RPGWatch Feature - Fallout 3 Review: Corwin's View

Bethesda has established a core competence - and core business success - of making massive open sandbox games that are action heacy and RPG-lite. Those strengths are ll at odds with Fallout as a franchise. So why should we expect them to start with a Fallout core and build in more modern elements rather than start with their most successful (commercially and review-wise) and wrap a Fallout-ish blanket around it?

txa1265 said:

Bethesda has established a core competence - and core business success - of making massive open sandbox games that are action heacy and RPG-lite. Those strengths are ll at odds with Fallout as a franchise. So why should we expect them to start with a Fallout core and build in more modern elements rather than start with their most successful (commercially and review-wise) and wrap a Fallout-ish blanket around it?

Click to expand...

I see that same point a little differently. They have experience programming on top of an outstanding game engine, one that's a ton of fun but not so hot for hosting RPGs.

IMO, Bethesda made a third Fallout game because they could, because it was convenient and because it was bound to be a great commercial success. Love it or hate it (or somehow remain neutral with it), but understand that your vote counts for one.

Bethesda showed no special concern for a great franchise's hardcore fans; they counted their opinions the same as everyone elses. That may have been a smart business decision, but I don't see it as anything to be particularly proud of in any other sense.

Now that they've raked in the big bucks, maybe they can turn around and throw those fans a bone. How about cranking out a little something for the NMA crowd, Pete?

That's my point really, Bethesda could have released Fallout 3 under a different name completely unrelated to the original Fallout games and it would have been fine.

They could have even released it as a Fallout side game like Tactics and it would have been forgivable.

But they released a direct sequel that felt a hell of a lot more like Oblivion than any of the Fallout games. Eerily so, in fact. Oblivion with Guns is a very fitting description of the game.

No matter of course, Fallout's fan base is probably a 10th of Oblivion's. I really hope they leave it at 3 and move on to the next ES game. I'm still a fan of the Elder Scrolls world and if they care about RPGs at all, the next one will be "right".

It's already clear that more Fallout games will come.

Squeek said:

Now that they've raked in the big bucks, maybe they can turn around and throw those fans a bone. How about cranking out a little something for the NMA crowd, Pete?

Click to expand...

They stopped throwing their own fans bones after Oblivion. I believe the only "fan" sites they still wish to deal with are the GameSpy Planet sites, which might have something to do with the infamous leveragability of Planet sites (DaC, anyone?)

Corwin said:

For me, these were 2 different, though related issues. The most common reasons given for FO3 not being a 'true sequel' were the number of changes in both gameplay and location. My point is that these didn't seem to matter with Ultimas 5,7,8 which were totally different, especially 8 which I didn't personally care too much for. The question surely is what constitutes a sequel. If U8 is considered a sequel to U5, then why the uproar when discussing F3 to F2?

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but what exactly is your argument? How are you supposed to judge something as a sequel if not by changes in the gameplay and setting?
And consider Fallout's setting was pretty secondary to the game in development, it being intended as a pen and paper emulating RPG from the start. It's not "some" gameplay changes that're the problem, it's the fact that it essentially switched genre, from p&p emulating RPG to FPSRPG. The two genres are both subsets of RPGs but that's 'bout it, otherwise they're completely separate.

If your argument is that the changes in Fallout 2 to 3 weren't big enough to disqualify it as a "true sequel" (hate that term), then fine. But like this, your argument seems to be "you can't judge whether or not something fits as a sequel, at all". That's nonsense.

Corwin said:

My second issue at the close was aimed at those who disagree with me certainly, but the point was that if we agree to disagree on whether the game is a true sequel, can't we still agree that it's a fun game, so let's enjoy it for what it is, rather than complain about what it isn't.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but why? No one will be harmed by people complaining about something. Then add the fact that this isn't just about Fallout but about the "fall" of RPGs in general and it becomes a good focal point of debate.

Brother None said:

They stopped throwing their own fans bones after Oblivion. I believe the only "fan" sites they still wish to deal with are the GameSpy Planet sites, which might have something to do with the infamous leveragability of Planet sites (DaC, anyone?)

Click to expand...

I completely agree - in my various 'view from the vault' articles posted at a couple of sites, I pointed out the hypocrisy of what they said versus what they actually did, and earned no sympathy - actually got massively skewered on console-centric sites.

They *said* they'd make PC fans happy, did a same-day release, and now are done. While it is clear that hardcore RPG fans saw the massive problems with Oblivion from day one, it seemed to have taken the media until the FO3 previews to start skewering it, and console fans still think it is great - and point to the inflated scores as proof.

Bethesda has a big pile of money and over-inflated scores to back up their point that this was the *best* Fallout game. And that is how they will proceed.

Correct, but isn't this the way it always goes? True mass market is not interested in fans. At some point hugely successful franchises grow beyond listening to minor groups. This seems like an (almost) inevitable step to me. Then it's only about market segmentation, positioning and marketing.

Gorath said:

Correct, but isn't this the way it always goes? True mass market is not interested in fans. At some point hugely successful franchises grow beyond listening to minor groups. This seems like an (almost) inevitable step to me. Then it's only about market segmentation, positioning and marketing.

Click to expand...

True - but I think it is even worse. We focus here on the sorry state of the PC RPG industry. But look at the 'best' of 2008: GTA 4, Far Cry 2, Fallout 3. Each is hugely flawed, utterly generic in many ways, and represents a triumph of style over substance. Worse yet, many call 2008 one of the best years in recent memory *because* of these games. So it is not just us as PC RPG'ers getting marginalized, but fans of interesting and innovative games with decent writing and characters.

It's an odd situation all around, if you ask me. Here we are in the middle of a recession, and an industry leader with their pockets full can't be persuaded to make a game committed fans are screaming to buy.

Fans need a champion working at Bethesda, someone to evangelize their wants and needs who can maneuver a Bethesda project from conception through to completion. That would employ some more people, make some more money for Bethesda and cater directly to a significant group of outspoken customers whose opinions matter and could even improve Bethesda's image.

Maybe we need to initiate peace talks..."somehow."

At least Bioware tweaks their games for PC releases.

It's the least Bethesda could have done but they couldn't even be bothered to improve the UI to better fit mouse/keyboard control.

Little things like that show that they really don't give a damn about PC gamers anymore. They know the big bucks are with the more forgiving action RPG loving console gamers.

Not saying anything negative about console gamers, I love JRPGs like the Final Fantasy series myself and I KNOW there isn't much C & C or depth in those but I already know what to expect from them and they do what they do (story telling, character focus) well. Not all of them of course.

Squeek said:

It's an odd situation all around, if you ask me. Here we are in the middle of a recession, and an industry leader with their pockets full can't be persuaded to make a game committed fans are screaming to buy.

Click to expand...

It's not really odd. Disappointing, perhaps, but not odd. Whatever the resources you use to make the fan game could be used to do what they are doing, with exponential profit returns. This is the way nearly every business operates.

My own company retrenched 10 workers recently. We've been performing well over last year (despite the economy) - and last year was a record year. What we weren't doing was making the bottom line growth they wanted, so people went.

Me - I think we made record money last year and this year we're doing a bit better, so that's pretty good. But I'm a frontline manager, not a corporate leader. The big boss wants his 20% year-on-year profit growth come hell or high water. I don't know anything about Zenimax but I'd be surprised if they really cared about anything but the bottom line when it all comes down to it.

Squeek said:

It's an odd situation all around, if you ask me. Here we are in the middle of a recession, and an industry leader with their pockets full can't be persuaded to make a game committed fans are screaming to buy.

Click to expand...

Squeek, the problem is Bethesda's hype machine. They promised so much with Oblivion yet delivered so little. And of course we ate it all up.

(this review hits the nails on the heads: http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=129)

So we're at just as much fault for contributing to Bethesda's future vision by buying Oblivion and Fallout 3 as their newfound fanboys.

I don't regret getting Fallout 3 though, it wasn't terrible by any means but it was just "ok" and I expected so much more. I'm probably done with Bethesda though, they're making games now for the ADD/teen-who-wants-to-just-blow-sh*t-up crowd. Daggerfall and Morrowind had so much promise.

For me, the gameplay changes in Fallout 3 are more comparable to the differences between the main Ultima series and Ultima underworld, which wasn't considered a numbered Ultima game.

txa1265 said:

I it seemed to have taken the media until the FO3 previews to start skewering it

Click to expand...

Heh yeah. If I were a betting man, I'd wager suddenly come TES V, the gaming media starts complaining openly about Fallout 3's lackluster story and writing

txa1265 said:

GTA 4, Far Cry 2, Fallout 3. Each is hugely flawed, utterly generic in many ways, and represents a triumph of style over substance.

Click to expand...

I actually liked GTA 4, despite the fact that it will barely run on my PC, buggy piece of $F$#. It was overhyped, sure, but you can't really call it badly written or - despite some flaws - badly made.

Squeek said:

Fans need a champion working at Bethesda, someone to evangelize their wants and needs who can maneuver a Bethesda project from conception through to completion. That would employ some more people, make some more money for Bethesda and cater directly to a significant group of outspoken customers whose opinions matter and could even improve Bethesda's image.

Click to expand...

That's what they hired Matt Grandstaff for. And to some extent, that's what he's been doing. But in the end it's the big chiefs that matter, and they don't even see Oblivion fansites or Fallout 3 modding sites worth investing any time into, let alone sites like NMA.

BN, I'm confused as to why you don't 'get' my argument. To me, the differences between U5 and U8 are far greater than those between F2 and F3. If U8 is considered a sequel, then so should F3; both fall under the heading of rpg's, but both are VERY different in substance and style.

That's what they hired Matt Grandstaff for. And to some extent said:

NMA[/B].

Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe any company would support a site like NMA? Honestly thats opening yourself up waaaay to much. It is like supporting a extremist group. As a company bethesda does not need to support those other sites due to them alreday generating the sales they need to make a profit. Sites are supported by companies to encourage sales (not good will) if you already have the sales time and money spent on sites is really a waste in a business sense.

It's not only NMA. They have generally been unsupportive of fansites, including my Fallout wiki, The Vault.

OT:What's wrong with NMA?

Kostaz said:

OT:What's wrong with NMA?

Click to expand...

That's for you to decide

Categorizing people based on the sites they frequent will never be entirely fair, though there's generally always a reason for reputations like that.

Kostaz said:

OT:What's wrong with NMA?

Click to expand...

I would guess cooties. Every time someone with strong opinions that are outside the mainstream speaks up, cooties come out of the woodwork. And are well deserved, of course.

Site wars are a little like a house on fire. Fools rush in. They are best ignored (and pitied).