NMA article: About Fallout Fans
- Thread starter Brother None
- Start date
RPG of the year!! said:
No, afraid not, this is as far as I go into the history. Yes, I know, I know, really really limited, and I don't like it all that much either, I skipped over the Fallout Bibles, skadoodled over Sean K. Ping-Pongs fight-then-convert, and went right over who-knows-what-else (Unwashed Villagers? Fallout d20?)
But it's just to illustrate the point, so all consciously done. "A history of the Fallout fanbase would make an entire article of itself" was originally in the intro, before welsh told me to TRIM TRIM TRIM.
Specialist said:
I don't think it was. Elara was a full-time company and drama whore, y'know, the "Give Fallout BoS a chance it'll be good honest"-type. She was a mod on the BoS forum, if memory serves.
RayTracer said:
We had this as an aprils fool jokes, but I remember DAC saying they were going to close down and we were actually the ones who were going to get DAC, ie incorporate it into NMA. But the crowd didnt like that, hehe.
A lot of the despair over Bethesda's FO3 is based on comments they made shortly after acquiring the license in 2004. At that point they had nothing but the license itself. As was stated at the time, the announcement was only made because it was a business requirement. If we can give them the benefit of the doubt on one matter, at least, they stated at that point they had no specific plans for the actual game.
I think they may have been a bit taken aback by the sudden scrutiny of a game they hadn't even started on. In answering questions they were of course in general PR mode, but it is possible that they didn't know the answers themselves at that point.
Yes, some of those comments were discouraging. What I'm seeing here, though, is similar to a religious fundamentalist latching onto a few scripture passages and trumpeting them while ignoring the whole of the message. Those few early comments are being used to paint Bethesda with the same brush as Interplay.
The most recent interview on NMA's Fallout 3 page that actually deals with FO3 is DAC's talk with Todd Howard in Feb 2005. (http://www.duckandcover.cx/content.php?id=66)
Even though that was a full 2 years ago, at least at that point Bethesda had been able to actually do some work on FO3. That interview holds much more hope for a true sequel than the comments made at the time the license was acquired.
Like I said before, we Fallout fans are justifiably angry. It was Interplay that repeatedly screwed us, though, not Bethesda (yet). I think Bethesda is wary of us, and for good reason. They have not tried to get us on their side and that, to us, is not a good sign. Maybe it is because they are wary, maybe it's because they are close-lipped about games in development, maybe it is because they know what they are doing would piss us off. WE don't know for sure yet.
I don't know what they are doing. I still have some hope. I reserve judgment until we at least have a single screenshot.
I think they may have been a bit taken aback by the sudden scrutiny of a game they hadn't even started on. In answering questions they were of course in general PR mode, but it is possible that they didn't know the answers themselves at that point.
Yes, some of those comments were discouraging. What I'm seeing here, though, is similar to a religious fundamentalist latching onto a few scripture passages and trumpeting them while ignoring the whole of the message. Those few early comments are being used to paint Bethesda with the same brush as Interplay.
The most recent interview on NMA's Fallout 3 page that actually deals with FO3 is DAC's talk with Todd Howard in Feb 2005. (http://www.duckandcover.cx/content.php?id=66)
Even though that was a full 2 years ago, at least at that point Bethesda had been able to actually do some work on FO3. That interview holds much more hope for a true sequel than the comments made at the time the license was acquired.
Like I said before, we Fallout fans are justifiably angry. It was Interplay that repeatedly screwed us, though, not Bethesda (yet). I think Bethesda is wary of us, and for good reason. They have not tried to get us on their side and that, to us, is not a good sign. Maybe it is because they are wary, maybe it's because they are close-lipped about games in development, maybe it is because they know what they are doing would piss us off. WE don't know for sure yet.
I don't know what they are doing. I still have some hope. I reserve judgment until we at least have a single screenshot.
Yes, jfreund, what you say is true. But then answer one question; why haven't they said anything new in those 2 years? They had no idea what they would be doing then, but they're working on it fully now. So what info have we got? What they said then + rumours.
