[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"]sounds good to me.FrozenLiquid
Sometimes I reckon the game should just be renamed into some spinoff Fallout title instead of the canonical "Fallout 3". That way, the Fallout fans won't ***** and moan like the world's crumbling over.
It honestly sounds like they're being ripped apart from the inside-out, and big old ugly Bethesda are having them at the table at medium-rare.
I've never seen this amount of pathetic fanatacism ever. This kind of childishness should only be reserved for the Star Wars fans who say Lucas "raped their childhood".
People got over the Matrix sequels. Why are we not letting go of this?
The fact of the matter is, the original Fallout games remain intact. Unlike the unfortunate Star Wars crowd (read: Star Wars special editions), Bethesda are not updating the previous games for the next generation, so Fallout fans have no reason to complain. You can play them if you want to, and they'll be just as good as they were back when they were released. Just because this new game bears the title "Fallout 3", does not automatically make the Black Isle games (Fallout and Fallout 2 in name) suck. Again, they're still the same.
If it's pride you're looking for, then seriously, just humble yourselves.
The bitterness of Fallout fans is not a puzzle solved easily. There are several problems to face that we'll take on one by one:
(1) We should determine what the bitterness is all about and with that ask ourselves whether it is about just being bitter or about caring,
(2) We should examine how the attitudes of Fallout fans, and their receptiveness to the evolution of the game franchise, has changed through the years,
(3) We should examine how the nature of fan-developer interaction has changed with each addition of the franchise and how this has contributed to the bitterness and disappointment of fallout fans.
The distinction of whether Fallout fans have the right to feel bitter, or whether that bitterness is more honestly understood as representing their right to care, has been one of the most contested questions surrounding the fallout community. At heart is the right to an individual to have an opinion on something he cares about. This value is so essential a part of our culture that one may not even consider it a question, but for the way the gaming industry has evolved.
The gaming industry believes it is in a position to dictate terms to the community by being the only provider of the resource the community desires. Because it is in a seller-buyer relationship it seeks to maximize profits and must develop a PR campaign with the community. However, its power as seller means the industry believes it can determine the scope of that relationship because of its ability as seller to withhold that which the community (the buyer) desires.
The message is simple. If you don't like what we make, then you're not a true fan. If you don't like our product then don't buy it. But if you don't like it then we won't listen to you. If you don't like it, blacklist.
For the buyers themselves, this has created a collective mindset that would fit in Zamyatin's dystopic vision. There is little room for constructive or critical feedback from the buyer of unsatisfactory products. This discourages the buyer from anticipating the rewards derived from the buyer-seller relationship and silences critical voices.
But how fair is this? One could argue that Bethesda is "just" a company trying to make money. That doesn't work, because the Fallout fans (or indeed any fans) have no particular reason to be concerned with Bethesda's motivation in choosing a reaction. If Bethesda feels motivated purely by profit, fine, but that'll not spare them the rod.
"Beyond doubt the sleaziest and rudest and most sinister mob of thugs and whackos ever assembled in such numbers under a single "roof," so to speak, anywhere in the English-speaking world."-Hunter S. Thompson on Raiders fansThe bitterness of a fan group is often a measure of its loyalty and devotion. For instance, one could turn open any page of Miller and Mayhew's "Better to Reign in Hell" about the relationship of the 2003 Raiders and their fans, for evidence of the bitterness of dedicated Raider fans. Raider fans have frequently demonstrated their right to criticize Al Davis and his mismanagement of their fandom and any who would deny the right of the fans to be bitter would either be blind, suicidal or both.
If this right to criticise by dedication applies to a multi-billion dollar business like American Football, why do people pretend it does not apply to the relationship of players to computer games? The Raiders franchise has been kept alive by its fans' stubborn unwillingness to give up. Likewise, the Fallout license has survived and thrived because of its fans. Anyone who believes that a series of events like the Brotherhood of Steel release and the Van Buren cancellation should not have killed the franchise needs a small gift voucher for Reality Shop, Massachusetts. In fact, the franchise should have technically already been dead after the disappointment of Tactics and cancellation of Tactics 2.
Remember this: the historic value of a game, how long people will remember and play it, depends on the quality of the game.
The survival of a franchise depends completely on the fans.
So far, the Fallout fans have not let the franchise down.
