|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » Fallout 3 - Interview @ Strategy Informer

Default Fallout 3 - Interview @ Strategy Informer

August 5th, 2008, 18:36
An interesting Fallout 3 interview is up at Strategy Informer, with questions about Bethsoft's reasons for taking on the IP and their approach. Pete Hines' comparison between the dialogue in Fallout and Oblivion seems odd from where I'm sitting but maybe I'm missing the point:
Strategy Informer: Would it be fair to label Fallout 3, “Oblivion with guns”? It seems as if the dialogue seems to be the same, the wide open spaces and there are a lot of similarities.

Pete Hines: Well, from the standpoint of both Fallout and Oblivion are kind of “go wherever you want” kind of games, so certainly from an engine point of standpoint, we designed it to be something where we wanted to give you big vistas and really sort of impress upon you the level of destruction as well all the possibilities. All of these places you can see, you can walk to in real time and go explore.

You know, the dialogue is exactly like the dialogue from Fallout so it may feel similar to Oblivion and I guess in terms of how it’s structured, but it’s sort of exactly the way Fallout presented its dialogue; You know what it is you want to say, how people respond back, trying to do a lot more with the dialogue in terms of choices of how you talk to people, the ability to unlock certain options in dialogue based on having a higher speech skill or having certain attributes that allow you to unlock a certain dialogue option that you usually wouldn’t be able to get, different perks, you know when you levelled up you may have noticed “The Ladykiller” or if you’re playing as a girl, it’s called “Black Widow” where you pick that perk, then talking to certain people you get a dialogue option that you wouldn’t normally have gotten. All of that is very different ad unique to Fallout in terms of giving the player options they wouldn’t normally have gotten because of the type of character they are playing with; you get to say this because of who you are.

To answer your question, I don’t discount that folks are going to call it that, it’s based off the same engine, it’s still doing big epic vistas, but I think Oblivion was a really good game, my only hesitance with that phrase is that it doesn’t take in to account how much effort we put in to making this a very true Fallout experience with characters, dialogue and setting and all that stuff to make it very different and true to what the series is about. I think we’ll certainly get that and I don’t think that’s ever going to go away but I think it probably sells the game a bit short.
More information.

-= RPGWatch =-
Dhruin is offline

Dhruin

Dhruin's Avatar
Watcher
Super Moderator
RPGWatch Team

#1

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 11,964

Default 

August 5th, 2008, 18:36
He just means that - ignoring the dialogue wheel thingy and the one-word choices - the basic presentation of dialogue is somewhat similar in Oblivion and Fallout.

It's not a very accurate statement, but it is accurate in so far as you pick from a list of lines and then the other person replies. Pretty much like every other RPG.

The presentation of dialogue does look a lot like Oblivion in cameraworks and like Fallout in that you now have full lines to pick from. The mechanics of it are another story, who knows?
Brother None is offline

Brother None

Brother None's Avatar
SasqWatch

#2

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,551

Default 

August 5th, 2008, 23:55
I think it's interesting that the Oblivion engine causes so much backlash amongst the hardcore RPG crowd who so cherish Fallout and its legacy (and cherish it I do myself). What's funny is that yes it has the surface trimmings of Oblivion, but isn't it one of the most fundamental tenants of hardcore RPGism that looks don't matter? Isn't it ALL about the gameplay?

I imagine you could make an "Oblivion with guns" attack that doesn't touch upon the subject of graphics or interface, but I don't know if it would carry much weight. It might not even be valid. I mean, many of the elements that are central to Oblivion: 3-D (do we even list that anymore?), free-roaming gameworld, realtime combat… these features are present in what percentage of modern games? It's just the way things are these days.

I think the true complaint is less about Oblivion, and more about the modernization of a beloved classic; the transformation of Fallout from a TB isometric game (representing a DECIDEDLY niche market these days) into a more marketable, and more modern incarnation. A Fallout many more people will buy and play.

