Poor quality of the preview

[Vaultman]

I read the preview of FOBOS and was surprised to find that many facts the reviewer mentioned do not match reality. For example, FOBOS has very little in common with the Fallout universe, it does NOT have "the 50s influence", and almost everything in the game including the BoS itself contradict the original setting.

Now, I do realize that it's not Fallout 3 and that it's a completely different game. What I would like to know is why your site and the reviewer felt the need to lie about the game. Do you feel that the game would look less interesting and less appealing unless some reassurance that it stayed true to the Fallout universe is given? Are you aware of the fact that FOBOS was started as a generic post-apocaliptic game and that the Fallout logo and some gameplay references were added later to boost potential sales? Surely you don't feel that an option to "cuss the conversant out" made it a Fallout game.

The purpose of a preview is to give your readers some idea on a game and gameplay elements. Anybody who'd decide to purchase FOBOS based on the preview and expect to play a game set in the Fallout universe would be misled and their trust in your site would be abused.

[BuckGB]

First of all, let me just say that I didn't physically write the preview, but I think it sums up the game pretty well. I've been following the game on and off over the past few months, so let me address a few of your concerns.

Originally posted by Vaultman
...FOBOS has very little in common with the Fallout universe, it does NOT have "the 50s influence"...

Although it does greatly deviate from the gameplay of the first two Fallouts, it still has a LOT in common with the Fallout universe. Keep in mind that the Fallout universe doesn't actually take place in the 50's, it is only influenced by the era. Here's a direct quote from the developers to help clear that up:

"Despite popular opinion, we really did use the original Fallout and 50's images to shape the aesthetic in this game. The world of Fallout isn't the 50's - the bombs dropped over 100 years after the 50's. The aesthetic is clearly heavily influenced by the 50's, and we use that in the hairstyles, the clothing, the architecture and signage, etc. At the same time, one would expect those 50's influences to be a bit evolved and, in a post-nuclear environment, corrupted."

Originally posted by Vaultman
What I would like to know is why your site and the reviewer felt the need to lie about the game.

Please point out one "lie," and I'll elaborate on why it isn't one.

Originally posted by Vaultman
Do you feel that the game would look less interesting and less appealing unless some reassurance that it stayed true to the Fallout universe is given?

Although I favor in-depth RPGs like the first two (I run a role-playing game website...) and would very much like to see a Fallout 3, I think that BoS still has plenty of appeal. I'll no doubt be picking up a copy.

Would you define "staying true to the Fallout universe" as a game that totally duplicates all elements in the first two games? I don't see why branching off in a new direction and making the game quicker paced completely removes it from the "Fallout universe." If that's the case, then would it also be comparable to say that Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic isn't staying true to the Star Wars universe because it uses the D20 rules for its character advancement, even though it still provides the environments, storyline, background, and characters that you'd expect to see in such a universe?

Originally posted by Vaultman
Are you aware of the fact that FOBOS was started as a generic post-apocaliptic game and that the Fallout logo and some gameplay references were added later to boost potential sales? Surely you don't feel that an option to "cuss the conversant out" made it a Fallout game.

The game was announced as part of the Fallout franchise in early March, but the developers were already developing it as a Fallout title before then. More than just "the Fallout logo and some gameplay references" have been added over the past year to bring it up to par, I assure you.

Originally posted by Vaultman
The purpose of a preview is to give your readers some idea on a game and gameplay elements. Anybody who'd decide to purchase FOBOS based on the preview and expect to play a game set in the Fallout universe would be misled and their trust in your site would be abused.

You're really missing the point, there's no misleading going on here. This game is set in the Fallout universe, regardless of whether or not it allows for the same type of gaming the first two titles did. Saying it isn't is like claiming that Ultima VIII and IX are not set in the "Ultima universe" just because the developers abandoned the traditional top-down perspective and certain gameplay elements of the first seven titles.

[dipdipdip]

Hello,

Frankly, it's not in genre alone where FOBOS strays from its PC brethren. The game's adherence to canon and setting is very suspect. However, I'm not about to begin to nitpick, and there's already an entire FAQ on this matter:

27 things about fobos

Also, it's stated in your preview that the game takes place after Fallout 2, where it's been stated numerous times elsewhere that the game begins after the original Fallout. Is this a last-minute change? Surely your facts are wrong, as in one of the game's trailers, it's stated by a (young, big-breasted female) character that she was born "just after the bombs dropped." Now, this would make her a very, very old woman if this game were to take place after Fallout 2. Heck, doesn't matter much really, considering that she'd still be in her 80s if it took place after the original (which takes place 40 yrs. after the bombs dropped, and again, despite what your previews says, it's been said that the game is to take place 40 yrs. after the original).

Regardless, a good point was brought up in a forum I frequent:

"FALLOUT DID NOT TAKE PLACE IN THE 50's AND HENCE EVOLVE TO ANOTHER SUB-CULTURE!

It was based on the sci-fi of the 50's.

THERE IS A ****ING DIFFERENCE!

And no matter how many times I try to explain to people that 50's sci-fi cannot evolve, they never seem to listen. The 50's have come and gone and their sci-fi perceptions and culture will never change." -- triCritical

[BuckGB]

Originally posted by dipdipdip
...it's stated in your preview that the game takes place after Fallout 2, where it's been stated numerous times elsewhere that the game begins after the original Fallout. Is this a last-minute change?

Hmm, good point. I'm not sure where the writer of the preview gathered his information about the timeframe of the game, although I do recall reading in the past that the game takes place after the original Fallout as well. I will check with him, and if it's in error, it will be corrected.

[Jack Crow]

From following the fallout 3 debate for nigh on 3 years now I can say with a fair amount of confidence that the reasons fans have given FOBOS such a bad response are justified and apparently completely misunderstood (or at least misrepresented) by the press.

To clarify, what I hear most is three things.
One, the fans have been asking for a sequel to fallout 1 and 2 for years now and have instead been given games that, true while they use elements from fallout they aren't really in the same spirit. It would be like id releasing doom 3 as a point and click adventure and saying "but it has elements of doom 1 and 2"; how well would that one go over I wonder? (anyone remember the massive sales of Final Fantasy Mystic Quest?)

Two, Fallout is a PC game and FOBOS the fact that it is being released on console only is like a slap in the face. The games fan base is all PC gamers, and they've been given nothing but vaporware and empty promises.

Finally, The fact that its not an rpg is the whole problem. The character growth and non-linear game play are why Fallout has the fan base it does. Fallout was one of the VERY few rpgs that offered that kind of true pen and paper style role playing experience. In fact its still hard to find games like that.

In conclusion this whole fiasco reminds me of Disney's policy of making a great feature production that is loved by the public and then making sequels that change everything, don't even use the same voice actors, and release straight to video.

Come on, sell the rights to Trokia so we can have a real sequel already.

[Vaultman]

Thank you for reply, Buck

Originally posted by Buck Satan
Although it does greatly deviate from the gameplay of the first two Fallouts, it still has a LOT in common with the Fallout universe.

Like what? Items and names? Since, like you said, you followed this game for some time it shouldn’t be a problem for you to explain what exactly FOBOS has in common with the Fallout universe.

Keep in mind that the Fallout universe doesn't actually take place in the 50's, it is only influenced by the era.

I believe it's already been covered, but just in case: the Fallout universe is based on sci-fi of the 50’s, i.e. the way people in the 50’s imagined the future. It couldn’t possibly be developed all the way into 80’s and 90’s, changed, evolved, or corrupted

Here's a direct quote from the developers to help clear that up:

"Despite popular opinion, we really did use the original Fallout and 50's images to shape the aesthetic in this game. The world of Fallout isn't the 50's - the bombs dropped over 100 years after the 50's. The aesthetic is clearly heavily influenced by the 50's, and we use that in the hairstyles, the clothing, the architecture and signage, etc. At the same time, one would expect those 50's influences to be a bit evolved and, in a post-nuclear environment, corrupted."

Well, that actually proves that FOBOS developers didn’t really have a clue about the Fallout universe and just slapped the logo on a box (see the explanation above). Btw, speaking of quotes, I thought that this was a preview not an interview. I thought that it was supposed to be based on your impression of the game not some quotes.

Please point out one "lie," and I'll elaborate on why it isn't one.

Ok. Here is one. “serious care was taken to ensure that FBOS remains true to the spirit of the original Fallout RPGs and that contradictory information has been avoided at all costs”
Here is a quote from the developers: “If there are deviations or just complete de-railings from the perceived norm of those, then i guess you'll just have to accept that we made those decisions based on our own reasoning.”
http://forums.interplay.com/viewtopic.php?t=32475

For example, I’m sure you know that the Brotherhood of Steel was a keeper of knowledge not a wasteland police. I’m not sure that ghoul suicide bombers fit either. There are many more examples, of course.

