More JE lubbin

Saint_Proverbius · Post by **Saint_Proverbius** » Thu Nov 28, 2002 10:31 am

[ -> Editorial]

JE Sawyer made an <a href="http://forums.interplay.com/viewtopic.p ... nteresting reply</a> in a thread on the <a href="http://forums.interplay.com/">IPLY forums</a> in a <a href="http://forums.interplay.com/viewtopic.p ... t=0">topic about Fallout 3</a>. Here's the unabridged version:
 
 <blockquote>What is the right way to make it? Better than Fallout 1? Better than Fallout 2? Better than the best aspects of Fallout 1 and 2 combined? Because if you want to use the sales figures of Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 as the basis for making a sequel, you are heading down a trail of tears. If we make Fallout 3 in a way that appeals to the strongest fans of Fallout 1 and Fallout 2, it will probably sell similarly to Fallout 1 and Fallout 2. 
 
 That's fine. Really, it is. As long as the development time isn't excessive, it's just fine to sell Fallout or Fallout 2 numbers. But that can't be all that BIS does -- just as Icewind Dale and Dark Alliance games can't be all that we do. I think that, in a good situation, BIS would develop two or three RPGs at a time, running between very casual/quick fun on one end and hardcore, intense RPG at the other end.
 
 Jefferson's development has involved a significant amount of technology R&D. We believe this R&D time is justified because the reception of the game should, with humble hoping, be very good across a fairly wide group of people. We have taken great pains to insure that we can apply the technology used on Jefferson to other projects without sacrificing the integrity of those projects. This can be very difficult, but, again, the payoff should be worth it. You can't develop technology for every situation -- that's just madness -- but you certainly can make choices that allow much more flexibility within the range of games that you typically make.
 
 The Jefferson engine's scripting, for instance, would initially have made implementing true sequential turn-based combat impossible. A lot of the programmers, designers, and script-folk talked about how we could find a solution that allowed the possibility of TB combat, then implemented it. Will Jefferson have turn-based combat? Mystery! But the engine has the potential for it.
 
 Another big hurdle in developing RPGs are the editors. RPGs, unlike many other computer games, have a WHOLE LOTTA DATA associated with things like creatures (for instance). A creature in GURPS doesn't share a whole lot in common with a creature from Legend of the Five Rings -- data-wise. The Jefferson editors have taken a long time to develop. Maybe too long. But, BY GUM, it would take a technical designer only a day to sit down a revise all of the editor fields and file formats to a new system -- because you can do it all from within the editor itself.
 
 Personally, I believe that Fallout 3 would be best developed in a situation where the technology is robust and ready for use, the design, art, and programming teams are ready to charge forward, and where we can feel comfortable making a game that doesn't need to have a huge profit margin. If you think Fallout 3 would be hugely successful if made according to the greatest desires (or even many of the desires) of the hardcore fans, I think you're mistaken. I think Fallout 3 could be hugely successful if we made it contrary to (or at least regardless of) the desires of the hardcore fans. Fortunately, I don't believe ANYONE at Black Isle wants to make Fallout 3 in that manner.
 
 There are more Diablo fans than Fallout fans by a huge ratio. But most of those Diablo fans are very casual players, and not that crazy about the game. Fallout fans are loco. Not nearly as numerous, but easily far more passionate.</blockquote>
 
 We're CHOCK FULL OF CRAZY! We lub j00, JE!
 
 Thanks to Mistress of <a href="http://www.rpgcodex.com">RPG Codex</a> for pointing this out to me.

Rosh · Post by **Rosh** » Thu Nov 28, 2002 11:17 am

I love how he tries to paint himself to be a newbie about gaming.

What ol' Bishop doesn't realise is that the popularity of Fallout has been growing quite well, enough to warrant re-relasing dual-jewel cases, etc.

Of course, we could also point out that the advertising for Fallout and Fallout 2 was really poor. He's also obviously had his knob slobbered onto by Marketing enough so he'll believe their bullshit. Yeah, Diablo did sell well. That's not the point. How many Diablo clones sold well? Sales figures of Diablo mean only one thing of importance - you either do o do not have ties to Diablo. Trend-chasers often fail.

Essentially, he's trying to make more excuses to skullfuck it into trendy stuff. My guess is that he wouldn't be happy until it's in the same shape as Lionheart and IWD.

Of course, nothing says violating a series integrity like bowing into trends. I wonder if he got a clue about why FOT failed like it did, and became notorious quite well outside of fansites. Not just because that it was a tactical game either (and many CRPG players love JA2). Or how about the poster-children of bad trend-chasing, Ultima 8 and Ultima IX? Did he conveniently forget them, too?

"Hello, sir. Which flavor of generic trendy shit game would you like? We have sci-fi, fantasy, pop-culture, and bland. If you ask me, they are all the same."

Som Guy · Post by **Som Guy** » Thu Nov 28, 2002 12:27 pm

Fallout fans are loco. Not nearly as numerous, but easily far more passionate.

Its funny to realize that is how we are viewed by most people. I think its a well deserved reputation though. We are definitly the most angry fan base out there. Also we have considerable endurance. After all these years we still demand a Fallout 3 as if they actually listen to us.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Thu Nov 28, 2002 1:06 pm

Will Jefferson have turn-based combat? Mystery!

He must think we're retarded.

Post by **DarkUnderlord** » Thu Nov 28, 2002 1:23 pm

JE Sawyer wrote:What is the right way to make it? Better than Fallout 1? Better than Fallout 2? Better than the best aspects of Fallout 1 and 2 combined? Because if you want to use the sales figures of Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 as the basis for making a sequel, you are heading down a trail of tears. If we make Fallout 3 in a way that appeals to the strongest fans of Fallout 1 and Fallout 2, it will probably sell similarly to Fallout 1 and Fallout 2.

If the sales figures for Fallout 1 and 2 were that bad, why the hell did they make Fallout: Tactics? What was all that about?

JE Sawyer wrote:Jefferson's development has involved a significant amount of technology R&D. We believe this R&D time is justified because the reception of the game should, with humble hoping, be very good across a fairly wide group of people.

YAY! Diablo! Most "highly receptive" games are high on the simplicity. The Sims - Point and Click. Myst - Point and Click. Diablo - Point and Click. Real RPG's tend to have a bit more complexity about them. Complexity loses the casual player base. Casual players don't have the time to spend 3 hours learning how to play. Then another 3 hours just to complete one quest, or explore one village thoroughly.

JE Sawyer wrote:If you think Fallout 3 would be hugely successful if made according to the greatest desires (or even many of the desires) of the hardcore fans, I think you're mistaken. I think Fallout 3 could be hugely successful if we made it contrary to (or at least regardless of) the desires of the hardcore fans. Fortunately, I don't believe ANYONE at Black Isle wants to make Fallout 3 in that manner.

I'm sorry, what happened to Ice-wind Dale? You did work on that didn't you? Wasn't he involved with that? Someone tell me he was involved with that. As for making Fallout 3 contrary to the hardcore fans views. That means:

Real time combat
Intense 3d action
More real-life/realistic guns
Lotsa cars and truck and boats and planes and helicopters and...

God help us.

JE Sawyer wrote:There are more Diablo fans than Fallout fans by a huge ratio. But most of those Diablo fans are very casual players, and not that crazy about the game. Fallout fans are loco. Not nearly as numerous, but easily far more passionate.

So why don't Interplay/BIS admit defeat and go work for Blizzard then? JE Sawyer could help make Diablo III! That seems to be what he wants. :click: :click: :click:

Jeff · Post by **Jeff** » Thu Nov 28, 2002 7:30 pm

Saint_Proverbius wrote:JE Sawyer

I thought he left the internet? :roll:

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Thu Nov 28, 2002 7:43 pm

Excuses, excuses. They just really don't want to make FO3.

MF · Post by MF » Thu Nov 28, 2002 7:44 pm

What he means is : "We'd like to make a good game for a change, but marketing won't let us."

4too · Post by **4too** » Thu Nov 28, 2002 8:49 pm

It's easy to make references to other entertainment box shifters.

