Eurogamer: Pete Hines on Fallout 3

It's a mini-adventure. A minigun adventure. In homicide.

Following on from my preview, Eurogamer lobs up my interview with Pete Hines. I finally ask the “Why the hell do Fallout when it just buys you trouble. Make your own world and you dodge it all” question. To which Pete replies…

It’s like, if George Lucas died tomorrow – God willing, he doesn’t – and you’re a film director. And you’ve grown up making big epic films – maybe you’re Peter Jackson. And he finishes whatever his big next film is. And someone asks him, “what do you want to do next?” And he says, “I always wanted to make a big space movie. A big epic movie full of action.” And they ask, “do you want to do generic space movie that you make up yourself, or do you want to do Star Wars.”

And he continues. Other topics include response to criticism, the internal dialogue at Bethesda and mild swearing at Ken Levine.


  1. Phil says:

    Sounds like his heart’s behind it, which is good, though considering the mess Jackson made of rebooting Kong it’s was a strange comparison to make.

    I don’t suppose he dropped any hints as to plot beyond ‘you’re looking for Liam Neeson,’ or hint at any more of the ‘aw, cool’ moments, like the birth sequence?

  2. Dorian Cornelius Jasper says:

    Heh. Wasn’t there an age where the word in question was much more than simply mild swearing? Recalling the actual definition of the word, it sounds like honest-to-goodness four-letter gold. Despite, you know, having six letters.

    Then again, I imagine there was an age when “pansy” was fightin’ words.

  3. Alex says:

    Tiny spelling thing – Tolkien is spelled as ‘Tolkein’ twice on page 2, ‘Keiron’. ;)

    Interesting interview, overall. Can’t wait for the game.

  4. AndrewC says:

    I don’t like it when developers act like fanboys. It suggests a lack of imagination, a lack of originality and a lack of progressive ideas – these people are supposed to be the leaders of the field and here they are with no more vision or ambition than to play in someone else’s sandbox. It plays distressingly neatly in to the criticism of Oblivion as a very well realised but tremendously generic cliched world.

    And to try and make a distinction between Star Wars and ‘generic sci -fi’? In this day and age? After all the pain? After Jar Jar? Tsk, tsk.

    Unless the fan-rhetoric is just fan-service to assure the zealots he’s on their side and ‘one of us’, which case he is a big dirty liar to boot.

  5. Kieron Gillen says:

    I admit, as a creator myself, I don’t understand it either. That said, there’s enough evidence in my field – comics – that some creators would rather write Superman or Batman than write their own stuff. I can see how developers could be just as bad.

    EDIT: And, as said upthread, the Peter Jackson/Kong thing is a fascinating example. Jackson’s not a stupid film-maker – I’d defend Heavenly Creatures to the death, for example. But when it comes down to it, when given the choice to do whatever he wanted after LoTR, he wanted to remake bloody King Kong.


  6. Pidesco says:

    It bothers me that for all that talk of loving Fallout, that love doesn’t really come across in Oblivion and Morrowind. They are, in a bunch of important ways like the anti Fallout. The only thing that connects The Elder Scrolls with Fallout is the sense of open exploration, and they’ve been cutting back on that facet of the series since the epic days of Daggerfall.

    Comparing what he says to what he does makes it seem like he is just a big fat liar.

  7. Kieron Gillen says:

    Pidesco: I dunno. You’re making the assumption of what a person or team likes is what a team or person do – and, in fact, that liking something means that’s the only thing you can like. As a comic writer I love Nextwave and Berlin, but my stuff doesn’t include any adorably madcap superheroes or serious 1930s set social drama, y’know?


  8. Alec Meer says:

    I wonder if part of the problem is that any attempt to do a post-apocalyptic RPG simply can’t dodge accusations of ripping off Fallout. So, there’s almost no point in their not doing Fallout. (Unlike doing a game about space wizards – Star Wars is that much broader that you can borrow from it relatively invisibly).

    Which doesn’t, of course, excuse not going for a completely different setting altogether, but then again it is a gift of a concept that so rarely gets done well.

  9. Jochen Scheisse says:

    I think it’s ok. Of course there’s doing your own stuff, which the Bethesda guys did for quite some time. But if you have the possibility to write a Batman story, and you like Batman and have some interesting ideas of what distinctive note you could give the material, why not? Why improvise on Jazz standards? I think nothing is ever really finished.

