Fallout Enforcer Announcement Aftermath

[4too]

Consider I'play's burden.

The Legend that is Fallout.

Any spin off, sequal,parallel, or abstract rendering of a Post Apoca' ic image will be compared to EACH individual gamers personal experience of Fallout.

The price of, or curse of success.

Why they choose to abandon continuity, [a.k.a.(the canon)(the story)] (a clear sign of Professional Production Values) so that they can't steer the expectations of hundreds of thousands of gamers, makes little 'sense', and fewer dollars.

Sloppy thinking and slacker work ethic can only result in sub par products.

Sorry, I was considering the Legend.

Each gamer, has their view of FO. Whether or not we would party with'em
makes no difference. They know enough to compare, and judge, any game labeled FO. There comes a point when a name on a box will not hide the obvious that only shovel ware resides within. The reviewers as a whole will qualify their prose, ""Remember Fallout? Well this game ISN'T...""

Cutting loose the "corporate memory" of the "Community" or fan base makes sense when the corporate vision of I'play drifts from trend to trend with few concrete examples of exploiting these whims. Sad irony, the memory of success is a burden.

Making a good game with sound production values is a burden?

That' s silly!

If I'play kept any part of the legacy, one would wish it to be MAKING GOOD GAMES, and making enough money to shoot for the moon again, and again. If their true(tm) artistic style is a fast and loose improv' can we still not expect a game in the box?

Maybe there are as many different expectations as players of FO.
I think there is a common theme that binds this multitude. There is a shared experience that transcends our choice of "hero" or NPC.
Anyone who has played FO is part of this common experiece, and part of a "community" whether they (I'play, GameSpy, et al.) recognise the fact or not. Even the shrilliest fairy'fied fanboy can't escape the infectious PLEASURE of the experience of FO.

It's a great game. Get it! It's still here on 100's thousands of PC's and it's still being played and replayed. It's so high a standard that it's still used to measure new talent.

Any title that does not have balls enough to roll on it's own, is a loser.

The reviewers as a whole will qualify their prose, ""Remember Fallout? Well this game ISN'T...""

Any game will have to stand on it's own. The legacy of "The Name" goes beyond the label. It's a legacy of story and playabilty, and replayability.
It's whatever YOU loved about Fallout. So it's a tough act to follow, at least I'play could put a 'game' in the box.

Here's the chorus one more time:

The reviewers as a whole will qualify their prose, ""Remember Fallout? Well this game ISN'T...""

So we know FOBOS is not FO, Truer(TM) words can not be spoken,but is it a playable game, or a gameable ploy?

4too

[Saint_Proverbius]

Here's my reply to his latest reply:

• On 16 Mar 2003 at 13:30, Sean Simpson wrote:
  
  > I didn't say by being simply against it that you were hindering Fallout 3.
  > I said by amplifying the child-like tantrum that is rampant in the Fallout
  > community right now, you were hindering Fallout 3. Why would BIS want to
  > continue supporting a community that reacts in such a fashion to something
  > they are (at this point) ignorant about? What would happen if they made one
  > wrong step with Fallout 3?
  
  Actually, a good chunk of the Fallout community assists with the creation of the Fallout Bible, which would most likely be put forth in making Fallout 3.
  
  However, I strongly disagree with some points, and I've debated those with Chris Avellone. Mainly, I stick with what Tim Cain and Chris Taylor say about these things, but Chris Avellone doesn't always agree with Tim Cain and Chris Taylor, even though they're the guys who fleshed out the universe.
  
  There's several credits on that document, including "Saint_Proverbius".
  
  > I'll concede the first point but Lionheart isn't one of their major titles.
  
  Fallout 3 was actually started and scrapped a few times, believe it or not. Once was right after Fallout 2 was released. Once was right before IWD went in to production. I've also mentioned they had the chance to make Fallout 3 instead of TORN.
  
  > Do you think they would do the same with Baldur's Gate?
  
  I suspect Jefferson is BG3, or uses the Baldur's Gate name. However, JE Sawyer has stated that the engine for Jefferson is flexible enough to allow Fallout 3 to be made correctly, including allowing sequential combat, or turn based if you prefer.
  
