It would be stupid to state something like that. As usual, Pete Hines chose the diplomatic approach. Since they will appeal to the fans of Beths latest titles with the core gameplay unchanged, they already have at least parts of two fanbases - the Beth fans and those of the oldschool people who think that Obsidian will do an immensely better job at things like dialogue, grey and gray morality and atmosphere, where Beth did middling well.
So he's neither explaining their decision thoroughly and still answering the question correctly. Mr Hines is a very good PR dude, can't give out to him there. ^_^

It's stupid for old Fallout fans to hate Bethesda since Bethesda actually saved the franchise. Interplay was desperate for cash, if Bethesda hadn't bought the franchise, there was a very good chance that some crappy developer would have snatched it up. We could have ended up with another Brotherhood of Steel.

Fallout 3 isn't what I hoped for but at least it gave the franchise a future where it has a chance to improve.

big friggin deal

First off, I resent the term "old fallout fans". I am in my early twenties for crying out loud. I played Fallout for the first time in the 2000's. It makes me sound like a old man. Which, i most certainly am not.

So fans of the older Fallouts should be glad to get another game, even regardless of the fact that the game wasnt anything like Fallout or Fallout 2 ?

I am not saying i wanted a carbon copy of Fallout or Fallout 2. I wanted a game that would have buildt upon the previous two games, and corrected flaws the previous games had. Instead i got of something so entirely different that it resembled a spin-off more than an actual sequel to Fallout and Fallout 2.
So no, I am not going to be glad for bethesda having bought Fallout rights, and "saving" Fallout. Its like saying i should be glad to atleast get an orange, when i wanted a smoothie. Or getting RTS when i was buying a sequel to a strategy game.
Note that i most certainly do not represent anyone else but myself.

"Old Fallout fans" refers to the fact that they are fans of the old Fallouts, not that they're old. We can't just say "Fallout" fans, because then they'd be even more insulted at being called Fallout 3 fans. It's a lose-lose situation.

After lurking on the two most well known old Fallout fansites and reading all of the seething hate for Fallout 3, I'm pretty convinced that old Fallout fans would not be happy no matter what Bethesda did. They say they would have been happy with this, or this, but in all honesty it seems the best way for Bethesda to have appeased the old Fallout fans is to have never made the game in the first place.

I never once thought that Bethesda decided to let Obsidian do New Vegas to appease the "fans" who complained about what Bethesda did with Fallout 3. Fallout 3 was both a commercial and critical success, I'm sure that in light of that, as far as Bethesda is concerned, alienating a few vocal members of the fanbase who won't be satisfied unless Bethesda's take on Fallout was completely identicle to older games except for having updated graphics (In fact, that's not true, if Bethesda updated the graphics they'd complain that Bethesda put too much focus on graphics, and if they didn't change anything they'd complain that it's too close to older games and doesn't actually feel like a new game.)

Besides, since Obsidian is still making it first person and real time, there's no way the "hardcoe fanbase" will be satisfied anyway, and they'll cry like children who did not get their candy fix.

Most likely, Bethesda will just let Obsidian make New Vegas and maybe other spinoffs, for the main series, they will do it themselves.



Would you rather not get any new Fallout games? No one else picked up the license before Bethesda, after all, and I can say with almost absolute certainty that Bethesda would not make a turn based, isometric Fallout, no matter how much the "fans" cry for it.

Mostly, if Bethesda did not pick up the Fallout license, no one would, or it would instead be taken by some other company, possibly EA, who would most likely make a game with even less resemblance to the older games. If you don't like what Bethesda did with the series, you might as well just give up at this point, because I'm sure that you're not going to get what you demand, no matter how much you complain, there's just a bigger market for a game like Fallout 3, compared to that, a small but vocal fanbase who probably won't be pleased anyway is meaningless.



Then thyey'd just complian that there's no one to give them their precious Fallout fix, or that whoever else decided to take up the license didn't make EXACTLY the game they demand.

Wrong.

True, we missed the old gameplay. But what we missed the most was a logical plot, balanced gameplay, good voicework, coherent gameworld and respect for the older titles.



You do know that insulting other people is telling volumes about you and your level, not them?

Most are happy that Obsidian is making the game, because that's a guarantee of good dialogues, a good story, balanced gameplay and a world that makes sense.



