Fallout on PS2 and X-box

[the new JR Jansen]

I pulled this from the NMA news page and it's confirmed by looking at the IPLY site. These comments are somewhat vocal and could be seen as insulting. Allthough, i have known these two people for a long time and it's more out of frustration then anything else. Please also note that these are their comments, not mine. I would have put it a little different but you can't quote someone if you twist their words and for i do agree with them, i only would have said it different. So don't shoot the messenger. Now let's get to it.

-----------------------
Wednesday march 12

Interplay raises the finger to Fallout fans again: by Rosh - 23:39 - news source RPGCodex

As if the deviations made in Fallout Tactics weren't enough (i.e. forgetting why the war was started and just about completely botching the setting), Interplay has promised to whore out the Fallout name like other great multi-flavour spin-off tanks such as X-com.

Top on the list, they say "The gameplay is more attuned to the console platform, stressing more action and combat than the PC version wich placed a greater emphasis on RPG elements or strategy." More combat ? As Fallout tactics was just combat, why not just be honest and say it's going to be a combat system with wastelandish graphics ? The setting is just about guaranteed to be lobotomized.

Scott Lane, Executive Producer at Interplay, has this to say.
"We're very excited about bringing the Fallout universe to console gamers."

Wich can be paraphrased along with that of Interplay's marketing dept. as :
"We're very excited about half-assing the Fallout universe to console gamers, just like how we released a buggy, half-patched game of Fallout 2, hyped and released another half-patched and poor QA'd 'tactical' game that Gamespy has since dumped support for, and now promises to do the same for consoles because we don't have to worry about patching a console - we already have your money, suckers. ■■■■ you, PC and MAC owners and those who have followed the setting, you don't matter anymore. we take our marketing department as gods as they have proven themselves to be the best. They tell us that console games sell like hotcakes, and the Fallout license is loved by many. So we're going to have the BRILLIANT idea to combine the two and we could have GRATE SUXESS !"

It doesn't help matters that the summary of the game sounds like an utterly lame combination of the previous Fallout games :
"The fear of an apocalypsehas become reality. Fallout:Brotherhood of steel begins after the first Fallout PC title in wich humans emerge from the safety of underground vaults to explore the earth following a nuclear holocaust. In joining the Brotherhood of Steel, players will uncover a sinister plot that could transform the remainder of humanity into a race of mutants. The Brotherhood of Steel have come together to wage battle against the mutant raiders and pirates to fulfill their search for a mysterious and heavily sought-after device, one that could be used to help rebuild humanity or as a monstrous toll of war."

You would have thought if they expect us to swallow the bitter pill of a console game, they might have had some originality.

Yes, Virginia, the gaming industry has gone to shit.

Even more; by Rosh - 0:27 - news source; DAC
Saint Proverbius of DAC and RPGCodex has notified me of more news.

Now, to further prove this game is looking to be even worse then Fallout Tactics, let me bring out a few items.

Digital Morons have done the predictable, that if you're going to make a spin-off, change as much as you can as possible, starting with the logo. Did you forget to notice why X-com has done barely mediocre with their spin-offs, or dose someone need to hand you an Interplay-dose clue ?

Now, while this may seem a bit vitriolic, let's go into why this game is going further from Fallout than Fallout tactics did. Check out the product information page.
"Three customizable playable characters, each with their own unique traits, strengths and attributes to develop over the course of the game."
That means either one of two things, or both. The SPECIAL system is not there, or it's been skullfucked beyond belief. One of the best things about Fallout was the character system, and you people want to ■■■■ around with that as well. The 50's influenced look is not apparent, the character system is pretty much gone, the story is pretty much recycled from the previous ones, Little of the good RPG and mostly combat...well, that's right. It is nothing more than a name-whoring to get cash from Wall-Mart suckers.

Attention Feargus;
Enjoy your really kewl minigun particles now in crappy 3D, bitch.

To the jackanapes at Interplay/BIS who might wonder wonder about the flak they get;
This is what we're talking about people. You lie to people, jerk us around, etc...and then wonder why you're treated with barely-hidden loathing by people outside of the Fallout fandom (Starfleet Command 2, for one). I think it might be related to why the once-great company of Interplay is being grungefucked into the ground.

I'll say it's a good thing you people aren't in any important position that might hurt someone.
----------------------

Comments, reactions ?

[Harkoliar]

from the article ---------------------------- just like how we released a buggy, half-patched game of Fallout 2, hyped and released another half-patched and poor QA'd 'tactical' game that Gamespy has since dumped support for, and now promises to do the same for consoles because we don't have to worry about patching a console - we already have your money, suckers. ■■■■ you, PC and MAC owners and those who have followed the setting, you don't matter anymore. we take our marketing department as gods as they have proven themselves to be the best. They tell us that console games sell like hotcakes, and the Fallout license is loved by many. So we're going to have the BRILLIANT idea to combine the two and we could have GRATE SUXESS !"

for me, the fallout series was ruined why they released fallout tactics. even though they released a half buggy fallout2.. it was still waaaayyyy better than tactics.... that is really insulting for me the way they said it. i liked fallout2 because you can "create" youself in the world and your reputation... these "new games" with fallout settings are ruining it.. sigh

[Luvian]

I like fallout Tactics. It's not a role playing game, and was never intended to be one. It's not part of the Fallout saga, it's just an alternate game for people who liked the Fallout combat system and wanted to see it pushed to it's limit.

If you buy a tactical game, don't complain because it's not an rpg. If you buy an apple, do you then complain it's not an orange? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[the new JR Jansen]

@Harkoliar. I think you're absolutely right and as i've said in the first post. I do agree with them, at least for the most part, but i would have phrased it a lot different.

@Luvian. The problem with Fallout tactics isn't that it's not an RPG. the problem is that a lot of the things in tactics don't belong in the Fallout world, or not at that period. The talking deathclaws are 1 thing, the blimps is another and vault 0 is yet one more. The developers didn't take the Fallout world into account when they made this game and if you are going to make a game with a certain name, you better take care that you're consistant. Another point is that tactics was a poor tactical game in its own right. The game has been compared to other tactical games and ussually the concensus is that tactics is pretty much the worst tactical combat game out there.

[Luvian]

Originally posted by the new JR Jansen: @Luvian. The problem with Fallout tactics isn't that it's not an RPG. the problem is that a lot of the things in tactics don't belong in the Fallout world, or not at that period. The talking deathclaws are 1 thing, the blimps is another and vault 0 is yet one more. The developers didn't take the Fallout world into account when they made this game and if you are going to make a game with a certain name, you better take care that you're consistant. Another point is that tactics was a poor tactical game in its own right. The game has been compared to other tactical games and ussually the concensus is that tactics is pretty much the worst tactical combat game out there.

Wait wait... did I get this right? You just said that talking deathclaws, blimps, and vault 0 have no places in the Fallout Universe at that time?

You are aware that in Fallout 2 there are helicopters, lasers weapons [img]graemlins/shooter03.gif[/img] , and Aliens [img]graemlins/abduct.gif[/img] , right?

Helicopters are a lot harder to build than blimps, especially the type used in Fallout 2, so I don't see how a military organization which still has lots of pre-war knowledge would not be able to strap a metal box after a big balloon. Lasers weapons don't even exist yet, so in that world... And if you accept aliens, why not accept some intelligent deathclaws? Who knows, maybe the aliens experimented on them?

Also, Fallout Tactics is happening years after Fallout 1, which would not be far in time from Fallout 2. Maybe the enclave had previously experimented on deathclaws.

The consensus among the FT haters might be that it's the worst tactic game out there, but let me assure you that among the FT fans, it's the opposite, it's only a personal opinion.

Also, if you think it's not good, I really suggest you try the game again, all the way to the end. Some of the maps are very hard if you try to finish them the best way possible.

Also, you are missing an important point. FT was made using the Fallout engine, I think what they did with it is amazing. Other tactical games have their own custom engine focusing on tactical combat, while FT is using an rpg engine.

[ 03-14-2003, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Luvian ]

[the new JR Jansen]

Oh, here we go again. I have had to tell this a million times why things like talking deathclaws, blimps and vault 0 don't belong but i'll do it again.

First, the chronology of the games.
Production
Fallout 1 - Fallout 2 - Fallout tactics
Fallout timeline
Fallout 1 - 40 years - Fallout tactics - 40 years - Fallout 2

Talking deathclaws. If you play Fallout 2, i think it's Goris who gives you this information, you will notice that the deatclaws' intelligence was given to them by the enclave after they found the military base. He also tells you that they only recently gained that intelligence. Secondly, the Enclave may have done some testing before, wich in itself is a debatable point, but that does not explain how they got their. They may have migrated but then again, if you test something, you're going to use a smallish amount of test subjects. Remember that the deathclaws in Fallout 2 were only a small group and the other deathclaws you encounter are not intelligent while in Fallout tactics every damn one of them has increased intelligence. It just doesn't make sense.

Blimps. The BOS in Fallout 2 tell you that, up untill that time, they had no means of transport. NO MEANS. How do they all of a sudden have blimps 40 years earlier. The vertibirds are an Enclave 'invention' that the BOS did not have. And seeing as Fallout tactics is about the BOS........

Vault 0. The president in Fallout 2 tells you that the vaults were an experiment. Their experiment. How come we all of a sudden have a supercomputer who was supposed to reunite the world. Either it's the Enclave that was using the vaults as an experiment or the computer but having both is .....odd.

It's not the Fallout tactics haters that have this opinion. Most Fallout fans share this opinion. I propose you post the same thing on a Fallout fanboard like NMA or DAC and see what these people have to say.

[Luvian]

Originally posted by the new JR Jansen: Oh, here we go again. I have had to tell this a million times why things like talking deathclaws, blimps and vault 0 don't belong but i'll do it again. First, the chronology of the games. Production Fallout 1 - Fallout 2 - Fallout tactics Fallout timeline Fallout 1 - 40 years - Fallout tactics - 40 years - Fallout 2 Yes, that the chronology. Talking deathclaws. If you play Fallout 2, i think it's Goris who gives you this information, you will notice that the deatclaws' intelligence was given to them by the enclave after they found the military base. He also tells you that they only recently gained that intelligence. Secondly, the Enclave may have done some testing before, which in itself is a debatable point, but that does not explain how they got their. They may have migrated but then again, if you test something, you're going to use a smallish amount of test subjects. Remember that the deathclaws in Fallout 2 were only a small group and the other deathclaws you encounter are not intelligent while in Fallout tactics every damn one of them has increased intelligence. It just doesn't make sense. You are forgetting a few points here. First of all, FOT and the other fallouts where not happening in the same region, so there are lots of possibilities to explain it. Here's a few. [img]graemlins/check.gif[/img] The enclave experimented on a deathclaw matriarch, she escaped, went north, and founded her tribe. They quickly became very powerful thanks to their intelligence and replaced every stupid deathclaws in that region. [img]graemlins/check.gif[/img] Deathclaws are the only monster that does not originate from a regular monster in the real world, so maybe they where created by the mutant master as a new species, but the mutant master was killed, and they escaped his lab. Some of the smarter more evolved one escaped north with some super mutants, while the inferior one where too stupid and settled close to the former military base. So you see it, there are any number of reason why deathclaws could be intelligent. We do not know why the devs put them in the game, we can only speculate. Your opinion is not better than mine. Blimps. The BOS in Fallout 2 tell you that, up until that time, they had no means of transport. NO MEANS. How do they all of a sudden have blimps 40 years earlier. The vertibirds are an Enclave 'invention' that the BOS did not have. And seeing as Fallout tactics is about the BOS........ Seeing the big loss they got with the blimps, I can see why they discontinued that project and would like to forget about it... Vault 0. The president in Fallout 2 tells you that the vaults were an experiment. Their experiment. How come we all of a sudden have a supercomputer who was supposed to reunite the world. Either it's the Enclave that was using the vaults as an experiment or the computer but having both is .....odd. You have misunderstood the information there... Yes, the vaults where built by the US, but they where build by the real pre-war US, not the survivor on the oil platform. Just watch the intro movie to fallout 1 and 2 again. Why do you think there has been multiple generations of people living in those vaults before they first started coming out? Yes, the "president" said "they" built them, but he meant the US, the real one. He is a deluded guy. It's not the Fallout tactics haters that have this opinion. Most Fallout fans share this opinion. I propose you post the same thing on a Fallout fanboard like NMA or DAC and see what these people have to say. Not all Fallout fans are Fallout Tactics fans, and even if they where, it's only an opinion, you really need to understand the distinction between facts and opinions...

You don't seem to be familiar with "tactics" games. Two roleplaying game had a tactic game released loosely based on the universe of the rpg game. Ogre Tactics, and Final Fantasy tactics. Both of which are only loosely based on their parent game. It's the same thing for Fallout Tactics. They are all alternate games set in a world similar to the original games.

Fallout Tactics was never intended to be officially part of the Fallout universe, I'm sure of that. You are taking it way too seriously.

But you know what? Those are only my opinions, and they mean nothing, as are yours. Who made the game? The devs. Who is building that universe? the devs. Who are the masters of that universe? the devs. If they decide that 2 years before Fallout 2 there was a huge army of giant pink rabbits [img]graemlins/bunny.gif[/img] that conquered the nrc area by using giant explosive purple easter eggs, but then in a freak accident they all mutated into human tribals and created the town of arroyo, and that in fact the original vault dweller really died of thirst in the desert, well, that is now the new official updated fallout world, like it or not.

The devs are creating this world. Maybe they had a good reason to do what they did in Fot, maybe they didn't. But guess what... they don't need a reason, it's their world, what they say is the law. And no self appointed master and historian of the Fallout universe can change that. So why are we arguing over their world

[the new JR Jansen]

Originally posted by Luvian: You are forgetting a few points here. First of all, FOT and the other fallouts where not happening in the same region, so there are lots of possibilities to explain it. Here's a few. I haven't forgotten that. That does not explain the inconsistencies regarding the deathclaws, though. And saying something like 'Who knows what could have happened' is really a weak argument. By saying that, you except everything and not questioning the developers. [img]graemlins/check.gif[/img] The enclave experimented on a deathclaw matriarch, she escaped, went north, and founded her tribe. They quickly became very powerful thanks to their intelligence and replaced every stupid deathclaws in that region. Unlikely. Even if they were more intelligent, it is highly unlikely that the 'normal' deathclaws would be extinct. Besides a pack is a pack not an entire race, meaning that one pack couldn't have stood up to every other deathclaw pack out there. Besides the notion of a matriarch is also an inconsistency. If you talk to the doc in Fallout 2's vault 13, he'll mention that a pack's leader is an alpha MALE. How come then that in tactics the leader is a female ? [img]graemlins/check.gif[/img] Deathclaws are the only monster that does not originate from a regular monster in the real world, so maybe they where created by the mutant master as a new species, but the mutant master was killed, and they escaped his lab. Some of the smarter more evolved one escaped north with some super mutants, while the inferior one where too stupid and settled close to the former military base. Wrong, the same doc will tell you that they originated from Jackson's chamelions. So your entire starting point on this is wrong. So you see it, there are any number of reason why deathclaws could be intelligent. We do not know why the devs put them in the game, we can only speculate. Your opinion is not better than mine. So, you see, debunked. It's also pretty weird that the developers had to admit that they went overboard with tactics themselves. Chris Avelone has made that clear on more then one occasion. Seeing the big loss they got with the blimps, I can see why they discontinued that project and would like to forget about it... The BOS members that were transported by those blimps were outcasts. How could the BOS from Fallout 2 have known that they were hit by a lightning storm and went down ? That in itself doesn't mean a disaster. Normally, that would be seen as an accident, therefor i don't think they would have 'forgotten' all about it. It would make more sense, even with your example, that they would have worked on the things more in an effort to perfect them. You have misunderstood the information there... Yes, the vaults where built by the US, but they where build by the real pre-war US, not the survivor on the oil platform. Just watch the intro movie to fallout 1 and 2 again. Why do you think there has been multiple generations of people living in those vaults before they first started coming out? Yes, the "president" said "they" built them, but he meant the US, the real one. He is a deluded guy. Ok, granted it's not 'his' US that built them but that doesn't explain the existance of vault 0. Either they were all built as part of an experiment or you have a supercomputer. Not all Fallout fans are Fallout Tactics fans, and even if they where, it's only an opinion, you really need to understand the distinction between facts and opinions...[/qb]

If a large group of people have the same opinion, then it becomes an acceptable argument.

You don't seem to be familiar with "tactics" games. Two roleplaying game had a tactic game released loosely based on the universe of the rpg game. Ogre Tactics, and Final Fantasy tactics. Both of which are only loosely based on their parent game. It's the same thing for Fallout Tactics. They are all alternate games set in a world similar to the original games.

Loosely based does not mean scewing the time line and certainly doesn't mean being inconsistant. Besides that, read some reviews of the game. As was mentioned in the first post, Gamespy has dropped all support for this game. Should tell you something.

Fallout Tactics was never intended to be officially part of the Fallout universe, I'm sure of that. You are taking it way too seriously.

Funny, the developers seemed to think differently at the time they were making it. It was only after it got so much heat that they said otherwise.

But you know what? Those are only my opinions, and they mean nothing, as are yours. Who made the game? The devs. Who is building that universe? the devs. Who are the masters of that universe? the devs. If they decide that 2 years before Fallout 2 there was a huge army of giant pink rabbits [img]graemlins/bunny.gif[/img] that conquered the nrc area by using giant explosive purple easter eggs, but then in a freak accident they all mutated into human tribals and created the town of arroyo, and that in fact the original vault dweller really died of thirst in the desert, well, that is now the new official updated fallout world, like it or not.

The devs are creating this world. Maybe they had a good reason to do what they did in Fot, maybe they didn't. But guess what... they don't need a reason, it's their world, what they say is the law. And no self appointed master and historian of the Fallout universe can change that. So why are we arguing over their world
[/QB][/QUOTE]

Sorry, i don't want to insult you but that's really weak. I mean, what you are saying is that because they are the developers and it's their world, you're going to swallow everything they ram down you throat ? What if they make a Fallout game with no radiation, no broken down buildings, everything nice and clean, no drugs and none of the other things wich make Fallout to what it is. Byt they put the Fallout name on it and say that that's what the world has evolved to. I wouldn't buy that, it's your choice to do that, but i wouldn't.

[Luvian]

To me, video games are like novels. If a novel writer write a new novel in his series, and change plot elements, we have no choices but to accept it. It's his world, not ours.

Sorry, i don't want to insult you but that's really weak. I mean, what you are saying is that because they are the developers and it's their world, you're going to swallow everything they ram down you throat ? What if they make a Fallout game with no radiation, no broken down buildings, everything nice and clean, no drugs and none of the other things wich make Fallout to what it is. Byt they put the Fallout name on it and say that that's what the world has evolved to. I wouldn't buy that, it's your choice to do that, but i wouldn't.

Of course I would! As long as the game was interesting in other ways, and wasn't called Fallout 3. That's what I am trying to tell you. Just because there is fallout in the name does not mean it's part of the storyline of Fallout 1 and 2.

If they release a game called Fallout 3, wich would imply it's really part of the Fallout saga, and botched the storyline, I would care, but that's not the case.

For all I care, they can release tousands of alternate fallout game, a Fallout Baseball game, a Fallout racing came, a Fallout hunting game, a Fallout tactics game, I don't care, those would obviously not be part of the Official storyline, they would just be some other traditional game, but happening is a setting similar to fallout.

Fallout Tactics is not Fallout 3. When they want to release a game that will be part of the Official Fallout storyline, it will be called Fallout 3.

You can not decide what should or should not be part of a game, story, or setting. You can chose not to buy it, but you can't decide what should be in it.

[ 03-17-2003, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: Luvian ]

[the new JR Jansen]

You're confusing storyline and setting. I haven't said anything about scewing the Fallout storyline from the two RPG's. What i tried to point out are inconsistancies in the setting. A non RPG Fallout or even an RPG one in a different part of the US obviously doesn't have to be connected to the first two RPG's when it comes to the storyline. It however must be connected to them when it comes to the setting in that universe. Scewing with that is scewing with the Fallout universe.