Fallout creator leaves MMO for inXile

By Oli Welsh Published 19 March, 2009

"More stable" than Interplay project.

Fallout co-creator Jason Anderson has joined fellow Interplay veteran Brian Fargo at his inXile studio, where he's working on a new single-player RPG.

Anderson was previously back at Interplay with another Fallout vet, Chris Taylor, working on the company's long-discussed Fallout MMO. Interplay sold the single-player Fallout rights to Bethesda, resulting in recent smash hit Fallout 3, but retained the rights to make an online version.

The future of the Fallout MMO - codenamed Project V13 - isn't so rosy, Anderson hinted to Gamasutra.

"The future of the - well, I don't know if I want to go there. [inXile] was a more stable opportunity," he said. Even so, "It was a very hard decision to leave Project V13. I loved the project, and we spent so much time on it, and it was not an easy decision to make."

He was also motivated by his love of the story-driven single-player RPG. "I want to get back to RPGs that are very story-driven and character-driven. Personally, I've never gotten out of [single-player] RPGs. There was the short stint working on the MMO for the past year, but that was pretty much it," he said.

inXile released 2004's reboot of The Bard's Tale, and is currently working on HEI$T for Codemasters.

Picture of Oli.

About Oli Welsh

Oli is Eurogamer's acting deputy editor and reviews editor and likes to take things one word at a time. He is among the best dressed people in South London.

Read more articles from Oli by visiting the Oli Welsh archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (17) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • PearOfAnguish #1 3 years ago

    Yeah...this is never going to see the light of day.

  • anomagnus #2 3 years ago

    fallout 3 had to be my biggest disappointment of 08

    i was expecting so much, and got so little back

  • Olemak #3 3 years ago

    Must have been something wrong with your expectations then.

    'Cause there was nothing wrong with the game.

  • DoctorZoidberg #4 3 years ago

    I hear ya Anomagnus.

    It never did anything for me, felt really generic, To be fair a lot of the crowd are younger players who have probably not encounterd "turn based" combat before, so it must have felt fresh.

    Anderson and Fargo is quite a team though.

  • espy #5 3 years ago

    Wait, don't inXile have the Wasteland license?

    :D

  • Ghettomurph #6 3 years ago

    The V13 MMO project is doomed to fail at the hands of Interplay.

    Saying that Fallout 3 is generic and disappointing is rubbish, it's your opinion, but it's rubbish. And Zoidberg, to say that a lot of the crowd are younger players who have probably not encountered turn based combat before is a pretty bold statement...i take it it's based on some kind of facts? If so, I'd love to see a link to the source.

    Die-hard Fallout/PnP roleplaying fans are F3's biggest detractors simply because the game didn't turn out to be a new Van Buren. Companies have to make money when they make games so therefore games have to evolve to suit the masses, not the whining few who love the original Fallout games not for the story or setting or game mechanics but simply because they were a pc version of PnP roleplaying. Turn based combat isn't roleplaying...it's strategic. Roleplaying is exactly that, playing a role and going through a story.

    Does this make Fallout 3 a bad game? Not in my book, it was my personal game of the year followed closely by GTA IV - another game that changed from what it was before.

    Roll on The Pitt and especially Broken Steel - i want my level cap increase!


    Anyway, rant aside, i reckon the Fallout MMO will never be finished by Interplay. I'm sure i read somewhere that in the contract with Bethesda don't Interplay only have a set amount of time to actually release this game before the rights to it transfer to Beth? Or was it that Interplay had a set amount of time to get it up and running? I can't remember.

  • MrChuckles #7 3 years ago

    Fallout 3 is the most depressing game i have played in recent years if not ever. Fallout 1 & 2 always seemed so upbeat even with the nuclear aftermath, but Fallout 3, sheesh, i can't play it for more than an hour without wanting to go and play something more uplifting...

  • DoctorZoidberg #8 3 years ago

    Not really fact Ghettomurph, just my thought's on the matter. Tell me another FPS that uses a turn based points structure. Not many is there, and basing my fact that 75% of people I've encounterd on Live are 20ish or younger. Just a thought, of course not set in stone!

    As for Fallout 3, I admit, I'm a fan of the first two. They had character. But when it comes to open world RPG's, the world has to suck you in, and fallout 3 is just so bland, everywhere looks the same, and it's dark and dingy. whilst I appreciate the nature of the setting, I just feel (personally) that it's a bit poor. Also, there is no strategy in fallouts combat, pull up the aiming thing and pound the head.

    If you enjoyed it, great, and it seem's a lot of people have, doubly great for them. But for me, it just didn't fit together.

    On topic, It's a shame in a way about the MMO. I think it's a setting that lends well to a MMO format.

  • yegon #9 3 years ago

    >>>Must have been something wrong with your expectations then.

    I think this hits the nail on the head.

    I absolutely adored F1&2, finished them countless times over the years. SHOCK! I also enjoyed F3! I put this largely down to expectation - I approached it with an open mind, fully aware that it'd bear little comparison to it's prequels beyond the general setting and tone. Would I have preferred a hi-res, deliciously detailed isometric 2d F3? Of course I would, but as the likelihood of that is approaching nil, F3 was an interesting diversion.

