98: From Black Isle to Bethesda
- Thread starter The Escapist Staff
- Start date
Great article.
I completely missed both Fallout and Fallout 2 back when they were originally released, so I'm hastily working my way through the pair before the new game is released. I know a lot of people have been really skeptical with regards to what Bethesda will do with Fallout 3, but I really think anything to revive this franchise is better than nothing at this point. More importantly, and in fairness to Bethesda's pedigree, it's highly unlikely that Fallout 3 won't be a brilliant and engrossing game worthy of the mantle.
I completely missed both Fallout and Fallout 2 back when they were originally released, so I'm hastily working my way through the pair before the new game is released. I know a lot of people have been really skeptical with regards to what Bethesda will do with Fallout 3, but I really think anything to revive this franchise is better than nothing at this point. More importantly, and in fairness to Bethesda's pedigree, it's highly unlikely that Fallout 3 won't be a brilliant and engrossing game worthy of the mantle.
It's somewhat depressing to see the misinformation present in the article.
Black Isle Studios were not responsbible for the development of Baldur's Gate. While the Escapist article doesn't outright state this, it presents itself oblivious to the fact that the title was developed by Bioware and given assorted assistance by Black Isle Studios and Interplay, the game's publishers. The only Baldur's Gate title fully responsible for Black Isle Studios was Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance 2 - a console action title which shed many of its PC counterparts' role-playing drappings.
Also, when the author refers to Fallout as Wasteland's successor he mentions the latter was a tabletop game. Interesting, since the only game titled Wasteland which Fallout is considered by many to be a successor of - or to carry much inspiration from it - is Interplay's own Wasteland [http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/wasteland] videogame, released for a number of platforms.
I also question the assertion that sandbox titles were a rarity back in 1997. The author is quick to mention Morrowind but doesn't seem to know that kind of "open-ended design" was no different than that of Daggerfall and Arena's, Morrowind's predecessors. Amazingly, Ultima VII also seems to have been forgotten.
For a usually in-depth online publication that - as far as I can remember - usually tries to cover all angles of a given story, it's also missing the most relevant concerns held by Fallout fans. In fact, I barely noticed any - after the ill exposed origins of Fallout, it mostly looks at Bethesda as some saviour of the series and basically outlines all the information that's been available ever since the license was acquired by the developers of The Elder Scrolls. The latter isn't particularly useful considering every trickle of news concerning the game's development has hit most mainstream videogame news sites, and the former simply treats the Fallout fanbase as a silent one.
In the end, I'm not sure this article could be considered great or informative in the least.
It reads like a press release at best, and poor journalism at worst.
Black Isle Studios were not responsbible for the development of Baldur's Gate. While the Escapist article doesn't outright state this, it presents itself oblivious to the fact that the title was developed by Bioware and given assorted assistance by Black Isle Studios and Interplay, the game's publishers. The only Baldur's Gate title fully responsible for Black Isle Studios was Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance 2 - a console action title which shed many of its PC counterparts' role-playing drappings.
Also, when the author refers to Fallout as Wasteland's successor he mentions the latter was a tabletop game. Interesting, since the only game titled Wasteland which Fallout is considered by many to be a successor of - or to carry much inspiration from it - is Interplay's own Wasteland [http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/wasteland] videogame, released for a number of platforms.
I also question the assertion that sandbox titles were a rarity back in 1997. The author is quick to mention Morrowind but doesn't seem to know that kind of "open-ended design" was no different than that of Daggerfall and Arena's, Morrowind's predecessors. Amazingly, Ultima VII also seems to have been forgotten.
For a usually in-depth online publication that - as far as I can remember - usually tries to cover all angles of a given story, it's also missing the most relevant concerns held by Fallout fans. In fact, I barely noticed any - after the ill exposed origins of Fallout, it mostly looks at Bethesda as some saviour of the series and basically outlines all the information that's been available ever since the license was acquired by the developers of The Elder Scrolls. The latter isn't particularly useful considering every trickle of news concerning the game's development has hit most mainstream videogame news sites, and the former simply treats the Fallout fanbase as a silent one.
