Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Glittering Gems of Hatred - part 2

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
<a href=http://www.nma-fallout.com>NMA</a> has posted <a href=http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=34629>the second part</a> of their award-winning story of honor and faggotry.

<blockquote>It is impossible to say what would have followed Van Buren had it been completed and released as Fallout 3. But it is interesting that this case can be directly compared to Bethesda. The key factor is that Bethesda has shown little willingness to communicate and revealed only bits of, mostly negative, information. This has led to a reciprocal relationship between Bethesda and the community. Bethesda does not give the fans a chance for input in the game’s development, so the fans will not give Bethesda a chance to prove themselves. The chances given to Van Buren are denied to Bethesda's Fallout 3.

But this assessment is unfair for the very reason that Fallout 3 has not yet attempted to prove itself. To draw up a reasonable prediction of the future one must look over the several cases of development and reaction that we've seen. We've seen "good game, shitty setting" with Tactics. We've seen "I'll kill you!" with Brotherhood of Steel. We've seen "I don't agree with you but damn this game has some promise" with Van Buren. Bethesda can choose any of these paths and the reaction will likely be the same as they were before.</blockquote>:honor:

<blockquote>Failure to live up to these expectations, constraints and values can easily kill a franchise. X-Com was a popular franchise in part because UFO Defense and Terror from the Deep were games that shared common elements. The central tenets of the first game were well received by the game's fans and the developer remained determined to keep the series alive in the follow up in ways consistent with fan expectations. This led to the creation of a viable and successful franchise. The franchise was struck a blow with a modified combat system and a reformed style introduced in the third game, Apocalypse. But although the franchise was struck hard by the developer's failure to adhere to the games' tenants, it was not yet down. The killing blow to this wildly popular franchise came in the one-two punch of Interceptor and Enforcer. Interceptor hit first by being overtly campy and poorly designed, resulting in low sales figures. Enforcer killed the franchise by being completely disconnected from the first two games in gaming style and gameplay.</blockquote>I still can't believe that someone was stupid enough to kill XCOM. It just doesn't compute and makes me want to kill people Commander Shepard-style.


Thanks, Kharn and Jiujitsu.
 

Fez

Erudite
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
7,954
On X-com: TFTD: "After completing UFO, MicroProse wanted to do a quick follow up within six months. We said that this was not feasible, and if it were possible it would be little more than the same game with different graphics. Instead we started work on X-COM: Apocalypse, which was much more ambitious. Once UFO/X-Com was clearly known to be a success, MicroProse suggested that we license the code for them to develop their own sequel. The rest is history."

Apocalypse was always the true sequel and where they envisioned it going. TFTD was an easy cash-in put out in a few months while the property was hot. It was really the same game with new graphics as even the developer said. There's quite a bit out there on the mismanagement of that franchise. In many ways it's possibly even worse than Fallout's history. The forced cuts to Apocalypse alone are a sad story. It's a good comparison to choose.
 

ratata

Novice
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
23
NMA guys seriously need to get a life! :cry:
Talk about desperate cries for attention!
 

Fez

Erudite
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
7,954
I thought it was interesting, well done. Anyone joining a forum just to cry and whine to people who don't even care to tell them about someone else not having a life needs to look in a mirror, frankly.
 

Dgaider

Liturgist
Developer
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
316
Hmm. I found this bit interesting:

The gaming industry believes it is in a position to dictate terms to the community by being the only provider of the resource the community desires. Because it is in a seller-buyer relationship it seeks to maximize profits and must develop a PR campaign with the community. However, its power as seller means the industry believes it can determine the scope of that relationship because of its ability as seller to withhold that which the community (the buyer) desires.

Now, I know the entire article is essentially an opinion piece, but until I got to this point it seemed like it was making an effort to be even in its tone. I'm just not sure what kind of mindset would actually think this. The gaming industry purposefully dictating terms and withholding what the community/buyer "really desires"? Which community? The Fallout community? Because they're the only ones that the gaming industry does or should care about? And the industry capriciously denies them their desires because, what? It doesn't like them?