Would you define "staying true to the Fallout universe" as a game that totally duplicates all elements in the first two games?

Don’t make me insult your intelligence, Buck. Let’s not use such childish assumptions. I define “staying true…” as a game that actually fits and belongs in the Fallout setting. I’m not asking too much, am I? I don’t care even it’s Fallout Sim as long as it’s consistent with the setting. It’s all about the setting, Buck

I don't see why branching off in a new direction and making the game quicker paced completely removes it from the "Fallout universe."

Once again, it’s about the setting. Nobody cares if it’s an action game or a car racer, nobody cares that it’s a console game (although it did suck the fund out of Fallout 3), nobody cares that it tells another story as long as it’s consistent with the setting. If the development team wanted to have creative freedom, they should have stuck with a generic post-apocalyptic game. If they decided to work with the licensed property they should have worked within established guidelines. Simple as that.

If that's the case, then would it also be comparable to say that Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic isn't staying true to the Star Wars universe because it uses the D20 rules for its character advancement, even though it still provides the environments, storyline, background, and characters that you'd expect to see in such a universe?

Wrong analogy. How about a Star Wars game where the Siths are a non-profitable charity organization? That would be fun, huh? No? What, does it mean that every SW game should portray the Siths the same way? *shoked

The game was announced as part of the Fallout franchise in early March, but the developers were already developing it as a Fallout title before then. More than just "the Fallout logo and some gameplay references" have been added over the past year to bring it up to par, I assure you.

You didn’t answer my question, but since you just assured me that it’s more then just the logo and some gameplay references, I’d ask you to give me such examples that I’m sure you have readily available, otherwise you'd not start assuring people, would you?

You're really missing the point, there's no misleading going on here. This game is set in the Fallout universe, regardless of whether or not it allows for the same type of gaming the first two titles did.

It’s all about the setting, nothing else, but I’m sure we are clear on that at this point. So, now that you see where I’m coming from, I’m sure that after verifying the information, you’d correct and remove all mistakes, assumptions, and unsupported claims made by developers. Thank you in advance.

[BuckGB]

Originally posted by Jack Crow
One, the fans have been asking for a sequel to fallout 1 and 2 for years now and have instead been given games that, true while they use elements from fallout they aren't really in the same spirit. It would be like id releasing doom 3 as a point and click adventure and saying "but it has elements of doom 1 and 2"; how well would that one go over I wonder?

I'd like to see a Fallout sequel on the PC just as much as anyone else. I'm not saying that the development of FO:BoS was a good choice (unless you look at it from a financial viewpoint), I'm only saying that it is still part of the Fallout universe, even though it isn't a continuation of the first two titles.

Your comparison is a bit skewed, though, since the game isn't actually called Fallout 3. With a game like Doom 3, it's expected to continue with the same type of gameplay that the first two had. However, if id Software started developing a console title called "Doom: The BFG Wasteland" (or whatever) and made it an RPG with action elements, they have every right to do so.

The bigger picture here is that most console titles (unfortunately) sell a whole lot better than comparable PC titles. The first two Fallouts have sold slightly over 400,000 units in the last several years, yet a game like Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance has sold over 1,000,000 units in less than half the time. It doesn't take a whole lot of number crunching to see why many developers are beginning to migrate to console titles. Look at BioWare - Star Wars: KotOR hit the Xbox first and Jade Empire won't even be available on PC at all.

Additionally, I'd like to point out that it's not just Fallout fans (me included) that aren't getting what they want. Do you think fans of the StarCraft series are happy that Nihilistic and Blizzard have teamed up to make a StarCraft console game that offers a completely different gameplay experience than the first game? This is just one example - there are plenty more.

Originally posted by Jack Crow
Two, Fallout is a PC game and FOBOS the fact that it is being released on console only is like a slap in the face. The games fan base is all PC gamers, and they've been given nothing but vaporware and empty promises.

I agree, it is a slap in the face to fans of the first two games. But look at the stats I posted above. If your company was on the verge of collapse (anyone see Interplay's stock report lately?), would you opt for a game that would most likely sell 2-3 hundred thousand units or one that could potentially sell a million or more?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the decision, as I'd personally like to play a new Fallout on the PC than a console likeness of the game. However, I think that BoS has the potential to be a very fun game, even though it will be a much different experience.