In the end, I'm not sure this article could be considered great or informative in the least.
It reads like a press release at best, and poor journalism at worst.
Amount of factual errors and arrogance found in the ability to write an article so ignorant and illiterate is astonishing. Perhaps this article foretells what will become of Escapist? Please, either remove this article and publish an apology, or edit it, and most importantly, do not let this person to publish another article on your site.
First, I'd like to welcome those of you who are new to The Escapist Forum. We always enjoy hearing from our readers, even when what we hear is not necessarily pleasing. I hope you all will stick around and continue to read and comment - even when we don't happen to be writing about Fallout that week.
As to inaccuracies in Michael Zenke's story, there are two that we've decided needed to be addressed, and we have addressed them. The first is the matter of Todd Howard's inadvertent promotion to CEO of Bethesda. Todd is actually the Executive Producer at that company, and the title of CEO was attributed to him in error. Mr. Hines of the same company alerted us to this error this morning, as it had regrettably slipped past the editors of The Escapist. We've since corrected it.
The second error we've addressed was the mis-representation of Wasteland as a pen & paper roleplaying game. As you all know, and a few of you have pointed out, it was actually a computer game. We knew it, too, but jumbled the text of the article in editing, introducing the error by mistake. These things happen. We publish over 200 stories each year, five features, the same number of editorials and more than twice that number of news stories each week - roughly the equivalent amount of content produced in one week as most periodicals produce in one month. This is not to excuse mistakes, but to explain them. Mea culpa.
As to the remainder of the various issues which have been taken with this story, I believe a number of folks are confusing opinion with fact. Fallout is a heavily influential game, and its fans some of the most passionate - and vocal - in the business. We appreciate that people have strong opinions about these games and the companies involved with them, and to be honest so do we. And so does the author. Feel free to disagree with them, but doing so does not constitute an error on either his or your part. Disagreement is fine, and wonderful and I hope we all continue to debate such things as the prevalence of sand-box gaming. But these are not factual errors.
In any case, we appreciate being called on our mistakes, and as I'm confident, since we're human, we will continue to make them from time to time, I hope that you will stick around to continue to call us on them. That is, after all, part of the process.
Cheers,
-R
As to inaccuracies in Michael Zenke's story, there are two that we've decided needed to be addressed, and we have addressed them. The first is the matter of Todd Howard's inadvertent promotion to CEO of Bethesda. Todd is actually the Executive Producer at that company, and the title of CEO was attributed to him in error. Mr. Hines of the same company alerted us to this error this morning, as it had regrettably slipped past the editors of The Escapist. We've since corrected it.
The second error we've addressed was the mis-representation of Wasteland as a pen & paper roleplaying game. As you all know, and a few of you have pointed out, it was actually a computer game. We knew it, too, but jumbled the text of the article in editing, introducing the error by mistake. These things happen. We publish over 200 stories each year, five features, the same number of editorials and more than twice that number of news stories each week - roughly the equivalent amount of content produced in one week as most periodicals produce in one month. This is not to excuse mistakes, but to explain them. Mea culpa.
As to the remainder of the various issues which have been taken with this story, I believe a number of folks are confusing opinion with fact. Fallout is a heavily influential game, and its fans some of the most passionate - and vocal - in the business. We appreciate that people have strong opinions about these games and the companies involved with them, and to be honest so do we. And so does the author. Feel free to disagree with them, but doing so does not constitute an error on either his or your part. Disagreement is fine, and wonderful and I hope we all continue to debate such things as the prevalence of sand-box gaming. But these are not factual errors.
In any case, we appreciate being called on our mistakes, and as I'm confident, since we're human, we will continue to make them from time to time, I hope that you will stick around to continue to call us on them. That is, after all, part of the process.