  It's bound to be a D&D game from what few tidbits have gone around about it, which means that it's either going to be "Baldur's Gate <something>" or "IceWind Dale <something>". They have to use those two titles in the name of any D&D project they make per their contract agreement with Wizards of the Coast.
  
  > I think it was more that they wanted to build a new universe. You'll
  > remember that Torn was meant to be entirely of their own creation. They've
  > worked on the D&D universe so long that you can't really blame them for
  > trying to do something entirely new. Of coruse, why they'd go straight back
  > to D&D after that baffles me.
  
  I think they should have wrapped TORN up, frankly, so they would have another franchise to use. It's kind of ironic they couldn't finish a SPECIAL -> Fantasy title, so they contracted out a SPECIAL -> Fantasy CRPG to be made by someone else.
  
  However, if they want to do something entirely new, I'd question why they were using an existing character rule system, someone else's engine again, and a high fantasy setting. Maybe use an existing engine, but certainly making a more unique setting and new character system would be in order.
  
  Frankly, I'd love to see BIS make a new game, from scratch, with all new elements rather than keep falling back on the rules, code, and tradition they seem to stick with. A space faring CRPG would be great, I think. There really haven't been any released commercially since the early 1990s. A new one is overdue.
  
  > I agree the X-Com games were very much shovelware. I don't think Fallout
  > Tactics was. I enjoyed Fallout Tactics quite a great deal. The graphics on
  > Fallout: BoS don't strike me as being that bad anyway. There are other
  > things to consider as well. Budget restraints, for one. For all we know
  > Interplay could very well have intended this as shovelware. But you don't
  > know that the team working on it as treating as one.
  
  Interplay and Micro Forte both considered it to be shovelware. Micro Forte funnelled a lot of money from Fallout Tactics to their Big World project, for example. Fallout Tactics was a fifteen month, from scratch, development game. It was being made for a quick buck.
  
  Also, I'd like to refer you to Titus's history. Titus doesn't give a rat's ass about Interplay's future. They're looking short term in order to actually get rid of the company. Turn a bit of a profit, and sell it to the highest bidder. That's Titus's goal right now. Herve Caen's even on the record as saying Interplay is for sale as soon as they get a good offer.
  
  Given that type of environment, the re-use of a well known franchise, and the short development cycle that Fallout Enforcer is getting, which is a little over a year's time, do you think this won't be shovelware, honestly? Again, look at the screenshots and engine for the thing. It looks awful, which isn't a good thing for a PS/2 or XBox action game where good graphics are a huge selling point.
  
  > Ah, but not allowing a series to end when it should is just as bad as not
  > letting it live on. Garriot always wanted Ascension to be the last in the
  > Ultima series and to continue on afterwards purely for financial reasons
  > would've been an insult to his creation.
  
  Well, the ending to Ascension was as bad as most Stephen King novels. ;)
  
  Then again, I think Garriot wanted to end it to move on to the MMORPG cash cow. Personally, I wouldn't have minded if they went back and remade the original Ultima games, even that would have been better than ending with Ascension.
  
  Of course, I can't expect anything good to come with the Ultima franchise under EA, especially in light of the recent interview with him where he was asked what the deal with Ultima 8 and 9 was. EA demanded a short development time between titles to keep the money rolling in from that license.
  
  > I know EA is populated by demons from hell who think it is perfectly
  > ethical to charge players monthly fees to play non-MMO based games online.
  > Ultima 9 was not a finished product, that's well known. But do you realize
  > how much of a cash-cow that was? If Fallout: BoS turns out to be a GREAT
  > game and sells a ton, the odds of it approaching the kind of profit that UO
  > had are slim to nill. As I said, Fallout still has a large consumer base to
  > market to. Ultima 8 had a pretty miserable performance and I think that EA
  > thought that was no longer a market for a single-player series. I don't
  > think they were right, but I think that's what they thought.
  
  I'm still reeling over EA killing Bullfrog off. Ugh.
  
  The problem is though, Fallout and Fallout 2 didn't sell well, but it's widely known. I suspect that Fallout is one of the most warezed games of all time, because it'd be nearly impossible to throw a rock in a crowd of CRPG fans and hit one that's never played it. Widely known, but the marketing boys don't see the sales number they like, so there's no Fallout 3.
  
  However, Fallout's obviously good enough to pimp Lionheart using it's character system. It was used to pimp TORN with Feargus's, "This is the game that Fallout fans have wanted since Fallout 2" press release comment. It was used to promote Baldur's Gate, as well, with the whole, "From the producers and publishers of Fallout and Fallout 2". Fallout's name is the reason Fallout Tactics' preorders were off the charts with Interplay Store.
  
  It's really very odd when you think about it.
  
  Anyway, I was thinking about your comment on BIS being busy. That's actually fairly irrelevent, because BIS is part of Interplay. If Interplay wanted to make a Fallout 3, they could full the lower rungs of Fallout 3's development at BIS with people from other divisions, people who are now being used at Digital Mayhem or even back when 14 Degrees East existed. BIS being "busy" for the last five years just isn't a good excuse, since Interplay can move people in and out of divisions within the company freely. The checks they cash still say, "Interplay" on them.
  
  > Ah, but would you deny that the Mad Max films were also a major influence
  > on the Fallout series? That kind of S&M attitude was pretty rampant in Road
  > Warrior. I don't like it but I can definitely see where they're drawing it
  > from.
  
  Fallout actually has a few references from Mad Max as well as other movies and culture about nuclear weapons and post apocalypse. However, there were car battles and other things of the Mad Max nature in Fallout. Instead, they went with the 1950s pulp sci-fi mutants, green glowing goo, and other staples.
  
  Fallout isn't Mad Max, it's more based on the look and feel of those 1950s comic books in terms of style and attitude.
  
  Let me give you an example. Check out Junktown in Fallout. Notice the evil gang in town is pretty much on par with the 1950s style gang films in movies. They've got that rebel without a cause vibe as opposed to Toe Cutter and his minions. Also, the Khans deal with Tandi. Notice they merely kidnap her as opposed to raping her and killing her. When the Vault Dweller shows up, he can stroll right in and challenge the guy to a fist fight to get her back, or bluff the guy by copping an attitude with a high speech skill.
  
  I don't think the road gang in Road Warrior would have quite allowed that kind of thing, do you? "Hey, if I beat you in a one on one fight, will you leave these people and their gasoline alone?" Nope, totally different sensibility there. However, that's something taken straight from those 1950s gang movies, right down to the bad guy drawing a knife when he starts losing.
  
  > What about Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance? That did pretty well critically
  > and financially. I see BoS as just being Fallout's Dark Alliance at this
  > point.
  
  Dark Alliance only sold about 300k units, which isn't really that great for a console title. It didn't even stack up to the sales of Baldur's Gate for the PC. It also had the "Baldur's Gate" name going for it, the D&D license, and really nice graphics. Fallout Enforcer really doesn't have that much going for it.
  
  A lot of Baldur's Gate fans are also more casual gamers, where Fallout fans are more the hardcore RPG fans. We liked the turn based tactical combat. The ability to make decisions on ethics was wonderful. The choices in character design which allowed a player to dynamically adjust who his character is.
  
  A lot of Fallout fans also felt burned by Fallout Tactics. We have that, "Once bitten" look at things. You can't really count on a huge number of them to step up and buy this thing.
  
  
  > It didn't seem quite so unFallout to me. Wasteland, rickety and destroyed
  > buildings... Just because I didn't see anyone wearing a Vault suit doesn't
  > mean it isn't Fallout. BIS employees have probably been demonstrated the
  > game in some way, so they have the right to distance themselves from it.
  > You guys, however, are pre-emptively attacking it based on presumption.
  > There lies the entire basis of my argument.
  
  Our argument is that we've been screwed in the past with shoddy things designed to sell based on the name. Given the total lack of style of this thing, which is abundantly apparent in the screenshots, the lackluster feature info including the phrase "Action-Adventure" which pretty much means "Kill stuff to a story", and so on.
  
  The clues are all there, you just need to learn to look for them.
  
  Also, you should probably play Fallout again, and actually look at the style of the game. Look at how the Nuka-Cola machines look. Look at how the vehicles are styled. Look at the ornate scupltures on the sides of the buildings. Look at the rendering of the oil rig. Check out the load screens. Look at the Brotherhood of Steel logo. Fallout was designed with that 1950s look, including the streamlined art deco architecture. Fallout definitely has a set style. If you don't think Fallout Enforcer lacks that style, then you should do yourself a favor and remind yourself what that style actually is.

