Somebody at the No Mutants Allowed fallout forum wrote the following piece which accuses Bethesda, the guys who are famous for turning out Morrowind, of bullying fansites, staff members, and of buying popular games for the purpose of turning out extremely dumbed down sequels. For example, the reason that Daggerfall was innovative and distinctive was because of its extensive use of random generation to create an enormous world. Morrowind, on the other hand, didn't use that at all, but instead used a small game world with nothing being randomly generated. It actually had nothing to do with Daggerfall in terms of game mechanics or concepts, and was in fact just using the name of Daggerfall to make people buy a completely different game. It's kind of like the difference between Asimov's "I, Robot" and the shitty movie they made recently.
Anyway, I really enjoyed the piece, so here it is:
From staff.gamingforce.com/brady/don'tbuythehype.txt
In the year of our Lord, 2007 AD, the Fallout franchise turns ten years old. However, since the release of Fallout 2 in 1998, fans have yet to enjoy a true sequel to their favorite roleplaying franchise. Fallout 2 was followed by Fallout: Tactics, which while being technically fun had a cavalcade of setting issues and wasn't the roleplaying game that fans wanted. The company was purchased a while after these events by Titus, the director becoming Herve Caen. In 2003, he started two projects roughly at the same time: Van Buren, which was Fallout 3, and the console shooter Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel. Caen cancelled the former for the latter in an attempt to focus Interplay's resources on the console market.[1]
In an effort to help stave off its impending bankruptcy, Interplay sold the rights to make Fallout 3 to Bethesda Softworks in 2004, including options for a 4th and 5th Fallout, for 1.175 million dollars advance against royalties. This transaction was met with careful optimism. Perhaps despite Bethesda's game history, they could effectively deliver a sequel that the fans could enjoy.[1]
However, ever since the release of The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, Bethesda has systematically eroded any faith in an honest-to-goodness sequel to Fallout 2. They have figuratively shat all over the fans of the Elder Scrolls franchise and Star Trek franchise, with their sights soon to be set on the two biggest Fallout fansites, http://nma-fallout.com[2] and http://www.duckandcover.cx/[3].
The following is an account of Bethesda's operating methods, and the mishandling of the various fanbases :
Origins
Chris Weaver, the chairman of Media Technologies founded Bethesda in 1986 in an effort to see if the PC was a viable market for game development. The first game, a football game titled Gridirion, was a success, securing Bethesda a deal with Interplay to develop the first John Madden Football. For 18 years, Bethesda was owned and funded solely by Weaver, with The Elder Scrolls: Arena becoming Weaver's baby. The Elder Scrolls is Bethsoft's only original in-house franchise. [4]
In 1994, Bethesda released http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elder_Scrolls:_Arena[5], an open-ended roguelike played with a First-Person Perspective that took place in the fantasy world of Tamriel. That the game was a roguelike was very important. Traditionally, roguelikes are based on the 1980 game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_%28computer_game%29[6], and usually feature top-down views. However, two important features of roguelikes, namely a fantasy world with randomly-generated maps and dungeons, are predominant enough in Arena and its sequel Daggerfall for fans to refer to both titles as roguelikes.
The appeal of a roguelike lies in its replay value. The nature of randomly generated environments guarantees that no two experiences are going to be exactly alike, and gamers responded well to these features. Arena and Daggerfall combined static environments such as cities with randomly-generated dungeons and quests. While there may have not been much depth to the experience beyond the central story, the massive world and random nature kept some players interested in and playing the games even to the present.
Following Arena's success, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elder_Scrolls_II:_Daggerfall [7]was released in 1996. Daggerfall was a supremely ambitious project which sought to recreate Tamriel in 161,000 square miles, and was inhabited by 750,000 NPCs. By comparison, the sequel to Daggerfall, Morrowind, is about .01% the size of Daggerfall's gameworld, with 6 square miles, while Oblivion only features 16. For players that loved Arena's roguelike qualities it was a phenomenal sequel.
Daggerfall also expanded on the impressive lore created for Arena, adding a new cast of fleshed out characters in addition to the 750,000 clones, not the least which being Mannimarco the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannimarco[8]:
| QUOTE |
| The King of Worms, Mannimarco, is a powerful necromancer in Tamriel and the archenemy of the Mages' Guild. He was originally an Altmer and a Psijic, and a contemporary of Vanus Galerion. At some point Mannimarco broke away from the Psijic order (as well as Galerion, who went on to found the Mages Guild) to further practice his necromancy, and this is the point at which he actually first styled himself "King of Worms". From Scourge Barrow in the Dragontail Mountains, he has cleverly played all the political games and powers for millenia. His influences have even reached Summerset Isle, the homeland of the Altmer. The Sload, the necromantic slug-like creatures living in the Thrassian Reef, worship him as a god. |
| QUOTE |
| "My first assignments were testing the CD-ROM version of Arena, and producing NCAA Basketball: Road to the Final Four 2, a game that was being developed externally and had been left for dead."[9] |
| QUOTE |
| In 1999, ZeniMax, a media/videogame holding company founded by Chris Weaver and Robert Altman, acquired Media Technology (founded by Weaver), which owned Bethesda. The new company, helmed by Weaver and Altman, was a who's who list of entertainment moguls. Robert Trump (of Trump Management) and Harry Sloan (MGM) are on the board, and the company is advised by Jon Feltheimer (Lion's Gate Entertainment), among others. If Bethesda was drowning, ZeniMax was a million-dollar lifesaver.[9] |
| QUOTE |
| As Howard began work on Oblivion in 2002, Weaver found himself embattled against his business partners at ZeniMax. According to a legal opinion based on the case, Weaver filed a lawsuit against the company, alleging he was "constructively terminated" (meaning he like other industry luminaries, was being ousted by his new business partners after giving them access to his brand) and was owed $1.2 million in severance pay when ZeniMax didn't renew his employment contract.[16] |
| QUOTE |
| Here are the new terms, AS: remove the interview *in its entirety*. All of it. Gone. Or remove anything submitted by me that hasn't been published by Bethsoft. It's actually quite a lot. Go check. It's mine, it's copyrighted to me, and it's only allowed on your site through my permission. It doesn't stop there. It won't stop there. I will pursue my own roads to have the rest of your copyrighted material removed, as well. It's frankly very easy to comply. It's frankly very hard for you to continue with me as an enemy. - Michael Kirkblade |
| QUOTE |
Gavin Carter joined RPG Codex in Jul 2004, Steve Meister joined the site a few months later. Both Bethesda developers posted regularly (Steve made over 700 posts), but left us ubruptly in Jan 2006. No explanations were given, but the fact that both of them left the site at the same time does support the theory that they've been told not to post at the Codex anymore. Clearly though, anyone who regularly posts at the Codex for more than a year is well aware of what the Codex is and can't claim that they left because the site is anti-Oblivion or something like that. As you know, we've always criticized Oblivion, being unimpressed with what's been shown and the focus of the marketing campaign: soil erosion, Stewart, pretty graphics. For awhile, the ESF crowd dismissed our criticism, hoping that the game will deliver what's been promised and new features will be unveiled soon. As the game was getting closer to the release, it was also getting clear that the Codex has at least some points, so more and more people were agreeing with us and admitting that our criticism is based on facts, not bias. Then the game was released and my review was posted on ESF. People started agreeing with it, referring to it, calling it the only honest review, and so on. That's when the ESF mods stated that the Codex is a bad site and its evil influence must be stopped. All links and even references (!) to the site were removed, many people arguing this case were banned. Then even the name of the site was censored. If you type RPG Codex, it will be auto replaced with "I really love Oblivion". I asked several Bethesda people about it, and was told that "Any mention of RPG Codex will be deleted. That is all I am at liberty to say."[21] |
| QUOTE |
| Star Trek gaming history, now THAT'S a toughy, there's over a decades worth of my views on that subject. Suffice to say it went from one of the most lucrative franchises in the world (PC Gamer Magazines words...not mine) to a blatantly mismanaged mess. For more details have a look at http://www.startrek-gamers.com/history2.htm. It's my ongoing attempt to chart the rise and slow fall of Trek gaming from its official inception by Interplay in 1992 to the death of the franchise in 2003 with the Activision lawsuit, the history stopped there but a new section from 2003 onwards is in the works. |
| QUOTE |
| To be honest no one knows how Bethesoft managed to aquire the rights for the Star Trek franchise. No one knew about it until Harry lang from Paramount announced it at the very beginning of January 2006, what made CBS go with Bethesda no one knows since the 4 previous publishers were much larger companies than Bethesda ever was. I do know one thing though, the franchse was offered to larger companies like EA...and they flat out refused to take it on after the damage that Activision (had) done to the franchise in 2001 to 2003.[24] |
| QUOTE |
| No. I'm not trying to be dramatic. I'm not trying to exaggerate. I seriously think Star Trek: Legacy is the worst game ever, on the magnitude of Big Rig and fucking Superman 64... ...Well, I guess as long as the campaign is fun and interesting I could forgive the mindless gameplay mechanics, right? Oh, you want me to go on a "mission"? Save some Vulcans? Sweet! Cool!. Oh noes, incoming wave of Romulan bitches! Fight fight fight. Oh no, they have reinforcements! Fight fight fight. Oh no! More Romulans! Fight fight fight. Holy shit, how many of these motherfuckers are there? Fight fight fight. Fight fight fight. Fight fight fight. Sir! Incoming warp signature! OH NO! MORE ROMULANS! FUCK YOU I QUIT. |
| QUOTE |
| As for Legacy. The game itself was based on 2 previously cancelled titles from Activision. Legacy's first appearance was as Star Trek: Bridge Commander 2 which was to be published by Activision and developed by Totally Games (same devs as the original Bridge Commander). It was cancelled in early 2002 and then reappeared in late 2002 as a new title called Star Trek: Admiral and was held over to the developers of Armada 2....MadDoc Software. That game was then cancelled in 2003 since Activision was in the process of filing the lawsuit and all games under development at that point in time was canned. Fast forward 3 years into 2006 and Star Trek: Admiral was renamed Star Trek: Legacy and work began on a game which was already cancelled twice by the previous publisher. It's no wonder that there is signs of 3 different game engines inside legacy's core files the most predominant one being the engine of Star Trek: Armada 2. No one in the community knew much about Bethesda Softworks. Some of the forum posters knew them from the Oblivion game and told tales of how Bethesda shafted that community, some of those early posts are stll viewable in the official star trek gaming forums of Bethesda. No one took them serious though since the hype that surrounded Oblivion was so intense that everyone in trek gaming thought that Bethesda would be Star Trek gaming's new "messiah"... ...boy...did we get that part wrong.[24] |
| QUOTE |
| Originally it was met with open arms. This was the first game in 3 years and the fan sites were all over it, STG being the one that got the most interviews with the makers of all 3 games (there was Tactical Assault and Encounters being made as well). It was directly leading up to the release in December when things started to turn sour. It started to become obvious that a lot of the features which were hinted at being in the game weren't going to be there, which is the usual case in Trek games. I for one thought it was a bad omen and then when the PC version of the game was released at the end of December we all saw it for what it was...a cheap port of a console game. As for what is wrong, well, this should sum it all up, they shipped the game with virtually no multiplayer capability for the PC and released a patch on the day of release. That should tell you about their so called "Quality Control" team, they couldn't control their way out of a wet paper bag with a pair of scissors. The game's control mechanism on the keyboard is locked in place, there are numerous bugs with single play and multiplay. So much infact that multiplay has already died off with very few people playing the game online, that hasn't happened since Simon & Schuster released Star Trek: Deep Space 9 - Dominion Wars, and that game was an utter disgrace...much like Legacy is today. They based the game on what looks like several seperate game engines, one of them being the age old Armada 2 engine, and that game is now more than 3 years old. Thats what happens when a publisher gives a game to a 3rd rate developer (MadDoc) and then the same publisher (Bethesda) has a non existant QC department and ships the game out as an ALPHA.[23] |
| QUOTE |
| Now, people who know me know what I am like. I speak my mind. If I dont like something I say it right on the front page of the site, screw the consequences. It got to the stage where Bethesda Softworks' silence was getting beyond a joke, and that's when The Argus Array, the STG's Star Trek Gaming podcast (which gets about 100,000 listeners) went on the record and listed the flaws of the game in a constructive manner. Argus 13, 14 and 15 all discussed what was wrong with the game and then Lindsay Muller (some kind of artist in Bethesda) came on the official Bethesda boards and said that the Argus Array must follow Bethesda Forum policies...basically Bethesda was now trying to dictate what i should put on my own podcast which I pay the hosting for. ...needless to say I wasn't happy. They didn't want criticism, but I gave it to them full bore. I told them exactly what I thought of Legacy. All the while another particular "fansite" remained silent. It got to the stage where official "volunteer" moderators in the Bethesda boards were allowing any topic made by me to be flamed, but at the same time they banned any of my staff in the forum for the slightest misdemeanor.[23] |
| QUOTE |
| For the first 6 months Bethesda acted like the consumate publisher, something the likes of myself havent seen in trek gaming for a decade. They were WILLING to talk to the fan sites like mine, more than willing for the largest of those fansites (STG) to do a stack of publicity for them via interviews and podcasts. It all changed the day of Legacy's release though, PR stopped, communication stopped and all attempts at criticising legacy in the forums was either locked, covered up or said posters simply vanished from the forums. ...and then the blackballing happened...[24] |
| QUOTE |
| They did it for several reasons. One of them being that one or two other major fansites haven't officially come out in public on their front page and panned Legacy, only the STG did. The second reason is one which is more...worrying. Some of the official "volunteer" moderators in the Star Trek Bethesda forums have ties and links to one of the STG competitor fansites...STGU. ChessMess who is the lead of that site doesn't see eye to eye with me and therefore both sites do not get along. This has filtered into Bethesda's way of thinking. Bethesda Softworks had the chance to close down a hateblog on Google's blogger site that was running flame stories about myself and the staff of my site. The blog was being fed information and screenshots by one of the moderators of the official Bethesda board, we know that cause one of the screenshots which the blog displayed had the moderator controls on the screen. We emailed Bethesda about this...no reply. We emailed Bethesda about the state of the game...no reply. We emailed Bethesda about the interview with Pete Hines which Erin Losi PROMISED us...no reply. This happened the day Legacy was released.[23] |
| QUOTE |
| STG and STGU are the kane and abel of the Star Trek gaming franchise. It's an historic point in 2004 when the split between the 2 sites finally started to happen that everyone knows about. Both sites take opposite views of the franchise. STGU thinking that everything is fine while STG telling folks what is really happening out there, fact is STGU doesnt give out "bad press". That relationship between both sites Bethesda was made aware of, thats why they chose STGU members as the new moderators of the Star Trek gaming official board in Bethesda and thats why half of my staff from my site are now banned from the same forum. The new moderators constantly lock or delete threads i make and give out official warnings to people affiliated with my site everyday and they do it with Bethesda's full knowledge.[24] |
| QUOTE |
| As for divide and conquer, that's a suspicion created by Lohan's first visit to DaC and made worse by our info from STG's Victor. When I asked Lohan why he was visiting DaC but not NMA, he stated that he didn't feel like visiting a place where his company was just being burned. This was total and utter bullshit as far as the forums were concerned. Both DaC and NMA members were given the freedom of burning Bethesda, but only NMA had an official policy of discouraging this behaviour amongst members. DaC and NMA were both fairly neutral on the frontpage back then. His stated reason being such an obvious lie, we concluded he was either badly informed or Bethesda was trying to favour what they saw as the more easily manipulateable fansite. The latter seems to more likely conclusion. [30] |
| QUOTE |
| ...I'm really just dropping in to say hello and introduce myself. I'm another Bethesda dev who's been lurking around the forums for a while now, but has never actually posted. It's so much easier to just sit back and watch Pete Hines get tossed into the meat grinder... ...Seriously, though, you guys are awesome. In the few months I've been visiting these forums I've seen more spirited, passionate, intelligent game design discussion than I have on a lot of other game forums in the past few years. |
| QUOTE |
| "You can't repeat yourself," he said. "I think it's a common trap when working on a sequel to just add some new features and content, and keep doing that. I think that's a good way to drive your games into the ground. You start drifting from what made the game special in the first place. So with The Elder Scrolls, I'm careful to not repeat what we've done before, and to really focus on trying to recapture again what made the games exciting in the first place.[34] |
| QUOTE |
| "That's what happens when you're the first to try something," he said. "We certainly took it on the chin for that in the press, but people are still buying that horse armor! I'm talking hundreds of thousands of people.[34] |
| QUOTE |
| "Like I was talking about before, with sequels, you have to define the experience the first one had and stay true to it," he said. "I think the first Fallout's tone is brilliant, but then they start to drift in the sequel and subsequent games. When it comes to humor, I'm very anti 'jokes' in games.[35] |
| QUOTE |
| Shack: You guys have your own trademark series so you're used to dealing with fan expectation, but is it different or intimidating working on a franchise like Fallout that already has such a built in reputation? Pete Hines: Oh, yeah. Absolutely. For a couple of reasons. Number one is that we're treating it as if we made the first two, with the same care and attention we give to The Elder Scrolls, but the truth of the matter is that we haven't. As a result there's probably a lot more divergent opinion about what it should be, what we should do, are we the right guys to do it, and so on.[33] |
| QUOTE |
| Pete Hines: Internally, not really. Internally, we're a bunch of Fallout geeks. There is nobody [here] who hasn't played that game and enjoyed it. I have that game on my laptop, I take it with me and play it. But it's definitely different, because it's not really considered ours, the franchise. We didn't start it. There is a little bit of that sentiment out there that we have to prove that we're worthy to be the guys to make Fallout 3. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, because we have very high expectations for ourselves. The standard that we hold ourselves to, the kind of games we expect to make in terms of quality, we have a very high level of expectation. There's really nothing like the people from the outside expecting more than we expect ourselves. |
| QUOTE |
| I also need to find time to play through Fallout 2 now, which is a game I never got to. Don't know when the hell that's going to happen, as I'm a little behind on work as it is.[43] |
| QUOTE |
| It's a lot like when we were doing Morrowind. Everybody said, "Well, the last game you did was Daggerfall, and it was really buggy, and everything you're telling me about Morrowind sounds good but you need to prove it." It kind of has that same feel, that people are saying, "Yeah, I liked Oblivion, and you guys are good at roleplaying, but you have to prove that you aren't going to screw up this beloved franchise." We think we can do it. We are the right guys to be doing this franchise, we do take it seriously, and we do want to make it a powerful force in roleplaying in terms of what these games can do and be. We hope that when we show people what we're up to, they'll agree. Some folks will, and some folks will say it's not what they wanted. At the end of the day, we respect that, but we have to do what we think is right. Again, you can't make the game that everybody wants because you'll get ten different answers about what that game is. |
| QUOTE |
| http://www.duckandcover.cx/forums/viewtopic.php?p=321682#321682[37] - gluttoncreeper on Fallout d20 |
| QUOTE |
| http://archive.gamespy.com/interviews/october03/falloutbos/index2.shtml[38] - Chuck Cuevas on Fallout: BOS |
| QUOTE |
| Shack: Have you spoken at all to the original creators of the franchise--who from what I know already had less complete involvement with Fallout 2 than with the first game--in any capacity? Pete Hines: We have, on an individual basis. Some of those folks have contacted us on varying levels, whether it's a "Hey, good luck" or a job inquiry or what have you. Not really formally though, no. Again, it's one of those things where I have a lot of respect for those guys. I was a huge Black Isle fan, and all those RPGs coming out of Interplay at the time. I loved Baldur's Gate, Fallout. It was fantastic. Way back when, when I wrote for the Adrenaline Vault, Interplay was one of my companies. I used to cover all their stuff and play everything they put out. I still have my shrinkwrapped copies of Baldur's Gate and Planescape. They did great stuff for which I will always have tremendous respect. But at the same time, if we're going to move forward, we're really going to have to move forward. We can't just say, "Well, let's ask these guys what they think." As Fallout fans and guys who make roleplaying games and have for over a decade, we have pretty good ideas about what we want to do and how to do it. |
| QUOTE |
| Shack: How do you respond to certain voices from the PC community who make claims such as that you're dumbing down games for the console platforms? Pete Hines: Yeah, I can't really... It becomes an issue of "Yes you did, no you didn't." They say that we dumbed down our game, that it isn't as complex as Morrowind or that it isn't as good as Daggerfall. I say, the same people that made Morrowind made Oblivion. There were maybe three or four people total that worked on Morrowind that didn't work on Oblivion. We had designers that had key roles in Daggerfall that designed those same systems for Oblivion. The same ones that people said we dumbed down from Daggerfall were the ones that those same guys made. |
Wow... Thanks for the head's up. I will continue to be optimistic and hope for the best, but I did that for the Shadowrun game and we've seen where that's going...
my eyes! ze goggles, zey do nu-zing!
Didn't read it yet, but I noticed it was from someone that frequents NMA.
Folks, NMA is probably one of the most vitriolic game fan sites out there. It's no surprise that they want to lambast somebody who might possibly be doing it different.
I'll give it a full read through at work, but my best guess is that he's just spewing shit.
Interesting read, alltough I don't think I get the point
.
Anyways, I loved fallout (even the tactics game), and it's a long time since I played arena.
I enjoyed the crap out of Brotherhood of Steel, even if it wasn't "true" to the original Fallout games. Actually, I didn't really like the original Fallout games much.
The world? Awesome.
The story? Awesome.
The feel? Awesome.
Turn based games? The suck.
| QUOTE (eidolon) |
| Turn based games? The suck. |
I don't know, I liked some exploits in the system, like if you were firing down a hallway, you could just step out of cover, shoot somebody, then step back in to cover while they ran at you like dumbasses.
I got a bit bored after the first two pages, but AFAIK, I could care less. Bethedsa had two options: Go under, or go corporate. They chose to go corporate.
That said, I have not bought any of the games they produce - I'm a BioWare fan. I'll keep my sorta-turn-based Infinity engine, thank you very much.
I prefer the Odyssey Engine.
As a big Bethesda fan, i must say i disagree with almost all the statements made above. What makes Bethesda great at making game is that they do not bury their heads in the sand and follow the good old recipe for a succesful game. They try to innovate, create something new and increase their fan base.
Daggerfall had some supporters, but the game was mostly a collector's game. You had to walk for a day of real time to get from a region to another. The game was too huge for casual gamers to enjoy. In morrowind, they changed that. They kept a world bigger than any other game ever made, but a lot smaller than daggerfall, and they game became the best rpg ever (IMHO). The problem in morrowind was the thief-like caracter was almost impossible to play and power-hungry players easily achieved godhood through insane amount of training. Oblivion changed that.
I do not say the sequels were perfect, far from that, but the developpers at least tried to change some game elements for the best. Many people were dissatisfied, but the silent majority didn't mind and, in fact, enjoyed the game (and would gladly buy expansions and the fifth game if the series when it will be out)
And now with TES 4, you can beat the game at first level by not sleeping. How novel.
I fear deeply for Fallout, and oddly, as a regestered used at both NMA and DaC, after seeing the crap that is getting put out by Bethesda to keep people happy, well Ill write it up as yet another fantastic franchise that is dead to me.
Good company it has too, C&C, NFS...
*double post*
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin @ Feb 13 2007, 04:51 PM) |
| For example, the reason that Daggerfall was innovative and distinctive was because of its extensive use of random generation to create an enormous world. Morrowind, on the other hand, didn't use that at all, but instead used a small game world with nothing being randomly generated. It actually had nothing to do with Daggerfall in terms of game mechanics or concepts, and was in fact just using the name of Daggerfall to make people buy a completely different game. |
I don't get the hate for Oblivion. . .
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)