    What I already like about the FO3 pics is that they have given them an athmosphere I find fitting for the American Eastcoast (even if I’ve never been there, I have to admit). I’m just curious if the new greenish blue flavour will blend as seamlessly into Bethesda’s vision of a post apocalyptic Eastcoast society as the old yellowy orange light did its part to make me feel like a post nuclear cowboy.

  10. Kieron Gillen says:

    Alec: When Fallout was an attempt to do Wasteland, I’m not sure that holds up, man.


  11. AndrewC says:

    What I don’t like about this is that someone – a normal human being – created Superman and Batman, using their own needs and inspirations to, essentially, create a genre.

    As Warren Spector said in those lectures he gave, games are still growing up right now, and the people getting involved in them now get to, if they are ambitious enough, create the medium. Everything is still to play for. And yet here is this fellow content to tootle around in his past.

    It is not that Fallout is bad, but that Fallout has been done and Bethesda, surely, is in a position to do anything they want. They certainly don’t have the financial incentive to use the brand (like the comic writers wanting to do Batman) as they are much bigger right now than Fallout. It feels like the regressive actions of man-children, still consuming the cultural artifacts of their youth instead of moving on, recognising that The Goonies sucked, and creating their own things. Jackson had been planning to make King Kong since he was 12, and you could tell.

    I’m expressing the opinion a touch strongly, and i’m sure the game will be very wonderful, but as a deeper motivation for creativity, i think it’s very negative. And if anyone disagrees with me I shall link them to Harry Potter slash fiction. I’ll do it.

  12. Alec Meer says:

    It’s true that I might be making a disservice to Wasteland, but Fallout has undeniably become the immediate post-apoc watchword to far more gamers.

  13. Nick says:

    The Frighteners was great fun too.

    Er, yeah, anyway.. I’m cynical about Bethesda’s talent for RPGs after being a huge fan of them since Daggerfall, Oblivion really kicked me in the crotch in so many small but ultimately too annoying to ignore ways. The worst part was there was absolutely no good reason for a large part of them.

    Still, I will probably buy it just in case.. I mean I still had some fun with Oblivion, just not a huge amount and the Fallout setting is one I dearly love.

    @Kieron Yup… and Fallout had a lot of little references to Wasteland in it too, which was nice. Shame the Wasteland sequel wasn’t so good.

  14. Wurzel says:

    I kinda agree with the above points. What bethesda showed in Oblivion, and show signs of doing here, is great technical expertise but very little imagination. Mind you, if they manage to break out of their mindset that RPG just means stats, and actually introduce some ways of playing a different character to other people, I’ll be happy. (Yes, I mean actual dialogue trees where you select a character-appropriate response).

    As a side note, I don’t mind about the real-time combat thing, as long as there’s still some stats under the hood. This was done pretty well in Deus Ex, Mass Effect, and (to a degree) The Witcher. To be honest I hope my main method of interaction in this game won’t be with a gun.

  15. Kieron Gillen says:

    Alec: Yeah, I agree. The sad thing is that it only holds the position because it’s the only bloody one.


  16. AndrewC says:

    Jochen: Yes, learning the lessons of history is good, but that is different from simply dwelling in the past. If Id were still doing Wolfenstein they’d get criticised for it. See what happened with the regressive Doom 3.

    There will always be copyists and cynical exploiters, but Bethesda give me the impression of being genuinely talented (I’ve loved their games, at least) – and that’s why i’m being quite critical of this attitude in them.

  17. phuzz says:

    @ Jochen your second link is a bit broken, but isn’t that tomorrow?

  18. Jochen Scheisse says:

    @ Kieron: If you like comics, check out Hervé Barulea aka Baru, french guy. I don’t know if he’s been translated into English yet, but he did some excellent comics, like Autoroute de Soleil or L’Enragé. He does this thing of combining franco belgian characters with mangaesque backgrounds, and pretty well.

    And Fallout does not only hold the position because it’s the only one…the game just brought together a very good understanding of how to translate RPG mechanisms to the PC and a tight grip on the atmosphere, John Wayne meets Mad Max in the post apoc 60s that never were. There were a few contenders, like for example The Fall (SUBTLE!!!1), but they just couldn’t touch Fallout.

    EDIT: Yeah, the thing got so screwed up that someone deleted it. I’m no good with HTML.