Music producers aspire to be "pop", and "artistic", and filthy stinking rich,...
.... and so may we all be blessed. Music producers are famous for end sniffing the last trend and over engineering the sound into a wall of noise, that's actually a big soft baby blanket. The only sure thing is the tax write off for being a congenital loser; Tax write offs: a federal defacto subsidy, or big government hand out that even Republicans snort up like crystal.
Too bad IPLY is too po' to hide behind it's loses.

Chasing trends is chasing bubbles, soap, pop music, or dot-gone stocks.

Betting on a sure thing is usually even odds, and where is the fun in that?

There is even "art" in risk, and I think that is above and beyond of most us, well most of the time. But especially for those that chant the DIABLOW mantra, why aren't they marketing diet plans or vegtable choppers?
For the love of money and their predestined piece of the pie, why aren't they out shilling insurance or denying loans in a bank? Can't make the big kill if they can't load their rockets and shoot.

Put the effort into the craft, computer games, and leave the product placement for later.

4too

Saint_Proverbius · Post by **Saint_Proverbius** » Thu Nov 28, 2002 9:31 pm

MF wrote:What he means is : "We'd like to make a good game for a change, but marketing won't let us."

Actually, what he's saying is they can make it good, and they should, despite the fact it may not sell billions of copies. He's basically saying that BIS can/should make both types of games, games that are mass market type games to make loads of money as well as good, solid CRPGs which may or may not rake in the cash.

Hell, this line here:

JE Sawyer wrote:where we can feel comfortable making a game that doesn't need to have a huge profit margin

Pretty much says he thinks Fallout 3 shouldn't be a mass market title. They should make it well, knowing it's not going to be the SLAM DUNK! title.

This is actually a GOOD THING, people. This is what we've been wanting to hear since Feargus's post about how Fallout 3 should be 3D because of the kewl particle effects for miniguns.

Then again, I still say the main reason Fallout and Fallout 2 didn't make nearly as much as they should is because they had no copy protection out there. It's fairly obvious the number of people who've played and love Fallout by far outnumber the number of sales the game got.

MF · Post by MF » Thu Nov 28, 2002 10:18 pm

SP, you're completely right, but that doesn't negate my post.
There's no way Herve's thugs are going to allow BIS to follow such a course, and I don't think Sawyer has any real authority over matters like this.

Then, we can still hope. At least Sawyer understands that there is a seperate crowd that likes Fallout, and wants it to be like the first to games in terms of quality and depth.

I just think he, and, -perhaps even influenced by- the marketing people behind BIS/Interplay/Titus/Whatever underestimate the size of this crowd.

As an off-topic side note : I don't think copy-protection can stop piracy. As soon as there is a decent cracked ISO, that is what spreads, not copies of legal discs. Then again, in 1997 piracy was more than now primarily a ripjob. You missed out on movies and/or sound/talking heads , but that takes away the fun of the game.
I don't think the effects of copy protection will be noticed that much. It works with games like the Sims that sell to total computer nitwits and have no clue that piracy even exists, but with Fallout, I'm not sure. The only thing that really really hurt sales was a lack of marketing, and the popularity of the game despite that is a testament to its quality.

ApTyp · Post by **ApTyp** » Fri Nov 29, 2002 12:17 am

I got a terrific idea.

Why don't we let Roshambo and Proverbius make the next Fallout game?

Roshambo, as we all know very well, is an experienced veteran of RPG development and has vast knowledge about RPG design, Proverbius totally gets the Fallout universe and is into finances, it seems. So, I propose that you two meet and start a project of your own, since Black Isle and Interplay are obviously fucking morons, corporate cocksuckers, and have no fucking idea that the future of RPG (and their salvation) lies behind releasing Fallout 3.

Yeah, how about that?

Insane-Lark · Post by **Insane-Lark** » Fri Nov 29, 2002 12:30 am

ApTyp,

Despite the fact that was meant to be biting sarcasm, I'd bet that you'd find something on tha market by now if they were. Now all we need is the liscence a budget & a good stable of professional programmers with a vision & grasp of the FO universe...

