View Single Post

Default 

August 4th, 2008, 21:39
Originally Posted by Maylander View Post
That does not, however, explain why they couldn't make up their own IP that was very similar to Fallout. There's a ton of extra costs involved when using an existing IP - research on the setting (reading through thousands of pages of documentation, re-playing the original games, etc), paying Interplay to use the Fallout name, entering various dialogues and discussions with previous developers, set up meetings with Interplay on what can/can not be done in the Fallout universe and so on and so forth.
They haven't made a new IP since the Elder Scrolls lore, which hasn't been expanded since Daggerfall in 1996. And all the people who created it are gone. They have since only brought breadth to TES since no one there is capable of adding depth or creating something new in these 12 years. The next big thing in RPGs is/was futuristic and modern settings with guns. Can a company with (currently) no experience in creating new IP come up with a winning new gun-based setting to support a $10 million production plus sequels?

Or would they buy an IP, one that could lend itself to their first-person, exploration based game engine? The game area would have to be continuous (per engine requirements). It would have to be empty for the most part (per design requirements; scattered communities and numerous rural dungeons). A continuous modern city full of people would be unfeasible. A post-apocalyptic environment (set in a comparably "dense" area, like a former city) is one of the few settings compatible with this big, empty, continuous, gun-toting game world.

While I wish they had not bought the franchise, it makes obvious business sense that they did. But please don't try to spin this as if Fallout needed Bethesda.
pnutz is offline

pnutz

SasqWatch

#15

Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 47