The Secret to Fallout 3's Success

I'm afraid I have a confession to make. I am, for what it's worth, a massive RPG-head. I love 'em. Ye olde ones, shiny space ones, spy ones, pirate ones, zombie ones, I love 'em all! (Hang on... has anyone actually made a zombie RPG yet?)

Anyway, not only do I play RPGs, but the game designer in me just can't resist cracking 'em open with an editor and seeing what makes them tick. I spent 2 years working on a mod for Morrowind (people liked it - it won awards), I dabbled a bit with Oblivion and now I find myself staring at the editor for Fallout 3 thinking of all the beautiful post-apocalyptic possibility before me.

And then I suddenly realised...

These games all have exactly the same editor!

The Morrowind, Oblivion & Fallout Editors. Can you spot the difference?

Oh sure, Fallout has some shiny new whistles and bells, but essentially the interface, capabilities and scripting haven't really changed from Morrowind seven years ago.

And then I got thinking - if you keep your tools the same, gently evolving them across three product iterations, your design team must build up one hell of a technical aptitude for your tool.

And that's how Bethesda have made Fallout 3 the success it is - not just by sticking with one genre of game to master it totally and utterly, but by investing long-term in a robust tool that they can use from project to project to project, thus ensuring that their designers can not only leverage their experience for all eternity, but are also empowered with a kick-ass construction kit right from the start of pre-production.

A kit so easy to use that they can even release it to the public!

So... am I just stating the obvious? Would anyone like to see Bethesda diversify and make, say, an FPS? Or should a development team pick one genre and own it completely?

The Trouble with Wii

Nintendo's latest home console has been a runaway success. Two years after its launch, a Wii at Christmas is still rarer than rocking-horse poop. Nintendo have finally bought gaming to the mainstream!

And that's a good thing, right?

Wrong!

Now here's why...

Mr. & Mrs. Casual enjoying Carnival Games on their Wii

1) Gaming for the masses is nothing new

Let's start with the whole "gaming to the masses" issue that Nintendo seems to be taking a lot of credit for. The industry constantly heaps praise upon Iwata-san for finally making hardware that everyone can play on. Hold up a second... have we forgotten about Sony's efforts on PS2? As soon as the Wii came along, with its Mac-esque, white styling and crazy, motion-sensitive controller the games industry dumped it's current beau du jour, the PS2, like a sack of hot coals. Has everyone forgotten the super-accessible, PlayStation exclusive, EyeToy?

Or SingStar?

Or Buzz?

Even before Guitar Hero's meteoric rise to fame, Sony were creating accessible, mainstream games with innovative controllers that really evened the playing field so that everyone could compete on the same level.

Apologies for being a bit of a Sony fanboy, but I did work there for five years...

3) The Wii-Remote

All these "casual gamers" buying the Wii are most probably doing so because of the easy-to-use motion sensitive controller. What they fail to realise is that the Wii-mote is only really good for three things: pointing, tilting and shaking.

I've had the pleasure of developing three games on Wii now, and every time I start to talk controls with a new team they are flabbergasted at just how basic the motion detection on the Wii-mote is. Inexperienced designers come up with complex, gesture based systems when in reality, the only gesture you can detect is a shake - you can't even reliably detect the shake's direction!

Props to all the clever game developers out there who have used canny context-sensitivity, user pre-programing and old-school smoke 'n' mirrors to squeeze fun, gesture-based gaming out of the Wii. But how long can we sustain this clever charade before Joe Public cottons on to just how sketchy the Wii-mote's motion detection actually is?

And, no, I don't think the Motion Plus will help. Unfortunately it will just mean more work for developers who have to cater for a second control system, on top of the shonky one that they'll have to put in as the default.

3) When you put a game out on Wii, you go toe to toe with Mario

It's no secret that the top selling games on Wii are all 1st party. You might say that this is because the majority of 3rd party titles are eminently forgettable. But why is this the case?

As developers and publishers flock to the console with the biggest installed base, looking for a quick hit, the majority of them are jumping on the casual-consumer, mini-game compilation, kids movie licence bandwagon. As they rush development to hit Christmas, or coincide with a movie release, they bank on the fact that their less-discerning audience will mean that their contracted development schedule won't be too much of a problem when their game comes to be judged. And so what we end up with is a market saturated in mediocrity where the only titles that stand out are, you guessed it, Nintedo's own.

Again... hats off to innovative, fun new IP on the Wii, like De Blob, Mad World and The Conduit, who are taking time to develop a well conceived new IP aimed at a more discerning audience. Targeting a more traditional gaming consumer is an increasingly sound strategy, because...

4) Wii owners are not gamers

And herein lies the crux of my argument. The success of the Wii will, ultimately, be its downfall. The massive, "casual" installed-base has created a huge influx of development creating a market that is saturated in sub-standard product. And when the economy heads swirling down the toilet, as is happening right now, the first thing these non-gaming Wii-owners will cut... is their game budget.

And then where will "Carnival Games 3 - Ringmaster's Revenge" be? The bargain bin. That's where.

Don't get me wrong - the Wii can be a great console to work with, and it has seen some uniquely enjoyable games that are only possible thanks to its unique specifications. It just seems that, in their rush to grab a share of the potentially-lucrative Wii installed-base, developers and publishers might be missing the bigger picture...

So... is the Wii Gold-rush going to create a casual gaming back-lash?

Are the developers & publishers that are flocking to get a slice of the action, rushing toward their own doom?

Or is the Wii a sound investment for third party developers looking to make a quick buck?

Fable 2 - Incentivising you NOT to play

So I picked up a copy of Fable 2 when it first came out a few months back. It's a great game but, as is often the case, it came out at the same time as several other, equally great games (damn you, Christmas!)

So... poor, old Fable 2 got abandoned halfway through, and now I just can't bring myself to pick it up again. Why? Because not playing Fable 2 will make me rich beyond my wildest dreams...

The land of Albion. Just as I left it four months ago.

In Fable 2, any property the player owns can be leased out to the inhabitants of Albion (the game's fictional setting). This is a great way to earn a little extra gold if you are saving up to buy that tasty Sword of Ass-kicking +4. What's even better is that your property will continue to accrue rent even when you are not playing!

And therein lies the problem. I know that the longer I stay away from Fable 2, the richer I'll be when I return, and the easier it will be to burn through the game with a load of snazzy gear. To be fair, I did pick it up very briefly over Christmas...

...so I could use the money my tenants had generously given me to buy even more houses! MWUH-HAH-HAH-HAAAAAAAAH!

In a way, perhaps, I am still playing Fable 2 - by role-playing a penny-pinching landlord.

What do you think about it? Am I being encouraged not to play? Or am I trapped a fiendish meta-game of Peter Molyneux's insane devising?