[BuckGB]

Originally posted by dipdipdip
Also, it's stated in your preview that the game takes place after Fallout 2, where it's been stated numerous times elsewhere that the game begins after the original Fallout. Is this a last-minute change?

Our mistake. It's been fixed.

[BuckGB]

Originally posted by Vaultman
Nobody cares if it’s an action game or a car racer, nobody cares that it’s a console game (although it did suck the fund out of Fallout 3), nobody cares that it tells another story as long as it’s consistent with the setting. If the development team wanted to have creative freedom, they should have stuck with a generic post-apocalyptic game. If they decided to work with the licensed property they should have worked within established guidelines. Simple as that.

I'm not here to defend the design decisions that went into the game, I'm only defending the accusation that the preview was of "poor quality." However, I think there is a lot more to the BoS debate than just its setting. There are many people who do care if it's an action, racing, or console game, and they are finding fault with every BoS article that's written because Fallout 3 may never become a reality.

Originally posted by Vaultman
Wrong analogy. How about a Star Wars game where the Siths are a non-profitable charity organization? That would be fun, huh? No?

There was nothing wrong with my analogy. Like I said above, there are a lot of people who are angry because BoS offers a different gameplay experience than the first two Fallout titles. Using the standard that BoS has been getting, Star Wars: KotOR should cause outrage because it uses a Wizards of the Coast character advancement system instead of the one originally developed for the Star Wars universe, which you can find here.

I don't mind a good debate every once in awhile, but I can see where this thread is heading, and I really don't have the time to continue the discussion. I have a site to run.

[Vaultman]

Originally posted by Buck Satan
There was nothing wrong with my analogy. Like I said above, there are a lot of people who are angry because BoS offers a different gameplay experience than the first two Fallout titles.

Of course there are people who are angry because of other different reasons sometimes valid sometimes not, but we are not discussing them, we are discussing the fact that your site posted unsupported claims and lied to its readers and misled them into believing that FOBOS is a game that stayed true to the spirit of the original Fallout. That's not very ethical, is it?

[Vaultman]

Originally posted by Buck Satan
Our mistake. It's been fixed.

Quote from the updated preview:
"That said, FBOS does take place at a later time than Fallout, so the developers wanted to give it a look that would reflect the evolution of the culture. This means there will still be a 50s influence to the aesthetic of the universe, but less so than in earlier games"

Can you explain please how it is possible that a game that takes place between the first 2 games has "the evolution of the culture" that was not reflected in the second game. Just curious.

[Bloodmist]

Originally posted by Vaultman
Can you explain please how it is possible that a game that takes place between the first 2 games has "the evolution of the culture" that was not reflected in the second game. Just curious.

Buck didn't make the game or write the storyline. (or even the preview) This is Interplay's own mistake, and you should go nag them about it along with the hundreds of fans on Interplay's message boards, who's already pointed out what you are saying, weeks ago.

[Vaultman]

Originally posted by Bloodmist
Buck didn't make the game or write the storyline. (or even the preview) This is Interplay's own mistake, and you should go nag them about it along with the hundreds of fans on Interplay's message boards, who's already pointed out what you are saying, weeks ago.

In case you are too slow, this is not about Interplay, this is about game sites posting crap and misleading people without ever taking responsibility for their actions.

Hey, Buck, whatever happened to "please point out a lie and I'll elaborate why it isn't one"?

[fable]

@Vaultman, by all means, continue your discussion, but please respect the forum rules. Quality of argument isn't sustained by throwing mud, and insults to other members will get you banned if they continue. I know that's not the practice on some other boards, but then, we're not about shouting matches.

EDIT: And for the record, I didn't post the above out of solidarity with the site owner. Buck's not into the lockstep as his favorite dance. In fact, my opinoin of the game is rather similar to yours--if I cared to care. IMO, Diablo was in no way an RPG, and FOBOS is in no way an RPG. I'm bitter about the way accounting rules today's game producers, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it and focus, instead, on new, genuine RPGs like Beyond Divinity and Anito.

[Vaultman]

Fair enough, Fable, but I must say that "slow' is on the same level as "nag" (Bloodmist's post). However, I will stick with your rules in the future, assuming that you will make sure that the others do the same.

And once again, this is not about FOBOS being what it is, this is about your preview stating things that are not there.