They made a business decision, which I believe was a strong one. They wanted another franchise to play off the TES franchise so that they could alternate game releases. A strong franchise (Fallout) was available for a pretty cheap price, considering that the price could be amortized across several games.

Unfortunately, in the process, some of the original fans of the franchise had to be, well, disenfranchised, but hopefully, theyw ould be able to keep some of the fans of the franchise and add new fans as well. Now, you may not like it, and I can understand why, but you can't fault the business reasons for it.

Interesting remark. And that is why, perhaps the iced BIS. If they thought that VB would save them, they may have held on a bit longer. We really can't tell exactly waht happened...all we can do is speculate.

Well, Herve Caen has pretty much destroyed 3 gaming companies already, so it's not as if their decisions were reasonable. He simply decided to switch to consoles because he thought that it's "where the money is", despite Interplay's strength being mostly PC titles in the past. He also thought that churning out crappy shooters for a quick buck will be more profitable than a long-term investment in something like Fallout 3 or Baldur's Gate 3. I'm pretty sure that Van Buren, while not a mass-market title like Bethesda's Fallout 3, would definitely sell more than 17,000 copies, like FO:BOS did. Same with Jefferson (BG3).

Sure ya can.
The same as you can fault a land developer for paving over a Swan pond to expand his stadium parking lot. ~Its legal, but its a good way to gain enmity and distrust from those who live nearby. :nono:

I'd submit that consoles ARE where the money is. I think he churned out that crappy shooter because he was desperate. VB probably would have sold more than 17k copies, but it would have had to do much better to save the company.

It's a free country: You can make any argument you like. And this is business. The hardcoe fallout fans had no exclusive right to the franchise. They didn't own it.

Even so, I'm pretty sure they'd be better off if they sold the Fallout franchise after Van Buren than after FO:BOS.

Maybe so, but if there is no money, there is no money. You still have to make payroll, and if you are going own, additional financing may ahve been impossible.

I look at it like this. The Fallout series was dead. Bethesda resurrected it in their own way. Sure, it's not the Fallout we played before but it is still Fallout, just done in a different style. Those of you who have a lot against Fallout, and those of us who think some things need to be changed would be better off putting our heads together to see what can be modded to make it feel more like the original instead of hijacking what....3 threads I think?

Now if you'll excuse me I have a mushroom cloud to walk into. Have a happy holocaust. I've been awake and following this for a little over 24 hours now and even Carol is starting to look good to me.

Seeya, Wolf. Thanks for the entertaining conversations

I'm pretty sure that at the stage of development that Van Buren was at, it didn't require more money to finish than the bad console games that Interplay made instead and lost money on.

Right on GrayeWolf !! My sentiments exactly.

More like 350

I'll be modding to my hearts content starting at the end of next week :woot:

That's a guess on your part. It was probably more like they needed the console game to make enough money to continue the other projects, and that didn't happen.

Kind of sad you need a mod to boost the quality, hah. But ah well.

Haha, you probably think your ironic.

A town in Texas removed their red light cameras because revenue from running red lights was being lost, as people were too scared of being caught by the cameras. Sure more people will die in car accidents, but hell, at least they will be making money from people running red lights again. Just be glad Beth got the game and not local government.

I think my ironic is fine :rolleyes:

I'd have preferred a company that did not have to work under the gun as Bethesda does.

Lets see.

Plan A

Lets make a game using a turn based combat system that we know everybody hates and scrupiously follow the lore of that game. We will make the few thousand peop-le that actually liked fallout 1 and 2 happy but we will go broke because the game will be crap and no one will buy it.

Plan B

Lets make a game that trades on the name of the Fallout franchise but pays only the slighest attention to lore, because nobody ever played those games anyway. Lets use our current engine and our experience with Morrowind and Oblivion to create an open game in a similar style, because we have sold millions of copies of those two games and we know the formlula will work. But, if we do that, half a dosen zelots will stalk our forums pouring out hate and vitrol because we failed follow the mechanics and lore of the prevous games exactly. It won't matter though, because they will have bought the game anyway, so we already have their money.

Huh? Where did you get everybody hates turn based combat systems? There have been MANY turn based games that have been successful. Final Fantasy Tactics, X-Com, Fallout 1 and 2, Jagged Alliance (JA3 is turn based as well if I'm not mistaken), Front Mission....And something that should be noted that of these, the one that has had many real time attempts to capture the essence of the originals have basically all failed, which is X-Com.



This is just insulting. First nobody ever played those games, they wouldn't be as favored as they are! And it's hardly fair to compare Fallout 1 and 2's sales to the much more recent Morrowind and Oblivion, since the market has grown considerably in the decade since the last numbered Fallout game. And just because a game sells well doesn't mean other approaches won't either. But it's clear you're not even reading peoples complaints about the game. While there are a lot of us that would like it to be turn based, that's not the focus of our complaints. It has to do with the game system being flawed, and questionable uses of the Lore of the game. I firmly believe that the original SPECIAL rules would have little issue with a real time environment, the only thing that would have to change is APs. Bethesda choose to waste time and resources to scrap it and replace it with their own incarnation, which, no offense to Bethesda, comes across as a very weak system. I suspect this is because they really don't have much experience with actually writing a full blown RPG system.

