IGN: What kind of effect do you think the splitting of the franchise's name from its characters and plot have had / will have? As a consumer who doesn't follow these kinds of articles, which title do you think they'll pick from a store shelf (or download)--the game that is, according to the title, the sequel to an excellent first-person shooter, or something called Project Origin?

John Mulkey: Let's break it down. Monolith created F.E.A.R. People liked it. VUG [Vivendi Universal Games] and Monolith split up with VUG taking ownership of the name and Monolith owning everything else to do with the franchise. VUG wants to expand on series, so they contract out the development of a couple of expansion packs that don't pan out that well. Now they are talking about creating "F.E.A.R. 2" but they cannot legally base it on anything to do with the first game... and they have to find a developer to do it for them since it will not be Monolith. Meanwhile, you have Monolith, the creators of the original game making a game based on the characters, story and universe they created for the first title, but they cannot use the "F.E.A.R." name.

For my money, I am going with the actual sequel, created by those who created the original... Project Origin developed by Monolith.

IGN: Do you think consumers even look at the developer credits or do you just put a gigantic line of text near the title on the box saying "FROM THE MAKERS OF F.E.A.R."?

John Mulkey: Some do and some don't. I think shooter fans are a little more in touch with the idea of who is behind the titles they like, and wary when the
reins are passed from the actual creators to a new developer. I am sure that our marketing team will make people aware that Project Origin is the sequel to F.E.A.R. developed by the creators of F.E.A.R., but at the end of the day I am less concerned with people understanding the relationship than I am that Project Origin turns out to be a great game that people really enjoy.