  19. Nesneros says:


    I think you’ve got it about Beth’s lack of imagination. ES3 & 4 are ultimately pretty generic and uninteresting stories and worlds (exception being some of the background story that was going on within books in Morrowind, but that’s really not part of the player’s story). As Vince D. Weller’s pointed out, Fallout had this amazingly constructed storyline where the different factions (Mutants, Ghouls, Junktown, Shady Sands, Brotherhood) had all developed different strategies and philosophies for dealing with the destruction of civilization. That’s what gave FO its “soul”, and I’ve seen nothing to convince me that Beth’s capable of doing something like that.

  20. Ginger Yellow says:

    “And they ask, “do you want to do generic space movie that you make up yourself, or do you want to do Star Wars?”

    Um, something I make up myself, thanks.

  21. Leeks! says:

    On Demos:

    I remember the original Fallout demo was a small, alternate version of the Junk Yard (is that what it was called? It’s been a while) with its own self-contained story, choices and ending. It might be cost-prohibitive to do anything similar to this nowadays, but I’m surprised he didn’t mention it.

  22. Jochen Scheisse says:

    Yes, the demo story was essentially Usagi Yojimbo, or Handful Dollars, OR Last Man Standing.

    What would the Eastcoast version of post nuclear cowboys be? Would post nuclear Gangs of New York work? I bet. Will they decide against big cities and rather do Westcoast in the East? I bet.

  23. kadayi says:

    Interesting read, but like others I’m not convinced about the analogy towards tackling Star Wars. That’s a franchise that doesn’t so much require further sequels, but a complete reimagining in the vein of Battlestar Galatica has had under Ronald.D.Moore. From the recent preview details the game itself sounds quite promising, but I’d rather they made a new Post-apoc IP tbh.

  24. Albides says:

    I can forgive Bethesda for ruining my favourite franchise, the Elder Scrolls. In their planning room, they have this big slider. On the left side they have “Huge world, lots of filler”. On the right side they have “Minimalist world, bare essentials”. When they made Daggerfall, the slider was all the way to the left. When they made Oblivion, someone was a little overzealous, and it was all the way to the right. Morrowind was a happy middle, and I like that the best, though where it shone most was in the backstory; which you had to ask questions to find out, even though it’s inextricably tied to the main plot (so did the Tribunal kill Nerevar? Yes, but…).

    Really, I’ve always liked Bethesda, ever since they were smart enough to develop a stat system that largely made sense by tying it to skills, meaning that no longer do you become a better lockpicker by killing 100 goblins.

    Then, with Morrowind, I liked them because of the creativity in the design and the richness in the world. Oblivion was a misstep, and someone didn’t properly calibrate the slider.

    Although lots has changed from those days, including the staff, I’m optimistic about Fallout. Maybe I’m being naive, but I think they’d have to be incredibly stupid to miss this opportunity with so many people breathing down their necks. And I don’t believe they’re committed to repeating the mistakes of past games, especially when their work encompasses a series of very different attempts which are a continuing effort to streamline their games into the perfectly balanced sandbox rpg (which, through some quirk, Fallout achieved off the bat).

  25. J says:

    The was also that post apoc fps Devastation or something?
    I never played it.

    Did you mean only good one in that comment, Kieron?

    Though Fallout does need a bit of a kicking in regard to the combat and exploration. Turn based doesn’t need to be that slow and the isometric rpg has always had a problem where you spend most of your time watching your character walk/run somewhere.

    Which is something that got really bad in Arcanum when Troika decided ‘realistic’ sized cities were a good idea. At least it gave you more time to enjoy that soundtrack.

    As far as Bethesda and lack of imagination, I think for better or worse they’re a technology focused company like Wurzel said. Perhaps they are the ID Software of the RPG genre?

    (In terms of tech focus not so much in genre founding – except maybe the first person rpg.)

  26. Okami says:

    @Nesneros: I have to agree with you on Oblivion. That game’s backstory and setting was incredibly generic. But Morrowind? Come on!

    That game’s background was pure joy! Silt Striders, the different and alien architecture, those giant floating baloon creatures, Kwooma (if that’s what they were called) mines, ash wastes complete with dark elf nomads, steam punk dwemer ruins, armor made from chitinous carapace, a triumvirate of false gods ruling the lands…

    I think I’ve spent more time in Morrowind than in every other game (it was also the first game I modded and half my hard drive was full with Morrowind mods. It also had one of the nicest modding scenes ever) despite hating the game’s combat mechanics with a passion. It all was a bit sterile (especially after having played Gothic and Gothic2), but there was just so much to explore, so many things to see…

  27. Alex says:

    Star Wars is that much broader that you can borrow from it relatively invisibly.

    I’d say that’s more to do with Star Wars borrowing heavily from several heroic mythologies – SW actually is pretty generic sci-fi, when it comes down to it.

  28. Kieron Gillen says:

    J: Yeah, only good one. And we’re talking about post-apoc RPGs, specifically. Otherwise RPS fave Armageddon Empires gets a shout out.


  29. Pishtaco says:

    Stalker is post-apocalyptic without being Fallout. So is Half-Life 2, sort of.

  30. Alarik says:

    Hmm. I have to say, that the thing I dislike the most about Morrowind and Oblivion is combat.

    Yes, Oblivion also has this unrealistic monster leveling nonsense, unwise character progression system, silly and completely useless minigames and bare dialogue options (yes/no/kill), limited enchanting and magic system and small worldmap. And both of them (Oblivon and Morrowind) suffer from generic dungeons.

    But combat is my biggest gripe. Basically, it isn’t even interesting – you just bash enemies silly and without satisfaction (for example in Gothic games, controls can be unwieldy, but the process is entertaining, rewarding and feels, well, real). Eh, how to explain it better – to me, combat in Oblivion (and in Morrowind to some degree) feels like punching crash test dummies. Not to mention that there is a lot of broken combinations – basically just enchant your weapon with Absorb Health and you are set and invincible for the rest of the game – in other words, combat is not even designed to be challenging/difficult. Combat and equipment are all shiny on the first look (well, even on the second one :-) – as an avatar-dressing games, both Morrowind and Oblivion are great) but I’ve realized quite soon it is lacking any further substance (for me).

    On the other hand, combat in Fallout games was and is simply awesome. Gruesome rewarding criticals (dancing to the rhytm of lead :-), life saving lucky shots in early (my favorites) parts of games, feeling of satisfaction after clearing overwhelming odds, insanely scary and tough enemies (Deathclaws in first game, anyone?), you can almost feel the flesh and blood (and of course goo :-) everywhere in Fallout.

  31. Wurzel says:

    @ Okami: indeed, the imagination shown in Morrowind was huge, one of the things that made oblivion’s generic nature even more disappointing.

    I’m not going to say that morrowind was perfect – it had a huge amount of gameplay flaws and combat was pretty unimpressive. Even so it highlights quite a common theme in games nowadays; people seem to be plumping for either polish in a game (not the language), or ‘soul’ for want of a better word.

    Example: Stalker vs Crysis

    Both are open-world games which put a lot of emphasis on player freedom. I don’t think anyone could argue that Crysis wasn’t the better game, with better graphics, gameplay and less bugs, but Stalker for me seemed to have a lot more character and unique-ness in the setting, and is far more likely to be played through again than Crysis (imo).

    I’m sure you guys could think up more examples.

  32. Lacero says:

    Pishtaco: Yes Stalker is post apocalyptic but the whole time I was playing it the only thing it reminded me of was Fallout. Secret research labs, groups of stalkers holed up in some dusty bar, being attacked by mutant animals; all taken straight from Fallout.
    I orignally got it because someone (Lou) said it was a bit like Fallout and I wasn’t disappointed.

    I’m not sure there are many games that have conquered a genre so completely. GTA is the only one I can think of.

  33. dhex says:

    for once i’d like to see a PA game that didn’t have mutants. it works for the 1950s style vibe of fallout but not everyone needs cartoon radiation.

    as for fallout 3…well, we’ll see when we’ll see. oblivion with guns is probably what we’re looking at.

  34. Brother None says:

    ‘k, simple Q, Keiron.

    “You’re driven by love. Do you think that’s something the very hardcore Fallout fans miss?”

    Realise first we’ve heard this “we really love it, man!” line before. We tend to simply not buy it, for a lot of reasons (amongst which the simple fact that when looking at statements made on Oblivion, Bethesda tends to simply not tell the truth).