Cheers,
-R
Well, there are some other mistakes:
- Fallout was created by Interplay [http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/fallout] and not by Black Isle. BIS only developed FO2. [http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/fallout-2]
- Bethesda isn't located in Bethesda but in Rockville, Maryland [http://www.mobygames.com/company/bethesda-softworks-llc]
And I wouldn't call Fallout a sandbox game, but thats just my opinion.
- Fallout was created by Interplay [http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/fallout] and not by Black Isle. BIS only developed FO2. [http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/fallout-2]
- Bethesda isn't located in Bethesda but in Rockville, Maryland [http://www.mobygames.com/company/bethesda-softworks-llc]
And I wouldn't call Fallout a sandbox game, but thats just my opinion.
@Russ Pitts:
I'd like to thank you for your input on the article and the flaws in it brought up by readers. It's nice to see the mistakes were noticed although to be honest, I'm not sure those two alone would put a damper on the situation: in our age, misinformation spreads much faster in a medium such as the internet than actual information - and certain passages of the article don't seem to fight against it. (in fact, they seem to have been influenced by it). Many general gaming forums, for instance, are rife with people who claim Bioware developed Black Isle's Planescape: Torment for the simple reason the former licensed the Infinity Engine to the latter. How much more of an inconsistent posession of facts, I wonder, will the unaddressed flaws of the article will help create?
In a time where one of the most (in my humble opinion) underrated computer role-playing game series is set for a revival, I believe a clear and well researched article would be of great value to both Fallout newcomers and nostalgic fans, along with those wanting to know more about the genre's roots. Unfortunately, I'm not sure even the suggested corrections will be of value to any group since the remaining inconsistencies still seem (from my perspective), somewhat revealing of a lack of general knowledge of both Fallout lore and videogame history - something which, unfortunately, seem increasingly built on interpretations rather than facts.
AM.
I'd like to thank you for your input on the article and the flaws in it brought up by readers. It's nice to see the mistakes were noticed although to be honest, I'm not sure those two alone would put a damper on the situation: in our age, misinformation spreads much faster in a medium such as the internet than actual information - and certain passages of the article don't seem to fight against it. (in fact, they seem to have been influenced by it). Many general gaming forums, for instance, are rife with people who claim Bioware developed Black Isle's Planescape: Torment for the simple reason the former licensed the Infinity Engine to the latter. How much more of an inconsistent posession of facts, I wonder, will the unaddressed flaws of the article will help create?
In a time where one of the most (in my humble opinion) underrated computer role-playing game series is set for a revival, I believe a clear and well researched article would be of great value to both Fallout newcomers and nostalgic fans, along with those wanting to know more about the genre's roots. Unfortunately, I'm not sure even the suggested corrections will be of value to any group since the remaining inconsistencies still seem (from my perspective), somewhat revealing of a lack of general knowledge of both Fallout lore and videogame history - something which, unfortunately, seem increasingly built on interpretations rather than facts.
AM.
I consider myself a Fallout fan. Played 1, 2 and Tactics several times. That being said, and with no intentiones whatsoever of starting a flame war, most of the fans of this game remind me of the Tolkien fans who could not enjoy the movies because "Faramir never took the hobbits to Osgiliath!"... really sorry that you couldn't enjoy Tactis because it wasn't Fallout 3.
So the article has a couple of mistakes. Big deal. Cheer up, an RPG master is working on Fallout 3, the game NO ONE ever thought was going to get made EVER. Yeah, there's the risk that it will blow, that it won't be 100% Fallout... who's not going to enjoy it if it is just 75% Fallout and 25% of something else?? Who's not going to enjoy if they make it 3rd person?? Well, probably some Fallout fans. The rest of us will.
So the article has a couple of mistakes. Big deal. Cheer up, an RPG master is working on Fallout 3, the game NO ONE ever thought was going to get made EVER. Yeah, there's the risk that it will blow, that it won't be 100% Fallout... who's not going to enjoy it if it is just 75% Fallout and 25% of something else?? Who's not going to enjoy if they make it 3rd person?? Well, probably some Fallout fans. The rest of us will.