Why do you think a series must have a sequel?



There'd be no problem if no one picked up the licence. A game is a luxury, so if no one continued it, it wouldn't be a problem.

No one's writing sequels to The Lord of the Rings and bookworms are happy. By your logic, they shouldn't be.



Here's the problem: old time gamers, like me, don't need a quick fix. We aren't game junkies, so stop using yourself as a point of reference for others.

That's the thing I don't get. Old Fallout fans seems to think that simply because some of the original creators are working on it, it's "guaranteed" to be good. Nothing in life is guaranteed. And what's even funnier is that you've noticed how people think it isn't guaranteed, and http://duckandcover.cx/falloutevolutionsmall.png. Sadly, under Fallout 3, the calm, collected opinions you guys in that picture that you supposedly express are the polar opposite of what you really feel, and how you really express them. And now that people think that your precious original creators are, shock, human, and have the ability to fail, we somehow think that "Dem be ruinin da franchise!"

Old Fallout fans never gave Fallout 3 a chance, no matter how much they say they did, and of course they hate it now that it's out. Now that a few of the original creators are working on the next game, suddenly it's going to be perfect in every way and will be a million times better than Fallout 3, despite the fact that we have had only 3 magazine articles about it so far, and no gameplay clips yet. Am I the only one who sees the irony in that?

Well he's welcome to use me as a reference. I'm 47. I waited 11 years for Fallout 3. Actually I gave up on waiting after about 6 years. It was DEAD. I was happy to see Beth get it and not just anybody. Why am I not on NMA or DaC? I'm not a big fan of Beth. Haven't bought a game from them since Daggerfall. It's the hate.

It's not that they're original Fallout creators (actually, most of them worked on the sequels. Obsidian doesn't have Tim Cain, Leonard Boyarsky or Chris Taylor among many. Y'know, the founding fathers of Fallout). It's that Obsidian is persistent in making games with good, coherent stories, memorable characters, great quest design and versimiliar gameworlds - something Bethesda hasn't been able to do since Morrowind.

Yes, they have a capacity for failure, but it's infinitely smaller than that of Bethesdas. I'm (and many others) are confident in J. E. Sawyer's ability to lead the design team in making a good game because we've seen the design of Van Buren, which, if it was released, would've set the standards for player-world interactivity for years to come. That makes the loss of the franchise due to incompetent corporate leadership all the more annoying.

And it's not the criticism we're hatin' on, it's blatant moronics. The Official Xbox Magazine reached the heights of stupidity lately, with its treatment of Fallout 3 as the "original Fallout" and Obsidian as "newcomers to the franchise".



See, now you're making stuff up. Many of us gave it a chance (me included) and while the consensus is that it's a decent game, it's not really a Fallout sequel, since it's not in the same area as the originals, doesn't have the original gameplay and doesn't even have that gameplay's versatility and balance.



Sure, we have a few extremists, but overall we're far more balanced than any other Fallout fansite. If you recall, we had the most objective and comprehensive Fallout 3 preview out of them all, balanced reviews of Fallout 3 and its DLCs and a good section on Fallout 3, including an interactive map.

Hardly hate.

If you say so, but that's not the impression I got.



It really doesn't need to, but it happened anyway, and since people bother to complain about the sequel, that seems to be pretty obvious that people DID want it.



That's exactly the point, a game is a luury, so if you don't like the luxury someone decides to give you, then just don't play it. If someone suddenly decided to write a new Lord of the Rings book, and fans complained about it, I'd tell them the same.

But if you'd really be perfectly happy if no new Fallout games were made, why are you wasting time discussing a game you didn't want in the first place? If someone feels a game is worth complaining about, I'd think that's pretty clear proof that they WANTED it, they just don't like the game they're getting. If it was a sequel they never cared about in the first place, I'm sure they'd just forget about it, but maybe I'm, as you say, using myself as a reference point for others.



Once again, not the impression I got. I'd think that someone who was not, to use your words, a "game junky", could easily just move on and play games said person who is not a game junky DOES like instead of complaining about those he does not.



I'm pretty sure I saw Fallout fans predicting that Fallout 3 would be nothing like what they wanted even before we knew anything about the game beyond being developed by Bethesda, of course they COULD have just been trolls, but it's hard to fault someone for not being able to tell the difference, considering how SOME segments of the "fanbase" which I will not name act.

To be fair, I was sure as soon as I knew that Fallout 3 would be made by Bethesda that it would be a first person, real time game that has not all that much to do with the original games beyond being set in the same universe, I was simply okay with this.

That's really just your opinion, though I admit that it's an opinion that is shared by quite a few people.



That's just blatant Bethesda hate, all developers have the same chance to fail or succeed. Bethesda makes great games, Obsidian makes great games, but they're both equal in terms of their ability to fail.



I've read enough of the stuff on the NMA and DAC boards to know that that isn't the case. You guys may have tried your hardest to appear like you were giving it a chance, but it's blatantly obvious that very few of you, if any, really had absolutely no preconceived notion that it would be terrible from the get-go.




One simply has to read one of the first pinned topics in the Fallout 3 section on DAC to see the hate:

"Usermods that are making FO3 less [censored] and more bearable"

Yes, clearly no hate at all. And the fact that it's a pinned topic with that kind of name is ridiculous.

Now lets not discuss specific forums anymore as cross-forum bashing is against the rules here and I'm sure neither of us are fond of getting warned.

This is the problem. You base on impressions, not facts.



People didn't want it. People bought it because it was available.

The only people who wanted a sequel were the "hardcoe" fanbase. A cursosry explanation of Fallout 3 fans shows that they are people who had no connection to the original series whatsoever, so they couldn't want a sequel.



Nice way to not understand the point. Point was, game is a luxury, so not having a sequel is not a tragedy.



Because a sequel happened. It wasn't that good. So I'm here, complaining about the quality, so that the next ones are better.

Simple necessity. I don't care, but if it will appear, then at least I can make sure it will be good.



Nope. A game junkie is someone who needs a game to get his fix (e.g. loads of Fallout 3 fans screaming OMGCAN'T WAIT on the Internet). I'm a gamer with standards and criticizing is a method of ensuring that the propability of the game meeting my personal standards will be that much higher.



It was obvious the game wouldn't be isometric.

Bethesda has been making the same type of games since 1994. They aren't known for innovation, stuck in the past for over 16 years, developing the same type of game over and over again.



We weren't, because the gameplay of Fallout was integral to it being Fallout.

I was stoked when Fallout 3 was announced. I mean, we were finally getting a 3D Fallout! First Person or Third Person no less. As for the product, very acceptable, enjoyed playing it a lot.

Now, I'm not so much complaining as I am trying to give constuctive criticism on their last title about what, in my opinion, could be improved.

I do hope the paths branch out farther from each other (good evil neutral...) To be honest, they should take you completely different places with your character in terms of skills, loot, and rewards. One thing I do believe would be a success, and add replay value, is to do away with the one man is everything to everyone outlook. If you're such an awesome character first playthrough, why play again? They leave the path wide open for that, when it should be much more difficult and narrow...

Oh, one more thing... this has nothing to do with anything, but I also feel the death sequences should be a little more gory and over the top. (I miss blowing away half of their body with a double-barreled shotgun)

That is all. =)

What a funny debate - lets hope it doesn't go any more personal than it has.

What strikes me about this debate is what Pete Hines just described about how these companies do Not build games to satisfy any one fan base - and that if they did, they would go out of business extremely fast. "We make the games we want to make" is a direct quote.

To me this clearly states the position that Bethesda and Obsidian are going to "Make the games they want to make", and it may hold some or very little to the past histories of Fo1 and Fo2. Those folks that are striking mad because they perceive that they will not get the New Vegas that they want - should continue to be mad I guess, as no one is going to cator to that specific crowd or any crowd other than the ones willing to pay money for the game.

Like it or not, this is about economics, not about carrying-on old story lines and plots, its about making a great video game that Lots of people will want to buy, not just the hard-core fans. In that light, I suspect the hardcoe Fo1 and Fo2 fans wont be happy irregardless of what NV becomes; because they are not continuations of Fo1 and Fo2. I for one plan to Enjoy the game instead of ripping it to shreads because it is not "historically accurate based on one crowds views".

Facts can be hard to come by, especially when a certain vocal portion of a group does a very good job at covering them up. But I'm sure there are a fair amount of Fallout fans who are simply looking for fun games and find Fallout to be a good example of such. For these fans, it is natural to want what made them like the game in the first place, but they can understand that maybe the developers have something else in mind, or that the game they wanted just wouldn't have the mainstream appeal to compete with other titles on the market, they might not like it, but they can accept it, however, I don't have any problem with these ones. The thing is that the more... extreme fans usually have the loudest voice, so it's only natural that they will influence the impression many get of a fandom.



And it seems you failed to understand my point, too, as just as not having a sequel is not a tragedy, neither is getting a sequel that isn't exactly what you'd want from it.



And on that part we can simply disagree, I, and many others, found Fallout 3 to be a game of quite satisfactory quality. Yes, not every aspect about it was exactly what I'd want, but as a game, I found it to be a very well done piece of work, as were earlier Fallout games. They were certainly different, but good in their own way. You see, what exactly constitutes a "good game" is often highly subjective. If you don't like a game, that's perfectly fine, just remember that not everyone will share your thoughts. I'm perfectly fine with players who don't like the same games I do, the only ones I have a problem with are those who feel the need to stress this, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and... well, you get the idea.

But you're a bit wrong on one thing, you can say all you want about how the game "should" be, but whether the developers will hear your criticisms, or feel that they're worth listening to is another matter. After all, if Obsidian tried to please everyone, we'd be left with a horrible mess of inconsistencies that fails to satisfy anyone.



Then you can find a game that you are happy with, because you're not getting the game you want, so just don't waste time complaining about games you don't like. After all, as you said, Bethesda isn't going to start making an isometric, turn based game any time soon, so why ask for something that isn't going to happen? It's like having your favorite show canceled and then repeatedly complaining about it even though you know that the show isn't going to come back, when you could instead be finding another show you like.

Actually, it's probably closer to having your favorite show canceled by the network, then after ten years without it being shown again, and you probably have already found other shows you like to watch, and may not even care abou it any more, than the network suddenly decides to revive it but take it in a drastically different direction. In this situation, I'd maybe complain about it at first, and then either enjoy it for what it is now, or just move on. However, what we are seeing in this thread is perfect evidence that SOME fans would rather torture themselves by complaining about it over and over again, even when they know as well as anyone else that what they ask for isn't going to happen.



That's a perfectly acceptable thing, I've even made my complaints about games that, as a whole, I found were worth playing (Fallout 3, as well as several other Bethesda games, are among them.) It only bothers me when things go beyond constructive criticism and into undisguised hate, xXAntibodyXx has produced a perfect example of this.



Good for you, then, that's perfectly good. It's always good to see that there are at least some reasonable people on the internet, but not all Fallout fans are so reasonable.

In any case, I think the fact that a topic about a simple statement that having Obsidian develop New Vegas was not a move done due to fan backlash can transform into what this topic has become certainly says something about the Fallout fandom.

Plus, making a game oneself would like to play. Precisely what we were told was the reason to include the hardcoe option.
People get way too obsessive about things they like - fans like those remind me of the insane folks that popped up when Bill Watterson showed his face after years out of the spotlight and talked about Calvin & Hobbes, and those guys would just spout insanities and demand more comics and that he'd be responsible to keep them entertained and... It's just like Annie Wilkes, except she's a magic water-carrying broom that fell into a shredding machine.

This doesn't make you more deserving than the rest of us at any level.


No one can speak for the whole of the fanbase that here, and I just think its incredibly presumptuous to do so. Fallout3 won Game of the Year - in a time when there are a many-times more games its competing against than when Fo1 and Fo2 were produced, and Fo3 has a Huge fanbase by the numbers now. I think Fo3 was not only Good, it was Fantastic! The facts on the ground however are that the World largely agreed with the game, or it never would have achieved the standing that it has now - and I think their formulations on what is good for sequals is far better than yours or mine anyone's on this forum.


If these arguments were not so inflammatory towards others, I would agree with you.


What strikes me most funny is that anyone would expect Bethesda or Obsidian to take seriously any feedback with this kind of tone. Its like saying, "Hey you really svck, and here is how you need to do it better" - and expecting that person to do anything other than give you a frown and walk away (or worse). Feedback that people listen to is Constructive and Non-Flammatory - because human nature is obviously to be turned-off by negative feedback, especially when forcefully pressed with insults. The chances are far better that such opinions will be utterly discarded as "Bitter Apples" and promptly thrown away - it will have Zero impact on their thinking. All it portraits is that there is a small group of bitter/angry fans that aren't getting the exact video game that they want, and I'm sure they will do the right thing and avoid this crowd completely, targetting the Huge group of folks that are itching for this sequeal - irregardless of its "historical accuracy to previous games".

The mark of an intelligent man is the ability to ignore the extremes and look at the core.

Kind of an extreme parallel, but what the hell: islam. If I were to take only the extremists as representative of the religion, I would have a very, very false image of it.



It's not a tragedy, but it's annoying when a sequel is actually spin-off.



I'm not fine with people who fail to acknowledge obvious failings. Sure, it's enjoyable, but an absolute, objectively said, trainwreck in terms of setting coherency and basic logical sense.



Sounds like Fallout 3. Catering to the widest possible market, ending with a horrible mess of inconsistencies.

Which, oddly enough, sold. Whether it was actual satisfaction or effective marketing, I cannot say.



Point me to my post when I said I wanted an isometric, turn based game from Bethesda. Do it. Now.

I want Fallout games to be internally consistent, have good plots, respect the original titles and have balanced gameplay. I've been arguing this ever since I started posting here. Never once did I say I wanted an isometric, turn based game, simply because Bethesda is stuck in the past, making the same games it did in 1994 over and over again.



I'm not torturing myself.

I'm simply demanging quality in my Fallout.



NMA's been posting constructive criticism for the past ten years. All it takes is using the Search button.



The unreasonable part is relatively minor in numbers.

I typically bash them over their heads when they get too unreasonable even by their standards



It's not really a statement, it's one of Pete Hines' claims. I wouldn't listen to him too much, though, he's about as trustworthy as the IRS.

Wow - can you Please stop insulting people? Is it possible?

How can you expect anyone to take your comments Seriously when you rip them up so vigorously? Its aweful, anyone would avoid feedback with this kind of tone.

I would be surprised if this thread does not get closed.

All I have been expecting from Fallout:New Vegas ever since it was announced is Fallout 3 with actually good and consistent writing, better skill and stat balance and some gameplay changes (hardcoe mode).
If its like that, I would most likely enjoy it. It would be improvement to every aspect of Fallout 3 that i disliked and found severely lacking. Had Fallout 3 been, in my opinion actually good, i would have given the credit it would have deserved. I dont dislike Fallout 3 for the sake of it. That would be idiotic and childish. I simply find it to be a mediocre experience, both as an RPG and as a FPS. I dont like when people claim that fans of older fallout games in general wont like Fallout: New Vegas regardless of its quality.

I don't see what the big deal of the Article is? I've played fallout 1 and 2 but I really wouldn't say I've tried to dictate the DEVs thats a bit far fetched as the author of the article seems to think of us original fallout fans. Honestly, why would somebody make a topic and then try to spin the article they are posting, the article has nothing to do with Obsidian not being chosen because of fan backlash, it was actually the complete opposite, Obsidian was chosen and they aren't going to let fan backlash dictate how to make their game. And yes its pretty well known that many fans were disappointed with fallout 3, I really don't see how this is actually anything new.

This is exactly what I'm waiting for.

I agree with what you're agreeing with to a certain extent but I wish Fallout 3 had nothing to do with it. I don't much care for the way Fallout 3 looks. It's not that I want an iso game or anything that is necessarily "just like the originals" but for FPS graphics and mechanics I really don't care for Bethesda's style. The animations, faces, combat--all that stuff I could do without.

However I am such a nerd for VanBuren that I am willing to take one for the proverbial team here and say "this is as close as I'll get to seeing VB so I'll at least give it a shot" which is more than I could probably say about Fallout 4. So regardless why Bethesda teamed up with Obsidian I find the situation incredibly fortuitous for my own very selfish needs.

To be fair we don't actually know what Obsidian wanted to make with Fallout: New Vegas. Would they have preferred an isometric game? Maybe. Did they want to make a Bethesda-like game? This is also possible. If it's one thing I'll say about Obsidian it is that they aren't afraid of trying new things as risky as it is for them.