No Mutants Allowed has a new post about Chris Avellone talking about his Fallout 4 Wishlist in a five minute video from Machinima.

Kovic and Chris Avellone of Fallout fame discuss what they'd like to see in the next Fallout!

No Mutants Allowed has a three page article about the origins of Fallout.  It is written by R. Scott Campbell, the first lead designer for the game. He talks about how he got to work at Interplay, how GURPS began and how Fallout was born. In this first part, though, we mostly hear about him starting at Interplay and how the beginning of GURPS were. It also tells the story, via his personal account, of how it was to make videogames 20 years ago.  But let's begin with this:

Editor's note: R. Scott Campbell is one of the creators of the original Fallout, responsible for creating its storyline, defining the setting and writing several of the high profile non-player characters populating the game world. In a nut shell: he's one of the most important fathers of Fallout and, ironically, one of the least recognized.

Before moving on to this - a quote on cinematic experiences in games:

Long before I ever heard the term “Jump the Shark”, I began to see some warning signs of Interplay’s continued success. I sensed a change in the management. There was a shift from a passion for game making, to a desire to make Hollywood-style cinema. We changed from the old adage of “Shoot for the moon. Here’s a nickel.” to “How can we make this experience more like watching a movie.” It began with Stonekeep (which started as a throwback to the old Bard’s Tale, but became a nightmare of “cinematic experience”), and exploded with the Sim-CD series (Interplay’s remakes of SimCity, SimAnt, and SimEarth in CD-ROM format with lots of movies) and the horror show that was “Cyberhood” (an interactive movie that became a black hole of funds.)

And movin on to how GUPS began:

When Interplay approached Steve Jackson Games for GURPS, they were extremely skeptical. They were told of the long line of great RPGs that Interplay had made. No response. They were told that they would have creative control over the game. Still no response. Then they were told the up-front license money they would be getting. Suddenly, there was a response.

With GURPS given a green light, Tim assembled a team, and (because SimEarth was just canned) chose me as the Lead Designer. It was a bit of a rocky start, as much finagling was needed to secure people for the team from other projects Once the contract was signed, Steve Jackson came to the studios for a meet and greet with the team. I remember him being extremely cool with our overall ideas about handling the game. One pointed question was, “What do you think about blood and violence in the game?” With a smirk and a wave of his hand, he answered, “The more the better!”

NMA has unearthed (via a site called Game of the Art) original design documents written by Brian Freyermuth (Fallout) for a sequel to Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel.  Well worth a look for both fans of Fallout and those interested in game design.

Staying with the current trend of examining the gaming press, NMA has an editorial titled The Rybicki Maneuver.  This early clip does a good job of explaining the topic:

The first sign of a paradigm shift on the horizon was PC Zone's top 101 games of all time (ref), where they placed Morrowind (#4) above Oblivion (#13) with the note Ooh, aren't we controversial? Yes, but constant bickering among the PCZ team has left the Vvardenfell lobby victorious. The argument runs thusly: Morrowind is a better game than Oblivion, if only for the things that Bethesda sacrificed in their pursuit of making the latter that bit more action-orientated.

That looks odd when you compare it to the opening of their review of Oblivion (ref): Magesterial. That's the word we're looking for. Morrowind can take the plaudits for laying the groundwork and scrubbing out the rules of location linearity in role-playing, but The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion takes that model, streamlines it, seamlessly integrates exhilarating combat, smothers it in beautiful graphics and takes both Tamriel and the art of role-playing to an unprecedented new height.

So which one is it?

The third part of NMA's Glittering Gems of Hatred editorial is up, with this part arguing for a Fallout 3 that stays "true" to the franchise:

One should reconsider the possibilities of Fallout 3 to the gaming world. Instead of churning out more of the action-RPG first-person shiny factors we've seen repeated ad nauseam (their qualities not withstanding), Fallout 3 should stand out and offer a return to pen and paper CRPG values that made the original a great game. Bethesda should not try to rehash an existing game in a different mold and take the risk of finding a fan base amongst people who think the originals were boring. Fallout 3 should offer something we haven't seen in the CRPG world for years, something nobody else is doing. In taking a step back, it would make a leap forward.

Sounds pretty innovative, doesn't it?

NMA has posted Part 2 of their article on the History of Fallout Fandom. Here's a brief snip:

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.

 

You can read all of it here.  

Stung by regular snide comments on the Fallout fanbase from various mass media quarters, NMA has the first part of a potentially controversial article titled Glittering Gems of Hatred - Eleven Angry Guys on a Website.  This first part is mainly history and setup and it will be interesting to see if the remaining parts deny or justify the stereotype:

Rumors about Fallout 3 being in production had been bouncing around like wildfire in the early months of 2000. On May 7, 2000, BIS' David Hendee noted "Fallout 3 is not currently under production." (ref). On May 11, 2000, Interplay announced Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel. The initial reaction was worded well by Miroslav: "I'm a bit confused here. I won't talk anymore but wait to see more about this." This initial confusion was caused by the fact that everyone had been waiting for Fallout 3 and a lot of people still believed BIS' "secret project" was in fact Fallout 3. However, if you scroll through the news archives going on from May 2000 (ref), you will find interest rose, especially after Fallout 1 developer Chris Taylor was revealed to be tied to the game. The NMA archives of this time do not reflect completely the fan reaction, as the game was being covered much more intensely elsewhere, especially on Duck and Cover.