Obsidian making Fallout: New Vegas

[skuld1]

@skuld: what i am saying is that sales have nothing to do with the inherent quality of any given piece of art since the beginning of time. nor will it ever.

 

The thing is, I can objectively measure the fuel efficiency of a vehicle or the fat content of a hamburger.

 

Do you know of some magical way to objectively measure the fun level or 'goodness' of a game like we measure the fuel efficiency of a car?

 

I think FO3 is a great game... you don't. Who's "right?" Sales are one of the few things we can objectively measure.

[Tigranes]

I think FO3 is a great game... you don't. Who's "right?" Sales are one of the few things we can objectively measure.

 

But just because its the one thing that can be quantified doesn't mean it should be shoehorned into doing things that it cannot do, i.e. becoming a general measure of quality.

[mkreku]

I'm not sure about using Metacritic as any sort of judge, especially over the time periods. Reviews these days, as the industry's grown, get bought pretty easily by the hype machine.

So we're not using sales as an indication. And we're not using 'professional' review sites as an indication.

 

Let me guess: we're using your opinion as the only safe way of judging the Fallout's?

[bhlaab]

Wow, and here I am looking like an idiot thinking that how a game plays is more or less how it is percieved. So what's Mario about? I'm going to say running and jumping on things, but feel free to correct me.

Yeah, you need no help in looking like you do, that's for sure.

 

Hey, the most successful (both critically AND sales wise) Fallout game to date ripped out GURPS and the isometric doll angle and replaced it with something else. How is that possible?! And yeah, who has ever played a Mario without running or jumping on things. Except Mario Kart. And Mario Tennis. Or the other billion Mario themed games out there that aren't platformers. Even RPG's! Go figure.

 

So feel free to continue looking like an idiot.

 

Well now that you've called me an idiot I don't think I will. I think I'll just go play Fallout First Person Shooter With Brief RPG Elements. That is what it's called right? Just like Mario Golf is actually a golf game and they don't try to pretend that it's exactly like the main mario games so they call it something different?

 

Anyway, I want to relate a short anecdote to you: I put jars of my own dead skin on ebay it was very successful critically and (AND!!) sales wise so what I'm wondering is if that makes it as good as, I don't know, Citizen Kane? Considering that we're trying to pretend that quality is entirely subjective I think a jar of my own dead skin that I sold on ebay is as good as the timeless classic made by Orson Welles. This is the idea I am putting forth. Please don't call me an idiot if you don't think this is the case.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Expecting Obsidian to revert to Fallout 1/2 style game play is just being silly.

 

when did i EVER say anything remotely close to this. when have any of the countless threads since the 20th of April been focused on such a concept?

 

It is the tone in which you are writing. Very much like the whole ranting and raving and gnashing of teeth that went on when Bethesda announced Fallout 3.

 

@mkreku: lulz. you're kind of ignoring the whole sales do not equal quality concept in spades, man.

 

As the consumer, sales are meaningless to us. How much a product sells is the concern of the company.

[Gromnir]

the heck does this have to do with ANYTHING??? what we don't like is our favorite franchise being stomped on. so yeah. we won't play it and we'll hope Obsidian does justice. that's why we're here talking. why exactly are you here?

 

Oh, please, grow up or something. Sheesh. Its a game. The purpose of a company is to make a product that makes them money and Bethesda had the rights to do anything they want with Fallout if that makes them money. Crying about it on the Internet isn't going to change a damn thing. Also, hoping is a waste of time. Crap in one hand, hope in the other, and see which one gets full first.

 

is absolutely nothing wrong with fans trying to convince developers to make games that satisfy said fan... regardless o' the economic realities. is all kinda stuff that show up in games that not help the bottom line. after working the 5th straight 80 hour week, you better find some way to make game design more than a projected profit margin. that being said, vis is complete correct that ignoring business realities is all kinds o' foolish. hope that a developer ignores economically prudent in favor o' the True Believer's manifesto is, at best, silly.

 

have never understood the fans that seems to think that they gots proprietary rights to a game 'cause they played many times and spends hours of free time on a game message board. even so, asking not hurt. 'course, Gromnir has seen vis ask for some pretty wacky stuff. Gromnir has asked for wacky stuff.

 

*shrug*

 

as have noted before, our curiosity is peeked 'cause am not sure why the true believers would choose to use the "true fallout" argument to create change... still ain't got an answer to that one. not seem to be a compelling argument save for when used to convince other true believers.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[TwinkieGorilla]

I think FO3 is a great game... you don't. Who's "right?" Sales are one of the few things we can objectively measure.

 

*buzzzzzzzz!*

 

wrong answer. i think FO3 is a great game. it's just not a great Fallout game. it's a horrible Fallout game. and this is where the "if x = Fallout then let x = a, b, and c" arguments come from.

 

 

and please. stop with the sales angle. because unless you think the poor, the tired, the huddled masses are a great way of measuring the worthiness of artistic integrity, then stop.

[bhlaab]

I'd say not

 

http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=35764

 

But I will agree that they nailed the setting... just not anything else

 

 

Interesting thing I found linked there, which was written in 1997:

 

 

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.ib...019a2f20f3c552e

In article <3465672d.86145257@news>,

spectre911 @ hotmail.com (Thrasher) wrote:

 

>Fallout won't win RPG of the year. It is too good. This award is

>reserved for the non-RPG that has the most RPG elements in it and that

>sells the most copies. Probably Dungeon Keeper will be RPG of the

>year.

 

God, I hope you are wrong. I hope the industry has not yet sunk into the

state where the game with the most number of copies sold is assumed to be

the best.

 

In fact, you might say I'm betting my career on it.

 

Tim.

 

----------------------

Fallout Producer and Lead Programmer

Interplay Productions

 

Speaking of betting your career on it, where is ol' Tim now?

[Kjarista]

Signal to noise ratio is still quite low, it appears. Lets hope for some news.

 

Meanwhile, I'm glad the NMA

shocktroops are focusing over here for the moment.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Kjarista

[Killian Kalthorne]

Yeah, I have asked some wacky stuff in games in the past but you know what. I have given up on that. Developers will put in games what they think will make a more sellable product and anything else be damned. To make requests of devs and designers is a waste of time. They will make the game they want to make and we have the choice to buy and play it or not. If Obsidian makes a game that looks like I won't like I won't buy and play it. If they do, then I will buy and play it.

[Tigranes]

Very much like the whole ranting and raving and gnashing of teeth that went on when Bethesda announced Fallout 3.

 

Funnily enough, a great deal of 'uber hardcore Fallout fans lolz' actually advocated a wait-and-see approach when the game was announced in 2004. Of course there were some going IT HAS TO BE TURN BASED/ISOMETRIC/ETC (and the funniest bit was how this specific kernel would differ between individuals) OR WE WILL BURN YOUR BABIES, but there was a lot of reasonable expectation and desire for communication.

 

Obviously it didn't pan out so well.

[Malcador]

I'm not sure about using Metacritic as any sort of judge, especially over the time periods. Reviews these days, as the industry's grown, get bought pretty easily by the hype machine.

So we're not using sales as an indication. And we're not using 'professional' review sites as an indication.

 

Let me guess: we're using your opinion as the only safe way of judging the Fallout's?

 

Ah, zeal, always admirable but leads you astray off the path a lot. In any case, general game reviewers are just going to review the game, at best, on its merits - practically, a lot are like the English press w.r.t. football - they give the people what they want to hear. Not all game reviewers are like that, some sites are still as credible as they are, but with a deluge of lousy and bought ones, the value of an average goes down. So you shouldn't say that Fallout 3 is superior to Fallout or Fallout 2 based on metacritic, or sales - as again, that's debatable and the market's nowhere near the same (more gunshots == more hits, amazing.)

 

As for what a 'true' Fallout is, I've no idea how you can prove that. You could come up with a set of things that are key to the originals and then judge Fallout 3's handling of that. For example, they did the presentation of a nuked wasteland decently well, but dropped the ball on interesting storylines (micro-stories aside, heh).

 

Signal to noise ratio is still quite low, it appears. Lets hope for some news.

 

Meanwhile, I'm glad the NMA

shocktroops are focusing over here for the moment.

 

Hah, I was wondering when you'd show up.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Malcador

[Gizmo]

Speaking of betting your career on it, where is ol' Tim now?

Ncsoft I think

[bhlaab]

Yeah, I have asked some wacky stuff in games in the past but you know what. I have given up on that. Developers will put in games what they think will make a more sellable product and anything else be damned. To make requests of devs and designers is a waste of time. They will make the game they want to make and we have the choice to buy and play it or not. If Obsidian makes a game that looks like I won't like I won't buy and play it. If they do, then I will buy and play it.

 

There are probably very few people in the industry making the games they want to make and you've already said the reason why.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Very much like the whole ranting and raving and gnashing of teeth that went on when Bethesda announced Fallout 3.

 

Funnily enough, a great deal of 'uber hardcore Fallout fans lolz' actually advocated a wait-and-see approach when the game was announced in 2004. Of course there were some going IT HAS TO BE TURN BASED/ISOMETRIC/ETC (and the funniest bit was how this specific kernel would differ between individuals) OR WE WILL BURN YOUR BABIES, but there was a lot of reasonable expectation and desire for communication.

 

Obviously it didn't pan out so well.

 

Yeah, and I was a part of that pointless mess, then I had a Doctor Strangelove moment and grew up.

[mkreku]

I think I'll just go play Fallout First Person Shooter With Brief RPG Elements. That is what it's called right? Just like Mario Golf is actually a golf game and they don't try to pretend that it's exactly like the main mario games so they call it something different?

Want to know something funny? Mario turned 3D on the Nintendo 64. And it worked! Still a Mario game! Just like Fallout 3 is still a Fallout.

 

Anyway, I want to relate a short anecdote to you: I put jars of my own dead skin on ebay it was very successful critically and (AND!!) sales wise so what I'm wondering is if that makes it as good as, I don't know, Citizen Kane? Considering that we're trying to pretend that quality is entirely subjective I think a jar of my own dead skin that I sold on ebay is as good as the timeless classic made by Orson Welles. This is the idea I am putting forth. Please don't call me an idiot if you don't think this is the case.

Yeah, when you can't think of a real argument, why not make **** up? Works wonders when you're Codex/NMA. Reality is overrated, right?

 

Ignore sales. Ignore reviews. Concentrate on your little made-up anecdotes!

[Killian Kalthorne]

There are probably very few people in the industry making the games they want to make and you've already said the reason why.

 

Troika tried, and failed.

[skuld1]

I think FO3 is a great game... you don't. Who's "right?" Sales are one of the few things we can objectively measure.

 

wrong answer. i think FO3 is a great game. it's just not a great Fallout game. it's a horrible Fallout game. and this is where the "if x = Fallout then let x = a, b, and c" arguments come from.

 

 

 

 

Actually, I think it's a great Fallout game. Clearly, you don't. Who's right?

 

and please. stop with the sales angle. because unless you think the poor, the tired, the huddled masses are a great way of measuring the worthiness of artistic integrity, then stop.

 

Now, this is where you reveal your super special credentials that make your opinion far more relevant than mine, right?

[bhlaab]

There are probably very few people in the industry making the games they want to make and you've already said the reason why.

 

Troika tried, and failed.

 

Yep.

 

Good thing, too, as their games didn't sell well and while I haven't searched metacritic yet, they probably didn't fare too well there either.

 

But you know what does sell well and does very well on metacritic? Those FPS games where americans shoot the bejeezus out of middle eastern people. So I guess the best thing for the industry is if nobody released games that weren't about americans shooting middle eastern people. The 18-24 demographic can't be wrong... ever.

[TwinkieGorilla]

Actually, I think it's a great Fallout game. Clearly, you don't. Who's right?

 

this isn't about being "right". you were trying to tell me that my reasons for debate should be based on some abstract idea that sales somehow are able to measure the integrity of a product, which is a faulty argument. then you tried to tell me that i think what i think because i believe Fallout 3 is a bad game, which i don't. it's a great game for people who want exactly what they got out of it. but there's a whole bunch of us who didn't get what we got from the originals. hence, the divide.

 

Now, this is where you reveal your super special credentials that make your opinion far more relevant than mine, right?

 

no. my opinion means nothing more than any other opinion. that's the nature of opinions.

[Gromnir]

There are probably very few people in the industry making the games they want to make and you've already said the reason why.

 

Troika tried, and failed.

 

am thinking you give too much credit to troika. they failed 'cause they were crappy at managing their projects and not 'cause o' romantic ideals.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gizmo]

I think I'll just go play Fallout First Person Shooter With Brief RPG Elements. That is what it's called right? Just like Mario Golf is actually a golf game and they don't try to pretend that it's exactly like the main mario games so they call it something different?

Want to know something funny? Mario turned 3D on the Nintendo 64. And it worked! Still a Mario game! Just like Fallout 3 is still a Fallout.

Mario is a character based franchise (a specific character), the same goes for TombRaider and Duke Nukem; Any game featuring them as the lead is a franchise game regardless of gameplay.

("Duke Nukem Manhattan Project" is a Duke Nukem game)

 

Fallout is not based on a single character, one that would be recognizable or carry a title on its own. Its a gameplay based franchise (as opposed to a setting based franchise like Warhammer or Forgotten Realms) ~The reason being is that if you compare all games with the Warhammer or Forgotten Realms license ~they vary a lot, but if you compare all the games in the Fallout license most don't vary that much (except the latest one ). I'd say that I was certainly drawn to the game mechanics over the setting. The setting is a good one, but it was an afterthought and mattered nil or none to the gameplay itself.

 

A prototype of an early build shipped on the game CD that shows it looking like Ultima Online.

 

The games inception was about GURPS. GURPS is Gameplay ~it has no setting.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Gizmo

[Killian Kalthorne]

Well, to be honest, Arcanum was average at best. ToEE was damn too painful and too buggy to play that I didn't even bother getting Bloodlines till it was in the $10 bargain bin, and by that time Troika was on death's door.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Killian Kalthorne

[TwinkieGorilla]

Well, to be honest, Arcanum was average at best. ToEE was damn too painful and too buggy to play that I didn't even bother getting Bloodlines till it was in the $10 bargain bin, and by that time Troika was on death's door.

 

well, if Arcanum is "average" and Fallout 3 is "great" then i'm pushing for a Renaissance of "average" right about now, my friend.

[mkreku]

Its a gameplay based franchise...

I disagree. It started out as a GURPS experiment that grew into the Fallout experience/setting. But I believe the Fallout setting grew bigger than that archaic game system.

 

Of course, there's no way of proving either for or against in this case. Funny though that I played Fallout despite its combat/gameplay system, while you seem to have played it because of its combat/gameplay system.