ApTyp · Post by **ApTyp** » Fri Nov 29, 2002 12:52 am

How's this:

1. We all forget about Fallout universe, since we obviously know more about it than its designers, who are all fucking morons, corporate cocksuckers etc.
2. We get off our collective nine hundred and sixty-one asses and make a post-nuclear turn-based CRPG set in Fallout-like universe
3. We start selling it online for the price of shipment and burned CD ( less than five bucks)

Beats the alternative of spending another five years:

1. Waiting
2. Complaining
3. Accusing
4. Diss morons who do not share our unique and time-proven vision
5. Secretly love being called "rabid" by the corporate cocksuckers

Mr Carrot · Post by **Mr Carrot** » Fri Nov 29, 2002 2:11 am

APtyp the fact is we DO know more about the Fallout universe then BIS or Interplay, the only people who know more dont work for either of these companies any more.

Case in point, the FOB is written like MCA has never even played FO1.

MF · Post by MF » Fri Nov 29, 2002 2:24 am

Yes, Mr Carrot. That is something that really annoys me.

Not entirely correct, though. It strikes me as if MCA played Fallout as a combat-oriented game and was bored with it, too fucking moronic to realize the game has other aspects besides blowing someone's guts out with a minigun. (Even though that was marvellously done in the game.)

I'm sure he is a nice guy when you're having a pizza with him talking about bees and the weather, but I don't like his humor one bit. In fact, he strikes me, through his bible and occasional post on BIS Forums (from what I've seen I don't frequent there) as an incredible arse that insults people's intelligence. People who seem a tad brighter than our good friend MCA appears.

When he started the FOB I thought it was a respectable project and I was glad he took the time to do it. It's turning more and more into a parody, assraping the Fallout Universe.

Well..that's not entirely true. There are some positive aspects to it. I'm just sick of the FEV FEV FEV and the fact that he's basically writing a fucking walkthrough instead of detailing, defining and outlining the universe.

Hmm..perhaps that's the point. He can't. Perhaps Tim could, but still. I don't think he thought it out a lot past the original game. And perhaps we should leave it at that.

Anyway, a Fallout Bible should ONLY take information from the game, not from MCA's ass.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Fri Nov 29, 2002 4:06 am

There's a problem with the community making FO3. We may have some idea of what is Fallout and what isn't, but most of us have no idea what game design is and isn't. We're mostly just a bunch of dumb kids who can't make a game for a wide variety of reasons.

No-one you know · Post by **No-one you know** » Fri Nov 29, 2002 4:14 am

Oh great I say that like 1 fucking year ago and no-one says shit but now everyone whats to talk about it

.

Well I can do a little game designing, programing, little bit of everything really.

ApTyp · Post by **ApTyp** » Fri Nov 29, 2002 4:31 am

Mr Carrot:
I wasn't joking. Our vision of Fallout universe is much bigger than that of the original designers.

Spazmo:
That's why someone with at least SOME game design experience should lead the production, like Roshambo or Section8 or maybe someone else I can't think of right now. I'd nominate myself, but most people probably won't listen to me, or anyone else they don't preceive as an expert in that field.

And people, for god sake - I'm not talking about advanced 3D world that with high hardware req. and usage of DirectX8.1 or whatever, that requires two years of production. I'm not talking about a game with the same programming/art level of the original Fallout either. You don't HAVE to know C++ and Win32 API, although that's probably our best bet.

I figure we'd need something like more advanced Wasteland graphics engine and a functional scripting machine, as well as easy-to-use tools and documentation (map editors, item editors, some scripting tutorials for designers). Yes, it's not an easy thing to do, but at least SOME of 961 people on this forum are bound to have the knowledge and experience necessary to be the lead programmer!

No-one you know · Post by **No-one you know** » Fri Nov 29, 2002 4:41 am

I think we sud try and make a fallout 3 its the only way its going to come anyway if you do start it and you need any programing, designing, images whatever just say and I'll be right on it.

Duck and Cover

More JE lubbin

More JE lubbin

Re: More JE lubbin

Re: More JE lubbin