If our presumptions are untrue, would it take more than one dev posting to falsify them?
If our presumptions are untrue, would it take more than one dev posting to falsify them?
What 'whole of the message'? There is no other message at all.jfreund said:
What, you mean this:jfreund said:
"Are there any plans to have contact with developers who have worked on the franchise before, for consultation on the Fallout universe or any other aspect of development of Fallout 3?
Yes, that's already occurred. There's a lot of passion from everyone to see Fallout return."
That's an outright lie. They didn't contact any of the original developers, none that mattered anyway, according to Kharn.
Or this:
"With Oblivion, we're doing a much better job than we've done before,"
Yeah, that's a real treat.
Or this:
"This is as big for us as an Elder Scrolls title, so we're not going to skimp on it."
Where he yet again seems to think that they did the TES series justice.
Or this:
"Ultimately we'll do what we think will be the most fun."
Whoop-di-doo, look at OBlivion for their definition of 'fun'.
See, the neat thing, *nothing concrete* is said in that article, yet they do manage to lie and give us a presentation of what they think is Fallout-y, and fuck it up in most parts.
The good bits:
- More like Fallout 1 than 2.
- Concentration on deep NPCs, unlike Oblivion.
The bad bits:
- Everything else.
They screwed over their own fan base, though: the TES-fans. And the Star Trek fans.jfreund said:
We do, if we are to believe VDweller's and Roshambo's leaks.jfreund said:
welsh
Junkmaster
Yes indeed! Trimming is a good thing!
I don't agree with your suggestion that they were acting pro forma at the outset. There was little reason why Bethesda could not have offered reassurance that they would make an "honest" sequel to Fallout 1 and 2 when they bought the license. They must have known what they were buying. What I suspect is that they wanted to reserve their options. This inherently creates an assumption of a conflict.
Bethesda could have offered reassurance.
They didn't.
Instead they said they had no plans for the games = we want to make money and make no promises.
Which defines what they value. Sometimes what you don't say speaks volumes.
The question we have is whether-
(1) Will Bethesda pull another fuck up like FOBOS,
or,
(2) Will Bethesda play smart- aka- listen to what fans want, make a game that fans will rave about. Then Bethesda can enjoy word of mouth, do well with FO 3, and encourage faith in Bethesda from the same fans who might say, "Hey Bethesday, I can respect them. They made a damn good Fallout 3 that was true to integrity of Fallout. Way to go Bethesda."
You'd think they'd play it smart and do (2).
But it's remarkable how fucking stupid people are when it comes to making a buck by whoring out a franchise. No, this is not a rant. This is illustrated by FOBOS (Oh and look at what wonderful cluster fuck that was).
If Bethesda was to play (2), and if Bethesda is aware of how loyal FO fans are and can easily ascertain their expectations and concerns, then why no reassurance since?
Again, I doubt this. It is possible Bethesda bought FO because it was available and they saw in it merely the potential to make a buck. But if so than they should have considered what they were purchasing before they shelled out the money.
"Hey developers, what have you heard about Fallout? Great game? Would love to see a sequel? Lots of fans who are very loyal, hunh? So what kind of game would they want? Oh... they talk about this at NMA and DAC? Really? Maybe we should check them out? AH... so that's what they want... So if we give them a game that's consistent with these expectations, we'll probably have a hit... ah.. well that was easy."
This isn't rocket science and it's not like this will take a lot of research. I mean, Van Buren should have offered some clue.
Which begs the question- if you are in a potentially difficult relationship with a group, how do you ease tension?
Do you-
(1) hide behind your fortress walls and freeze out all communications with the other side, as you undertake your plans to make your fortune.
Or
(2) Send out a few envoys to the other side and say, "Hey, we're working on a game and would like to hear what you guys think." Or "We've got some ideas for Fallout 3 we'd like to suggest to you." Or "Hey we hear your concerns and we appreciate your loyalty to Fallout. We love the game too and are going to make a game we think you'll love and which we think is true to its predecessors."
Bethesda could reassure. They don't.
So what should we expect?
jfreund said:
I don't agree with your suggestion that they were acting pro forma at the outset. There was little reason why Bethesda could not have offered reassurance that they would make an "honest" sequel to Fallout 1 and 2 when they bought the license. They must have known what they were buying. What I suspect is that they wanted to reserve their options. This inherently creates an assumption of a conflict.
Bethesda could have offered reassurance.
They didn't.
Instead they said they had no plans for the games = we want to make money and make no promises.
Which defines what they value. Sometimes what you don't say speaks volumes.
The question we have is whether-
(1) Will Bethesda pull another fuck up like FOBOS,
or,
(2) Will Bethesda play smart- aka- listen to what fans want, make a game that fans will rave about. Then Bethesda can enjoy word of mouth, do well with FO 3, and encourage faith in Bethesda from the same fans who might say, "Hey Bethesday, I can respect them. They made a damn good Fallout 3 that was true to integrity of Fallout. Way to go Bethesda."
You'd think they'd play it smart and do (2).
But it's remarkable how fucking stupid people are when it comes to making a buck by whoring out a franchise. No, this is not a rant. This is illustrated by FOBOS (Oh and look at what wonderful cluster fuck that was).
If Bethesda was to play (2), and if Bethesda is aware of how loyal FO fans are and can easily ascertain their expectations and concerns, then why no reassurance since?
Again, I doubt this. It is possible Bethesda bought FO because it was available and they saw in it merely the potential to make a buck. But if so than they should have considered what they were purchasing before they shelled out the money.
"Hey developers, what have you heard about Fallout? Great game? Would love to see a sequel? Lots of fans who are very loyal, hunh? So what kind of game would they want? Oh... they talk about this at NMA and DAC? Really? Maybe we should check them out? AH... so that's what they want... So if we give them a game that's consistent with these expectations, we'll probably have a hit... ah.. well that was easy."
This isn't rocket science and it's not like this will take a lot of research. I mean, Van Buren should have offered some clue.
Which begs the question- if you are in a potentially difficult relationship with a group, how do you ease tension?
Do you-
(1) hide behind your fortress walls and freeze out all communications with the other side, as you undertake your plans to make your fortune.
Or
(2) Send out a few envoys to the other side and say, "Hey, we're working on a game and would like to hear what you guys think." Or "We've got some ideas for Fallout 3 we'd like to suggest to you." Or "Hey we hear your concerns and we appreciate your loyalty to Fallout. We love the game too and are going to make a game we think you'll love and which we think is true to its predecessors."
Bethesda could reassure. They don't.
So what should we expect?
Morbus
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Está, e já está há algum tempo. Até já esteve em segundo. A comunidade Mega Score é uma comunidade especialBriosafreak said:
E Fallout É um nome de marca.And i was saying it's been like that for some time, around the 4th and the 5th place of the listBriosafreak said:
The voting community is a special one, so I don't find it THAT odd to have Fallout 3 on the top 10 most expected games.Anyway, i guess I have permission of posting it there
Please don't get me wrong - I'm not defending Bethesda's lack of communication. My entire point is that right now WE DON'T KNOW.
We have rumors and old, stale, half-baked comments. I'd feel a whole lot better (or possibly worse) if BethSoft would throw us a bone.
Even if Bethesda hit every bullet point on the list of what we say would make a kick-ass FO3 (not bloody likely, but again WE DON'T KNOW), there are people who will bitch.
Kharn's article is examining the negative reputation the hardcore Fallout fanbase has, and whether or not it is justified. In this thread to discuss the article, there is reinforcement for that negative image.
Fu<k Interplay and Herve Caen with a rusty chainsaw. If Bethesda screws this up, the same to them. But, once more, at this point WE DON'T KNOW, and rabid condemnation of Bethesda before we do know does our cause no good.