I'm not saying it's better this way. I am saying it's just sorta inevitable. Welcome to gaming in 2008 and beyond.
Yeesh is offline

Yeesh

Yeesh's Avatar
Hopeless Curmudgeon

#3

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: too poor for Manhattan
Posts: 374

Default 

August 6th, 2008, 00:16
Originally Posted by Yeesh View Post
I think it's interesting that the Oblivion engine causes so much backlash amongst the hardcore RPG crowd who so cherish Fallout and its legacy (and cherish it I do myself). What's funny is that yes it has the surface trimmings of Oblivion, but isn't it one of the most fundamental tenants of hardcore RPGism that looks don't matter? Isn't it ALL about the gameplay?

I imagine you could make an "Oblivion with guns" attack that doesn't touch upon the subject of graphics or interface, but I don't know if it would carry much weight. It might not even be valid. I mean, many of the elements that are central to Oblivion: 3-D (do we even list that anymore?), free-roaming gameworld, realtime combat… these features are present in what percentage of modern games? It's just the way things are these days.

I think the true complaint is less about Oblivion, and more about the modernization of a beloved classic; the transformation of Fallout from a TB isometric game (representing a DECIDEDLY niche market these days) into a more marketable, and more modern incarnation. A Fallout many more people will buy and play.

I'm not saying it's better this way. I am saying it's just sorta inevitable. Welcome to gaming in 2008 and beyond.
If Blizzard could keep it top-down style, and not go for first person or 3rd person, so could Bethesda have kept it like Fallout Tactics(with both realtime for the masses and turn-based for the turnbased players). There were plenty of reasons why they went first/3rd person, and I believe a strong one was that they already had Oblivion's engine, which they just had to upgrade and just create new content.
danutz_plusplus is offline

danutz_plusplus

danutz_plusplus's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#4

Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 919

Default 

August 6th, 2008, 01:13
Originally Posted by Yeesh View Post
I think it's interesting that the Oblivion engine causes so much backlash amongst the hardcore RPG crowd who so cherish Fallout and its legacy (and cherish it I do myself). What's funny is that yes it has the surface trimmings of Oblivion, but isn't it one of the most fundamental tenants of hardcore RPGism that looks don't matter? Isn't it ALL about the gameplay?

I imagine you could make an "Oblivion with guns" attack that doesn't touch upon the subject of graphics or interface, but I don't know if it would carry much weight. It might not even be valid. I mean, many of the elements that are central to Oblivion: 3-D (do we even list that anymore?), free-roaming gameworld, realtime combat? these features are present in what percentage of modern games? It's just the way things are these days.

I think the true complaint is less about Oblivion, and more about the modernization of a beloved classic; the transformation of Fallout from a TB isometric game (representing a DECIDEDLY niche market these days) into a more marketable, and more modern incarnation. A Fallout many more people will buy and play.

I'm not saying it's better this way. I am saying it's just sorta inevitable. Welcome to gaming in 2008 and beyond.
Some games are better on fps view than others, i mean if you say that isometric view is a niche market then what the hell is blizzard thinking on not make diablo 3 like hellgate london?? they are crazy?? no, also know this, Fallout 1 and 2 where rpg that depend heavily on stats, this stats where dumped down on FO3 to affect just a little the combat, even with low stats you can kill ppl because it depends now much more on the skill of player than stats, and that's is like all 1010101010+ shooters out there. This is why most of ppl complain.

Also is know that int and cas is playing another role now than the original games.

Soo in the end, tell me, if you don't stay with the core mechanics of a franchise, you are just releasing a new game, then do something simple, change the damn name of the game. Blizzard know this, that's why when some guys where pissed asking why starcraft don't add Supreme commander/red alert/c&c/xxx options that are supposed "the future of strategy games" they reply that if they do that, then is NOT A STARCRAFT GAME, they are to stick with the original core mechanics and enhance it, and i agree 100% with this.

Besheda is not moving the franchise to next level, solo la esta poniendo mas simple para que los idiotas puedan jugarla.