Now, you might say "But wait! Bethesda has been making RPGs for years! How could they NOT have experience with writing RPG systems?!", to which I will say this: Their RPG systems have always been around their gameplay. So they didn't NEED to make an actual full blown RPG system. Fallout was a variation of GURPS, with changes made to it so that it was their own system and not GURPS anymore due to licensing, so SPECIAL meshed much more perfectly with the gameplay.

In the last 3 Bethesda titles I've played (Morrowind, Oblivion, and Fallout 3), they've all had glaring issues with their rules. Fallout 3's are especially noticable because we've seen how the originals WORK. But with Oblivion, it was easier to finish the game by NOT levelling up. Morrowind had the "OMG UNARMED OWNS ALL" issue that I was never really happy with (it's been many years since I've played it, so I'd need to review it again to put more details, but the unarmed was really broken in it, and made me fear horribly anyone without a weapon)

If I was in charge at Bethesda, I would be head hunting some of the bigger names in the pen and paper RPG industry, so that a better more balanced and functional ruleset can be made for their future titles. Because it's really an area that I think they are very weak in.

By the way, this is a very interesting and engaging discussion, so I hope it doesn't devolve into senseless bickering. The more discussion people have, the more enlightened and enriched their minds are

Though I have the feeling that is exactly what Bethesda is trying. Pleasing every crowd.


No, the console games Iplay did were really bad. Had nothing to do with either Fallout or the fans. If the quality of the released console titles would have been good, I doubt any Fallout fan would have refused it as spinofs. Same to Tactics (which most people agree that it was a good fighting game, but a very poor Fallout RPG). You can try feeding a panda with any kind of food but dont be surprised if he doesnt accept it.

One of the biggest advances in Tactics was the fact that you could, in fact, walk straight up and down the screen

Or maybe I'm just remembering the wrong game. Hope not. That would make me look really stupid (I'll blame the fact that it's 4 am)

^^^Best lines in the game. I totally forgot about them until you quoted them. From the Keller tapes I believe. Hats off to you, sir!

We could compare it to its contemporaries, like Starcraft or Diablo, both of which sold millions of copies. By any stretch of the imagnation, the games were duds.




OK, I have played all three games FO 1, FO 2 and FO 3.

FO 1 and 2 were huge, streaming piles of [censored], with a ridiculous combat system - when a contemporary game like Diablo managed a much more dynamic and intuitive system that becamse the standard until 1st/3rd person took over - and a long and convoluted plot with lots of potential outcomes, assuming you weren't so bored you gave up and used the CD as a coaster.

All of Beth's games are flawed - Morrowind was the worst of the most recent 3 and completely broken - and while its easy to be critical of the unfinised feel of the games, the sheer size of the worlds made it possible for all kinds of errors can get though quality assurance and playtesting unidentified. Both Obivion and FO 3 were much better games. I have no real issues with FO 3 gameplay, and just make all of the weapons a lot more lethal with GECK. As for not maintaining the lore of the original series, who cares, its only a game, not a legal or religious document.

Wait wait, you want to compare a game from Interplay, who had a history have really really poor marketing, to Blizzard, who has a history of really really good marketing?

You wanna know how I found out about Fallout? It wasn't when it was first released. It was when it was packaged with Baldur's Gate. And tracking down Fallout 2 was a challenge too.

Despite the fact that they had relatively minor marketing exposure, it did well enough to develop a strong following.

Sure, we could bicker back and forth, but I challenge that sales does not necessarily equal quality. Starcraft was boring for me. As was Diablo. In fact, I out right hated Diablo because of how boring it was, and it only got worse in Diablo 2. It was a glorified point and click adventure. There was hardly any need for thinking in it, unlike Fallout, where you actually had to think about how you were going to do things.

The reason they did better is because of marketing. Marketing was one of Interplays weakest areas. If noone knows about your game, they can't be expected to buy it, right?

So the fact that Fallout is such a treasured title, despite it's weak marketing, only speaks bounds about it's quality. And the fact that Diablo was such a run away seller only makes me hate humanity even more, since frankly, it was entirely overrated. You could barely consider it an RPG, considering it was just going from one quest giver to the quest, then to the next quest giver. Is it too much to require gamers to think a bit? Apparently so.

You know what, I'm gonna change that statement I made eariler. Better marketing doesn't equal quality.

In Fallout 3's case, it was all about the marketing. And given the nature of gamers today, it was very simple yet successful. BLOODY MESS! MINI NUKES! BLOW UP MEGATON! TEDDY BEAR LAUNCHERS!

Notice what they didn't put much effort into marketing? Choices, consquences, a robust RPG system, detailed dialogue.

What pisses me off is that gamers buy into that. No wonder I loath humanity. Thanks, you reminded me why I loath humanity.

they improved many stuff from oblivion, maybe that doesnt appeal to a fallout fan but im quite happy with it.

imo the game has choices and consequences, the rpg system could be better but the way you can actually roleplay many different characters in this game you sometimes have to argue if the system is really the most important thing in a rpg, as for the dialogue i cant see why you complain with so many options to chose from, if its the voice acting youre talking about youre quite right (still, an improvement from their other games, i really like doctor li voice and acting).