Yes, I'm being optimistic. I've been depressed for a long time over the state of the Fallout franchise, and I see some hope. I am prepared for that hope to be destroyed, and if it is I will be right there on the "screw Bethesda" bandwagon with the others. If it turns out to be Oblivion with guns, then absolutely give it the BoS treatment, but its still too early for that.
We have rumors and old, stale, half-baked comments. I'd feel a whole lot better (or possibly worse) if BethSoft would throw us a bone.
Even if Bethesda hit every bullet point on the list of what we say would make a kick-ass FO3 (not bloody likely, but again WE DON'T KNOW), there are people who will bitch.
Kharn's article is examining the negative reputation the hardcore Fallout fanbase has, and whether or not it is justified. In this thread to discuss the article, there is reinforcement for that negative image.
Fu<k Interplay and Herve Caen with a rusty chainsaw. If Bethesda screws this up, the same to them. But, once more, at this point WE DON'T KNOW, and rabid condemnation of Bethesda before we do know does our cause no good.
Yes, I'm being optimistic. I've been depressed for a long time over the state of the Fallout franchise, and I see some hope. I am prepared for that hope to be destroyed, and if it is I will be right there on the "screw Bethesda" bandwagon with the others. If it turns out to be Oblivion with guns, then absolutely give it the BoS treatment, but its still too early for that.
Wow, that's a new point of view! One we haven't debunked in, say, a zillion other Fallout 3 threads!
welsh
Junkmaster
Alas, your point accepts reaction to action, to be passive and responsive rather than proactive and critical.
Once the game is release, it is a fait accompli. Whether the game is a hit or miss, Bethesda will reap the rewards.
But personally, I think it would be unfair to buyers who purchase a game called Fallout 3 only to find its Oblivion with Guns.
That smacks of a lie for pecuniary gain.
Furthermore, I suspect if Bethesda does Oblivion with Guns, than many will feel that the Fallout series has again been tarnished by a bunch of developers who cares more about quick profit by selling to the lowest common denominator, than about cultivating loyalty with the fans or even a good reputation in the gaming industry.
I am not saying that Bethesda can't make an Oblivion with Guns- but don't call that Fallout.
Otherwise it's not only frustrating for a fan, but its insulting.
Finally, if we can read Bethesda's PR strategy as "We don't give a fuck about what you think, we'll do what we want, and further more, we'll treat you like shit."
Then I think a fair response is-
"Well fuck you too, and if you decide to offer us another FOBOS, than you'll hear the outrage."
FOBOS might have sunk because it was a crap game. But it might have tanked because of the ban press it got and the word-of-mouth spread by the Fallout Community.
Bethesda has made a rational calculation with the way it handles PR. There are costs and benefits.
Benefits- isolation from criticism from outsiders.
Costs- distrust and pessimism from existing fans.
Perhaps they can convince these concerns are misplaced.
But then they'd have to actually comment for a change and offer some information.
Once the game is release, it is a fait accompli. Whether the game is a hit or miss, Bethesda will reap the rewards.
But personally, I think it would be unfair to buyers who purchase a game called Fallout 3 only to find its Oblivion with Guns.
That smacks of a lie for pecuniary gain.
Furthermore, I suspect if Bethesda does Oblivion with Guns, than many will feel that the Fallout series has again been tarnished by a bunch of developers who cares more about quick profit by selling to the lowest common denominator, than about cultivating loyalty with the fans or even a good reputation in the gaming industry.
I am not saying that Bethesda can't make an Oblivion with Guns- but don't call that Fallout.
Otherwise it's not only frustrating for a fan, but its insulting.
Finally, if we can read Bethesda's PR strategy as "We don't give a fuck about what you think, we'll do what we want, and further more, we'll treat you like shit."
Then I think a fair response is-
"Well fuck you too, and if you decide to offer us another FOBOS, than you'll hear the outrage."