By the way, i am sure if oblivion where turn based and isometric view then fallout 3 actually will be in the same way, is not like i say they are moving to next level, they are just adapting the game to their own engine soo they can get more juice from it (you know what mean invest on new engines??? even bioware and lot of company's buy engines like unreal to make their own games).
________
S14
Last edited by Turok; February 16th, 2011 at 02:34.
Turok is offline

Turok

Watchdog

#5

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Venezuela
Posts: 149

Default 

August 6th, 2008, 01:29
With Diablo they don't have to worry about getting customers to buy because the previous games were so popular and those customers are loyal to the company. With that they don't need to change their game much to sell a lot of copies.
guenthar is offline

guenthar

SasqWatch

#6

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,532
Send a message via Skype™ to guenthar

Default 

August 6th, 2008, 02:02
Originally Posted by guenthar View Post
With Diablo they don't have to worry about getting customers to buy because the previous games were so popular and those customers are loyal to the company. With that they don't need to change their game much to sell a lot of copies.
And you get the point, is not they are moving the franchise to the future, is that they know that doing this they will get tons of money.

In the end, the hype machine is for one purpose, make money.

Soo why someone that like fallout 1 and 2 dont have the right to complain because fo3 is a shooter??

Just let people complain, is their right.
________
Vapir No2 Vaporizer
Last edited by Turok; February 16th, 2011 at 02:34.
Turok is offline

Turok

Watchdog

#7

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Venezuela
Posts: 149

Default 

August 6th, 2008, 02:04
Originally Posted by Yeesh View Post
What's funny is that yes it has the surface trimmings of Oblivion, but isn't it one of the most fundamental tenants of hardcore RPGism that looks don't matter? Isn't it ALL about the gameplay?
Choice of engine doesn't only affect the "looks". It also directly affects the gameplay. For instance if you choose to go for a real-time first person view (or over the shoulder but closely zoomed) chances are the gameplay is going to be about "immersion" that is making you feel your character is your eyes. If however you go for a turn based 3rd person view you emphasize the gameplay on tactical elements, placements, and such games tend to emphasize more on the world around you and the NPCs rather than just your character.

Everything in Fallout 3 seems to be your-character-centric. Even the plot line: "your father left the vault for unkown reasons and you set out to find him" sounds more "selfish" than that of the previous Fallouts.

So I believe it's a valid concern for "RPGists", the choice of engine affects many things well beyond the "looks".
Hedek is offline

Hedek

Hedek's Avatar
Watchdog

#8

Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 203

Default 

August 6th, 2008, 02:22
Originally Posted by Hedek View Post
Choice of engine doesn't only affect the "looks". It also directly affects the gameplay. For instance if you choose to go for a real-time first person view (or over the shoulder but closely zoomed) chances are the gameplay is going to be about "immersion" that is making you feel your character is your eyes. If however you go for a turn based 3rd person view you emphasize the gameplay on tactical elements, placements, and such games tend to emphasize more on the world around you and the NPCs rather than just your character
That's not a matter of choosing an engine. Gamebryo (Oblivion's engine) is easily capable of both birds-eye viewpoints and turn-based combat.

In fact, I'm not sure what Yeesh is referring to. There has never been much backlash to the usage of the Gamebryo engine, it was a perfectly natural choice for Bethesda.
Brother None is offline

Brother None

Brother None's Avatar
SasqWatch

#9

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,551

Default 

August 6th, 2008, 03:15
Originally Posted by Brother None View Post
That's not a matter of choosing an engine. Gamebryo (Oblivion's engine) is easily capable of both birds-eye viewpoints and turn-based combat.

In fact, I'm not sure what Yeesh is referring to. There has never been much backlash to the usage of the Gamebryo engine, it was a perfectly natural choice for Bethesda.
Indeed, what seems to be causing the backlash Yeesh is referring to is strictly Bethesda's design choices. Including what they're deciding to do with their engine.

Then again there's nothing wrong with making a real time first person twitch action RPG. Problem is there are just more and more of them. For the -albeit not so large- crowd that likes games in the vein of Fallout, Planescape: Torment or Arcanum there is less and less choice. I mean how many decent games have we had in the past few years? Neverwinter Nights (1 & 2) and KOTOR? Fallout was one the few last franchises that's turn based / 3rd person view. And now it's joining the massive crowd of first person games.