Personally, I have to wonder about the boy if he claims to be a Fallout fan and can't see the differences in style between Fallout and Fallout Enforcer. It just confuses me how you can't see Fallout's 1950s style and think that Fallout Enforcer looks the same.

[OnTheBounce]

Lark mentioned setting up a FO FAQ that n00bs could be referred to "with a hitched thumb".

Looking at your email above I was thinking that maybe instead of fighting battle after battle like this, maybe would should do more than just a FAQ here. Maybe we should look into putting together a series of essays devoted to things like the architecture, tech, etc., used in the FO universe.

This should -- of course -- be as well done as the community can manage. Only the best and brightest should work on it.

OTB

[axelgreese]

Only the best and brightest should work on it.

Big meanie.

[Saint_Proverbius]

Only the best and brightest should work on it.

That's a lot of work for just me to do. ;)

[Rosh]

That's a lot of work for just me to do. ;)

Hell, you can rip off my latest news post at NMA if you want to, bascially goes into it, too.

[OnTheBounce]

That's a lot of work for just me to do. ;)

So, tell me...is that the stench of your hubris befouling the air...or did you forget to shower today? ;)

OTB

[4too]

Perhaps the load screens, ad art work, cut scene vid's, and quality screen shots could be offered as eye candy for the "Special" FAQ.

Visual Aides, visual ads, it'll sell the point of view to establish the high ground, set the stage, define the parameters.

Hot linked-Eye candy front and center with a direct pipeline to the excellent "50's stylin' essay that is, or was around here somewhere.

"Special" edition wallpaper. With the copywrite holder duely noted, and
perchance the presiding "leader 'ship'" of FO at the time. "Tim Cain Epoc, Chris Taylor Era, F. U. Fingering......."

If Disney decided to pierce Micky"s ears, nose, and scrotum, so be it.

If I'play (continually) decides to hang a hasty name tag "" FO"" on whatever they believe the latest hip hop is, so be it.

If it's well done, it will sell. If the FO reference is a crutch, that will be obvious, and duely disseminated.

The weight of the reality of the FO style is carried by every one that's played it. A million one thousand and twenty four shades of radioactive green, and counting. It's a social inertia that can't be moved by propaganda and peer pressure group think, and free totebags to the first 50 callers....

[Was Hubris the Greek God of Shower Singing?]

4too

[DarkUnderlord]

Maybe we should look into putting together a series of essays devoted to things like the architecture, tech, etc., used in the FO universe.

You mean like a Fan Made Fallout Bible?

[OnTheBounce]

You mean like a Fan Made Fallout Bible?

If you're thinking of a fan-made FO Bible w/o the walk-throughs, NPC progressions, etc., then yes. No focus on the game stats, but rather simply on the setting itself. Although a timeline would also be helpful.

Everything should have rock-solid documentation (even if it comes down to chat transcripts w/the original developers) and not be the vision of what certain fans think the FO universe ougth to be.

OTB

[Wolfman Walt]

I'll gladly lend a hand if need be. As for the style, really Fallout is on a level of it's own interms of style as not many ((if any)) capture the same atmosphere as fallout which is familar, yet differant ((which makes sense with the setting)). Ofcourse the thing is as mentioned is we have to stay organized and be on the same track ((Harder to manage cause we're all on the net and abit ways apart)). I'll gladfully put in some free time for this though, I mean it's either this or write another article for DAC. ((I actually plan on making a regular editorial type deal if that wouldn't cause Killzig/Saint/Kreegle/Max/anyone else I'm forgetting too much hair loss)). Anyways, notify me when we start this "little" project.

[Mad Max RW]

I'm all for a regular editorial. I commented on your last one and would love to see more. Not just from you, but anyone who can put facts on paper without getting too slanderous.

[Spazmo]

This is probably a bit much, but a movie about what Fallout is and isn't done in the style of 1950's Public Service Announcements would be cool. We could have like Bert the Turtle telling people that thongs and the Brotherhood don't go together.

Of course, we lack animators, voice talent, and all that other stuff you need.

[axelgreese]

we lack animators

ahem

Just because I suck at the art, doesn't mean I can't animate things.

