It might seem overly redundant by now but I've been interested in how people have an attachment to Interplay even now as they've largely faulter and large amounts of people even give Fallout credit to Interplay, not Black Isle.

And it's funny because you'd think wether nma really devoted fan, or a fan of any extreme, or the rare understanding yet conflicted fan like I try not to be but am, you would think we would despise Interplay for shutting down Black Isle's doors but we're not. And yet at the first notch everyone supports them and put Bethesda down like some large bullying entity.

Straight fact is after Brian Fargo left Interplay and his era behind him the company was in no way shape or form something do be admired. It's like supporting Activision rather than devs like the old MoH team, Infinity War. Fine bad comparison. But you understand what I'm trying to get across.

Interplay is not what it used to be. But it's legacy should be truly pinned on the men and dev teams that helped bring us so many great games. Not credit it all to a company we don't understand anymore because they might have Chris Taylor on board.

I looked at Bethesda's announcement of acquiring the right to make a Fallout game and them their acquisition of the entire esteemed Fallout intellectual property in the same shock as many did. And I criticized Fallout 3, but I also took the time to look at the strengths and advances. The philosophy and ideals of the company and dev studio, which are fairly small by all standards or were, that were behind the game and their present, past, and future. And then I looked towards men like Todd Howard. I firmly believe Bethesda Game Studio is capable of plenty, they just haven't lived up to the potential. Hard fact they do, hate it or love it, own the Fallout franchise. Critique is good, but blatantly hoping Bethesda fails only hampers our cherished franchise. I think Bethesda has a lot of soul and with any luck will walk with the Fallout torch flaming fiercely for a time to come.

This is assuming they live up to their potential. But their much more commendable than Interplay.

One day maybe a man(or woman) can assemble a great team of devs and management to bring about Interplays former glory. But today Bethesda is much more admirable than what Interplay has, simply put, become. I wish both companies a good path as long as they support talented development teams.


Note: Sorry for any grammatical(Hm, is that even a word? Blasphemy. Oh well) mistakes. Typed this on a phone.

They should have sold Fallout to Troika. :shrug:

Why are you assuming that the reason is "because Bethesda made it" is why most people don't like FO3.

Interplay created FO1, Black Isle made FO2 and were making FO3. Tactics was made by Micro Forté. Alot of people are mad at Interplay or the people that ended up buying them for causing problems which lead to the end of Fallout.

Tactics or any spinoffs weren't a target for me. Also that wasn't aimed towards Fallout 3 at all although I gave my viewpoint towards the launch and how Bethesda should be capable by now for a better fallout than 3 was.

I'm unsure if you read the post or cut off halfway sometimes like I do. I usually give a heads up to the OP though.

The whole point of the post was to highlight a higher allegiance to Interplay than the dev studios themselves. Fallout /=/ Interplay.

Specifically Interplay without Brian Fargo.

I twisted off in the end mostly to give my view of Bethesda now.

At first when Beth's Fallout 3 was announced and then delivered I threw a fit on NMA of all places along with the peers there. I didn't highlight this in the post.

What I did mean is that Zenimax's Bethesda studios is much more capable than Interplay currently is and a few rehires means nothing.

What I'm trying to get across and get an answer for is

-Why- Bethesda and Black Isle are overlooked compared to current day Interplay(Aka the era without Brian Fargo. And funny enough, his current studios work is being published by none other than Bethesda.)

And yes there is more pledged support in the fan crowd for Interplay Entertainment than for very specifically the dev team itself. Black Isle. Not any of their other now most likely defunct studios.

And yes I did put a bit of pro-Bethesda propaganda at the end but that's mostly because again Bethesda is much more capable atm than present day Interplay.

See,people,Bethesda "made" fallout more...popular,because many people got bored of the hawk eye's view,i mean like,today most games are more than just a collection of pixels.New Vegas is at the flag ship,Fallout 3 was the flag ship of 07 to 10,F2 was the flag ship from 98 (correct me if im wrong) to 08,and F1 was the flag ship from 95 to 98.

Uh bud .....This topic has nothing to do with Fallout 3 other than it being a Fallout and a benchmark of Beths experience with the franchuse.

Read my response to Styles

Also as a long time Black Isle fan I'd disagree about the isometric view.

But yes bethesda did make it more mainstream.

A fair bit is not that the alot of the old guard wish for Beth to fail.
It's just in their opinion the games in the FO series they made, did not match with what it could / should have been again in their opinion.
Then other posters new, who did not play early FO games on release, started to ape their opinions to seem like part of the smart crowd.

Just like in NV a few started a discussion on what weapons should be in, then all the newbies and even trolls started aping we don't want FO: CoD.
Leading to a mass of spam and flaming, which bares no relation to the OP view.

I like many of the old guard and share some of their views being one in a way myself.
However if I disagree on a point I can rationally find with minimum effort something to counteract it.
The newer gamers and posters here, are not as fortunate and tend to rely on the same three points to defend Beth.
Which have been repeated so many times Flamers have a automatic response in built to shoot it down.

Yet I love FO2 over any other Fallout in existence

Strange isnt???

Maybe you got bored.

But some of us found it enternaining yet

I started with fallout 3, and i liked it with the exception thats to damned unstable, and it was that that made me want to go and play the others, i played fallout tactics and can say yes its dated but i liked playing it and have nothing against the way its made, i play many computer games and i can say its easily better than alot that are produced now by other companies, yes its old graphics and such but its actually playable and it wasnt something i bring home from the store install and ive finished it in 2 hours, like some games i wont mention cod cough cough. At the moment im trying to get a copy of the box set with fo 1 and 2 because im actually looking forwards to playing both of them, alot of time and effort were put into making games in the past, people will say there is now but thats just because of the time it takes to produce the graphics and the what little testing they do, but games like fallout yes were really leaders because they had storylines and you immersed yourself into the game, warcraft was another of those types of games, even though the original is not fun to play.

But companies always do this once they buy a license they try and make the brand their own, wizards of the coast buying DND from tsr they made the d20 system and basically rebranded the game system to make it theirs, do we always like it, not really alot of people that begin with a game and become fans, and there are purists who will always want to see the brand untouched and in its pure form, i can honestly say im like that, i love warcraft, but think wow really svcks, some people would say its an evolution of games, but sometimes why fix it if its not broken and also once a companies bought a license to a game its not as if you have choice, it'd be nice if lots of gaming companies got the license they all produced a version and you could choose the one you like the most, the only other way is for gamers to just send a messages to companies is by blackbanning their products.

I liked the STORY,i have every fallout,even Tactics and BoS,i love them all,its just i like FO3 and FNV better in gameplay

Though,blowing up the old rig and killing Frank Horrigan was fun too..

While the games that Troika made (Temple of Elemental Evil and Arcanum specifically) were fun, they were buggy like you wouldn't believe. Whether that was their fault, or the fault of their publishers(I believe Activision at the time) I don't know for sure. However, if Fallout had been given to them it would probably have suffered the same fate.

It says on their Wiki page that they were trying to pitch a post-apocalyptic RPG in 2004 but were unsuccessful. I wonder what game that would have been?


As to the OP, I don't blame Bethesda at all. If it wasn't for them, the Fallout series would probably have ended at Fallout Tactics (I don't count BoS). I do blame Interplay, as it was their decision to close down Black Isle Studios.

I've never had any problems with bugs so i don't care.

I dunno, games like Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 still use that "hawk eye's view" and sure as heck are demanded by alot of people.


If we are going to talk about bug but ignore that Bethesda's version would be bugless, then one is doing it wrong. Prepatch, the game was litter with bugs and took a good couple of months to patch it up. Also, GWFL was so horribad with PC version, I have to remove it with a utility.

Also, I am sure that if Bethesda didn't bought Fallout at the time, other companies would have in a split second and it would probably not end with Tactics anyways.

I never said that Fallout 3 was bug-free. The game is rare that has no bugs. ToEE had numerous game-stopping bugs. I have no idea what Fallout 3 was like when it first came out since I didn't start playing it until a few months ago. Of course, I believe the buggiest game I can recall is Dungeon Lords(thank goodness I got the Collector's Edition which patched it up...heck, it had a later patch than was available to the poor souls who purchased the regular version months earlier!)

I am far from a Bethesda-really devoted fan either. I just honestly feel that Interplay rushes out far too many of their developer's games. I am sure they are not the only one, but they are one of the bigger culprits. It's a shame, as I remember them in the Bard's Tale/Wasteland era(good times!).

And who's to say that another company would have done a better job either making a new Fallout or even wanting to purchase it at the time. I have been playing Fallout since it first came out in 1997. Going by the numerous articles I read about Fallout during and after the closing of Black Isle Studios, I did not think there would ever be a Fallout after Tactics(and a lot of people believed that as well, the news was quite grim).

All Publishers, not just Interplay, need to give the Developers the proper amount of time to release a relatively bug-free game. As a fan of video games, I would prefer having to wait an extra 6 months (or even a year) to get a game that has gotten most (if not all) of the bugs squashed before general release.

But the way one imply, ya do not want Troika to have Fallout because of the bug history they have. I was here to call that moot, seeing that if thats the reason someone should not have Fallout, then Bethesda should not be the one doing the project as well due to their history of bugs going back to Daggerfall.

As for Interplay, I just see it as bad management from a horrible manager. Forsaken an almost completed RPG in favor for sequel of fail'd action incarnate is all I remember of them now.

As for the auction site, who say they can't? I would say some might to a better job of making Fallout if given their version of making it. No doubt I believe Troika Game would go back to the origin of teh first Fallout, Obsidian Entertainment would have (and already did in someway) revive Van Buren, and then there other big companies like Bioware or even Square would not hesitate to buy such a potential cash cow which Bethesda is milking out. Oh, and for the record, to me it seem that Obsidian already did a better job of making Fallout "Fallout" in all shape and form compare to Bethesda's attempt.

Indeed they should've. Most of the head honchos of Fallout were there (Cain, Anderson, Boyarsky), and despite their trackrecord of technically challenged games, they (along with their Interplay times) managed to create the best cRPG's I've ever played. I would've tolerated a few bugs just to see what they would've done with Fallout.

BTW is Boyarsky currently with Obsidian?

He's working on Diablo III at Blizzard if I remember correctly.

Oh yeah, I confused him with Urghurthuart (aka the guy whose name is hard to spell)

I don't think Interplay were planning to 'auction off' Fallout. According to Bethesda, they approached Interplay and asked if they could buy the rights if Interplay weren't doing another Fallout.

And of course there's the upcoming MMO version - it will be interesting to see how much of a mess good that is!

Auction gives the wrong impression. Troika was being backed by Activision to buy the Fallout license off Interplay but Bethesda swooped in and offered Interplay a lot more money than Activision was willing to front Troika. Or at least that's how I remember it being explained when this stuff was going down. Others have mentioned Bioware being involved and I don't remember anything about that. This also incidentally lead to Troika collapsing since Activision had no interest in publishing the generic post apocalyptic RPG they were then forced to make.

So Bethesda sure didn't save the series.

According to this
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/26491/Court_Denies_Bethesdas_Motion_To_Block_Interplay_Fallout_Activity.php
Bethesda paid $5.75 million for the Fallout license. I would have thought that sort of money was chickenfeed to Activision!

Activision wasn't directly buying the license IIRC. They were fronting Troika money to buy the Fallout license and would then publish Troika's Fallout game(s?) getting a nice chunk of the profits.

It would not surprise me if they were not willing to invest that much cash in Troika and also that the Troika/Activision bid may have been extremely low given the uncertain financial status of Interplay (and Troika to a lesser extent) at the time. It wasn't a bidding war so the price wouldn't have jumped exorbitantly. Just Bethesda making a better offer.

Interplay needs to die off and the Fallout MMO needs to be destroyed before the franchise is ruined(again).

I' m surprised this topic hasn't already been deleted.

I wouldn't mind if the actual Interplay was the one from the good old days, but it isn't sadly, it's just a bunch of hyenas trying to cash out, they don't give a f**c about Fallout or any other Interplay games, if they really cared they would have made another game based on any of the popular franchises (MDK, EWJ, Baldur...) and not trying to svck on Beth briasts due to F3 success.