Interplay v. Bethesda Court Transcript Revealed
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
I have to say, and it pains me, that I'd rather see the Fallout franchise blink and die out, than have Bethesda produce an MMO of it. (Especially if that MMO is first-person, and based on the same old rented Gamebryo engine.)
From one of the gaming fossils on here, I actually had Fallout 1, 2, and Tactics as they were released. We came across Fallout 1 at a computer trade show and after reading the back of the box were rather excited about the idea. This was back in the days of Win95, and damn near everything had a glitch of some kind... so to say the software was flawed is like saying the air in Jersey stinks.
Frankly, I don't want to come across as one of the whining Fallout fanboys, but I really fell in love with the franchise from the beginning. I preferred the Interplay/Black Isle 3/4th overhead isometric view (even though it did admittedly get to be a pain in the ass), but that's just how the game was played, so you learned to work with it. I am willing to admit the graphics weren't top-notch (since you sometimes had trouble figuring out what you were looking at, but this was a good dozen or so years ago. Fallout 2 was a little better in this respect, but with more graphical glitches in larger towns. Tactics was not clearly a favorite by most, but I actually thought it was a decent game overall, just without the freedom you were accustomed to in previous titles. Tactics cut out the searching for things and kept it more mission-based with good emphasis on the turn-based combat, which was sometimes the most fun.
I was excited about Fallout 3, thinking the first person aspect and the camera freedom would bring more to the franchise. Once in execution, I was not impressed. When I had initially learned that Bethesda cut out the turn based combat, my heart sank. Killing off that part of the game really did ruin the fun I had in the game. I liked being able to step back between combat rounds to judge tactics mid-combat; Fallout 3 combat just felt too rushed overall. Sure, it made for more exciting combat, but it took something away from the game by forcing you to keep running and gunning (unless you tried to use the VATS system constantly to replicate the original feel). Bethesda gets some praise for keeping the Fallout series alive, but I was not and am not a big of a fan of the new(er) game as I am of the original ones.
As for this stupid pissing contest between Bethesda and Interplay, it seems just outright stupid. If it weren't for Interplay, there wouldn't be a Fallout. Besides, is Bethesda threatened that Interplay could possibly earn enough money to BUY Fallout back from them? Are they seriously that heavily invested in this series that it would be that big of a kick in the ass to them if they lost the rights? I can't foresee how a Fallout MMO would actually work in execution given the game story, but who am I to tell them not to consider it? If the game world was completely populated by heroes, where is the fun in that? You were supposed to be the savior of the wastelands in that game, so to have thousands of people with the same purpose takes the fun out of the idea. And why wouldn't Bethesda at least rent the rights back to Interplay for a sales percentage of games sold? If Interplay didn't sell a lot, then Bethesda still maintains the rights, and both companies potentially see some money coming in. I really don't think Bethesda should act so threatened by this idea of Interplay still wanting to do something with a game it originally created. This just seems like a huge dick move by Bethesda to bully on Interplay to show they are some sort of "superior" company since they have the money to push a fight like this to court. Interplay seems to be on its last leg, why kick them now like this? It's like picking on a guy in a wheelchair after you just bought his house... jeez, if they can make a go of this idea, let them.
And here's a little question I have. How many of you actually played the first Fallout and Fallout 2 before you even heard of Fallout 3? And out of those of you who did, did you play them on Win95 and Win98 respectively? These questions aren't meant as some sort of elitist move, I'm curious how many of us actually remember playing on these OSs to compare how bad the games really ran. I don't recall them being any worse than other games at the time, with Fallout 2 actually having more stability than the original. Playing the revamped GOG versions of the games don't count since they have been optimized to run on modern hardware, I'm talking the original releases from the time.
Frankly, I don't want to come across as one of the whining Fallout fanboys, but I really fell in love with the franchise from the beginning. I preferred the Interplay/Black Isle 3/4th overhead isometric view (even though it did admittedly get to be a pain in the ass), but that's just how the game was played, so you learned to work with it. I am willing to admit the graphics weren't top-notch (since you sometimes had trouble figuring out what you were looking at, but this was a good dozen or so years ago. Fallout 2 was a little better in this respect, but with more graphical glitches in larger towns. Tactics was not clearly a favorite by most, but I actually thought it was a decent game overall, just without the freedom you were accustomed to in previous titles. Tactics cut out the searching for things and kept it more mission-based with good emphasis on the turn-based combat, which was sometimes the most fun.
I was excited about Fallout 3, thinking the first person aspect and the camera freedom would bring more to the franchise. Once in execution, I was not impressed. When I had initially learned that Bethesda cut out the turn based combat, my heart sank. Killing off that part of the game really did ruin the fun I had in the game. I liked being able to step back between combat rounds to judge tactics mid-combat; Fallout 3 combat just felt too rushed overall. Sure, it made for more exciting combat, but it took something away from the game by forcing you to keep running and gunning (unless you tried to use the VATS system constantly to replicate the original feel). Bethesda gets some praise for keeping the Fallout series alive, but I was not and am not a big of a fan of the new(er) game as I am of the original ones.
As for this stupid pissing contest between Bethesda and Interplay, it seems just outright stupid. If it weren't for Interplay, there wouldn't be a Fallout. Besides, is Bethesda threatened that Interplay could possibly earn enough money to BUY Fallout back from them? Are they seriously that heavily invested in this series that it would be that big of a kick in the ass to them if they lost the rights? I can't foresee how a Fallout MMO would actually work in execution given the game story, but who am I to tell them not to consider it? If the game world was completely populated by heroes, where is the fun in that? You were supposed to be the savior of the wastelands in that game, so to have thousands of people with the same purpose takes the fun out of the idea. And why wouldn't Bethesda at least rent the rights back to Interplay for a sales percentage of games sold? If Interplay didn't sell a lot, then Bethesda still maintains the rights, and both companies potentially see some money coming in. I really don't think Bethesda should act so threatened by this idea of Interplay still wanting to do something with a game it originally created. This just seems like a huge dick move by Bethesda to bully on Interplay to show they are some sort of "superior" company since they have the money to push a fight like this to court. Interplay seems to be on its last leg, why kick them now like this? It's like picking on a guy in a wheelchair after you just bought his house... jeez, if they can make a go of this idea, let them.
And here's a little question I have. How many of you actually played the first Fallout and Fallout 2 before you even heard of Fallout 3? And out of those of you who did, did you play them on Win95 and Win98 respectively? These questions aren't meant as some sort of elitist move, I'm curious how many of us actually remember playing on these OSs to compare how bad the games really ran. I don't recall them being any worse than other games at the time, with Fallout 2 actually having more stability than the original. Playing the revamped GOG versions of the games don't count since they have been optimized to run on modern hardware, I'm talking the original releases from the time.
It was a result of low game sales, but not of low Fallout game sales. Fallout games were a commercial success, even if not a huge hit. But keep in mind that Interplay was working on a lot of games back then, and Fallout was just a small part of that.Low Key said:
If Fallout had been a commercial failure, it wouldn't have had a sequel and two spin-offs in the first place. Interplay had games that were commercial failures back then, yes. But Fallout was not one of them.
Well, just to hurl my two pen'eth's, I'm hoping Interplay win this one, if only because Interplay are further along in development, and the genre is a bit too unsteady to survive drawbacks like having development wiped and restarted by another developer with their own MMO release on the horizon; one they'd obviously rather not jeopardise.
Errr, they have seven people. Not just seven people on this project, seven people.Fensfield said:
There is no such thing as Interplay as a videogame developer. They have like two concept art pieces, that's how far along they are.