    I totally understand why some don't get along with it though, the combat isn't any great shakes, plus it'd benefit from a smaller, denser, more varied world imo.

  • LowEnergyCycle #10 3 years ago

    "As for Fallout 3, I admit, I'm a fan of the first two. They had character. But when it comes to open world RPG's, the world has to suck you in, and fallout 3 is just so bland, everywhere looks the same, and it's dark and dingy. whilst I appreciate the nature of the setting, I just feel (personally) that it's a bit poor."

    I totally agree. I even coined the term Fallout Fatigue with friends. After extended play-sessions I'd just feel utterly depressed. I preferred Oblivion - at least the sun shined every other day.

    Am I allowed to say that around here, what with all the Opinion Police?

  • Spekingur #11 3 years ago

    Well, it was supposed to be dark, wasn't it? Everything is nowadays. Just look at films. Spider-man 3 had its dark moments, the two recent Batman owners and Watchmen. This trend will probably continue.

  • Silvervein #12 3 years ago

    In my opinion, fallout 3 has a wrong name. As an oblivion upgrade it works fine for people who like first person exploration games. Call it Behtesda's Postapocalyptic Trip to Washington, and I'll admit that in its category, it's a competent game, with exaggerated slow motion gore as a hook for younger male audience.
    But call it fallout 3, and I call it total and utter failure. That's because the game has nothing to do with previous fallouts other than title and couple of in game names. It doesn't even get anywhere near to what fallout 1 and 2 were about, so you can't even talk about it being an upgrade.

    PS. As for 'moving on with times' and this kind of arguments, it's not times that changed. Only developer who never was going to make fallout game. Here's a bit of proof: anyone remembers that old forgotten classic, king's bounty? Game that spawned heroes of might and magic series? Well, it's got a sequal last year: King's Bounty: The legend. Still turn based fights on grid field. Still exploration and combat at its heart. But with lots of upgrades, from story and writing, to graphics. And let me say it again: TURN BASED game. That was very well received. So much for 'new times' where turn based games are a relic, eh?

  • makeamazing #13 3 years ago

    Games have changed a lot and I dont think a turn based game would have sold anywhere as much or actually been as much fun. IMHO Fallout is a very good game.

    Now on the "its too depressing"... well it is supposed to be :D. I like playing games that bring emotions/events that I am hopefully never going to see, that for me is the exciting thing about computer games. If I wanted to play less depressing games I would play Spore or the Sims, but they are not my cup of tea... bring on dark, depressing destruction please :D

  • Ghettomurph #14 3 years ago

    @ Silvervein

    Mate, your argument is a bit...well, shit really! :p

    King's Bounty was only released on the PC for a reason - it wouldn't have recouped it's dev costs if it was released on the consoles as well because it wouldn't have sold enough because turn based games are slowly dying off. Yes, it might be an alright game and it did receive some good reviews (also some average ones - Edge's review for example), but there's a reason why Fallout 3 sold 4.5million copies worldwide in it's first week. It's a solid game that gave the masses what they wanted. It's FAR from perfect and there's loads of stuff that I would've liked done differently (i love the first two) but that hasn't stopped me putting in over 200 hours into since it's release.

    It's the same as when Oblivion was released and the endless amounts of people bitching about it not living up to what they expected. Things change, so do games.

    I'd look forward (and would be willing to pay monthly) to a Fallout MMO if it was similar to Fallout 3, I'm not so sure if I'd be looking forward to a turn-based, stat-fest Fallout MMO though.

  • Silvervein #15 3 years ago

    @Ghettomurph

    I think we are starting to discuss personal tastes here. I don't have the time to look up sales data for f3 and king's bounty, unfortunately, so I'll leave that be for now, but saying that turn based games are dying off flies in the face of the success of stardock, a company that grew on making turn based games.
    By the same token, saying that turn based games are not fun is a valid statement, but only of your personal taste, and nothing more.

    The fact that market is flooded with copy and paste shooters, and people making them struggle to add something to their clone that will help to sell it (like slow motion aimed gory shots, for example) means only that making games became business, and as such companies are neurotically afraid of changes that might affect income and investor support. But that has nothing to do with whether the game they make is good or not, does it?
    As yahtzee said in his review of fallout 3(on zero punctuation), there's a reason nobody tried to mix real time and turn based combat, and that's the same reason that nobody mixes apple pies and puss.

    As for oblivion, most people I talked to regard it as bad joke, not a game. Having played it for a bit, I'm bound to agree. Of course, it's my opinion: you are entitled to yours.

  • DoctorZoidberg #16 3 years ago

    This feels like a discussion we should be having with cigars and a glass cut bottle of whiskey, in dressing gowns of smoking jackets, in front of a log fire.

    Not that I'm objecting....

    I quite liked Oblivion to be honest, Its the major reason that I invested in Fallout 3. They have mastered First Person Melee Combat, but guns are a whole new ball game, I think it showed they're not quite getting ranged with the archery in Obliv.


  • Silvervein #17 3 years ago

    @anduz

    I have to say that learning some time ago that wasteland 2 is in the works was one of better moments I had last year. Hopefully, they will make something interesting :)