[Spazmo]

Ah, yes, I'd forgotten about Flash and the like.

[4too]

Of course, we lack animators, voice talent, and all that other stuff you need.

Well,that put's the project on superior footing then I'play and their FOBOS sub contractors.

Plenty of material already here.

A hot link quided tour, packaged for the new mouses clicks that the DAC/NMA "badboy" rep must attract could utilize the existing articles.

And it did not hurt for us lurkers and sunshine (or moonshine) patriots to be assigned homework by the literate.

A standard base of information will help us understand each other better, more than it would indocrinate and propagandize the group think.

By defining the choices, the paths of action can be directed.
Those addicted to FPShooters may not morph into 3rd person RPG'ers,
AND they will know what a RPG can offer, AND they will know the options of Fallout, AND they would demand excellence of experience from the
video game venders.

4too

[Killzig]

Sorry for the delay in response time, things have been busy on this end.
Anyways, thanks for listening. I understand where you're coming from but I have to respectfully disagree with you on a couple of points. A picture paints a 1000 words right, well we have 6 pictures to sikowanalize [sic]. Would you like me to go shot by shot and point out that this game is clichEd post apoc rather than stylized post apoc fare like Fallout? I don't think it's necessary but just for references sake let's get going.

http://www.interplay.com/dbimages/produ ... s2-ss6.jpg

An empty bar in Fallout!? Egads. On an aesthetic level the game is
garbage, even Fallout's antiquated 2d environment is more appealing than
this lazy effort. Muddy textures and all sorts of lighting issues.

http://www.interplay.com/dbimages/produ ... s2-ss5.jpg

The infamous thong shot. Really Sean, in Fallout how much frivolity did you see in the way the character's lived? Not much. We go from a game world where every last detail is thought out to a game world where things are sacrificed for what they think looks cool.

http://www.interplay.com/dbimages/produ ... s2-ss4.jpg

The presence of moving vehicles already makes this shot erroneous. I don't think I have to point out the graphics again.

http://www.interplay.com/dbimages/produ ... s2-ss3.jpg

Let's take the most irritating part of the game -- rats, scorpions, mantis
and make an entire game about that!

http://www.interplay.com/dbimages/produ ... s2-ss2.jpg

Would actually be a nice shot if the vehicle weren't in functioning order.

http://www.interplay.com/dbimages/produ ... s2-ss1.jpg

now... now they've just been watching too much manga.

See, it's not about narrowing your scope its about being creative within
that scope. It's like a table. A table has a set paradigm, because you
want to be creative doesn't mean make a table who's surface is at an angle so that everything slips off. Quite the contrary, you start off with that very basis and build over it. The same should be done with an established universe + backstory.

It's not about restricting it to a certain type of game. Hell, I'd be
happier than a pig in shit to see a well done VaultSim type game or Fallout
FPS or a Fallout tactical game that is more like Jagged Alliance than just
click here and here and here and here. And without trampling the already
existing story line. Example: Fallout 2 :: the enclave is the gov't, the
end all. Fallout Tactics:: Vault 0 is the central nervous system, all the
vaults are connected and they can even self repair. WHAT? You've just
singlehandedly destroy Fallout 1's story line. Anything that blaringly
obvious should have been picked up in predevelopment stages.

I think it's funny that you mention journalism, there isn't a gaming site
out there that doesn't lap up the scraps the developers give them. That's
the way it is unfortunately because developers and only developers control the flow of information. So you HAVE to be nice. DAC's slant has always been to take a harsher look at everything that goes on, not just interplay projects. We call it like we see it and toss our slant right then. If
you're not going to give it a slant then you might as well just plug in the
dev press releases ever so often and leave it at that.

We're not encouraging the outrage, mostly voicing it. If you've noticed
we're not the only site. If you've bothered to look at the comments for
VE3D.com, gamerswithjobs.com or any other major news site that posted this the vast majority of the comments are negative. NMA-Fallout.com as well. I mean, anyone who's been following Fallout and has been an avid fan from the get go is for the most part pretty disenchanted with this announcement. We didn't create this sentiment, we only voice it.