We're just losing in diversity, it seems every new game that comes out falls into the same very limited list of gameplay types: Everquest, Half Life, Company of Heroes, Diablo and Oblivion. With every other games (excluding sports/sim games) being just slight variations of such games as far as gameplay goes.

Again I would have never complained had Bethesda created their own setting for a post-apoc Bethesda. It's just sad to lose yet another game that offered that type of gameplay.
Hedek is offline

Hedek

Hedek's Avatar
Watchdog

#10

Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 203

Default 

August 6th, 2008, 04:41
Originally Posted by Hedek View Post
Again I would have never complained had Bethesda created their own setting for a post-apoc Bethesda. It's just sad to lose yet another game that offered that type of gameplay.
Listen. My favorite game is Jagged Alliance 2. I'd gamed for years before (Crescent Hawk's Inception was the first PC game I really rocked, if I may date myself) and I've gamed for years after, but for me the combinatinon of TB tactics and team building RPG elements is still the most fun you can have with a keyboard and mouse. So don't be thinking I'm happy at the way things have gone.

But here's the facts. There is no JA franchise. There is no XCom franchise. And there was no Fallout franchise either. There are classic games we love, but they aren't franchises like Civ or NWN or Diablo.

Bethesda could've made whatever game they're making without the Fallout IP, sure, in which case we'd all be riffing on how they BLATANTLY RIPPED OFF Fallout (because really, how can you do a post-apoc game with even a little sense of humor without ripping off Fallout?). But whether they'd made their game with or without the Fallout license, there wasn't going to be another Fallout in the same vein as the first two games, nor even in the vein of Tactics (which I, of course, totally loved (despite the ridiculous burst fire bug)). Because turn-based RPGs be dead. Dead, dead, dead. Except on consoles and portables, for some reason. I'm not happy about it, but I'm not going to pretend it aint so.

Bottom line: The Fallout 3 we're cursing Bethesda for not making was never going to get made by any big name developer with any kind of budget. We didn't lose anything because it wasn't going to happen.

Except maybe in Russia, and then it wouldve been buggy as hell and never gotten any dev support or even a proper English translation anyway.
Yeesh is offline

Yeesh

Yeesh's Avatar
Hopeless Curmudgeon

#11

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: too poor for Manhattan
Posts: 374

Default 

August 6th, 2008, 05:21
Originally Posted by Yeesh View Post
Because turn-based RPGs be dead. Dead, dead, dead. Except on consoles and portables, for some reason.
That statement isn't exactly true. There are a few games that are still TB that are being made like Frayed Nights, Penny Arcade game, Spiderweb's many games, AOD, Eschalon, Gods: Land of Infinity, Neverend, Dominions and a few others. Most are indies but there still is a market out there for TB RPGs albeit a very small market. Saying they are dead, dead, dead is a bit of an exageration. If that was true Spiderweb would of died out a long time ago.

Saying that the major publishers won't make them is, for now, true but that just opens up the market for indie development and I'm sorta glad it did because now that the big boys are out of the way we are seeing some amazing indie TB games being made. AOD looks incredible, Frayed Knights Tech demo was very cool, Eschalon is amazing and all of Spiderwebs games going back to Exile have been very fun (You have to love the talking spiders ). Already Eschalon 2 is in the making and it is looking to outdo the original. Even though there are not a ton of them being made, the quality that is being made now is far supier than in the past.

Originally Posted by Yeesh View Post
Bottom line: The Fallout 3 we're cursing Bethesda for not making was never going to get made by any big name developer with any kind of budget. We didn't lose anything because it wasn't going to happen.
Okay, how about Fallout:BOS. Do you think that should of been made? We did lose something with that game, or at least I did. I lost 40 bucks on that POS. I thought Interplay could pull of a console Fallout, but it failed miserably. It would of been better to let sleeping dogs lie than to make a game for the masses that had nothing to do at all with the original Fallout franchise.

Despite all my rage.
I'm still just a rat in a cage.
Last edited by skavenhorde; August 6th, 2008 at 05:39.
skavenhorde is offline

skavenhorde

skavenhorde's Avatar
Little BRO Rat
RPGWatch Team

#12

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 5,408

Default 

August 6th, 2008, 05:22
Originally Posted by Yeesh View Post
Listen. My favorite game is Jagged Alliance 2. I'd gamed for years before (Crescent Hawk's Inception was the first PC game I really rocked, if I may date myself) and I've gamed for years after, but for me the combinatinon of TB tactics and team building RPG elements is still the most fun you can have with a keyboard and mouse. So don't be thinking I'm happy at the way things have gone.

But here's the facts. There is no JA franchise. There is no XCom franchise. And there was no Fallout franchise either. There are classic games we love, but they aren't franchises like Civ or NWN or Diablo.

Bethesda could've made whatever game they're making without the Fallout IP, sure, in which case we'd all be riffing on how they BLATANTLY RIPPED OFF Fallout (because really, how can you do a post-apoc game with even a little sense of humor without ripping off Fallout?). But whether they'd made their game with or without the Fallout license, there wasn't going to be another Fallout in the same vein as the first two games, nor even in the vein of Tactics (which I, of course, totally loved (despite the ridiculous burst fire bug)). Because turn-based RPGs be dead. Dead, dead, dead. Except on consoles and portables, for some reason. I'm not happy about it, but I'm not going to pretend it aint so.

Bottom line: The Fallout 3 we're cursing Bethesda for not making was never going to get made by any big name developer with any kind of budget. We didn't lose anything because it wasn't going to happen.

Except maybe in Russia, and then it wouldve been buggy as hell and never gotten any dev support or even a proper English translation anyway.

Amen, stated everything for truth.
rune_74 is offline

rune_74

SasqWatch

#13

Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,918

Default 

August 6th, 2008, 05:24
Originally Posted by skavenhorde View Post
That statement isn't exactly true. There are a few games that are still TB that are being made like Frayed Nights, Penny Arcade game, Spiderweb's many games, AOD, Eschalon, Gods: Land of Infinity, Neverend, Dominions and a few others. Most are indies but there still is a market out there for TB RPGs albeit a very small market. Saying they are dead, dead, dead is a bit of an exageration. If that was true Spiderweb would of died out a long time ago.

Saying that the major publishers won't make them is, for now, true but that just opens up the market for indie development and I'm sorta glad it did because now that the big boys are out of the way we are seeing some amazing indie TB games being made. AOD looks incredible, Frayed Knights Tech demo was very cool, Eschalon is amazing and all of Spiderwebs games going back to Exile have been very fun (You have to love the talking spiders ). Already Eschalon 2 is in the making and it is looking to outdo the original. Even though they're are not a ton of them being made, the quality that is being made now is far supier than in the past.

Also true, almagomate both posts = reality.
rune_74 is offline

rune_74

SasqWatch

#14

Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,918

Default 

August 6th, 2008, 08:45
That Fallout 3 basically HAD to move towards mainstream gaming tastes after Bethesda payed several millions for the license is certainly true. It is also true that we can not yet judge how well the game connects to some of the more important legacies of Fallout - choice and consequence, strong dialogue, viability of extremely different character builds. But I think Bethesda could have tried a little harder in connecting to the Fallout legacy by concentrating on making a pseudo-isometric perspective viable and making an "almost exclusive" VATS mode a central design goal - It seems it wouldn't have taken that much and it would have gone a long way in establishing some continuity between the old games and this new incarnation.
GhanBuriGhan is offline

GhanBuriGhan

GhanBuriGhan's Avatar
Wose extraordinaire

#15

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,449

Default 

August 6th, 2008, 09:04
Originally Posted by Turok View Post
Some games are better on fps view than others, i mean if you say that isometric view is a niche market then what the hell is blizzard thinking on not make diablo 3 like hellgate london??
If fallout had been the best selling rpg ever made instead of say diablo then Im sure we would have had isometric turn-based fallout3 years ago allready from the original developers. Also diablo is a realtime game unlike fallout which is turn-based. Turn-based is a real niche especially nowadays while realtime is and has always been popular.

"99.9% of all internet arguments are due to people not understanding someone else's point. The other 0.1% is arguing over made up statistics."-unknown poster
"Those who dont read history are destined to repeat it."– Edmund Burke
zakhal is offline

zakhal

zakhal's Avatar
HomelyRebel

#16

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Europa Universalis
Posts: 2,930

Default 

August 6th, 2008, 12:45
Originally Posted by GhanBuriGhan View Post
That Fallout 3 basically HAD to move towards mainstream gaming tastes after Bethesda payed several millions for the license is certainly true. It is also true that we can not yet judge how well the game connects to some of the more important legacies of Fallout - choice and consequence, strong dialogue, viability of extremely different character builds. But I think Bethesda could have tried a little harder in connecting to the Fallout legacy by concentrating on making a pseudo-isometric perspective viable and making an "almost exclusive" VATS mode a central design goal - It seems it wouldn't have taken that much and it would have gone a long way in establishing some continuity between the old games and this new incarnation.
My thoughts exactly, I mean how hard would it have been to just allow us to zoom out from that over-the-shoulder view to almost have a bird eye view?
As well as a "out-of-VATS VATS mode" where you can't aim for specific body parts but you don't need to open up a specific window?

If the "incompetent talentless worst company managers ever" from Troika managed to implement both turn based and real time in Arcanum, how come the "genius gods on earth" from Bethesda not able to? It's clearly design choices, the producers just don't want to. They could have tried and satisfied both the older and newer crowd of Fallout fans but they just decided not to. They have THEIR view of what a new Fallout game should be like and that's the only one they want to push. It's as if they're happy to have that crowd of "angry hardcore RPG fanatics who live in the past" against them and are doing everything to fuel their fire so they can use that for PR purpose "look if such gamers are angry what better proof that our game is modern and a true next-gen-nifty console goodness, if you love Halo Gears of War or Oblivion you'll love Fallout 3!".

"And don't worry if you're worried 'RPG' means you'll encounter that annoying BUG where even though you correctly put the crosshair on your target it missed! We specifically made changes so you'd be satisfied, I mean we're willing to accomodate and change the game for you but not for 'them'."
Just needed to quote that again and it seems to be quite missed out as it says a lot on the design choices and thinking behind Fallout 3:
"What was said recently, by both Todd and me, is that in real-time, skill affects chance to hit less than it used to. This change was made after extensive playtesting. Why? Most everyone found it annoying that you'd have your crosshair over an enemy, and your bullets would go completely wide. So we dialed the accuracy penalty back so it would feel good in real-time."
http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/in…#entry12611391
Last edited by Hedek; August 6th, 2008 at 12:53.
Hedek is offline

Hedek

Hedek's Avatar
Watchdog

#17

Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 203

Default 

August 6th, 2008, 13:03
Arcanum is a weak argument for simultaneous TB and RT - its combat is some of the worst I've seen. Luckily, the rest of the game makes up for it. Most games are generally served best by making a design choice and sticking with it.

-= RPGWatch =-
Dhruin is offline

Dhruin

Dhruin's Avatar
Watcher
Super Moderator
RPGWatch Team

#18

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 11,964

Default 

August 6th, 2008, 13:36
I noticed that he avoided the "oblivion with guns" statement/question altogether - no precise answer.

“ Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction.“ (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)
Alrik Fassbauer is offline

Alrik Fassbauer

Alrik Fassbauer's Avatar
TL;DR

#19

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Old Europe
Posts: 15,624

Default 

August 6th, 2008, 22:51
Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer View Post
I noticed that he avoided the "oblivion with guns" statement/question altogether - no precise answer.
Yeah, he must have been fed up with answering so many times already.
kalniel is offline

kalniel

SasqWatch

#20

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,877
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » Fallout 3 - Interview @ Strategy Informer
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:50.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch