Findlay]

Hmm... Much like links here, I shouldn't click on anything that says "<blah> died..."

On a side note, how did they get to have Tim Cain's fat face on the Fallout shortcut icon?
I see smiling Vaultboy when I look in the properties, try to change it, in smaller sizes etc.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

I do happen to think that Beth bought it for the love. It's just what they've done to it turned out to be more like rape.

Well, as long as their raping it out of good faith...

 

[Acleacius]

I have to agree it's more like bethseda is making us buy them dinner before they rape Fallout. Plus it's more like a bonus they have smiles on their faces and makes seem like they aren't as evil as regular rapists. Sometimes being Politically Correct can help Nanook save baby seals.


Cimmerian Nights, thanks for the pic.

 

[Tychus Findlay]

I do happen to think that Beth bought it for the love. It's just what they've done to it turned out to be more like rape.

They're more like the clueless well-meaning, well-intentioned step-parent and "You gotta understand, I'm only doing this because I LOVE you..."

 

[Naked Ninja]

I loathe retroactive justification. Trokia is liqidated now, but wasn't at the time Bethesda aquired the license. In fact, Troika just happened to be working on some "PA RPG" concept and maybe hoped that a Publisher would not only fund them but aquite the Fallout license for them.
Now I'm not saying they stole the license from Trokia. As far as I know it was just unlucky coincidence that Bethesda (or Zenimax) bought the license at the same time and we don't know what would've happened otherwise.

That's a nice concept, quite a few maybes, but nice. Luckily through the magic of future-o-vision we can know what would have happened. Firstly, they struggled to find publishers for their games due to the mediocre commercial success of their titles. So chances of them convincing a publisher to buy a 6 million dollar license on top of funding them = ~0%

But lets say they did. Some publisher buys the license. What happens? Lets look at what happened with the other license they utilized, Vampire. Now I loved Vampire. Really. But that game was a fail. Commercial flop, development flop. I couldn't get past a game destroying bug in the middle without a patch, the end was a mess, unbalanced, blah blah.

So, if we follow that alternate path of history, assuming they dropped the vampire idea and did Fallout (in real life even if they had the license lined up for their next game they would never have gotten to develop it) you might have had a half decent F3/half complete mess. And then they would have closed their doors and been liquidated and the codex/nma could shed a tear for what might have been.

Your average ravening fanboy might imagine this would mean Tim got to keep the license. Nope. Exactly the same as Interplay; the publisher owns the license they paid for and they'd get to keep it. Either to give to another one of their development studios (not Tim Cain) to play with, or, more likely, to recoup their investment, selling it. To whomever was interested in the property, which is probably Bethesda again.

So we'd be having this same argument except over Fallout 4 instead of 3, BUT we'd also have a bunch of wailing on the forums about how F3 could have been great if only those damn publishers had sunk more time and money into Troika!! :fistwave:

Sorry, nice pipe dream there Claw but still not good enough. Given the timelines we'd still probably be having this argument around about now.

 

[Shagnak]

So, if we follow that alternate path of history, assuming they dropped the vampire idea and did Fallout (in real life even if they had the license lined up for their next game they would never have gotten to develop it) you might have had a half decent F3/half complete mess. And then they would have closed their doors and been liquidated and the codex/nma could shed a tear for what might have been.

The thing is, the majority of people at the 'Codex rather like Troika's half decent/half mess concoctions. So this scenario is still a (relative) win.

One more "real" Fallout, perhaps slightly dodgy, parts unfinished, but the bits that are finished are the sterling fair-dinkum real thing, would be better to most rabid Fallout fans than the current situation.

Oh yeah, F4 (or woteva) would have gone to Mr Moneybags with the proven track record for commercial success, but in the mean time just one more flawed master piece, and a Fallout master piece no less, would be better than no more, no?

(Just making an observation on that one thing. Haven't read the rest fo the thread properly - you fuckers argue way to big and long for me these days )