Now there's something any budding journalist can aspire to - a readership that doesn't care about crass misrepresentation of the facts and will even actively try to divert attention away from them!
If only I had known of this a few years ago, my line of work could have been entirely different...
If only I had known of this a few years ago, my line of work could have been entirely different...
Look, if the guy confused Wasteland to be tabletop instead of videogame, and said that sandbox games were a rarity (but you say they weren't because there were 4 or 5 of them, which for some people could make them a rarity) is not that important for me. And they apologized for the mistakes in the article already.
I understand if it is that important for you however, I have a comparable degree of fanatism for, say, movies based on Philip Dick books. I KNOW they are going to suck... however I enjoyed Minority Report to a certain degree.
I understand if it is that important for you however, I have a comparable degree of fanatism for, say, movies based on Philip Dick books. I KNOW they are going to suck... however I enjoyed Minority Report to a certain degree.
Isn't it specious to invoke fanaticism over a simple post that does nothing other than point out a number of factual errors in an article? In fact, fanaticism over what? At what point does my post veer into obsession over the subject matter, disregarding opposing opinions in an attempt to defend my point of view? I don't belong to some internet clique simply because I make a post about, among other things, Fallout. I addressed some noticeable flaws in the article, simple as that.
In fairness to TWP, there's a pretty rabid fan base for Fallout, and one specific community likes nothing better than to correct people on all things Fallout, down to a nitpicky level. It's easy to confuse a situation like this with one like that. Factual errors within the issue aside, let's play nice.
Reboot thread:
Fallout's gone through a roller coaster ride, and now Bethesda is in a position to make or break the franchise. Discuss.
Reboot thread:
Fallout's gone through a roller coaster ride, and now Bethesda is in a position to make or break the franchise. Discuss.
Fairness? I'm not sure how fair it is to assume that when someone is not speaking exclusively of Fallout they are somehow eligible to be placed in the same glittering gems of hatred circus. And it's not like a similar article wouldn't draw the same kind of attention from other fanbases - the reaction of many Final Fantasy fans over SquareEnix's insistence in churning out Final Fantasy VII subproducts has been spectacularly obsessive (even moreso than your average rabid Fallout fan).
But, benefit of the doubt and all that jazz.
But, benefit of the doubt and all that jazz.
Bethesda's major skill seems to be at making very detailed, very open worlds. Having played Fallout and its sequel only a little, I can't say for sure how well the Fallout kind of detail and openness compare to the Elder Scrolls kind. One thing's for certain: it will be quite different.
Fallout fans are going to hate that.
Fallout fans are going to hate that.
I have no doubt Fallout 3 will be an excellent game. It will not, however, be Van Buren, and although this is likely to generate tens more new user accounts here at The Forum, I don't believe it should be.
Ten years have gone by. So much has changed in games and technology that if Bethesda did make Van Buren, it would be widely panned, and even the folks who claim to want nothing more than Fallout 2 with new dialogue would be disappointed. See: Supreme Commander for an example of the dangers of living in the past.
I'm glad a company as respectable and competent as Bethesda is holding the keys, and I'm looking forward to what they put out. But I'm also trying very hard to remember to not judge it based on past efforts of other people. This is their game now. Or, in the words of the new American Idol, this is their now.
Ten years have gone by. So much has changed in games and technology that if Bethesda did make Van Buren, it would be widely panned, and even the folks who claim to want nothing more than Fallout 2 with new dialogue would be disappointed. See: Supreme Commander for an example of the dangers of living in the past.
I'm glad a company as respectable and competent as Bethesda is holding the keys, and I'm looking forward to what they put out. But I'm also trying very hard to remember to not judge it based on past efforts of other people. This is their game now. Or, in the words of the new American Idol, this is their now.