On to the next question. Fallout fans have developed a reputation over the years of being irrationally bitter. The key word is irrational. Some have shown understanding of this or even slight sympathy with the fans. Others have decided they'll completely ignore the Fallout fanbase because they're just bitter anyway (how these people know the fanbase is bitter while ignoring it is a mystery). None have ever put it under scrutiny. Is this a consequence of the groupthink of some? Probably, but that's not a complete explanation. Like most legends, the Fallout fan bitterness is an interesting mix of truth, hearsay and people beating other people they never met before over the head with a sword.
A closer look at the history of the fallout fan communities helps reveal how they have responded and thought about developers and the franchise.
When BIS was a thriving branch of Interplay and was pumping out a fairly quick sequel to the surprise hit Fallout, there was little for the fans to complain about.
Fallout fans did not develop a reputation for bitterness until after Fallout Tactics was released. Many, who maintain the "bitter" stereotype of Fallout Fans, were not even present during that period nor have examined the archives that track the rising frustration of FO fans to Tactics. While the disappointment of seeing the rumors of a third Fallout die and getting a tactical game instead (which really isn't the fans' genre), the response was many things, but not negative. NMA, V13 and especially DaC covered the game with interest, happy that the franchise was alive, interested to see how this game would turn out.
Fans in games
Interplay and BIS fan interaction, back when "By gamers for gamers" held very true, is legend. So much so that it became almost a habit to include fans in the Fallout games. Fallout 2 includes a random encounter in which the very first coherent Fallout community, the Unwashed Villagers, is seen battling a spammer, the Grim Reaper, who was indeed a spammer that plagued the official Interplay forums for a long time. In Fallout Tactics the well-known Fallout fan and commentator Roshambo is included, and the developers give a nod to the "friendly" conversation they had with him by representing him as an old man, gabbling like an idiot.
The release of Fallout: Brotherhood of Steal led to a more clear cut display of fan bitterness at what was felt to be a betrayal. Interplay was making bold-faced lies about the quality and direction of the game but, unlike some companies, did not have the staff to hype it up properly nor could they lean on the gaming media to hype it for them. Result? The game was the abject failure that Fallout fans predicted it would be. Attitude results? Most people don't care about it, maybe a handful like it, the rest hate it. Few people have ever attacked the Fallout fan anger towards this game, as it is too obvious it has no place in Fallout lore.
When Interplay introduced Van Buren many feared that the game was vaporware and gave up on it even before it started. This was a result of Interplay's mismanagement and Van Buren following directly on two cancelled projects (TORN and Jefferson). But as the game developed further the excitement amongst remaining Fallout fans grew. Yes, it was going to be a TB/RT hybrid. Yes, it was going to have multiplayer co-op. Yes, it did not have any significant Fallout creators working on it. And yet the Fallout fans wanted this game and were furious with its cancellation. It has to be said that a lot of good will towards Van Buren was created after its cancellation, when fans found out the game would have kept fairly true to the franchise.
As of this writing, little official information has been given on Bethesda's Fallout 3. What little news has been released has left an unpleasant impression on the fallout fans and have left many worried about what Bethesda plans to release. Thus far the fallout community has remained calm if suspicious. Does this mean consent or approval of what Bethesda will offer? No. It is more likely that the fans will reject with outrage should Bethesda betray the fans who wish to see a game they have long looked forward too, and have long been denied.
When looking at fan and developer interaction, we can skip Fallout 1 and 2 as happy memories.
In Tactics' case, the developers were open and honest about the game being a tactical spin-off of a CRPG. They, including one original Fallout developer, talked freely about the game and discussed facets of game, even going as far as altering the game in response to community feedback. With fan support, Tactics became the most pre-ordered Interplay game ever and made many top-selling lists after its release.
So why the later disappointment and anger?
Because it was a spinoff, fans were more interested in the way Tactics treated the setting than in how the tactical gameplay turned out. And there's too much to be unhappy about when it comes to how Tactics treated the setting. These arguments have also been made for Fallout 2, but a lot of Fallout 2's setting flaws are compensated by good execution of Fallout's central RPG-philosophies.
When people were shocked at how angry Fallout fans were about what they perceived as the fun game Fallout Tactics, they should have taken a moment to realize the anger was about fur-covered deathclaws first and about the quality of the game second. And when it comes to quality, Tactics also suffered from having been presented as a post-apocalyptic Jagged Alliance, a promise it never lived up to.
The console-only Brotherhood of Steel illustrates two interesting things. (1) The Fallout fans are not readily influenced by attempts to hype a game. Rather attempts to do so will bounce off the fans. This failure to hype the game with the fans is likely to be reflected in the media coverage of that game. (2) The failure of the game was in large part due to the failure of the developer to understand some of the core mechanics of how franchises stay commercially successful.
Unsurprisingly, the voices that had argued for giving the game a chance during its development were silenced by the release, and then disappeared.
The reaction to the entire tale of Van Buren proves one thing: the statement "Fallout fans will never be happy with a sequel to the game" is a complete and irredeemable falsehood. Van Buren was badly criticized and picked apart, it was attacked from all sides by mobs of angry fans, but it was never denied a fair chance and it was never discounted beforehand as an untrue Fallout despite missing or changing so many key elements and being created by a relative stranger to the franchise. Nor is there truth in the often heard argument that Fallout fans will only be happy with Van Buren. Van Buren had to conquer its place as an accepted sequel as would any other sequel.
It is impossible to say what would have followed Van Buren had it been completed and released as Fallout 3. But it is interesting that this case can be directly compared to Bethesda. The key factor is that Bethesda has shown little willingness to communicate and revealed only bits of, mostly negative, information. This has led to a reciprocal relationship between Bethesda and the community. Bethesda does not give the fans a chance for input in the game's development, so the fans will not give Bethesda a chance to prove themselves. The chances given to Van Buren are denied to Bethesda's Fallout 3.
But this assessment is unfair for the very reason that Fallout 3 has not yet attempted to prove itself. To draw up a reasonable prediction of the future one must look over the several cases of development and reaction that we've seen. We've seen "good game, **** setting" with Tactics. We've seen "I'll kill you!" with Brotherhood of Steel. We've seen "I don't agree with you but damn this game has some promise" with Van Buren. Bethesda can choose any of these paths and the reactions will likely be the same as they were before.
There has been a relationship between how the fans have responded and the attitude of the developers to the franchise and to the fans. What sticks out as a sore thumb is that the general reaction to Fallout games (based on Fallout 1, 2, Tactics and Van Buren) has changed to become more critical, but has always been a situation of excitement, interest and support from the fans. Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel and the current situation concerning Bethesda form the exceptions, not the rule. Assuming that it is not the Fallout fanbase that's gone insane, which is easy to support since Van Buren and BoS happened simultaneously, Occam's Razor puts the blame square on Interplay and Bethesda. But as mentioned above, Bethesda still has plenty of freedom to make choices to change the situation.
What never changes is that the fans have always upheld the essential elements and themes of the franchise over the ability of the developers to sweet talk their games. Even Interplay, which had provided both Fallout 1 and Fallout 2, could not sell the Fallout Community on the idea of Brotherhood of Steel.
Fallout Fans have been committed to the integrity of the game as established by Fallout 1. If a developer creates a sequel that upholds the integrity of the franchise, than the sequel will be welcomed and rewarded. But while developers may seek to profit from the game, Fallout fans are driven by their desire to see further expansion of Fallout that is both consistent with, and maintains the integrity of the franchise as begun with Fallout 1.
Of course, the reactions are far from neutral. Fallout fans have been bitterly disappointed and outspoken in their frustration. But is there an irrational element to the Fallout fan attitude? The answer is: "No not a lot."
Not "no, none", because that would be stating that the abuse that Fallout fans have received over the years meant nothing. The answer still is "no", because Fallout fan attitude distills into a pure no-nonsense policy. Fallout fans tend to consider the case at hand, form their opinion on it and express it in a no-nonsense, direct way.
No-nonsense implies not taking **** from anybody, which is what confused a lot of people. Taking **** from people is a pre in anyone covering or following any game development. Fallout fans can call themselves an exception to this norm. If they do not like something, they say so, and they do not attach footnotes, ifs or buts, they simply tell you why you're wrong. And then they ban you.
Yes, Fallout fans are a pissed off bunch and have good reason to be so. But they are not pissed off in an irrational or inconsistent manner. Consider: Brotherhood of Steel shows that Fallout fans are an angry, spiteful bunch that will puncture through any attempt to veil the truth in the pr-hype manner of the gaming industry. Van Buren shows that Fallout fans posses a sense of rationalism, prioritizing and minor relativism. It shows that trying to get them to shut up about furry deathclaws, SPECIAL and turn-based is as good as impossible. But it is far from impossible for them to accept a well-meant and well-executed attempt to make a proper Fallout sequel, provided it simply does not cross the line from innovation to destruction.
LINK
Log in to comment