It seems implicit in the editorial that "the fans" consist of everyone who did or would buy the game, and since they all feel the same it falls on the gaming industry (of Bethesda in particular) to either service that community's desires or the game will fail, just as the previous games that deviated from the expected have failed.

Now, I'm not about to argue with the notion that the X-Com series was mishandled in a big way, with the Fallout series seemingly headed in the same direction -- but chalking up the idea that not pleasing the hardcore fans of the series is the only reason they failed is over-simplifying more than a little. I think NMA is doing itself a disservice by not establishing just who "the fans" are, how many of them are out there, what they have to potentially offer any developer of the IP -- and most importantly why the developers involved seem to think the Fallout hardcore are no longer part of their target audience. Is it really just that they find those particular fans annoying and have decided to dictate terms?

I doubt that. Yet if one were looking for a reason to write off the Fallout hardcore community as being out of touch with reality and impossible to please, this article would be a good place to start.

Now, I may be simply flamed for being part of evil Bioware and that term-dictating gaming industry, but I know that the industry considers even small fan-bases valuable as potential evangelilsts -- and while the NMA article may not be trying to provide a prescription to change their situation, if it's simply analyzing what has gone before to get them to this point it might be better off to expand its analysis beyond how the fans feel about it to why it's happening. But of course, it's up to them. An editorial is what it is, after all, and having played some of the games (X-Com in particular is my all-time favorite, though I rather liked Apocalypse even with it's art-deco weirdness) I can certainly share in a part of the frustration.
 

Zomg

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
6,984
The reasoning is transparently stupid, but it's nice to have an accounting. "Look how badly these cunts fucked up X-Com and Fallout. Fuck commercial logic."
 

Kraszu

Prophet
Joined
May 27, 2005
Messages
3,253
Location
Poland
Why fallout fans are impossible to please? I am pretty sure that most of the F1 fans brought F2 and nobody argue that core game play stayed the same, and it is consider part of the franchise at NMA.
 

jiujitsu

Cipher
Joined
Mar 11, 2004
Messages
1,444
Project: Eternity
Dgaider said:
Now, I know the entire article is essentially an opinion piece, but until I got to this point it seemed like it was making an effort to be even in its tone. I'm just not sure what kind of mindset would actually think this. The gaming industry purposefully dictating terms and withholding what the community/buyer "really desires"? Which community? The Fallout community? Because they're the only ones that the gaming industry does or should care about? And the industry capriciously denies them their desires because, what? It doesn't like them?

I don't think liking us or disliking us has much to do with it. Sure, most that have had run ins with the Fallout Community probably don't like us, but I think it's more of a "they aren't profitable" thing.

I think it's just a little confusing. We view games as art, more or less. To those who make them maybe it is art as well, but first and foremost it's dinner on the table/money in the bank. If a developer made the game we really wanted they'd get money and praise from all of us, which isn't really that many people, imo. If they made a game that most gamers would want then they'd make so much more money. We'd hate them, but who cares? We're nothing but a little corner of the internet that is easily ignored.

I guess we feel we are in a more righteous position; wanting to stay loyal and true to our favorite game no matter what and the big greedy industry just wants money. The thing is we don't bear the consequences of the choice. Maybe we can to the extent of disappointment, but the company can take a hard hit in going the route less travelled. RIP Troika. We want a good game and could care less about profits it makes as long as it stays true to the series. It's there that we get tossed aside as that isn't a practical stance for a business. Which is what making games really is. I suppose what I'm trying to say is: We are wrong for the right reasons and the industry is right for the wrong reasons.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Dgaider said:
... but chalking up the idea that not pleasing the hardcore fans of the series is the only reason they failed is over-simplifying more than a little.
I see your point, but let's look at the situation from a different angle.

Why someone would slap a license on a different game?

