Interplay: Bethesda Knew Fallout MMO Was More Than A Name

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]turelpld[/nom]Interplay was the publisher, not the developer(Black Isle Studios, now Obsidian).[/citation]
Interplay was once a developer, then eventually began to simultaneously develop and publish their own games, before finally turning their focus toward publishing only. That said, they've returned to actual in-house development for the Fallout MMO, so the term developer fits.
 
sounds like a cool concept I did not even know someone was working on a Fallout MMO if is was like Fallout 3 but a larger more open world that would be great.
 
How much law can a lawsuit sue if a lawsuit can sue law? I hope the MMO gets made, it sounds interesting at the very least.
 
Bethesda fears story conflicts would confuse people
I don't particularly remember very much of the plot in Fallout 3 and the Elder Scrolls ones aren't all that compelling
Plot doesn't seem to actually be something Bethesda really works hard on
Also jerk move filing a lawsuit right before they hit the testing phases for their game rather than the years before that they knew the game was in development
 
"MMO? Don't care, never will play it."

...and yet, you take the time to read an article about it, AND then comment on it. The astounding level of cognitive dissonance people like you display continues to confound and befuddle me.
 
Interplay's MMO has a few members of the original Blackisle team that worked on previous Fallouts. Bethesda had... none when making Fallout 3 and made many errors to the already built canon storyline. (so much so that some refuse to accept Fallout 3 as canon)

So this argument from Bethesda makes no sense as they are already guilty of doing exactly what they supposedly fear this MMO doing. Also there is actually a chance that the MMO's differences are in line with the canon where Fallout 3 made errors. If anything the problem Bethesda may have could be the reverse Interplay could simply be not following the errors that Bethesda made.
 
[citation][nom]NuclearShadow[/nom]Interplay's MMO has a few members of the original Blackisle team that worked on previous Fallouts. Bethesda had... none when making Fallout 3 and made many errors to the already built canon storyline. (so much so that some refuse to accept Fallout 3 as canon) So this argument from Bethesda makes no sense as they are already guilty of doing exactly what they supposedly fear this MMO doing. Also there is actually a chance that the MMO's differences are in line with the canon where Fallout 3 made errors. If anything the problem Bethesda may have could be the reverse Interplay could simply be not following the errors that Bethesda made.[/citation]


this is why iprefer Fallout new vegas to fall out 3 , NV was deved by Obsidian and a large number of thier memployees also worked on the original fallout games. i hope when fallout 4 comes around, bethesda just publishes and lets obsidian develop it. [citation][nom]RazberyBandit[/nom]Interplay was once a developer, then eventually began to simultaneously develop and publish their own games, before finally turning their focus toward publishing only. That said, they've returned to actual in-house development for the Fallout MMO, so the term developer fits.[/citation]


true , but in all technicality , the original dev team that was interplay when fallout 1 and 2 were made , has long since been split up amoung bioware , obsidian , and the the now ressurected Interplay 9and probablya few otehr companies ) but the vast majority of the team taht built the original FO games is split amoung those three companies. the truth be told if interplay got the IP back they may be jsut as likely to screw it up at least as much as beth did in FO 3 , if not worse, since many of the oriignal team are now in bioware and Obsidian.

i honestly didnt think that bethesda did to bad of a job on FO3 , however as i stated above i do prefer FoNV to Fo3.

 
MMO doesn't bother me. However for the next actual fallout they should make it better than Fallout 3. New vegas was a step backwards, it was not bad but Fallout 3 was better.
 
What value is the Fallout name without the related content? Maybe Bethesda just wants them to make the game in a different city with different characters. I actually agree with that, it should take place in the same world, but not the same plot line. That is true with all MMOs based on single player RPGs.

If Bethesda wants them to create an entire new world not based on the world from Fallout 1-3 then I call BS.
 

Coming from a gamer who never played FO 1 or 2 I found Fallout 3 to have much more replay value than NV. I dont know if its because they are both similar games and so that made NV feel less exciting to me or what. But I only got through one play through of NV and was board... Dont know why but played through Fallout 3 like 10 times and had a blast.

Side note here:
Is there a big difference in NV on the PC than the xbox? I started PC gaming after I played FO3 and NV on the xbox.
 
Seems that Bethesda should have kept their focus on their original complaint having to do with the deadline by which Interplay had to have a product. Everything else seems like smoke and mirrors.
 

Or maybe Betherda is trying to bankrupt them so they can make the mmo and all the cash lol
 
I'm still sad that Bethesda butchered the Fallout franchise. Bethesda sells poo wrapped in golden paper and I'm dieing every time I see their games getting raving reviews for their graphics when the gameplay cant even live up to Pong. I guess people prefer shiny bling bling to fun. 🙁
 

I never played 1 or 2 but as a game by itself Fallout 3 was a good game. It was one of the few games that I could play more than once it had the rare combo of good game play and good graphics. There was more than one way to play the game and playing it differently led to a different experiance each time. Mind if I ask what about the game you did not like so mach as to call it poo wrapped in golden paper?
 


Well for one, it was basically Oblivion with guns. Oblivion was a really flat game, it felt like "flatworld" if you know the reference. Lots of nice graphics but very little story. The level scaling was just the little extra that made it extra bad (yes I know there are mods to remove that).

Second, I did play Fallout 1, 2 and Tactics. Fallout 3 has nothing on those three games. I replayed Tactics not so long ago and it beats FO3 hands down.

One example of what made FO3 bad: you walk on a desolate field, nothing around you and then bam suddenly there's a huge monster 10 meters infront of you.... ruins the immersion totally for me.

In general Bethesda are good with sand box games, they dont do content/story. I for one dont like the pure sandbox games. I really tried FO3 but in the end it just felt like a 3rd grade game.

Bethesda butchered Fallout for me. I do hear that New Vegas did redeem the game a bit but I have yet to try it.
 

I guess I never had monsters pop up in front of me. They do come out but walking through the wasteland you see several places to hide like clifs rocks and all that. As far as immersion I would say the top down view of the first fallout games would kill that much faster and that comes from a big fan of SNES RPGs were thats all you got lol. Was FO3 a perfect game hell no. But I would say compaired to games that have come out in the past 5 years it was great.
 
Fallout Tactics??? THAT is part of your "bar" of excellence???

Dude, that game was a ripe p.o.s.

Fallout1 and 2 were God's own gifts to gaming... but Tactics was a giant turd laid by the beasts of Satan. Fallout3 and NV were different, but all this crap that the"fallout purists" spew about them is just such pretentious claptrap.

The games were good fun in the spirit of Fallout. Were they perfect? NO. Certainly not, but they were a blast to play and reminded me of the old days just enough to deserve the Fallout tag.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom