I would of settled for a clone if it meant the Fallout name not getting dragged through the mud because a developer got greedy.

They could have made a post-apocalyptic game called 'OMFG buy this it has nukes' and then Fallout could have either died with FO2 or brought back with something spectacular. That can't happen anymore because the canon has been tainted and the license condemned.

This rubs at the root... If a person dislikes crime drama, does it make sense to buy a Law & Order CI video game? Does it make sense to change the game's content to suit audiences that don't like the genre? ~This is what they've done. Its a fine game but its a kiwi in the potato cellar ~Its out of place and should never have been placed there.

Where I live the decided that not enough people were passing the drivers test, so they dumbed it down. Personally I see good promise in the CS
and am indeed thankful for it.

Developer got greedy? What do you mean?

Yes I want to see the graet games created by people or Orginisations that were not interested in making money. Maybe there's gamers commune somewhere that is churning out games at cost or for a loss and no one has ever heard of them? Oh and all the lements about How Bethesda has destroyed Fallout because they are so greedy .....please give me a break The people who detstroyed Fallout were the people who created it in the first place. I suppose Interplay was a charitible orginastion. They were just as greedy as anyone else. In the end its a strategic business descision always .......right wrong or indiffernt.

Like who? Which of the people who created Fallout do you think was involved in Interplay's downfall?

Well not being greedy, isn't always the same as "not interested in profit". Like with this game, I have a feeling profit was the focus by the actual designers, rather than any form of quality.

Like interplay ...... was there somebody outside of interplay who was responsible? Or are you suggesting that the artists and developers can be counted seperate from Interplay. It was Interplays game you cant say that it belonged the artists and developers. They had nothing to make without interplay. Or some one else in the position to put up the capital and negotiate distribution etc and a myriad of other things.

You seem to be very assertive with the whole "companies need to make a profit" Now I would love to go into more depth on that aspect, but I pride myself on knowing what I'm talking about, and sales, profits, I dont know, so I can't base an argument on that aspect. But if it was so important for Beth to do the things they did in the name of profit. Then it says to me they never cared about preservation, they just saw a franchise that did well in the past, had a good saturation of plot and something to elaborate on, then took the world and stripped the game. They cashed in on a good idea, they didn't have to build anything from the ground up, the infrastructure was already there, they just tore it apart instead of building on it, which is the easier option both metaphorically and litteraly. In this sense, what other way can I slice it? If it's all about the profit, the vanilla for the masses. All it comes down to is money.

You said "the people who detstroyed Fallout were the people who created it in the first place." Not "the company that destroyed Fallout was the company that created it in the first place", which would be somewhat true (despite it being a much different Interplay). Interplay is a company, not a person.

None of the people who created Fallout (aside maybe from a handful people with no input into management decisions, and including none of the leads) were at Interplay anymore when it was destroyed.

Well they are not nessarily mutually exclusive. It depends on the mindset of the people making the descisions and what assumptions they make. Its not always the case that throughing out cheap crap will be profitable is it? usually its finding the middle ground between making a perfect product that only a minority will want and be willing to pay dearly for it and making a product that has wide appeal and will not break the bank in development costs.

I think it's safe to say that "us" is substantially larger than "y'all". If it wasn't, then "Y'all" would ahve gotten your FO3 long before this.

Frankly, why should they be that concerned about preservation of the franchise?

Thats what I thought you were talking about. Its irrelevent. legally a corperation is an legal person/entity. You had to know perfectly well that I was talking about Interplay. Of course the artists and developers were not responsible they would not have had any say so even if they had been there. Thats not the point. The point is these games are made and owned by compaines and Corperations who finance and distribute them. The developers and artist's work at their pleasure or no game is made. Thats reality.

Well, "the people who created Fallout" for me clearly means the actual developers, not the company. Even something like "the creators of Fallout" would be more ambiguous. Companies might be legal persons, but they're certainly not "people".

And the people from Interplay management from 1997 (like Brian Fargo) were also not there in 2003-2004, when Fallout was destroyed by the cancelation of Van Buren and the release of Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel either.

Really? The "us" in your line was meant to be Fallout fans, right ? If so, you guys must be happy with a lot of lip service, such as the SPECIAL, the rehashing of the old NPCs, and so on. I believe the amount of Fallout fans that feel the series was "saved" in an away is quite small. Remember, believing something as loony as "the saving of the Fallout franchise" is indeed silly isn't the same as you thinking Fallout 3 isn't a true successor (as your backhanded last sentence refers to - ironic your view on snide remarks).

~Why spend the money on the name alone? ~Its like buying the Ovaltine brand and selling "Tang" as "New and improved Ovaltine!".

Well, We know the reason I guess... I'd say that Fallout is better known for its rep than anything else, and its a good bet that just about any game at all could benefit by being tied to the brand. "Fallout puzzle Bobble" could be a hit if its bloody enough.

yes yes, everyone knows that. So what? It sidesteps the whole issue. It belonged to Interplay no matter who was in charge. It was a corperate entity making corperate descisions about said game that they own. (past tense).

Yes, I was only contesting your misleading use of the phrase "the people who created Fallout", which suggested that the actual developers of Fallout had anything to do with Interplay's downfall.

Well, Iplay pulled the plug on BIS right in the middle of VB, no?

there was nothing misleading about what I said. Except to people who think they can say that Fallout was not Interplays and really belonged to the Dev's. I know there are people out there that think this way but its Bull. Sorry but it is. I love the work that the original team did and I know the the Corperate heads could not have done it without them but the reverse is also true. You need people to finance you and tackle the legal hurdles and handle distribution and adverytising and a whole range of mundane crap. The Devs work for these guys wether there name is Interplay or bethesda or Troika or valve. The game belongs to the company and they are responsible for the games disposition.

IIRC they canned BIZ a few days before Christmas, and the game was 70% done.

~Wiki says 75% :shrug:

I was under the impression that the higher ups' goofed themselves into serious debt and canned Biz undeserved.

I heard about it at the time, but was not an active forum member.

Maybe so. Iplay was in the process of making a stragetic move to consoles. It just didn't happen in time. They may ahve thought that BIS and it's PC market didn't fit into the new move.

That wasn't even my main point. I'm trying to have a half-decent debate here. You're making it very difficult. If you think my views are wrong or mislead then why aren't you contesting them? Am I to believe that my assumptions might be correct? That Beth did just buy a name and turn it into a cash cow? I'm interested in your views, as you seem to be keen to defend the other side of the coin.

But to answer your question, they would be concerned if they cared and had faith in the franchise beyond the name it made for itself 10 years prior. Them not being concerned just reaffirms my point.

I believe it is that intention to move that killed them no? FOBOS and Dark Alliance were console titles.

As I said, companies are not "people". "The company that created Fallout also destroyed it" is not misleading. "The people that created Fallout also destroyed it" is. And I never said anything about it belonging to the devs. Only about the devs being the people who created Fallout.



Yup, pretty much. Their console titles sold embarassingly badly, not only compared to other people's console titles, but compared to their own PC titles made by the people they laid off.