Usually that means that the gameplay is mediocre at best and that a license is required to support sales efforts. There is a reason why great shooters, for example, are stand alone games like Far Cry, Painkiller, Half-Life, etc; while crappy shooters are licensed spin-offs: XCom: Enforcer, Legends of Might & Magic, Command & Conquer: Renegade, etc.

There is no denying that the last three games represent sad attempts to milk the respective franchises. The ONLY reason why someone would play these games is the license: the familiar world, characters, etc. That brings us back to the fans, who are now enraged because someone had just made a shitty game, slapped a license on it, and tried to sell it to them. So, since a game's concept was shit to begin with, the only question was "will the fans buy it?". Thus, it's the fans who usually decide the fate of such design gems (and often the series). Would a person who never played XCom be interested in the Enforcer? Unlikely.

The situation is different with Bethesda, but that's another story.
 

Brother None

inXile Entertainment
Developer
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
5,673
Dgaider said:
I'm just not sure what kind of mindset would actually think this. The gaming industry purposefully dictating terms and withholding what the community/buyer "really desires"? Which community? The Fallout community? Because they're the only ones that the gaming industry does or should care about? And the industry capriciously denies them their desires because, what? It doesn't like them?

Maybe it's my bad writing (or my editor's, in this case), but that's not the intended meaning. Look at the sentence: "However, its power as seller means the industry believes it can determine the scope of that relationship because of its ability as seller to withhold that which the community (the buyer) desires."

It essentially says that the gaming industry "believes" it to hold dictatorship in the buyer-seller relationship more so than is normal because of the current state of the gaming industry is a bit different than that of the "average" media industry.

It doesn't say the gaming industry withholds good games out of spite. It says the gaming industry believes it dictates the quality of the games and expects the the gaming crowd to accept it. We've seen this succeed and flop, but the basic attitude never seems to change.

If you disagree, and that's not your attitude, then it might just be a bad reading from my side, or you're a "good guy" in the industry, but from my experience with Interplay and Bethesda...that seems to be it.

The basic idea of this, believe it or not, actually comes from a long talk I once had with a gaming developer. Though if he'd approve my interpretation is an open question.

Dgaider said:
It seems implicit in the editorial that "the fans" consist of everyone who did or would buy the game, and since they all feel the same it falls on the gaming industry (of Bethesda in particular) to either service that community's desires or the game will fail, just as the previous games that deviated from the expected have failed.

Fans is a bit of an intangible here. If you try to define it it doesn't work, but as an intangible it does.

Dgaider said:
but chalking up the idea that not pleasing the hardcore fans of the series is the only reason they failed is over-simplifying more than a little.

Over-simplifying, yes, but it is actually what has happened every single time so far in the Fallout franchise.

Dgaider said:
I think NMA is doing itself a disservice by not establishing just who "the fans" are, how many of them are out there, what they have to potentially offer any developer of the IP -- and most importantly why the developers involved seem to think the Fallout hardcore are no longer part of their target audience. Is it really just that they find those particular fans annoying and have decided to dictate terms?

You make a good point. A shortcoming of the article, perhaps.

Dgaider said:
Yet if one were looking for a reason to write off the Fallout hardcore community as being out of touch with reality and impossible to please, this article would be a good place to start.

Why? Disagree with the logic of the bit you quoted, it's kind of hard to get around the facts the articles states; that support has been gained before, even by a spinoff like Tactics, and that supported games, especially Tactics, have been successful.

Dgaider said:
I may be simply flamed for being part of evil Bioware

Yeah, screw you.

Dgaider said:
I know that the industry considers even small fan-bases valuable as potential evangelilsts

Sure, that's how BIS operated with us. But Bethesda doesn't seem to hold that dictum. Codex is blacklisted. We're semi-blacklisted. They even blacklisted the biggest fansite of "their" Star Trek franchise. So perhaps "the industry" should be "the industry, except Bethesda"?

Dgaider said:
-- and while the NMA article may not be trying to provide a prescription to change their situation, if it's simply analyzing what has gone before to get them to this point it might be better off to expand its analysis beyond how the fans feel about it to why it's happening

Perhaps I good suggestion, but I'm not sure if I or any of the NMA staff are best equipped to write a "why it's happening" piece. That may require to much insight, and quickly become too falsified or biased because of the limited sources of information available.

Work with what you got, I'm not going to be "intellectual dishonest" like that.

We are wrong for the right reasons and the industry is right for the wrong reasons.

Very Fallout. The idea might be a bit non-elaborated on, think we'll work on it for the next part, but co-operating to move forward is possible. Tactics and Van Buren both show that the Fallout fans can be used to expand the license. Maybe not as much as an Oblivion-game, sure, but after the pr-damage of Oblivion and Legacy and now with us breathing down their necks, I don't think Bethesda should be expecting another 3 mil sales game either way.
 

Brother None

inXile Entertainment
Developer
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
5,673
Ahzaruuk said:
Can someone elighten me as to the "rabidity of Fallout Fans?"

Yes: Fallout fans hate any sequel or addition to the series, they flame and ban anyone that visits the forum that doesn't think any Fallout should be like Fallout 1, they ruined Tactics, they made BoS flop, they made Interplay go bankrupt, they ruined Micro Forté, they're unreasoneable assholes towards Bethesda...

Did I miss anything?
 

Fez

Erudite
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
7,954
Your direct connection to unholy demonic beings, maybe?
 

Ahzaruuk

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 15, 2006
Messages
1,184
Location
Just a city called Sirius.
Kharn said:
Ahzaruuk said:
Can someone elighten me as to the "rabidity of Fallout Fans?"

Yes: Fallout fans hate any sequel or addition to the series, they flame and ban anyone that visits the forum that doesn't think any Fallout should be like Fallout 1, they ruined Tactics, they made BoS flop, they made Interplay go bankrupt, they ruined Micro Forté, they're unreasoneable assholes towards Bethesda...

Did I miss anything?
Woah... :shock:

kind of like Elitism and nostalga with rabies.
 

Thrym

Novice
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
42
Whoa, kinda like they should make a new term for fallout fan haters. We could just have an army of extremist nutcases who have no idea what they're talking about, and then they could battle it out. Maybe somebody reasonable will come out of it.

*Edited cause I felt like it.
 

ratata

Novice
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
23
Kharn said:
Ahzaruuk said:
Can someone elighten me as to the "rabidity of Fallout Fans?"

Yes: Fallout fans hate any sequel or addition to the series, they flame and ban anyone that visits the forum that doesn't think any Fallout should be like Fallout 1, they ruined Tactics, they made BoS flop, they made Interplay go bankrupt, they ruined Micro Forté, they're unreasoneable assholes towards Bethesda...

Did I miss anything?

..................Good job!
 

taxacaria

Scholar
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
343
Location
Waterdeep
Kharn said:
Fallout fans hate any sequel or addition to the series, they flame and ban anyone that visits the forum that doesn't think any Fallout should be like Fallout 1, they ruined Tactics, they made BoS flop, they made Interplay go bankrupt, they ruined Micro Forté, they're unreasoneable assholes towards Bethesda...
Did I miss anything?

Fine description - sometimes not so far away from reality, but the community isn't a homogenous one.
Sometimes I'm an unreasoneable asshole towards Bethesda...
...exactly from TES IV release day.

Fighting windmills? Sometimes, but sometimes such things have an effect.

wiz7 said:
Slay not he that cannot hear
be thankful ye that have an ear
But how to deal with a company which refuses to talk?
Let's hope they're lurking.
 

Dgaider

Liturgist
Developer
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
316
Vault Dweller said:
I see your point, but let's look at the situation from a different angle.