FOBOS might have sunk because it was a crap game. But it might have tanked because of the ban press it got and the word-of-mouth spread by the Fallout Community.
Bethesda has made a rational calculation with the way it handles PR. There are costs and benefits.
Benefits- isolation from criticism from outsiders.
Costs- distrust and pessimism from existing fans.
Perhaps they can convince these concerns are misplaced.
But then they'd have to actually comment for a change and offer some information.
Morbus said:Anyway, i guess I have permission of posting it there
Not really. Silencer and Odin are the editors, they're the chiefs of content redistribution.
RPG of the year!!
First time out of the vault
jfreund said:
Another swing and a miss.
Bethesda's lack of communication in and of itself LET'S US KNOW something.
jfreund said:
Information leaks from certain members of the community who have proven themselves to be 100% reliable in regards to information leaks, do not fall under the category of garden variety rumors. To say the least. Especially not when they fit perfectly with Bethesda's intentions towards Fallout 3 as previously stated by Pete Hines.
Now here's a free tip, Captain Optimist: offering contradictory evidence goes further than shrieking "RUMOR LOL!!" does. As such, I'm afraid I'll have to ask for a justifiable reason to place doubt in all the "rumors". Okay... Ready? Set? GO!
jfreund said:
I'll happily concede that Petey Boy's comments were half-baked, but that's the undeviated standard for him. To presume that Bethesda had no solid plans for Fallout 3 at the time he said it would be Oblivion With Guns, you must also presume that Bethesda spent about one million dollars to purchase the Fallout license before having any idea what the fuck they were actually going to do with it. Likely scenario, AM I RITE?! OLLOL!!!
Yes. I'm sure his comments are no longer applicable, sweetums. After all, Fallout 3 is being crossdeveloped for the Xbox360. Rejoice! For that alone contradicts everything he(and Todd) have said in the past implying that FO3 will be a shitty, dumbed-down-to-the-point-of-braindead Xbox console actioner like Oblivion and Star Trek: Legacy were!!!!!
...
Oh, wait...
jfreund said:
I know it must be very exciting when you make a big-boy poopie on the grownup pottie, but please, don't pick it up in your hand and parade it around to strangers on the internet. Please take that handfull of shit you've got there, return to the bathroom, and flush it down the toilet. Yes, it's hard letting go. But you have to do it. You have to be strong. Flush it. Flush it. You'll thank me later.
Morbus
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
There will be people who like the game if bethesda misses everything for us, so no wonder there will be people bitching about a decent fallout...jfreund said:
Ok, i will talk with them 8) Thanks a lot.Kharn said:Not really. Silencer and Odin are the editors, they're the chiefs of content redistribution.Morbus said:Anyway, i guess I have permission of posting it there
Heh, I forgot why I love Gamebanshee so
Kharn said:
Haha, aww...they are softies...remember that email
Briosafreak
Lived Through the Heat Death
Odin said:Kharn said:
Haha, aww...they are softies...remember that email
What email?
Anyway:
All the best?... Weird
I will reply politely, they are funny.
^^^^
At least they care about your feelings, thats positive.
At least they care about your feelings, thats positive.
Here's a bit of a coverage overview, people:
Gamebanshee
Duck and Cover
RPGWatch
RPGCodex
Razorwire/Warcry
Note how Warcry accompanies it with "Please Bethesda, don't screw up with Fallout 3." Good people, better than Gamespy in any case.
It's been linked to from several Gamespot userblogs, too. If only one of the editors would. Maybe we should bug Thor?
Gamebanshee
Duck and Cover
RPGWatch
RPGCodex
Razorwire/Warcry
Note how Warcry accompanies it with "Please Bethesda, don't screw up with Fallout 3." Good people, better than Gamespy in any case.
It's been linked to from several Gamespot userblogs, too. If only one of the editors would. Maybe we should bug Thor?
Briosafreak
Lived Through the Heat Death
Did I mention I'm working on a Fallout3 blog? Coming soon...