I know that most of the e-mails to chuck have been fairly polite are because the people e-mailing him have posted their e-mails in the comments of the news item. I agree with you that Saint's gallery is silly and juvenile but he didn't encourage it. People posted it and asked for a gallery.

Anyways, I understand your perspective and I hope you've gained a better understanding of mine.

Agreeing to disagree,

Killzig
DAC.Net

[Saint_Proverbius]

See, it's not about narrowing your scope its about being creative within
that scope. It's like a table. A table has a set paradigm, because you
want to be creative doesn't mean make a table who's surface is at an angle so that everything slips off. Quite the contrary, you start off with that very basis and build over it. The same should be done with an established universe + backstory.

This is more like a plastic Wal-Mart doghouse with the name TABEL etched on it.

It's not about restricting it to a certain type of game. Hell, I'd be
happier than a pig in shit to see a well done VaultSim type game or Fallout
FPS or a Fallout tactical game that is more like Jagged Alliance than just
click here and here and here and here.

I doubt you could make a decent FPS with the Fallout license and be decent to Fallout. You'd have to shave off a hell of a lot of the things that were cool about Fallout just to hammer it in to that supah fast pace multiplayer fun mode and map switching goodness they require.

You'd most likely end up with all the issues Deus Ex had where no choice really mattered until you've whooped every level.

And without trampling the already
existing story line. Example: Fallout 2 :: the enclave is the gov't, the
end all. Fallout Tactics:: Vault 0 is the central nervous system, all the
vaults are connected and they can even self repair. WHAT? You've just
singlehandedly destroy Fallout 1's story line. Anything that blaringly
obvious should have been picked up in predevelopment stages.

You probably should have added that if Vault Zero existed, why didn't the Overseer mention that to the Vault Dweller when sending him out. "Here, try 15. If they don't have one, you may have to make the trek to Vault Zero, which is the hub of all the vaults."

Also, with all the Vault database searching you do looking for Vault 13 in Fallout 2, none of them has a listing for Vault Zero. You'd think the hub deal would be MUY IMPORTANTE, wouldn't you? Yet Vault 8 and Vault 15 didn't have the location information for that central hub vault.

I think it's funny that you mention journalism, there isn't a gaming site
out there that doesn't lap up the scraps the developers give them. That's
the way it is unfortunately because developers and only developers control the flow of information. So you HAVE to be nice. DAC's slant has always been to take a harsher look at everything that goes on, not just interplay projects. We call it like we see it and toss our slant right then. If
you're not going to give it a slant then you might as well just plug in the
dev press releases ever so often and leave it at that.

This is, for the most part, true. If a powerful publisher releases a much hyped game, you're probably not going to hear shit about anything bad about the game. If you do, they'll gloss over it. I think Fallout Tactics reviews proved that.

We're not encouraging the outrage, mostly voicing it. If you've noticed
we're not the only site. If you've bothered to look at the comments for
VE3D.com, gamerswithjobs.com or any other major news site that posted this the vast majority of the comments are negative. NMA-Fallout.com as well. I mean, anyone who's been following Fallout and has been an avid fan from the get go is for the most part pretty disenchanted with this announcement. We didn't create this sentiment, we only voice it.

Totally agreed here. Some of the bigger sites like ShackNews didn't even bother posting about it, too. So, most posts about it ranged from negative posts to not even bothering with the announcement.

I know that most of the e-mails to chuck have been fairly polite are because the people e-mailing him have posted their e-mails in the comments of the news item. I agree with you that Saint's gallery is silly and juvenile but he didn't encourage it. People posted it and asked for a gallery.

Also, it's not like it's not a creative outlet to express their anger. Oh no, someone photoshopped Chuck's head on a platter with a humorous caption! What evil megavillians those people are!

[OnTheBounce]

Also, with all the Vault database searching you do looking for Vault 13 in Fallout 2, none of them has a listing for Vault Zero. You'd think the hub deal would be MUY IMPORTANTE, wouldn't you? Yet Vault 8 and Vault 15 didn't have the location information for that central hub vault.

If you putz around on the computer in Gecko, Norad is listed as being offline. Norad was replaced by Vault Zero, so there's another contradiction. I'm sure it would have been listed as Vault Zero, and not Norad if the change had been made.

OTB

[Dan]

So are you going to compile the editorials into a section of the site for refearence?