    But first and foremost, let me ask you: do you honestly believe Pete Hines when he tells you ZeniMax made a 6 million dollar investment based on the love of a few of the Bethesda devs for a franchise?

  35. SwiftRanger says:

    Damned, they should have gone for the Escape From New York license, it’s PA as well and probably suits Bethesda a lot more than the things that made Fallout great.

  36. Pidesco says:

    @Kieron’s earlier response to my comment: But what Bethesda did with The Elder Scrolls was take away what made the series a hardcore RPG and turn it into a light action adventure. On the other hand, much of what was good about Fallout, such as the choices and consequences, complex character creation, the deep stat based combat, and the really rich dialogues was all about the hardcore RPGness in the game. So, if they are indeed making Oblivion with guns (it seems like it :-( ), one just has to think how they are going to accomplish that without removing Fallout’s core of gameplay goodness and replacing it with something else.

    I don’t think Oblivion and Fallout are just different, to me they are actually opposite in design philosophies.

  37. Pavel says:

    Brother None: Of course Zenimax did not buy Fallout only for the love of a few devs for Fallout.They bought it as a bussiness decision based on someone’s (at Zenimax) idea that Fallout could be succesful game and sell a lot of copies today.But that does not, in the least, exclude their love for the franchise from the equation.Simply they liked Fallout, they saw that it was a dead franchise left for sale, and because someone there thought it could be profitable, they bought it.I can not blame them, if I could choose between Fallout RPG and some other post-apo RPG made from scratch, I would definitely choose Fallout as well.Because I love it, and I have been waiting for a sequel for 9 years.
    And my opinion about their sequel –
    Even if its not PnP emulation, turn based isometric anymore, the things that mattered in Fallout for me were : Setting, Choice and Consequence, Dialogs, Story, Humor, Freedom.Not combat, which I did not find boring, but not extremely entertaining either, or Iso Perspective.So I am cautiously excited, and looking forward to playing it.

    Excuse my english.

  38. Kieron Gillen says:

    None: Well, I was asking whether you think they miss it, not whether you do. Hines actually did say that he doesn’t think you miss it though.

    Re: Money. I almost suspect that’s actually more evidence that it’s because of fanboyism. What other reason could there be for paying 6 million for an old licence with a relatively limited fanbase?

    More seriously, it wasn’t six million up front, unless I’m reading it wrong. It was six million to secure the licence after they’d already started development on Fallout 3. The previous deal with a limited licence for just over a million (And I’m not even sure it means normal pay – it says “Guarantees”). Were I to guess a reason, I suspect it’s because they realised that they could *possibly* want to do some more stuff with Fallout down the road, because if the game is successful (Which they have to act like they presume it is) they want to capitalise on it. In other words, if there’s a Fallout MMO, they want to be the ones who get the money because they’re the ones who will have made it popular. Of course, that Zenimax actually want it more now means that the owners can charge more.

    Or to cut all that down, they could charge 6 million because Bethesda had already committed to making the game. Bethesda already making a game means that the Fallout rights are more money than they would have been. So, no, I don’t think the 6 million wasn’t because of fanboyism – it was to maximise their investment down the line. That I *can* see an accountant doing.

    Regarding the first million and a bit? Yeah, I can see a publisher paying that for the rights of something a cash-cow developer would want to do.

    EDIT: I suppose what I’m saying is don’t overlook that it could be both.


  39. Brother None says:

    Actually, Kieron, it was one million advanced against royalties initially. And the 6 million deal came not at the request of ZeniMax, but at the request of Herve Caen. Just so we get our angle right.

    Yes, yes it could be both. But ZeniMax is not a charming lubby-dubby company, looking at its board of directors, they’re very much so interested in money. Could they be convinced by lower-ups to purchase Fallout? Possibly, but the angle still remains that for some reason Bethesda – unlike all other RPG developers out there – has not created a single original property in a decade.

    Now, is it likely a combination of ZeniMax mistrusting Bethesda’s ability to make an original property and a pitch from lower up to get Fallout. But all things considering and wrapped in a bundle, I don’t think it’s odd when – considering all that’s happened between Bethesda and the rest, including their refusal to accept applications from original Fallout developers – nobody believes their claim of “we did it for love, man”.

    Love would have been licensing it for Troika, as one publisher was trying to do, love is not snatching it away before the nose of the people who created it.

  40. Priapist says:

    I’m going to have a go at rewording Pete’s analogy complete with the cynicism and hyperbole a “true” fallout fan would display. Have I started already with the cynicism and hyperbole? You be the judge.

    Imagine if George Lucas didn’t actually own the Star Wars property, but he’d since moved on from the studio who did in order to do his own thing. Now imagine that the studio is going broke and pawning off intellectual property left right and centre. You’re a film director, maybe even Peter Jackson! Now imagine someone asks you – “what would you like to do next?” And he says, “I always wanted to make a big space movie. A big epic movie full of action.” And they ask, “do you want to do generic space movie that you make up yourself, or do you want to do Star Wars?”

    Actually, lets forget Peter Jackson. Imagine you’re a director who turns Final Fantasy fan fics into short films using Windows Movie Maker and puts them on Youtube. “Do you want to do generic space movie that you make up yourself, or do you want to do Star Wars? Since you don’t have a creative bone in your body, of course you opt for Star Wars! And luckily for you, you have rich parents who outbid George Lucas and buy you the Star Wars license. George Lucas then goes out of business and hangs out his “will work for food” sign. You, in the meantime, get to make Star Wars and give Luke spiky hair just like Cloud, turn Han into a big muscular black guy with a gun for an arm, and get rid of Vader’s stupid black helmet in favour of feminine features and flowing white hair.* How sweet is that? You love doing this!

    He’s also got a funny idea of “love”:

    Look honey, for our one week anniversary I booked you in to have a skin lift, your nose done, your lips blown up with collagen, a boob job, lipo and a brazilian wax! I really love you, honest, but everyone else kinda thinks you’re old. This will make you seem appealing to a far younger clientele, and we can sell you to more people this way, and make me, I mean us, more money!

    I am, of course, being overly cynical, but there’s a certain air of truth in there. ;)

    I think the most troubling bit of the “oh we all love Fallout” is that it doesn’t actually show in games past or present. It seems strange, when Fallout sets the bar very high for a lot of RPG features. You’d think they’d have at least parroted bits and pieces for their own games like they’ve done with Half-Life’s gravity gun.

    * I should note at this point the George Lucas actually did replace Vader with feminine features and girly hair. It was all worth it for the bit where that big mincing ponce had his legs cut off.

  41. Pijama says:

    Meh. I simply can’t bother to argument anymore. :(

  42. Kadayi says:

    @Brother None

    “ZeniMax is not a charming lubby-dubby company, looking at its board of directors, they’re very much so interested in money”

    I hate to break it to you and your idealized views on what the gaming industry should be, but I’m pretty sure most companies prefer profit to bankruptcy. Making money is pretty much a requisite in that respect, it’s hardly a war crime, but SOP. You make games, you sell them, you make money (if they are good) and you make better games, and hopefully somewhere along the way people might give you awards and Kudos for it. You’ll find the boards of most companies aren’t run by guys who are necessarily experts in the day to day intricacies of their industries either, but instead are good man managers, financiers and spokesmen/women. In any creative venture it’s fairly common place for recommendations from lower level members to get taken on board and adopted (it’s how people get promoted). So it entirely probable that enthusiasm for the fallout franchise at ground level initiated the purchase.

    Now I’m not defending Bethesda, and I’m personally I’m ambivalent about Fallout 3 (I would prefer an original Post-apoc IP), but it’s pretty clear to me that unfortunately your aversion to what they are doing has coloured your take on things far too much (no new IP in ten years..what kind of company are they? A successful one is the answer). Your stuck in cynical, and that is the road to nowhere tbh.

  43. malkav11 says:

    The whole “no new IP” thing mystifies me. How many RPG-focused Western studios are there, at the moment? (not counting MMOs). There’s Bethesda, that’ve been iterating on their original IP for the last decade, yes. Bioware, whose first original RPG IP (to my knowledge) went out the door about five years back with Jade Empire – everything before that (again, that I know of), was licensed. Mostly D&D. Obsidian, who have yet to put out an original IP (though at least they’ve got one in the works now).

    Of the above, which has more experience with original IPs at this stage of the game? I’m going to have to go with Bethesda.

    That said, I would think it would be more comforting if they had *more* experience working with other people’s IP, not less.

  44. Brother None says:

    malkav11: I do not understand your point. Bethesda has zero original IPs since TES: Arena. BioWare has multiple. Obsidian is, as you say, working on one. That makes Bethesda the sore thumb, absolutely refusing to develop its own IP

    Kadayi: I agree. But you see, this realist vision that you and I both have of the game industry pretty much means Pete Hines’ statement that they’re doing Fallout “out of love” is bullshit. It’s that simple. ZeniMax purchased Fallout for profit. Again, I do not preclude the possibility that Bethesda suggested Fallout to ZM “out of love”, but that doesn’t match up with what Bethesda is doing much.

    Bethesda is a business. They do not act out of love. That’s true of them, it’s true of most studios in the industry, a few exceptions nonwithstanding. My problem isn’t with that reality, it is what it is, my problem is when we’re supposed to accept a line where they claim to do it out of love. That’s unrealistic.

  45. Kadayi says:

    @Brother None

    I’m not sure why you say you are agreeing with me because quite clearly there is no common perception between us regarding the workings of the games industry (or are you conceding that your way too cynical?). Where I see everyday business actions, you see sinister shadowy conspiracies. That one former BIS employee (allegedly) applied for a job at Beth and didn’t get it, is a great starting point for endless fan forum speculation about how ‘Beth don’t really love the fallouts’, but it completely skips over the notion that he/she might not have had the required skillset or experience for the job, wanted more money than they were prepared to offer, was a boorish ‘I’m better than you’ asshole in the interview, or shock horror a better candidate came up. It’s entirely possible to be a fan of what someone may produce but not necessarily like them as people. Phil K Dick wrote some excellent Sci-Fi novels, but the man himself was a complete asshole in real life to a lot of people. Does that diminish what he produced? No of course not, but does his work excuse his often reprehensible real life behaviour? Of course not.

  46. AndrewC says:

    So is this what it’s like on No Mutants Allowed?

  47. Briosafreak says:

    but it completely skips over the notion that he/she might not have had the required skillset or experience for the job,

    It was Leon Boyarsky, one of the original Fallout creators and developers, the one that pushed for the alternate 50’s thing back in the day.

  48. kadayi says:


    Not really, at No Mutants Allowed the mods such as Brother None ban you if you dare to disagree with them on the evils of fallout 3:-

    link to

    Fairly reasonable post tbh, fairly unreasonable response and pretty much par for the course if you dare to question their ‘authoritah’ it seems. There is a common misconception held by people with more time on their hands than is healthy to invest in a particular subject that such investment naturally conveys a superior position to all others. The great truth in life is though this isn’t always the case. Plenty of people drive cars for a living, but very few of them are racing drivers.


    And from what I understand it was more an informal approach by him rather than a fully fledged interview, and he’s not unhappy with the result tbh.

  49. kadayi says:


    Not really, at No Mutants Allowed the mods such as Brother None ban you if you dare to disagree with them on the evils of fallout 3:-

    link to

    Fairly reasonable post tbh, fairly unreasonable response and pretty much par for the course if you dare to question their ‘authoritah’ it seems. There is a common misconception held by people with more time on their hands than is healthy to invest in a particular subject that such investment naturally conveys a superior position to all others. The great truth in life is though this isn’t always the case. Plenty of people drive cars for a living, but very few of them are racing drivers.


    And from what I understand it was more an informal approach by him rather than a fully fledged interview, and he’s not unhappy or resentful of the rebuttal tbh.

  50. Brother None says:

    Kadayi, please read few news forum threads and notice how there are quite a few users actively posting who disagree with us. We do not ban for opinions, but some of our admins are indeed quick on the draw. I did not ban that person, though.

    And the funny thing is, you’re talking to the one person who knows all the details about this “alleged” for-hire designer. I’m not going to divulge details out of internet egoism, but it’s easy enough to say you’re wrong, as you are. All your assumptions are false. You may believe me or you may not. The whole case is quite a lot simpler than you put it, I’m afraid.

    And it is your assumption that I’m talking about something shady or dark. When I asked Kieron way, way up there if he really believes Bethesda made a business decision “out of love”, wasn’t he being naive, from a simple business viewpoint? There’s nothing more to it than that; Bethesda doing something with primacy “out of love” is nonsense because it doesn’t fit any business model, not of Bethesda, not of any other developer.

    And yes, I did remark ZeniMax has a bit of a shady board. That’s not really opinion, it’s fact. Read up on Robert A. Altman if you don’t believe me