Why someone would slap a license on a different game?
Oh, don't get me wrong... the industry is capable of some serious logical fallacies and that's one of them. The most serious fallacy, in my opinion, being a rather nebulous "conventional wisdom" regarding the reason why certain games fail and others succeed. My main contention with the logic behind the editorial is the implication that there is a certain amount of unity or deliberateness behind what the industry is doing. I don't think that's the case at all. Sometimes it feels a little like the blind leading the blind in terms of figuring out what will make a good and successful game (for those developers trying to do both)... but that logic is no better than the notion expressed that in order for an IP to be successful it must service the hardcore fans. Either way, there is definitely something to be said about the built-in expectations that come with an established IP in determining how it is viewed as well as something to be said for gaining hardcore fan acceptance as a means of building on past success rather than running counter to it) -- because, yes, otherwise you really have to wonder why someone is using that license at all? I still shake my head every time I see media for the upcoming Shadowrun game.
 

Dgaider

Liturgist
Developer
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
316
Kharn said:
Maybe it's my bad writing (or my editor's, in this case), but that's not the intended meaning. Look at the sentence: "However, its power as seller means the industry believes it can determine the scope of that relationship because of its ability as seller to withhold that which the community (the buyer) desires."

It essentially says that the gaming industry "believes" it to hold dictatorship in the buyer-seller relationship more so than is normal because of the current state of the gaming industry is a bit different than that of the "average" media industry.

It doesn't say the gaming industry withholds good games out of spite. It says the gaming industry believes it dictates the quality of the games and expects the the gaming crowd to accept it. We've seen this succeed and flop, but the basic attitude never seems to change.

See my response to VD above -- I think assigning an attitude to the industry may be going a bit far. I'm not sure that developers are dictating anything. They're making what they think will be successful, and why would they do otherwise? You may disagree with their basic assumptions, but expecting developers to provide games that they don't think will work isn't going to get anywhere with them, either. The only crime here that the industry as a whole can be accused of, I think, is that with the rush to capitalize on any given success you don't get a lot of breadth. Any new games are influenced by the current market and what is perceived as successful right now, regardless of what came before even with an established IP.

I'm not sure why that is. The "conventional wisdom", as I said before, would dictate that the market today simply isn't the same one that supported the original Fallout or the original X-Com and they aren't willing to risk the farm to please a small fanbase that doesn't care whether a game has any appeal to today's market. And can you blame them? Successful games (especially PC games) aren't exactly in abundance, and developers drop like flies -- both ones that focused on quality as well as ones that focused on financial success. You can second guess them, but when its your money on the line it's hard to say that you don't care whether or not your game is successful.

Fans is a bit of an intangible here. If you try to define it it doesn't work, but as an intangible it does.

I have no problem with that. There are, however, a multitude of fans with all sorts of interests. You simply can't say that everyone who bought the original Fallout wanted the same things out of it or liked it/disliked it for the same reasons. You may not mean to, but you certainly seem to be claiming that "the fans" all fall into the same hardcore category and therefore must be listened to, and that logic's as thin as developers who say that the hardcore all fall into the same small category and are thus easily disregarded.

Dgaider said:
but chalking up the idea that not pleasing the hardcore fans of the series is the only reason they failed is over-simplifying more than a little.

Over-simplifying, yes, but it is actually what has happened every single time so far in the Fallout franchise.
Is it? That would mean the reverse, then, that the way to success is solely to please the hardcore fans. Had they done that in the Fallout sequels, are you trying to say that this for certain would have meant success? The risk of seeming like "more of the same" is just as deadly to sequels as "being too different", after all.

I'll put forward the opinion (and it is just that) that the most likely reason that some of these sequels failed had more to do with the reason they were being made in the first place. Either they weren't inspired like the first game was and were put together rather deliberately, and thus not of very high quality to begin with, or there was an inspired design that was tied into the IP because someone thought it had to be in order to capitalize on that built-in market. The best sequels are those where love for the IP coincides with an inspired design that is just different enough to avoid feeling retread -- and, unfortunately, how many anxious money-men are going to sit around waiting for that alignment of the stars to occur?
I also think that, sometimes, that feeling you had playing an original game the very first time just can't be recreated -- and while you can look back nostalgically and wonder "why don't they just make that again?" possibly it can never be like it was the first time and the problem may be you rather than them. But I think most of you live on the hope that this is not the case. Ignoring that there are reasons why things have changed, however, is going to be an exercise in extreme frustration (which, really, is as good a subtitle for places like the Codex as any. ;) )
 

Brother None

inXile Entertainment
Developer
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
5,673
Dgaider said:
See my response to VD above -- I think assigning an attitude to the industry may be going a bit far.

True, I'll have to concede that.

But I think that, and what you said yourself, combines with the underlying perception I kept in mind when writing the article. That the gaming industry, for some reason, is a relatively "immature" one (excuse the term). which has several ways of operating and presumptions that can not be supported by reality and will inevitably collapse.

I think the treatment of franchises is one of those collapseable factors. As is ignoring the RPG niche market.

Dgaider said:
The "conventional wisdom", as I said before, would dictate that the market today simply isn't the same one that supported the original Fallout or the original X-Com and they aren't willing to risk the farm to please a small fanbase that doesn't care whether a game has any appeal to today's market. And can you blame them? Successful games (especially PC games) aren't exactly in abundance, and developers drop like flies -- both ones that focused on quality as well as ones that focused on financial success. You can second guess them, but when its your money on the line it's hard to say that you don't care whether or not your game is successful.

Sure, though I'll say that the "dropping like flies" is more a consequence of the attitude of publishers towards the market than the reverse is true.

That said, notice I'm not claiming, not in the article or here, that the company needs to focus purely on the hardcore base. Near the middle of the franchise chapter there is an entire paragraph dedicated to the fact that developers can reform a franchise with the help of, and in co-operation with the fanbase.

I think that's what happening with the multiplayer co-op RT/TB Van Buren. Do you think VB would have flopped?

Dgaider said:
There are, however, a multitude of fans with all sorts of interests. You simply can't say that everyone who bought the original Fallout wanted the same things out of it or liked it/disliked it for the same reasons. You may not mean to, but you certainly seem to be claiming that "the fans" all fall into the same hardcore category and therefore must be listened to, and that logic's as thin as developers who say that the hardcore all fall into the same small category and are thus easily disregarded.

Conceded. And very true. I'll have to chew that over for a bit.

Dgaider said:
Is it? That would mean the reverse, then, that the way to success is solely to please the hardcore fans. Had they done that in the Fallout sequels, are you trying to say that this for certain would have meant success? The risk of seeming like "more of the same" is just as deadly to sequels as "being too different", after all.

Of course, but what I meant to say is that if you look "purely at history" getting the support from the Fallout fans has ensured success, failing to gain this support has meant a flop (we have few test cases for this, but bear with me). That doesn't mean no reform at all. I think that even amongst the hardbase the thought of Fallout 3 just being a new mod for the Fallout engine would raise some heckles. It does mean that the reform should stay within the "imagined franchise" bounds and to be discussed with the fanbase. Like Sawyer did.

Dgaider said:
I'll put forward the opinion (and it is just that) that the most likely reason that some of these sequels failed had more to do with the reason they were being made in the first place. Either they weren't inspired like the first game was and were put together rather deliberately, and thus not of very high quality to begin with, or there was an inspired design that was tied into the IP because someone thought it had to be in order to capitalize on that built-in market.

Maybe. But doesn't that attitude often coincide with fan reaction? If you don't care about the game, you don't care about its fans?

Dgaider said:
But I think most of you live on the hope that this is not the case. Ignoring that there are reasons why things have changed, however, is going to be an exercise in extreme frustration (which, really, is as good a subtitle for places like the Codex as any. ;) )

Very true. This is more the subject of the yet-to-be-released third part, tho'
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom